COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the documents Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste and Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on reporting of environmental data from industrial installations and establishing an Industrial Emissions Portal

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Strasbourg, 5.4.2022
SWD(2022) 111 final
PART 1/5
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the documents
Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November
2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council
Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste
and
Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on reporting of environmental data from industrial installations and establishing an
Industrial Emissions Portal
{COM(2022) 156 final} - {SEC(2022) 169 final} - {SWD(2022) 110 final} -
{SWD(2022) 112 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0156 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF ACRONYMS...........................................................................................................................IV
1. INTRODUCTION: POLICY AND LEGAL CONTEXT ...................................................................1
1.1. Context of the initiative..........................................................................................................1
1.2. The IED (Industrial Emissions Directive)............................................................................3
1.3. The E-PRTR Regulation........................................................................................................6
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION.............................................................................................................8
2.1. Problem area 1: Insufficiently effective legislation..............................................................9
2.2. Problem area 2: Ineffective promotion of innovation .......................................................11
2.3. Problem area 3: Insufficient contribution to resource efficiency and less toxic
production .............................................................................................................................12
2.4. Problem area 4: Limited contribution to decarbonisation ...............................................12
2.5. Problem area 5: Sectoral scope coverage is too limited ....................................................14
2.6. Stakeholder views.................................................................................................................14
2.7. Overview of problems and drivers......................................................................................15
3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?.................................................................................................15
3.1. Legal basis.............................................................................................................................15
3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action...................................................................................16
3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .............................................................................16
4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?...........................................................................16
4.1. General objectives ................................................................................................................16
4.2. Specific objectives.................................................................................................................16
5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? ..................................................................18
5.1. What is the baseline from which options are assessed? ....................................................18
5.2. Description of the policy options .........................................................................................22
General presentation of the policy options ........................................................................................23
5.2.1. Policy option 1 – More effective legislation........................................................................24
5.2.1.1. Stakeholder views on PO1 ...................................................................................................25
5.2.2. Policy option 2 – Accelerating innovation ..........................................................................27
5.2.2.1. Stakeholder views on PO2 ...................................................................................................27
5.2.3. Policy option 3 – A non-toxic and resource efficient circular economy...........................28
5.2.3.1. Stakeholder views on PO3 ...................................................................................................28
5.2.4. Policy option 4 – Supporting decarbonisation ...................................................................29
5.2.4.1. Stakeholder views on PO4 ...................................................................................................29
5.2.5. Policy option 5 – Scope extensions ......................................................................................29
5.2.5.1. Stakeholder views on PO5 ...................................................................................................31
II
6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS?..........................................................33
6.1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................33
6.2. Effectiveness: Analysis of Policy Option 1..........................................................................35
6.2.1. Economic impacts.................................................................................................................35
6.2.2. Environmental impacts........................................................................................................37
6.2.3. Social impacts........................................................................................................................37
6.3. Accelerating innovation: Analysis of Policy Option 2 (PO2)............................................38
6.3.1. Economic impacts.................................................................................................................38
6.3.2. Environmental impacts........................................................................................................39
6.3.3. Social impacts........................................................................................................................40
6.4. Resource efficiency and chemicals: Analysis of Policy Option 3 (PO3)...........................40
6.4.1. Economic impacts.................................................................................................................40
6.4.2. Environmental impacts........................................................................................................43
6.4.3. Social impacts........................................................................................................................44
6.5. Decarbonisation: Analysis of Policy Option 4 (PO4).........................................................44
6.5.1. Economic impacts.................................................................................................................44
6.5.2. Environmental Impacts........................................................................................................45
6.5.3. Social impacts........................................................................................................................45
6.6. Sectoral scope: Analysis of Policy Option 5 (PO5) ............................................................45
6.6.1. Economic impacts.................................................................................................................45
6.6.2. Environmental Impacts........................................................................................................48
6.6.3. Social impacts........................................................................................................................51
7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE?.......................................................................................51
7.1. Effectiveness..........................................................................................................................51
7.1.1. Comparison of sub-options..................................................................................................51
7.1.2. Retained sub-options............................................................................................................53
7.2. Innovation .............................................................................................................................53
7.2.1. Comparison of sub-options..................................................................................................53
7.2.2. Retained sub-options............................................................................................................55
7.3. Efficient use of resources and use of less toxic chemicals .................................................55
7.3.1. Comparison of sub-options..................................................................................................55
7.3.2. Retained sub-options............................................................................................................58
7.4. Decarbonisation....................................................................................................................59
7.4.1. Comparison of sub-options..................................................................................................59
7.4.2. Comparison of sub-options..................................................................................................60
7.5. Sectoral scope........................................................................................................................61
7.5.1. Comparison of sub-options..................................................................................................61
III
7.5.2. Retained sub-options............................................................................................................64
8. PREFERRED POLICY PACKAGE .............................................................................................65
9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?.....................................68
IV
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
Acronym Meaning
AEL Associated Emission Level
BAT Best Available Technique
BAT-AEL BAT-Associated Emission Level
BAT-AEPL BAT-Associated Environmental Performance Level
BATC Best Available Techniques conclusions
BAU Business As Usual
BREF Best Available Techniques Reference document
CAPEX Capital expenditure
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CCU Carbon Capture and Utilisation
Cd Cadmium
CE Circular economy
CEMS Continuos emissions monitoring systems
CMS Chemical Management System
CMR Carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EEA European Environment Agency
EGD European Green Deal
EIPPCB European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Bureau
ELV Emission Limit Value
EMS Environmental Management System
EMAS Eco-Management and Audit Scheme
E-PRTR European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
EPER European Pollutant Emission Register
ETS Emissions Trading System
FF55 Fit for 55
GHG Greenhouse gas
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
Hg Mercury
IA Impact assessment
INCITE INnovation Centre for Industrial Transformation & Emissions
IED Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24
November 2010 on industrial emissions
INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe
JRC EU Joint Research Centre
LCP Large Combustion Plant
LSU Livestock Unit
MCA Multi-criteria analysis
MCP(D) Medium Combustion Plant (Directive)
MS Member State
MWEI Management of Waste from Extractive Industries (directive)
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NMVOC Non-methane volatile organic compounds
NOx Generic term for the nitrogen oxides that are most relevant for air pollution
ODS Ozone depleting substances
V
Acronym Meaning
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OPC Open Public Consultation
OPEX Operational expenditure
PBT Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic
PFAS Perfluoroalkyl chemicals
PM (2.5 and 10) Particulate Matter of size < 2.5 μm or < 10 μm
PO Policy option
PRTR Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
RE Resource Efficiency
REACH Regulation (EC)1907/2006 on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and
Restriction of Chemicals
SO2 Sulphur dioxide
REFIT Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme
SVHC Substance of very high concern
TRL Technology Readiness Level
TWG Technical Working Group
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UWWTP(D) Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant (Directive)
vPvB Very persistent and very bioaccumulative
WFD Water Framework Directive
WHO World Health Organisation
ZPAP Zero Pollution Action Plan
1
1. INTRODUCTION: POLICY AND LEGAL CONTEXT
1.1. Context of the initiative
The European Green Deal (EGD)1
is Europe’s growth strategy to ensure by 2050 a climate-
neutral, clean and circular economy, optimising resource management, minimising pollution
while recognising the need for deeply transformative policies. The EU Chemicals Strategy
for Sustainability2
of October 2020 and the Zero Pollution Action Plan3
adopted in May 2021
specifically address pollution aspects of the EGD. In parallel, the New Industrial Strategy for
Europe4
highlights the need for new technologies, innovation and investment to strengthen
Europe’s industrial competitiveness and facilitate industry’s shift to a truly sustainable,
greener and more digital economy. The updated May 2021 version of this strategy5
further
emphasises the potential role of transformative technologies.
Other particularly relevant policies comprise the “Fit for 55” package6
, the Methane Strategy7
and the Glasgow methane pledge, the Climate Adaptation Strategy8
, the Biodiversity
Strategy9
, the Soil Strategy10
, the Farm to Fork initiative11
and the upcoming Sustainable
Products Initiative12
.
In the EGD, the Commission commits to revise EU measures to address pollution from large
industrial installations, notably by looking at the scope of the legislation and at how to make
it fully consistent with the European Green Deal, the zero pollution ambition, and climate,
energy and circular economy policies, bearing in mind the benefits for both public health and
biodiversity. The Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (IED)13
and the Regulation
(EC) No 166/2006 on the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR)14
are complementary instruments controlling the environmental impact of industry. The IED
establishes a system of ‘command and control’ to secure a progressive reduction of pollution
from the EU’s largest industrial and rearing of livestock installations (hereafter agro-
industrial installations)15
, whilst preserving a competitive level playing field. The E-PRTR
facilitates monitoring of pollution-reduction efforts by enhancing publicly available
information on the actual performance of installations.
1
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640
2
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0667&from=EN
3
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0400&qid=1623311742827
4
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1593086905382&uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0102
5
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/communication-industrial-strategy-update-2020_en.pdf
6
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/european-green-deal/delivering-european-green-deal_en
7
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/eu_methane_strategy.pdf
8
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0082&from=EN
9
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en
10
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0699
11
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0381
12
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12567-Sustainable-products-
initiative_en
13
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32010L0075&qid=1624007748130
14
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32006R0166&qid=1624007792921
15
The expression agro-industrial installations is used to capture all types of activities that may be regulated by
the IED mechanisms, including in particular energy-intensive industries and rearing of livestock
2
This legislation has links with many other policies since it seeks to address the environmental
pressures of agro-industrial installations in a holistic manner. However, the effectiveness of
its contribution varies by policy area. This is discussed in the section on problem definition
and drivers.
Table 1: Mapping of IED and E-PRTR links to EGD policies
Policy area IED and E-PRTR contribution and relevance
Zero pollution
 IED prevents and reduces emission of pollutants to air, water and soil
 IED seeks to ensure that emissions do not lead to exceedances of environmental
quality standards defined in air and water legislation
 IED regulates transfers of industrial pollutants to urban waste water plants
 E-PRTR provides public access to data on the amount of pollutants emitted and
transferred, thereby empowering civil society
Sustainable Chemicals
 IED reduces the presence of harmful chemicals in the environment
 IED encourages the use of safer chemicals in production processes
 E-PRTR data is used when assessing risks of harmful chemicals
Circular economy
 IED promotes efficient use of materials, water and energy
 IED encourages the use of secondary raw materials
Waste
 IED reduces emission of pollutants from polluting waste treatment installations
 IED promotes waste prevention and recycling
 E-PRTR provides data on industrial waste transfers to treatment facilities
Sustainable Products
 IED levels the playing field for the production of intermediate products (e.g.
metals, paper, cement, and polymers), addressing part of products’ lifecycle
Nature and
biodiversity
 Pollution is one of the drivers of biodiversity loss. By curbing pollutant
emissions, the IED contributes to protecting biodiversity
Climate
 IED takes GHG emissions of pollutant reduction techniques into account
 IED regulates emission of GHG not covered by the ETS, e.g. methane
 E-PRTR provides data on a range of GHG emissions
Energy
 IED identifies energy efficiency techniques and establishes energy performance
levels for specific processes
Innovation
 IED seeks to promote emerging techniques
Sustainable finance
 IED information is used in defining criteria for the Taxonomy
 E-PRTR provides data to gauge the environmental performance of installations
Digitalisation
 E-PRTR promotes the use of advanced IT instruments to make environmental
information publicly available
Industrial strategy
 IED contributes to levelling the EU playing field for production processes
 IED is increasingly recognised internationally as a model for developing
industrial emission policies16
 E-PRTR data can be compared internationally with other countries
The Council17
and the European Parliament18,19,20
welcomed the revision of the IED and
expressed their expectations that this revision will address pollutant emissions to air from
16
https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-management/best-available-
techniques.htm?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=More%20on%20the%20BAT%20pr
oject&utm_campaign=November%202017%20Chemical%20Safety%20News&utm_term=demo
17
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6650-2020-INIT/en/pdf
18
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0107_EN.html
19
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0005_EN.pdf
20
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0321_EN.pdf
3
industrial and agricultural activities and contribute to the circular economy, including by
promoting water reuse in industry21,22
.
The multi-stakeholder High Level Group on Energy-Intensive Industries, advising the
Commission on policies relevant to energy-intensive industries since 2015, developed a
masterplan23
with recommendations to build the policy framework needed to manage this
transition while keeping industry competitive. It recommends that ‘The Industrial Emissions
Directive permitting process should be adapted to support GHG [greenhouse gas] abatement
measures in energy-intensive installations throughout the transition.’
This impact assessment focuses on the processes set out in the IED and the E-PRTR to
minimise pollution from agro-industrial installations in the context of the recently adopted
Climate Law and the Fit for 55 package24
of climate, energy and transport proposals. It does
not discuss the wider problems of environmental pollution, biodiversity loss, climate change
and resource depletion, which are subject to other specific policies.
The key aims of this impact assessment are to:
1. Identify and assess the impacts of policy measures to address the shortcomings identified
in evaluations of the IED and the E-PRTR thereby contributing to the zero pollution
ambition of the European Green Deal in general, and the objectives of the Zero Pollution
Action Plan in particular.
2. Assess how this legislation may contribute to wider EGD policy goals and respond to
relevant stakeholder concerns and Council conclusions and resolutions from the European
Parliament. This requires exploring a range of options of varying ambition, covering the
promotion of innovation, resource efficiency, circularity and decarbonisation, thus
enhancing the EU’s resilience whilst reducing harmful impacts on both public health and
biodiversity.
3. Address the current and future interactions between reducing emissions of pollutants
(depollution) and GHGs (decarbonisation) including policy coherence to maximise
industrial installations’ contribution to the EU’s twin targets of Zero Pollution and Net
Zero Carbon emissions.
1.2. The IED (Industrial Emissions Directive)
Processes established by the IED
The IED controls the environmental impacts of around 52 000 of Europe’s large-scale, high
pollution risk agro-industrial installations in an integrated manner, on a sector-by-sector
basis. It covers all relevant pollutants potentially emitted by industrial installations that affect
human health and the environment25
. IED installations account for about 20% of the EU’s
overall pollutant emissions by mass to air, around 20% of pollutant emissions to water and
21
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9419-2021-INIT/en/pdf
22
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1583933814386&uri=COM:2020:98:FIN
23
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/be308ba7-14da-11ea-8c1f-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en
24
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/chapeau_communication.pdf
25
Annex II to the IED provides a non-exhaustive list of relevant pollutants
4
approximately 40% of GHG emissions26
. Activities regulated by the IED include e.g. power
plants, refineries, waste treatment and incineration, production of metals, cement, glass,
chemicals, pulp and paper, food, and drink, as well as the rearing of pigs and poultry. An IED
installation may undertake several IED activities, e.g. cement production and waste co-
incineration.
National authorities are obliged to issue permits covering each installation’s activities based
on the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT)27. To ensure a consistent approach across the
EU, BAT reference documents (BREFs), addressing specific agricultural or industrial
activities, are produced via a EU-wide assessment, the ‘Sevilla process’, by Technical
Working Groups (TWGs) whose members include non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
promoting environmental protection, industry associations, EU Member States and the
European Commission. BREFs are large documents (up to more than 1 000 pages) describing
the concerned sector(s), the techniques used and evidence gathered for establishing BAT and,
where possible, quantifying their environmental performance.
The conclusive chapters of BREFs are adopted as Commission Implementing Decisions (the
‘BAT conclusions’) and are legally binding. Member States’ permitting authorities must use
BAT conclusions as the reference when setting, in the relevant permit, the conditions which
regulate the modalities of operating specific installations. Each site-specific permit must
include Emission Limit Values (ELVs) for relevant pollutants from within the range of the
BAT-Associated Emission Levels (BAT-AELs) set in the sectoral BAT conclusions.
Experience has shown that by defining in some degree of detail the tasks of the competent
authorities, Member States have ensured that the appropriate level of resources were made
available to fulfil the related obligations and comply with the Directive. However, the
revision of the large number of permits of pigs and poultry farms has been a challenge for
these competent authorities.
Interaction between the IED and other EU environmental law
The IED permits must respect limits placed on releases of pollutants and other resource,
waste, and environmental controls, including ensuring a high level of protection of media
(air, water etc) and ecological habitats. These levels of controls may refer to the prevention or
high degree of control of pollution entering river basins, groundwater or air, which by their
nature may span the territories of more than one Member State. Alternatively, a nature
protection site may be close to the IED installation in question, and thus require a high level
of localised protection.
By regulating certain activities at source, the IED:
26
SWD(2020) 181
27
Defined in Article 3 (10) of Directive 2010/75/EU as a combination of “best”, “techniques” and “available
techniques”. Using this trio of conditions, the emphasis of the end result is (sensu lato) on achieving the most
effective way of protecting the environment as a whole, under economically and technically viable conditions,
and referring to the way in which the installation is designed, built, maintained, operated and
decommissioned.
5
 In parallel with other EU law regulating emissions at source28
:
o Supports Member States in meeting their obligations under EU legislation setting
environmental quality standards, e.g. the Ambient Air Quality Directive29
, and the
Surface Water Directive30
.
o Also supports the Member States in meeting the objectives they have under EU
legislation setting national targets, such as the National Emission reduction
Commitments (NEC) Directive31
(e.g. by reducing emissions of SO2), the Effort
Sharing Regulation32
(e.g. by reducing emissions of methane) and the Energy
Efficiency Directive33
.
 The IED does not regulate emissions of greenhouse gasses that fall within the scope of
the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)34
. It however complements the EU ETS by
regulating emissions of greenhouse gases from industrial activities that do not fall under
the EU ETS (e.g. methane or fluorinated gases).
 Secures general environmental performance improvement contributing to other EU
sectoral legislation including REACH35
, waste36
, and nature protection37
.
 Urban Waste Water Treatment38
- The current UWWTD regulates pollutants typical for
such wastewater (e.g. organic matter), whereas it only includes general principles for
pollutants that may be released to the sewer by IED installations (e.g. heavy metals). The
current IED contains an ambiguous provision allowing higher emissions from IED
installations if there is a downstream wastewater treatment plant.
 In line with the Aarhus Convention, horizontal and vertical EU law ensures access to
environmental information. Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental
information defines the principles on access, disclosure and withholding of such
information. The IED requires access to information on permitting processes and permits.
Progress achieved under the IED
The 2020 evaluation39
provides a detailed overview of the functioning of the processes set up
by the IED. Annex 14 reproduces relevant excerpts thereof.
28
For example, for cars, Euro 5 and 6 Regulation 715/2007/EC sets the emission limits for NOX and Regulation
(EU) 2019/631 sets emission performance standards for CO2
29
Directive 2008/50/EC, OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1–44 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/50/oj
30
Directive 2008/105/EC, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 8 . https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105
31
Directive (EU) 2016/2284, OJ L 344, 17.12.2016, p. 1–31 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.344.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2016:344:TOC
32
Regulation (EU) 2018/842 , OJ L 156, 19.6.2018, p. 26–42 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/842/oj
33
Directive (EU) 2018/2002 as amended, OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 210-230
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2002/oj
34
Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading
35
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 , as amended (current consolidated
version: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1907/2021-10-01 )
36
E.g. Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, as amended (current consolidated
version: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/98/2018-07-05
37
Inter alia, the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, as amended ( current consolidated version:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1992/43/2013-07-01 )
38
Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment
39
See section 2 of SWD(2020)181 https://europa.eu/!HP74fW, pages 7 to 13
6
The IED evaluation concluded that the directive is generally effective in preventing and
controlling pollution to air, water and soil from industrial activities, as well as in pushing
forward the incorporation of BAT. The process for producing BREFs and identifying BAT
has worked well, and is recognised as a model of collaborative governance and co-creation of
legislation.
The IED has substantially reduced emissions of pollutants to air and, to a lesser degree, water
emissions. It has also contributed to minimising emissions to soil from IED installations.
Although its impacts on resource efficiency, the circular economy and innovation are harder
to assess, it appears to have made a positive contribution, even though this to date may be of
limited magnitude. It has also made a limited contribution to decarbonisation, within the
constraints currently placed on the IED (see Section 2.4). Other aspects, such as public access
to information and access to justice, have improved compared to the earlier legislation that
the IED replaced.
The IED design ensures proportionality of outcomes by (i) defining BAT as the most
environmentally effective as well as economically viable range of proven techniques used in
a sector, and (ii) allowing derogations in individual cases if application of the EU-wide BAT
requirements would lead to costs disproportionately higher than the expected
environmental/health benefits. The evaluation concluded that the IED has mixed impacts on
EU competitiveness: on one hand driving the export of EU sustainability expertise, on the
other imposing additional compliance costs in the EU compared to elsewhere. Nevertheless,
Eurostat data shows that, overall, the industry environment compliance costs remain
relatively constant and are generally a small factor in global competitiveness, with other
costs, such as labour, raw materials and energy, being much more influential. The IED design
also allows for evidence-based input to the taxonomy process. Furthermore, the IED’s
provisions on access to information and public participation help operators to diffuse societal
disagreements and tensions when establishing or expanding industrial activities. The co-
creation of BAT requirements by Member States, industry and environmental NGOs ensures
a high, albeit not necessarily absolute, level of support by Member States, industry and
environmental NGOs.
The evaluation, however, also identified areas for improvement that are discussed in the
problem definition section.
1.3. The E-PRTR Regulation
Processes established by the E-PRTR Regulation
Since 2007, the E-PRTR has provided accessible environmental data from the largest EU
agro- industrial facilities40
. It implements the EU’s international obligations from the UNECE
Kyiv Protocol41
, under the umbrella of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information,
Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters42
.
40
There is also data for Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Serbia. The UK has exited from the E-
PRTR as a consequence of Brexit
41
https://unece.org/DAM/env/pp/prtr/Protocol%20texts/PRTR_Protocol_e.pdf
42
https://unece.org/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf
7
Data on key pollutants are provided by operators of some 30 000 agro-industrial facilities.
This data is held in the E-PRTR database hosted and maintained by the European
Environment Agency, as part of a revamped Industrial Emissions Portal43
, where annual
emission44
data are combined with data reported under the IED. This covers 65 economic
activities that are closely (but not exactly) aligned to the list of activities regulated under the
IED.
For each facility, operators provide annual information on the quantity of pollutants emitted
to air, water and soil (land), together with off-site transfers of hazardous and non-hazardous
waste and pollutants in waste water. The reported data may come from measurements,
calculations or estimations, and they cover all emission routes i.e. deliberate, accidental,
routine or non-routine. The E-PRTR covers 91 key pollutants, including heavy metals,
pesticides, GHGs and dioxins. To concentrate efforts on reporting solely the largest emission
sources, the E-PRTR’s scope is restricted to facilities that emit more than defined thresholds,
set for each pollution type.
In addition to these core datasets, which cover the main point sources of pollution, the E-
PRTR contains spatially disaggregated data on emissions from diffuse (i.e. non-point)
sources such as transport or domestic heating, resulting from modelling.
Interaction between the E-PRTR Regulation and other EU environmental law
Compared to the IED, the E-PRTR covers additional activities that are derived from the
UNECE Kyiv Protocol (e.g. waste water treatment plants, mining, aquaculture) but omits
certain activities introduced by the IED in 2010 (e.g. waste recovery, carbon capture and
storage).
An E-PRTR facility may comprise several IED installations e.g. a complex petrochemical
facility may operate installations for oil refining, chemical production and power generation.
As such, the E-PRTR Regulation covers the overwhelming majority of IED installations.
Annex 16 maps the scope of the IED, the E-PRTR Regulation and other relevant EU law. The
main E-PRTR interfaces with other EU law are with the directives for:
 Aarhus Convention - horizontal and vertical EU law ensures access to environmental
information. The E-PRTR ensures disclosure to the public of comprehensive information
on emission of pollutants.
 EU ETS – compared to the ETS, E-PRTR provides a wider scope of GHG data (adding
CFCs, HCFCs etc.), provides more nuance on carbon dioxide emissions (as it
distinguishes biomass derived CO2) and, through the Industrial Emissions Portal, provides
enhanced data accessibility. In addition, ETS emissions are subject to Monitoring,
Reporting and Verification (MRV)45
requirements but, in view of the associated financial
implications, these are typically more formal and onerous than quality assurance
processes under the E-PRTR. ETS data are publicly available as a simple list via the EU
43
https://industry.eea.europa.eu/
44
The E-PRTR term ‘releases’ is equivalent to ‘emissions’. Therefore, for clarity, the term ‘emissions’ is used
instead of the term ‘releases’, wherever possible in this staff working document.
45
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites-0/emission-trading-system-mrv-reporting_en
8
Registry46
. In practice, the same emission data may be used by operators for both ETS
and E-PRTR purposes although this can be complicated by different installation
boundaries for the two regimes.
 Whilst the UWWTD sets regulatory controls on the operation of plants as small as 2 000
population equivalent (p.e.), the E-PRTR requires the very large plants (over 100 000
p.e.) to report their emissions. The E-PRTR also requires operators of industrial activities
to report their transfers of waste water to UWWT plants. The Water Information System
for Europe (WISE)47
contains country-level overviews of UWWTD implementation but
no data on emissions from individual plants.
 National Emission reduction Commitments (NECD)48
– sets national (top-down) totals
for the atmospheric emission of five key pollutants49
and therefore complements the
individual (bottom-up) source controls under IED permits and E-PRTR reporting
obligations.
Progress achieved under the E-PRTR Regulation
The 2017 evaluation50
provides a detailed overview of the functioning of the processes set up
by the E-PRTR Regulation. Annex 15 reproduces the relevant excerpts of that evaluation.
The evaluation concluded that the Regulation is a pivotal component in the knowledge base
on emissions from industrial activities in Europe. It was considered to be an important
instrument in the EU environmental acquis and to be generally fit for purpose.
The readily-accessible data available on the new 'Industrial Emissions Portal’ (previously the
E-PRTR website) provide the public with information that greatly enhances their ability to
engage with wider environmental decision-making. Moreover, for a variety of other users,
including policy analysts, the E-PRTR remains the primary reference point for key
environmental facts on large industrial activities.
The E-PRTR website and its associated search tools have been designed to make access as
easy as possible. The E-PRTR evaluation showed an average of 242 consultations per day of
the old E-PRTR website, by varied visitors (including public services, private enterprises,
NGOs and the general public). In 2021, a different analytical method showed 160 website
visits per day to the Industrial Emissions Portal.
The evaluation, however, also identified areas for improvement that are discussed below in
the problem definition section.
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION
Annex 6 provides a detailed discussion of the problems and drivers, taking into account the
outcome of the evaluations, stakeholders input and further analysis.
Based on this analysis there are five high-level problems to be addressed.
46
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets/union-registry_en
47
https://water.europa.eu/
48
Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of national
emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants
49
Sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, ammonia and fine particulate matter
50
See section 2 of SWD(2017)710 available at https://europa.eu/!bC98wG, pages 3 to 9
9
2.1. Problem area 1: Insufficiently effective legislation
A major objective of the IED is to prevent or reduce emissions of pollutants to the
environment, thereby helping to meet environmental and public health standards and
objectives set in EU air quality51
and water quality52,53,54
laws.
Between 2010 and 2019, based on data reported to the E-PRTR, industrial emissions of
sulphur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM10) decreased by 50% in the EU. Other
emissions decreased to a lesser extent: carbon dioxide (CO2) by 8%, nitrogen oxides (NOx)
by 25% and heavy metals: cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg) and lead (Pb) by 40%, whereas non-
methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) increased by 1%55
. From 2014 to 2017,
ammonia emissions increased every year, and by about 2.5 % over the whole period56
.
At the same time, however, scientific evidence related to the negative impacts of air pollution
has consolidated further, and the updated Air Quality Guidelines57
as recently published by
the World Health Organization (WHO) recommend lower guideline exposure levels than the
previous 2005 edition for several air pollutants – including particulate matter, nitrogen
dioxide and ozone. Accordingly, and in line with the European Green Deal, the European
Commission will “propose to align EU air quality standards more closely with WHO
recommendations”58
, which in turn may require further reductions of industrial emissions.
Similarly, the gradual reduction of pollution is unlikely to allow the full cessation of priority
hazardous substance59
emissions to water bodies as stipulated in EU water legislation.
Large agro-industrial installations still significantly contribute to pollution across the EU,
through both emissions (to air, water and soil) and the continued use of harmful substances in
agro-industrial processes (including pesticides, insecticides and biocides). In 2017, these
installations were responsible for over half of anthropogenic emissions to air of CO2, SOX,
NMVOCs and the heavy metals (Cd, Hg and Pb), and were key sources of NOX (32%) and
PM10 (28%)60
. This causes significant harm as evidenced by the damage costs (externalities)
to public health and natural ecosystems due to emissions to air61
reported to the E-PRTR,
estimated for 2017 at 277 - 433 € billion. This represents only part of the health and
environmental damages of polluting emissions by agro-industrial installations, as recognised
monetisation methodologies only exist for some air pollutants and not for emissions to water
or soil.
51
Directive 2004/107/EC relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
in air, and Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe
52
Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy
53
Directive 2008/105/EC on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy
54
Directive 2006/118/EC on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration
55
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/industrial-pollution-in-europe-4/assessment
56
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/nec-directive-reporting-status-2019/nec-directive-reporting-
status-2019
57
WHO guidelines available at 9789240034228-eng.pdf (who.int)
58
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12677-Revision-of-EU-Ambient-
Air-Quality-legislation
59
The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and its daughter Directive 2013/39/EU
60
Concerns EEA-33, i.e. the 33 member countries of the European Environment Agency including the EU-27
Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway Switzerland, Turkey and UK -
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/industrial-pollution-in-europe-3/assessment
61
Based on value of a life year (VOLY) and value of statistical life (VSL); Schucht, et al., 2021
https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-atni/products/etc-atni-reports/etc-atni-report-04-2020-costs-of-air-
pollution-from-european-industrial-facilities-200820132017
10
Member States mainly set Emission Limit Values (ELVs) in permits for individual agro-
industrial installations towards the least stringent end (i.e. upper end) of the BAT-AEL
ranges. Despite difficult access to permits and their complex and inhomogeneous drafting, the
analysis of permits for several sectors shows62
that between 75-85% of all emission limit
values are either based on the upper end of the range or are above it. Furthermore, the IED
offers flexibilities that are not always properly applied, e.g. allowing industrial waste waters
to be discharged into the public collection systems even when the urban treatment water
plants cannot, and do not, treat adequately such industrial pollutants. Many of these pollutants
are priority hazardous substances under EU water legislation.
Member States implement IED requirements in a heterogeneous manner, including measures
related to BAT conclusions. This leads to differences in granting derogations, compliance
assessment and enforcement. In particular, when assessing permit compliance, Member
States use diverging methods to account for measurement uncertainty thus creating
discrepancies in EU-wide compliance. Even where permit ELVs are the same, diverging
Member State approaches to measurement uncertainty lead to major differences in the actual
emission levels. These discrepancies may reach 25% or more of the emissions of a given
plant63
.
All of the above elements mean that the operation, permitting and monitoring of IED
installations may be inconsistent with the objectives of the IED framework, and exhibit a lack
of ambition with regard to the spirit of the law as outlined in, for example, Articles 11, 14, 15
and 18 of the existing IED. However, even where inconsistencies exist, both Member States’
and operators’ implementation methods can still be compliant with the present IED letter of
specific articles within the law. It is for this reason that greater convergence between IED
aims and the flexibilities given to all parties is required, whilst maintaining genuine reasons
for taking into account technological and contextual specificities of individual installations.
The level of public access to information, participation in decision-making and access to
justice with regard to permitting decisions and revisions remains an issue. Environmental
NGOs complain that permit information is very difficult to access on the Internet and, even
when available, it is so complex that the public cannot understand and use it. Information on
emissions does not cover all relevant substances, which also makes it difficult to identify
which sectors may be significant sources, e.g., of emissions of priority hazardous substances
under EU water legislation, and thereby limits the capacity of the IED processes to define
BATs for preventing their emission. Furthermore, the Meeting of the Parties to the
Convention (Aarhus Convention MoP7) in October 202164
endorsed the conclusions of the
Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee ha that the fact that the IED does not entitle the
public to participate in reviews of permits triggered by the publication of new BAT
conclusions is in breach of the EU obligations under the Convention65
. As found out in the
evaluation of the IED and recently underlined again in the 2020 Communication on
improving access to justice66
, limitations also remain in access to justice including in the
62
Assessment of BAT Conclusion Implementation in IED permits, Eunomia (2021) Draft Final Report
63
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/589a486c-1732-4e9d-abbc-a515ddf0aca0/IED-evaluation-support-study-
published.pdf
64
https://unece.org/environmental-policy/events/Aarhus_Convention_MoP7
65
https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/CC-68/ece.mp.pp.c.1.2020.8.e.pdf
66
COM(2020) 643 final
11
ability of the public or environmental NGOs to challenge revisions of existing permits or to
seek legal redress in case of damages.
With regard to the E-PRTR Regulation, information collected and made public is outdated
and does not fully support the IED and its coherence with other policy areas, e.g. by not
taking sufficiently into account priority substances under EU water legislation. The list of
substances, and the reporting thresholds, for which reporting is required date from before
2006 and ignores development of emerging pollutants, e.g. PFAS67
.
These combined problems undermine the capacity of the IED and the E-PRTR Regulation to
reduce environmental pressures exerted by agro-industrial installations, as well as the IED’s
ability to establish a level playing field at a high level of protection of health and the
environment. These problems also relate to the failure to correctly apply the polluter pays
principle, as identified by the European Court of Auditors68
.
Conclusions on problem and drivers
The IED and E-PRTR are less effective than they could be in terms of: ensuring prevention
and reduction of pollution from agro-industrial installations, providing public access to
information and participation in the permit procedure and coherence in implementation and
enforcement.
Driver 1: Regulatory failure at the EU level: in particular, excessive flexibilities allowed by
the IED for national authorities to set ELVs, grant derogations from BAT-AELs, and set
other permit conditions, result in polluters not being required to sufficiently reduce or prevent
harmful effects stemming from their operations and not paying the true costs (externalities) of
their pollution, thus insufficiently implementing the “Polluter Pays Principle”.
Driver 2: Imperfect information on emissions from large industrial installations, including on
their environmental and health impacts, and insufficient public involvement in the permit
setting process.
Driver 3: Regulatory failure at the Member State level (coherence, clarity) mean that rules on
permitting conditions are not uniformly applied and enforced.
2.2. Problem area 2: Ineffective promotion of innovation
There are deficiencies in how the IED promotes new production processes, technologies and
innovation. The reason for this is that BAT are inherently ‘backwards looking’, i.e. based on
current, already established practices that are proven ‘on the ground’. Emerging techniques
are not taken into account when defining BAT and their performance levels. This results in
BREFs that may hamper innovation deployment and slow technological progress or even
“lock in” existing technologies and techniques as the norm for a decade or so, until the BREF
is revised e.g. perpetuating the use of coke, rather than hydrogen, as a reducing agent to make
steel.
Conclusions on problem area and drivers
The IED is not dynamic enough and does not sufficiently support the deployment of
innovative processes and technologies.
67
Perfluoroalkyl substances; see https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas
68
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=58811#:~:text=Special%20Report%2012%2F2021%
3A%20The%20Polluter%20Pays%20Principle%3A%20Inconsistent,and%20is%20a%20key%20concern%20for%
20EU%20citizens.
12
Driver 4: Regulatory failure at the EU level in terms of backwards looking, rigid and slow
processes to establish BAT69
, hindering the development and deployment of more effective
innovative techniques.
2.3. Problem area 3: Insufficient contribution to resource efficiency and less toxic
production
The IED has not been effective in addressing resource efficiency, circular economy and non-
toxic production70
. This is mainly because the IED only gives a clear legal status to the parts
of BAT conclusions that contain ranges for setting emission limit values in permits for
pollutant emissions to air and water. Other parts, such as techniques to reduce resource use
and prevent waste generation, to reuse water within installations (or the use of reclaimed
water for inflows)71
or to use safer chemicals, are solely characterised as a ‘reference’ for
setting permit conditions. Furthermore, Article 9(2) of the IED allows Member States to opt
out from requirements on energy efficiency. This results in diverging interpretation by
Member States of the legal status of those parts, leading to further discrepancy in
implementation.
Furthermore, E-PRTR reporting is limited to emissions and does not cover, e.g., resource
efficiency aspects, which are essential in contemporary EU policies.
Conclusions on problem area drivers
The IED and E-PRTR do not sufficiently promote the following: use of safer chemicals or
chemical alternatives72
; resource efficiency and Circular Economy solutions (with reference
to materials, energy, waste prevention and reduction, and water use, and re-use).
Driver 5: Market/regulatory failure: the combination of (i) market prices not reflecting the
environmental and health impacts of resources and hazardous substances, and (ii) the lack of
clarity of the relevant IED provisions, in particular the weak status (mere reference) of the
relevant parts of BAT conclusions, result in ongoing overuse of resources and hazardous
substances by IED installations.
2.4. Problem area 4: Limited contribution to decarbonisation
Whilst IED installations are responsible for about 40% of total EU GHG emissions (36% out
of these 40% are covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) Directive73
), the
interactions between GHG emission reduction possibilities and overall pollution emissions
minimisation in the IED have, to date, not been sufficiently taken into account. This is partly
because Article 9(1) of the IED prevents the setting of ELVs in IED permits for those GHG
emissions that are covered by the EU ETS74
.
69
BAT conclusions are published after 5-6 years of data gathering and are implement in permits within 4 years.
The revision of BAT conclusions may occur up to 10 years later.
70
IED evaluation and Ricardo (2019) “IED Contribution to the circular economy”
71
The Regulation on minimum requirements for water reuse ((EU) 2020/741) foresees the use of reclaimed
water for agricultural irrigation; an evaluation of its scope is to take place in 2028 and assess in particular also
reuse for industrial purposes. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020R0741
72
Building on the work under the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (COM(2020) 667) on chemicals that are
safe and sustainable by design
73
Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading
74
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
13
It is important to note, however, that there is no absolute exclusion of GHGs from the IED,
except the limitation on setting ELVs in permits for GHG emissions and installations falling
under the scope of the ETS. Information gathering to define BAT has generally not covered
GHG emissions and only a few BAT-AELs have been set for GHG emissions that are not
covered by the ETS (e.g., refrigerants, methane). For example, the IED currently regulates
about 5% of the total methane emissions in the EU-27.
The rationale behind this separation of tasks has, to date, mainly been the avoidance of
double regulation and a risk that ‘command and control’ under the IED may interfere with,
and damage, the working of the ETS carbon trading mechanism. However, since these
frameworks are de facto operating in parallel, on many of the same activities and sectors, but
by definition almost completely separately, it has the disadvantageous effect that any
decarbonisation and depollution interactions are not coherently taken into account, and, as a
result, synergistic optimising possibilities and investments are to date not being identified.
However, it is increasingly clear that, in the EGD context and the wider, EU and indeed
global efforts towards tackling the climate and environmental degradation, deployment of
emerging techniques by energy-intensive industry sectors, e.g. using hydrogen rather than
coal to produce steel, will create an unprecedented interaction between decarbonisation and
depollution75
, which may result in new policy coherence challenges in the near to mid-term
future. Whilst climate-related interventions will remain the main driver of transforming
industrial techniques, principally via the ETS mechanism, the IED has to accompany and
optimise this process by taking fully into account the co-benefits and trade-offs of
decarbonisation and depollution. The interaction between depollution and decarbonisation
may have mutually-supporting or dissonant effects. This has two aspects:
1. Where decarbonisation techniques have strong co-benefits in terms in reducing emission
of pollutants, it may become impossible to avoid the IED impacting more the carbon
market in the future. When such techniques will become economically viable and
practicable, they will qualify as BAT within the meaning of the IED and become the
reference for establishing mandatory environmental performance levels for all relevant
IED plants. Consequently, command and control under IED would drive investment in
the techniques and affect the carbon market, whilst also contributing to the
decarbonisation efforts. This is likely to increasingly occur in the run-up to the 2030
decarbonisation milestone, as emerging cleaner techniques become available in a number
of sectors;
2. There is a need to avoid that investment cycles triggered separately by the IED and the
ETS may increase costs for society in respect of pollution and climate objectives:
a. Obligations to implement existing (backward-looking) BAT may hinder
deployment of emerging decarbonisation techniques;
b. The deployment of decarbonisation techniques may entail a need for a later and
costly retrofitting to abate pollutant emissions if maximum synergies between
decarbonisation and depollution are not stimulated at innovation technologies
level, and through BREFs.
75
Wood, Deloitte, IEEP (2021). Wider environmental impacts of industry decarbonisation.
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/39928fd6-dcea-4fbc-b798-70e816bdecb0
14
Furthermore, in the longer term between 2030 and 2050, and as a result of both legislative
and policy action at EU and national level, it is likely that a large proportion of EU-based
industrial operators will have already converted to low-carbon or carbon-neutral techniques.
This will require increasing attention on the question of whether and how a level playing field
should be established through the IED, so that the use of such cleaner techniques is
generalised across the EU.
With regard to the E-PRTR, reporting on GHG emissions is incomplete and lacks detail. In
addition, whilst the E-PRTR provides data on GHGs outside the scope of the ETS (e.g.
CFCs), these emissions data are aggregated and do not distinguish the constituent compounds
– each of which has a very different Global Warming Potential.
Conclusions on problem area and drivers
Currently, the IED’s contribution to EU climate policy lacks coherence and is limited.
Driver 6: Sub-optimal regulation and implementation: IED design and implementation have
not prioritised GHG emissions, resulting in lack of coherence and GHG emissions not being
taken into account in IED and its implementation.
2.5. Problem area 5: Sectoral scope coverage is too limited
Commitments to reduce pollution in the Green Deal, as enshrined in particular in the Zero
Pollution Action Plan, new Circular Economy Action Plan and in the Farm to Fork Strategy
will increase the need to reduce pollutant emissions at source including those sectors not
currently captured by the IED and/or the E-PRTR Regulation. Certain polluting agro-
industrial activities may merit future inclusion, in the following instances: (1) where they
have controlled their pollution emissions relatively less than comparable IED sectors (e.g.
rearing of livestock); (2) where significant growth is expected in the sector, leading to
commensurate risks of increased pollutant emissions (e.g. extraction of metals and production
of batteries); or (3) where they are only regulated when associated to other activities (e.g.
textile finishing and downstream ferrous metal processing activities).
These problems limit the capacity of the IED and the E-PRTR Regulation to reduce
environmental pressures exerted by agro-industrial installations and establish a level playing
field.
Conclusions on problem area and drivers
The IED and E-PRTR do not regulate some medium to highly polluting agro-industrial
sectors, especially when taking into account future growth projections for some sectors.
Driver 7: Regulatory failure: current provisions fail to capture a significant stream of
emissions leading to a market failure: polluters do not pay the true costs of the pollution they
cause.
2.6. Stakeholder views
There is a similar pattern of responses from stakeholders to consultations regarding the
evaluation of the current contribution of IED installations to three main policy concerns:
achieving a climate-neutral economy, promoting green growth, and achieving a circular
economy in the EU. Responses from environmental and civil society NGOs, backed up by
EU citizens and public authorities, mostly ranked the contributions of IED installations to
date as being limited whilst business associations and individual companies considered IED
facilities were currently playing an important role.
15
Civil society and environmental NGOs consider all above-listed problems to be of high
relevance, in particular regarding environmental impacts being insufficiently addressed by
the IED, the need to have the E-PRTR pollutant list updated more quickly to take account of
new threats76
and limited access to information on installations’ performance levels.
Interestingly, the latter is perceived by all groups as an important element to promote.
Industry and business associations were rather neutral (but not negative) in recognising
problem areas 3 (resource efficient and less toxic production), 4 (decarbonisation) and 5
(scope), pointing to potential additional reporting costs and risks of overlaps with the ETS.
All stakeholders agree that the IED is limited in promoting innovation.
2.7. Overview of problems and drivers
Figure 1 presents the problem tree for the revision of the IED and the E-PRTR
Figure 1: The problem tree
3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?
3.1. Legal basis
Articles 191, 192 and 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)77
empower the EU to act to: preserve, protect, and improve the quality of the environment;
76
E-PRTR evaluation - SWD (2017)710
77
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26/10/2012, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT
16
protect human health; contribute to the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources;
and promote measures at the international level to deal with regional or worldwide
environmental problems, in particular combating climate change.
3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action
Pollution from agro-industrial installations travels across national borders, both between
Member States and across the frontiers of the Union, and pollution control cannot be
sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone. Furthermore, the operation of industrial
plants is intrinsically linked to the functioning of the internal market. In the absence of a
common EU approach for setting environmental performance standards, the same industries
would face different pollution control regulation in each Member State with the resultant risk
of creating an uneven playing field, fragmenting the single market and impeding the Union’s
efforts in pursuing the Treaty objective of achieving a high level of environmental and health
protection.
The IED’s and E-PRTR’s combination of centralised elements (definition of standards,
publication of EU-wide data) with decentralised components (permitting of activities and
validation of operators’ data by national competent authorities) is consistent with carrying out
at EU level only what is necessary.
3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action
The IED BAT-based system and the E-PRTR provide information used by all Member States,
through a single EU level information exchange process, replacing the need for each Member
State to establish national processes. Operators of plants in all Member States achieve
economic efficiencies by only having to adhere to one EU-wide uniform regulatory approach.
The EU system is increasingly being used by third countries, thereby promoting an
international level playing field.
4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?
4.1. General objectives
The general objective of this initiative is to contribute in the most effective and efficient way
to protect natural ecosystems and public health from the adverse effects of pollution from
large agro-industrial installations; this will also enhance EU industry’s resilience against the
impacts of climate change. It aims to stimulate a deep agro-industrial transformation towards
zero pollution through the deployment of breakthrough technologies, and thereby contribute
to the achievement of the EGD objectives of reaching carbon neutrality, a non-toxic
environment and a circular economy. It aims to further contribute to establishing a
competitive level playing field at a high level of protection of health and the environment,
including by ensuring consistency of implementation by the Member States.
The aim is also to modernise and simplify the current legislation - where this is feasible, e.g.
through digitalisation and without impairing the overall objectives whilst improving
knowledge on sources of pollution. Moreover, the initiative will aim to improve access to
information and justice, including effective redress, and increase public participation in
decision-making.
4.2. Specific objectives
As shown in Figure 2, there are 7 specific objectives logically linked to the 5 problems and
their respective drivers:
17
1. Improve IED effectiveness to prevent or, when impractical, minimise the emission of
pollutants by agro-industrial installations at source, as evidenced by continued or
accelerated decreasing trends of emission intensity, to avoid or reduce adverse
impacts on health and the environment, taking into account the state of environment
in the area affected by these emissions.
2. Ensure access of private individuals and civil society to information, participation in
decision-making, and access to justice (including effective redress) in relation to
permitting, operation and control of the regulated installations, resulting in increased
civil society action.
3. Clarify and simplify the legislation and reduce administrative burden whilst
promoting consistency of implementation by the Member States.
4. Promote the uptake of innovative technologies and techniques during the ongoing
industrial transformation, by revising BREFs without delay when there is evidence
that better performing innovative techniques become available, and ensuring permits
support frontrunners.
5. Contribute to the transition towards the use of safer and less toxic chemicals,
improved resource efficiency (energy, water and waste prevention) and greater
circularity.
6. Support decarbonisation by fostering the uptake and investments in techniques
synergistically preventing/reducing pollution and carbon emissions, as evidenced by a
coupling of the trends of emission intensities.
7. Address the harmful impacts on health and environment from agro-industrial
activities currently not regulated by the IED, as evidenced by decreasing trends of
emission intensity.
18
Figure 2: Relationship between the problems and the objectives
5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS?
5.1. What is the baseline from which options are assessed?
This section summarises the detailed description and discussion of the baseline provided in
Annex 5.
The baseline implies the continuation of the existing legal framework and scope, coupled
with further developments of BREFs and BAT conclusions under the information exchange
mentioned in Article 13 of the IED and continued reporting of emissions under the E-PRTR
Regulation.
The problems that have been identified with the implementation of the IED and the E-PRTR
Regulation are assumed to remain, although their evolution would be subject to market
developments and continuous efforts of the Commission to promote effective
19
implementation. Such measures would include: issuing guidance documents on
implementation, providing platforms for discussions and exchange of best practices and
encouraging voluntary improvements of the current processes. Whilst this could lead to some
improvement, the impact is expected to remain marginal, given the voluntary and non-
binding nature of these measures for Member States and individual business stakeholders.
The key parameters of the baseline are depicted in the following sub-sections.
Number of installations
Around 52 000 installations currently fall under the scope of the IED and, very largely
(almost all), also under that of the E-PRTR Regulation (since an E-PRTR facility may
comprise several IED installations). The number of IED installations remains largely static at
the EU level. However, estimations based on the PRIMES model suggest that the number of
IED installations could gradually increase to 65 000 by 2040. Other factors may affect the
number of installations such as their consolidation due to the green transition.
Substances for which emissions are reported
Emissions are reported to the E-PRTR based on a list of 91 pollutants that has not been
updated for 15 years, i.e. since 2006. Likewise, the reporting thresholds are outdated, as
technological developments have enabled significant emission reductions since the thresholds
were initially set to capture 90% of industrial emissions i.e. for some pollutants the current
reporting is incomplete. This has significantly reduced the added value of the E-PRTR data
for monitoring/evaluating various EU environmental policies, including air, soil, water, waste
and chemicals.
In addition, the E-PRTR substances are not fully compatible with substance lists under other
EU legislation e.g. REACH or priority hazardous substances under the Water Framework
Directive.
IED influence on emission of pollutants and its cost
Continued implementation of the IED, with ELVs in permits based on BAT-AELs, is
expected to lead to a further decline of emissions from IED installations over time. Past
experience with some industry sectors78
suggests that the decrease in emission intensity79
during one BREF cycle, i.e. over an average period of 9-12 years, ranges between 35 and
70%. These reductions tend to be concentrated in the period starting a few years before the
publication of the BREF until the date of entry into force of the BAT conclusions, with an
average annual reduction of emissions of between 7-14%. These high overall reduction levels
were observed for the first BREF cycle, and were driven by the IED’s impact on levelling the
playing field for installations across the EU. However, the prognosis is that reductions in
emission intensity will be lower for future BREF cycles, as the installations’ emission
profiles will be relatively similar in the second BREF cycle (and subsequent cycles), unless
transformational techniques (or processes) are identified and become eligible to qualify as
BAT under the current conditions (backwards looking), causing significant differences in
78
Estimate based on trend of emissions of the pulp and paper, cement, and glass production sectors. Evidence is not yet
available for a number of other activities
79
Emissions per unit of production
20
pollutant abatement performance. The potential for emission reductions remains high for
rearing of pigs and poultry, as the first BAT Conclusions for this sector, adopted in 2017,
introduced few BAT-AELs whilst setting clear emission monitoring requirements
(representing a key source of data for the future BREF revision).
The total estimated damage costs of associated pollution will follow those trends and remain
high.
Furthermore, the contribution of activities currently not covered by the IED, but nevertheless
responsible for significant pollutant emissions, would remain unregulated at the EU level.
Member States would be expected to gradually take measures to address this problem, but the
lack of a common approach would lead to an uneven level of protection of the environment
and distorted competition. The environmental pressures from activities currently not covered
by the IED, like those it already currently covers, are to some extent covered by other EU
more horizontal environmental legislation that does not control pollution directly at the
source. The relevant existing EU legislation (e.g. Water Framework Directive, Effort Sharing
Regulation, National Emission reduction Commitments (NEC) Directive) only addresses one
or a limited number of impacts, for society as a whole including IED activities, and does not
address the pollution in an integrated way. The candidate activities for inclusion within the
IED scope are regulated to a varying extent by Member States, which does not contribute to a
level playing field at EU level.
The baseline evolution of emissions of pollutants will depend strongly on the dynamics of
industrial transformation.
Dynamics of industrial transformation
The New Industrial Strategy for Europe outlines the elements of the industrial transformation
and, amongst them, climate policy is expected to have the main impact on emissions of
pollutants. The expected evolution of the market context for the relevant agro-industrial
sectors follows the projections modelled in the ‘Fit for 55’ (FF55) climate package as
presented by the European Commission on 14 July 2021. The FF55 “MIX” model describes
potential trends in decarbonisation for the various sectors, and provides a picture of how
decarbonisation techniques would be developed and deployed. It is increasingly clear that
emerging decarbonisation techniques will, in many cases, also deliver reductions of pollutant
emissions to air, benefitting water and soil quality too.
However, as illustrated in Figure 3, whilst NOX emission projections for the majority of the
larger polluting industries covered by IED show substantial declines from 2020 through to
2035, after 2035 NOX emissions increase again, driven primarily by the energy industries
(high temperature combustion of hydrogen produces higher amounts of NOX), suggesting the
need for further longer-term policy action to have effect from the 2030s.
21
Figure 3: MIX scenario NOX emissions projected by the GAINS model to 2050
Source: GAINS
The FF55 package represents the assemblage of policies for achieving the decarbonisation
objectives up to 2030. The post-2030 forecasts are based on general 2050 decarbonisation
policy objectives; implementing policies still remain to be agreed to meet the 2050 objective.
Three case studies in Annex 11 (cement, iron and steel and oil and gas refining sectors)
illustrate how the expected industrial transformation could impact pollutant emissions, GHG
emissions, the use of resources, and the future relevance of the IED and E-PRTR legal
framework as well as overall other relevant EU legislation. This highlights that a number of
challenges will arise:
1. A number of novel decarbonisation techniques will allow the reduction of both GHG and
pollutant emissions, typically from 2030 onwards. In the absence of adequate
mechanisms, BAT would likely continue to be defined in a manner that does not help
driving synergistic and economically sound decarbonisation and depollution techniques,
which would hence contribute to suboptimal (and possibly shorter-term) investment
decisions.
2. In other cases, novel decarbonisation techniques having negative impacts on pollutant
emissions may come onto the EU market. This would require BAT to be (rapidly)
defined, in order to avoid adverse additional emissions of (possibly new) pollutants.
3. CCS/CCU80
is likely to become relevant for several IED sectors, and would thus require
the definition of BAT, amongst others to address potential environmental issues such as
potential GHG leakage and impact on the quality of underground water. Developing a
BREF for CCS/ CCU would be consistent with the current IED scope.
4. Certain sectors (e.g. oil and gas refining) are predicted to undergo profound modifications
vis-à-vis their role in the value chain; they will likely redevelop new production processes
adapted to these new roles. Hence, BAT will need to be defined for these novel
production processes.
80
Carbon Capture and Storage / Carbon Capture and Use
22
5. Most importantly, should an agro-industrial sector develop novel production processes
which allow it to undergo a full/ step-change transformation, the question will arise as to
whether BAT conclusions should define BAT at the level of the production processes as
such. BAT conclusions may, for example, stipulate that the use of fossil fuel in certain
production processes and IED sectors is no longer BAT. The implementation of such
BAT conclusions would require the “deep transformation” of all installations included in
that sector, and, as such, would directly drive investments in decarbonisation (and
concomitant depollution) techniques. This would be similar to what was triggered by the
BAT conclusions on chlor-alkali production81
which, by stating that the mercury-cell
process was not a BAT, stimulated the conversion of the whole sector to cleaner
processes.
These issues will also generate new policy coherence challenges that need to be resolved
regarding the ETS and the IED, and particularly to increase synergies and co-benefits of the
investment cycles associated with requirements under the IED for pollution prevention and
the ETS for decarbonisation.
5.2. Description of the policy options
The policy options have been constructed by selecting from a comprehensive list of more
than 200 potential policy measures based on the evaluations of the existing legislation, and
input from Member States and stakeholders. These measures were screened82
to identify those
that should be retained for further analysis. Annexes 12 and 13 provide the lists of measures
that have been discarded, and the rationale behind their screening out from further
consideration. Measures which could be taken into account without the need for changing
policies or amending legislation, e.g. to improve implementation via issuing guidance and
stepping up enforcement efforts, have been integrated into the baseline as they are likely to be
applied in any event. Furthermore, a number of measures screened out concern the desirable
update of the legal text to, e.g. as a number of recitals and articles have become obsolescent
over time; these will be addressed in a codification to take place after completion of the
legislative procedure on the revision.
The screening process resulted in a list of 73 measures retained for impact assessment: 43
concern IED, and 30 concern E-PRTR83
. The measures are diverse, seeking to address a
complex set of issues. Whilst most are relatively independent, some of them contribute to
several specific objectives to at least a limited degree. Others are mainly relevant for a single
objective.
Five policy options have been defined, which group together the individual policy measures
retained.
The broad definition of the policy options aligned with each of the relevant problem areas,
the measures they comprise and, where applicable, the alternatives, is provided below. The
detailed overview of all the measures and to which policy option and sub-option they belong
81
https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/production-chlor-alkali-0
82
Screening (see Annex 4) was developed in accordance with Tool #17 of the Better Regulation Toolbox. The
longlist of measures were assessed (or rated) against eight criteria, namely: legal feasibility, technical
feasibility, stakeholder acceptability, effectiveness, efficiency, proportionality, EU value added and coherence.
83
Measures IED#7 and E-PRTR#7 were discarded at a late stage, with no renumbering of measures
23
is provided in Annex 7. Annex 2 provides further details on the stakeholder views
summarised below for each option. In several cases there are contrasting views between
NOGs and industrial stakeholders and Member States have intermediate views. In such cases
options have been maintained for in-depth assessment.
General presentation of the policy options
Figure 4 presents how the options have been aligned to each of the five problem areas.
Figure 4: General presentation of options
PO1 brings together measures considered necessary to address the shortcomings related to
problem area 1, as identified in the evaluations of the IED and the E-PRTR Regulation, as
well as in the finding and recommendations of the Aarhus Compliance Committee. It presents
sub-options addressing the different relevant aspects: PO1-a tackles the achievement of
BAT-AELs, PO1-b seeks to homogenise implementation and enhance enforcement, PO1-c
expands public access to information and access to justice, and PO1-d clarifies and simplifies
existing legal requirements. Thereby, PO1 also contributes partly to resolving other problem
areas. Supplementary actions, e.g., via other options and sub-options described below, will
determine the actual, potentially higher, level of ambition of the initiative in each of those
areas.
Policy Options PO2 to PO4 present options and sub-options of varying ambition that respond
to the mandate given by the EGD to review EU measures to address pollution from large
industrial installations, thus contributing to the zero pollution ambition whilst making such
actions consistent with climate, energy and circular economy policies. This responds to each
relevant problem areas:
- Problem Area 2 (ineffective promotion of innovation) is tackled by PO2-a
(frontrunners), PO2-b (stimulate innovation) and PO2-c (supporting transformation).
Whilst he main drivers of a deep transformation of industry are the carbon neutrality
policies, the IED would accompany such transformation.
- Problem Area 3 (insufficient contribution to resource efficiency and less toxic
production) is addressed by PO3-a (performance levels), PO3-b (Environmental
Management System - EMS), PO3-c (symbiosis plans), PO3-d (pollutants list), PO3-e
24
(report resource use), PO3-f (tracking waste transfers) and PO3-g (report on
products).
- Problem Area 4 (insufficient contribution to decarbonisation) is tackled by PO4-a
(energy efficiency), PO4-b (IED/ETS interface), PO4-c (disaggregated reporting) and
PO4-d (CO2 equivalent reporting).
PO5 (sub-options a to i) aims to tackle the problem area 5. It identifies new agro-industrial
activities that could be newly incorporated into the IED, based on their pollution risk profile,
and insufficient coverage under other EU legislation. It also identifies where the limits of
coverage of some current activities could be expanded. As shown by Figure 4, PO5 interacts
with all other four policy options, since all new measures under PO1 to PO4 would have to
apply to a larger number of installations and processes.
The preferred policy package described in Section 8 brings together the selected options.
5.2.1. Policy option 1 – More effective legislation
Twenty-four measures have been retained after screening as relevant for addressing the
general effectiveness of the current legal acts.
PO1 groups the 24 individual measures (IED#1-16 and E-PRTR#1-6 and #8-#984
), into the
following 4 policy sub-options addressing the action needed to resolve a variety of issues
across the two pieces of legislation.
Box 1 - PO1- More effective legislation
PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs (IED#1-#5):
Alternative 1 clarify flexibilities: (IED#1#-#4 ). Clarify the rules on derogations, indirect releases of pollutants
to water and on taking environmental quality standards into account, and ensure transparent monitoring of
related impacts on air and water quality
Alternative 2 full BAT potential: (IED#1-#4 AND IED#5). Clarify the rules on derogations, indirect releases
of pollutants to water and on taking environmental quality standards into account, and ensure transparent
monitoring of related impacts on air and water quality AND require consideration of the full BAT-AEL range
when setting ELVs in permits.
PO1-b-implementation and enforcement (IED#6-#9): Empower competent authorities to suspend the
operation of non-compliant plants, harmonise the rules to assess plants’ compliance with their permits, make
the provisions on penalties more stringent and improve transboundary cooperation in permitting.
PO1-c-rights of the public (IED#10-#13 and E-PRTR#1-#4):
Alternative 1 public rights: (IED#10-#13 and E-PRTR#1, 3 & 4). Improve and expand the public’s access to
information, participation and access to justice (including effective redress) by making clear permit summaries
publicly and digitally available and requiring systematic public participation in permit reviews.
Alternative 2 enhanced public rights: (IED#10-#13, E-PRTR#1, 3 & 4 AND E-PRTR#2) improve and
expand the public’s access to information, participation and access to justice (including effective redress) by
making clear permit summaries publicly and digitally available, requiring systematic public participation in
permit reviews AND more granular reporting of emissions to E-PRTR in an INSPIRE-compliant manner.
PO1-d- simplification (IED #14-#16 and E-PRTR #5-#6 and #8-#9): clarify certain definitions and activity
descriptions, delete the indicative list of pollutants in Annex II, compliance assessment rules under Chapter II
of IED to take precedence over rules in other chapters and top-down reporting for livestock farms and
aquaculture.
For sub-options PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs and PO1-c-rights of the public, alternatives of
varying ambition have been defined, to take account of the particular importance of,
respectively, measure IED#5 (requiring the consideration of the full BAT-AEL range when
84
Measure E-PRTR#7 was discarded at a late stage, with no renumbering of measures
25
setting ELVs in permits) and measure E-PRTR#2 (more granular reporting to E-PRTR in an
at the more disaggregated level of the installation, rather that of the facility).
Annex 7 provides detailed information on the measures included in each sub-option; Box 2
provides a short description of each measure.
Box 2: Short description of measures included in PO1
IED #1 Introduce a time limit for derogations granted under Article 15(4)
IED#2 Standardised methodology for assessing the (dis)proportionality between costs of implementation of
BAT conclusions and the potential environmental benefits under Article 15(4) on derogations
IED#3 Require that indirect releases of polluting substances to water shall not lead to an increased load of
pollutants in receiving waters compared to the application of BAT at installation level (Article 15(3))
IED#4 Amend Article 18 to specify the type of additional measures to be included in the permit, with a view
to reducing the specific contribution of the installation to pollution, where environmental quality standards
cannot be met by implementing existing BAT conclusions
IED#5 Clarify Article 15(3)(a) by specifying that when setting emission limit values that do not exceed the
BAT-AELs, the starting point is the most stringent limit of the BAT-AEL range, unless the operator
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the competent authority that applying BAT techniques as described in
BAT conclusions only allows meeting a less stringent ELV within the BAT-AEL range
IED#6 Allow Member State Competent Authorities to temporarily suspend the operation of non-compliant
installations in cases where non-compliance causes significant environmental degradation
IED#7 Common rules for assessing compliance with emission limit values under Chapter II of the IED
IED#8 Define penalties with due regard to the nature, gravity, extent and duration of the infringement
(Article 79)
IED#9 Strengthen cooperation in cases of transboundary pollution between Member States (Article 26)
IED#10 Make Member States monitoring of the impact of Article 15(4) derogations publicly available
IED#11 Widen public participation in permitting as requested by the Aarhus Convention Committee and
facilitate access to justice and redress in case of damages related to non-compliance
IED#12 Introduce a uniform, user-friendly permit summary and make them publicly available
IED#13 Information made available to the public to go on Internet and be free of charge
E-PRTR#1 Reduce the reporting thresholds for some pollutants to better meet the aim of 90% capture
E-PRTR#2 Introduce reporting at installation level
E-PRTR#3 Require operators to explicitly confirm that releases are below the reporting threshold
E-PRTR#4 Mandate the monitoring/calculation/estimation (M/C/E) hierarchy
IED#14 Clarify IED scope regarding gasification, liquefaction, pyrolysis and biogas plants
IED#15 Delete Annex II of the IED “List of polluting substances”
IED#16 Chapter II compliance assessment rules (IED#7) to take precedent over rules in other chapters
E-PRTR#5 Establish a ‘sunset list’ to remove pollutants that are no longer of concern
E-PRTR#6 Clarify that E-PRTR covers upstream oil and gas facilities (activity 3(a))
E-PRTR#8 Reword 5(d) landfills activity description to include flaring of vent gas
E-PRTR#9 Top-down reporting for livestock production and aquaculture
5.2.1.1. Stakeholder views on PO1
Stakeholder views are summarised across the four PO1 themes:
 Ensuring that BAT-AELs are achieved: NGOs are most supportive of measures
tightening the implementation of BAT-AELs, with some support from public authorities,
but an absence of support from industry. Competent authorities consider that any time
limit to derogations should be determined at the local level. There are particularly
contrasted views regarding measure IED#5 that requires Member States to use the whole
BAT-AEL range rather than defaulting ELVs at the most lax end of those ranges. NGOs
and Member States considered this measure would bring significant improvements with
26
regard to emissions to air and water, whilst Industry has indicated strong opposition to this
measure and raised potential negative impacts on competitiveness. SMEs85
called for a
realistic adaption of ELVs with a range of flexibility. Industry also opposes tightening
rules at source on indirect emissions to water, claiming that centralised (typically urban)
waste water treatment plants can adequately treat the industrial pollutants at lower cost.
 Homogenising and enhancing implementation and enforcement: Member State
authorities and NGOs support these measures that they consider would anticipate at least
moderate improvement. Industry is not convinced that such improvements would occur.
Only NGOs support strengthening transboundary cooperation through the IED. Other
stakeholders consider that one of the most important obstacles in cross-border cooperation
is the diversity between EU and international rules, all applicable in different situations.
 Improving and expanding the public’s access to information, participation and
access to justice: Regarding public information, a large majority of environmental and
civil society NGOs consider these provisions to be relatively or very important. This is
consistent with NGO views in the environmental reporting fitness check where public
access to the actual reporting of emissions was seen as having contributed to reducing
them. Industry is less supportive and emphasised that there is a need to protect sensitive
information. Furthermore, regarding E-PRTR, all stakeholder groups observed that
automated Quality Assurance systems could help improve the quality of the reported data.
However, most respondents - other than NGOs - considered that shorter reporting
deadlines would not be feasible and would decrease data quality and increase reporting
costs/ administrative burden in general. Regarding access to justice, business associations
and company/business organisations have overall felt that the public access to justice
functions very well for industrial activities. The opposite view is held by all NGOs, who
typically state that public access to justice does not function well. Mixed views have been
provided by public authorities.
 Clarifying and simplifying existing legal requirements: The main measures attracting
positive interest from stakeholders, in particular SMEs, were those aimed at clarifying
certain definitions (gasification, liquefaction and pyrolysis) and solving discrepancies in
averaging periods used in the IED and BAT conclusions when setting ELVs and
subsequently assessing BAT-AELs compliance.
 The Fit for Future Platform (FFFP) Opinion on the IED: The FFFP Opinion was
submitted to the European Commission on 6.12.2021, subsequent to and separate from
the Impact Assessment-related consultations that took place earlier. Many of the FFFP
suggestions cover PO-1 type options, related to better implementation and effectiveness of
the industrial emissions framework, e.g., improving the permit process and optimising the
BREF procedure. Annex 2 contains the FFFP Opinion and information on related action
taken, as tabulated in its Table A2-8 and Table A2-9.
85
https://www.smeunited.eu/admin/storage/smeunited/20210604-final-position-ech-smeunited-
zeropollution.pdf
27
5.2.2. Policy option 2 – Accelerating innovation
PO2 only concerns the IED. It comprises 6 individual measures (IED#17-#22), which
constitute the following 3 sub-options aimed to improve the IED dynamism in supporting the
uptake of innovative technologies/techniques:
Box 3 - PO2- Accelerating innovation
PO2-a-frontrunners (IED#17, #18): Facilitate the development and testing of emerging techniques AND
allow more time for implementing these more innovative technologies and techniques
PO2-b-stimulate innovation (IED#19, #20):
Alternative 1 shorter BREFs cycle: Establish shorter BREF revision cycles
Alternative 2 INCITE: Establish an INnovation Centre for Industrial Transformation & Emissions (INCITE)
documenting innovation and recommending BREF revisions
PO2-c-supporting transformation (IED#21, 22):
Alternative 1 time: allow more time to implement BATC if deep industrial transformation is required
Alternative 2 plans/review: establish a permit review obligation and require transformation plans
Alternative 3 plans/EMS: require transformation plans and integrate them in the EMS (see IED#25)
5.2.2.1. Stakeholder views on PO2
Whilst all stakeholder groups are generally in favour of measures supporting innovation, their
views vary per measure and sub-option.
Stakeholders were rather neutral concerning options providing more time for innovative
operators to test and deploy emerging techniques. IED operators and their trade associations,
however, support such measures that provide flexibility. It is interesting to note that
technology suppliers doubted this would have major impacts.
The multi-stakeholder High Level Group on Energy-Intensive Industries recommended that
‘low carbon emission technologies under development should be assessed as potential
emerging techniques during the BREF drawing and reviewing process’. The alternative -
‘short BREF cycles’ - is not supported. Industry expressed concerns this could negatively
impact investment cycles if existing installations were obliged to review their plans
frequently. Member States have stressed the scarcity of human and financial resources that
would be need for more frequent BREF reviews. The alternative ‘INCITE’ attracted support,
especially from Member States, who considered this would allow the documenting and
validating of evidence on innovative techniques; some suggested that the current pilot scale
project (innovation observatory) should be formalised.
Industry supported the provision of more time for deep transformation, triggered by BAT
conclusions, whilst pointing out that the IED is not the best tool to regulate the transition.
Some Member States strongly supported the transformation plan alternative arguing this
should be applied earlier than 2035.
The question was also raised as to whether the end of the 4-year period for an installation to
operate in compliance with the revised BAT conclusions impedes innovation and should
therefore be shortened. Input from stakeholders and experience point to the fact that this
period is not excessively long for the correct performance of successive activities that require
time: the reconsideration of the permit; the organisation of public participation by the
competent authorities; the funding, planning and implementation of the necessary
investments by the operator. Also, data gathered so far suggest that emissions start to
decrease already before the end of the 4-year period.
28
5.2.3. Policy option 3 – A non-toxic and resource efficient circular economy
Policy option 3 comprises 12 individual measures (4 IED#23-#26- + 8 E-PRTR#10-#17),
regrouped into 7 sub-options seeking to contribute to the use of safer and less toxic
chemicals, improved resource efficiency and the circular economy, with attention also to
water re-use in line with Climate Adaptation goals.
Box 4 - PO3- Contributing to a non-toxic and resource efficient circular economy
PO3-a-performance levels (IED#23, 24):
Alternative 1 binding: introduce option for BREF Technical Working Groups (TWGs) to set binding
environmental performance levels (so-called BAT-AEPLs) including for resource efficiency, water use
efficiency and reuse, and waste generation)
Alternative 2 binding and benchmarks: introduce both binding BAT-AEPLs AND performance benchmarks
to be used in the Environmental Management System (EMS)
PO3-b-EMS (IED#25): Require operators to address Resource Efficiency, Circular Economy and Chemicals
Management in their EMS
PO3-c-symbiosis plans (IED#26): Require Member States to produce national plans to promote industrial
symbiosis
PO3-d-pollutants list (E-PRTR#10): Dynamically updating the list of pollutants to be reported
PO3-e-report resource use (E-PRTR#11, 12, 13): Require information to track progress in resource
efficiency (including energy, materials and water)
PO3-f-tracking waste transfers (E-PRTR#14, 15, 16): Require information to better track the nature and
destination of waste transfers between installations (mainly concerns transfers between installations located
within a Member State)
PO3-g-report on products (E-PRTR#17): Require reporting releases from products
5.2.3.1. Stakeholder views on PO3
Overall, environmental NGOs were in favour of the PO3 measures proposed, especially
binding BAT-AEPLs. However, industry was generally not in favour, indicating that the
expected environmental benefits are small, while associated administrative and compliance
costs would be significant; the water industry however supported these measures. Member
States generally supported reporting mechanisms and benchmarks, giving a general
preference for a resource efficiency and circular economy plan, which could be linked to
reporting requirements and BREF benchmarks, rather than necessarily making BAT-AEPLs
binding in the same manner as BAT-AELs (as in PO3-a). However, some Member States
were also in favour of binding BAT-AEPLs wherever appropriate (PO3-a), whilst some also
recognised that derogation conditions, such as those of BAT-AELs, could result
disproportionately burdensome if these had to be applied to the case of binding BAT-AEPLs.
Hence, a general overall preference for the second PO-3a alternative, binding and
benchmarks, is perceived.
Inclusion of a Chemical Management System in the EMS was seen by industry as
overlapping with REACH, but environmental NGOs considered this would ensure better
coherence between IED and REACH. Member States noted that some BREFs already include
such systems and that this allows adaptation, according to the needs of each sector.
With regard to E-PRTR measures to collect better data on waste transfers and resource
consumption (e.g., energy, water, and raw materials), public authorities, researchers, NGOs
and the public were generally in favour. Industry stakeholders were less enthusiastic, citing
additional burden and concerns with data confidentiality; the water industry supports more
reporting regarding water use.
29
5.2.5. Policy option 4 – Supporting decarbonisation
Policy option 4 comprises 6 individual measures (IED#27-#30 + E-PRTR#18 and #19),
grouped into the following 4 policy sub-options, which could contribute towards the
decarbonisation of the agro-industrial activities:
Box 5 - PO4- Supporting decarbonisation of industry
PO4-a-energy efficiency (IED#27): Delete Article 9(2) with exemptions from setting energy efficiency
requirements in IED permits
PO4-b-IED/ETS interface (IED#28, 29, 30):
Alternative 1 review: Plan a future review by 2028 to maximise coherence and synergies between the IED and
the ETS in light of the dynamics of innovation
Alternative 2 sunset: introduce a sunset date on Article 9(1)
Alternative 3 delete: immediately delete Article 9(1)
PO4-c-disaggregated reporting (E-PRTR#18): Require more granular reporting for some GHG, in particular
refrigerants
PO4-d- CO2 eq. reporting (E-PRTR#19): Require GHG releases to be also reported as CO2 equivalent
5.2.5.1. Stakeholder views on PO4
From a general perspective, the multi-stakeholder High Level Group on Energy-Intensive
Industries recommended in its masterplan86
that ‘The Industrial Emissions Directive
permitting process should be adapted to support GHG abatement measures in energy-
intensive installations throughout the transition.’
More specifically, Member States generally consider that the IED should support
decarbonisation. Environmental NGOs, including climate-specialised NGOs, vocally
supported the introduction of ELVs for GHG and mandatory energy efficiency requirements
in IED permits, considering these as complementary to the ETS. Industry, including SMEs87
,
and a majority of Member States, considered that such an approach would create double
regulation and cross-compliance problems, and risked adversely impacting the carbon market
and hence effectiveness and efficiency of the ETS.
For the E-PRTR, most NGOs, and public authorities considered the disaggregated reporting
of GHGs to provide considerable additional value, whereas industry representatives viewed
the current reporting as sufficient.
5.2.6. Policy option 5 – Scope extensions
Policy option 5 comprises 25 individual measures (13 IED: #31- #3488
, IED#36-IED#44
and 12 E-PRTR: #20-#31), regrouped into the following 9 sub-options which could
contribute towards addressing, as efficiently as possible, the environmental impacts of agro-
industry installations currently not regulated:
86
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/38403
87
https://www.smeunited.eu/admin/storage/smeunited/20210604-final-position-ech-smeunited-
zeropollution.pdf
88
Measure IED#35 was discarded at a late stage, with no renumbering of measures
30
Box 6 - PO-5- Industrial scope
PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting (IED#31, 32, 33; E-PRTR#20, 21): Broaden current sectoral coverage
of the IED and E-PRTR Regulation in rearing of animals (include cattle farms above a threshold within the
range of 50-150 LSU, expand coverage to pigs and poultry farms above a threshold within the range of 50-150
LSU AND a tailored permitting process for the rearing of animals).
PO5-b-expand existing IED activities (IED#34, 36, 37, 38; E-PRTR# 22, 24, 25, 26): Extension of IED and
E-PRTR current sectoral scope by closing loopholes for smaller smitheries, regulating the associated activities
of textiles finishing, forging presses, cold rolling and wiredrawing; and better coverage of the battery value
chain by including the rapidly growing batteries gigafactories
PO5-c-landfills (IED#39, 40; E-PRTR# 27): Landfills: Adoption of BAT conclusions for landfills OR
adoption of BAT conclusions for activity 5.4 landfills AND revise the capacity threshold
PO5-d-mining (IED#41): Include non-energy minerals extraction industry in the IED scope
PO5-e-aquaculture (IED#42): Include acquaculture in the IED scope
PO5-f-oil and gas (IED#43): Include upstream oil and gas extraction in the IED scope
PO5-g-align E-PRTR to IED (E-PRTR#28): Align E-PRTR activity descriptions to IED activity descriptions
PO5-h- align E-PRTR to other EU laws (E-PRTR#29,#30):
Alternative fully: Revise E-PRTR activity descriptions by aligning to the Medium Combustion Plants Directive
(MCPD) AND the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD)
Alternative partially: expand the E-PRTR scope to cover (MCPs between 20 and 50 MW AND UWWTPs
between 20 000 and 100 000 person equivalents
PO5-i-watch mechanism (IED#44; E-PRTR#31): Establish a dynamic system to identify and include
emerging activities/sectors of concern, according to significance of production and attendant (already
occurring, or risk of) pollutant emissions, and the IED’s potential to address these issues
For PO5-a (cattle and tailored permitting), Annex 8 analyses the impacts of setting the
threshold in PO5-a at 50, 100, 125, 150, 300, 450 and 600 LSU (livestock unit). Three criteria
have been used to select the threshold to be used in the option retained for assessment: the
cost benefit ratio, the degree of coverage of emissions from the sector89
, and the number of
farms regulated. The cost-benefit analysis is favourable in all cases, but lower as the LSU
threshold value decreases; it is higher for cattle at all LSU threshold values than for pigs and
poultry90
. In terms of number of animals and the proportion of emissions covered by the
legislation, setting a threshold between 50-150 LSU would result in around 80-95% of pigs
and poultry covered but only about 40-80% of cattle. Under 100 LSU, the number of farms
included increases considerably, especially for cattle. Setting the threshold between 50-150
LSU for cattle, pigs and poultry farms would result in the following proportion of non-
subsistence farms91
being covered by the legislation: 18-37% of pigs farms (80-94% of
animals), 15-32% of poultry farms (87-98% of animals), and 10-39% of cattle farms (40-80%
of animals), with a benefits to costs ratio around 4-9 for pigs and poultry and 7-14 for cattle.
Furthermore, as such scope extension would bring a number of smaller, less complex
installations under the IED, it is appropriate to design a tailored permitting system to limit
compliance and administrative costs. The tailored permit that is integrated into PO5-a will
build on national permitting systems, include only basic requirements, will not entail the
revision of each individual permit, and will focus on a limited number of key environmental
89
The emissions covered by the option are directly in proportion of the number of animals covered.
90
Pigs and poultry mainly emit ammonia whilst cattle also emit considerable amounts of methane, resulting in
more favorable cost benefit ratios for regulating cattle.
91
Farms below 10 LSU are considered to be subsistence farms; they represent by far the largest number of
farms and are not considered in this assessment. All numbers in this assessment concern non-subsistence
farms.
31
issues such as the emission of methane, ammonia and nitrates. It will not include components
of IED permits that have a significant administrative burden for operators, e.g. the baseline
report or the EMS.
5.2.6.1. Stakeholder views on PO5
Stakeholder views are diverse: NGOs strongly support scope expansion across the board,
Member States support certain scope expansions, whilst the individual sectors concerned
oppose extension of IED scope to their activities, pointing to the monitoring and reporting
burdens imposed on smaller installations; at the same time, opinions from the open public
consultation gave information that the environmental impact of small and medium sized
plants is limited compared to large plants. Moreover, industry generally considers that the
agricultural sector should contribute its fair part to preventing pollutant emission.
With regard to specific sub-options:
 Concerning livestock: expansion to include part of cattle rearing seems most supported,
including by a portion of the sector. Tailored permitting attracted interest across all
stakeholder groups. However, NGOs and Member States consider that the approach of
using thresholds may lead to avoidance of regulation, via livestock operators deciding to
adjust farm sizes just below the threshold. Industry identified manure management as a
problematic issue. Drinking water companies and water authorities also regularly express
concerns about the increase of water treatment costs, notably related to emissions to water
from rearing of livestock.
 Regarding landfills, only NGOs support the lowering of the scope threshold; Member
States consider smaller landfills as not viable. However, over half of Member State
respondents thought IED should define BAT for landfills falling within its scope.
 Concerning mining and quarrying: Member States’ authority stakeholders note that the
application of the IED to mining and quarrying activities would have the largest
environmental impact of all potential new activities. Industry representatives consider that
mining and quarrying activities are sufficiently covered by other EU and national law.
 Concerning aquaculture: There is significant support from Member States, as well as
NGOs. Whilst recognising the environmental impacts of aquaculture, industry
stakeholders consider that the inclusion of aquaculture in the scope of IED would result in
economic costs unlikely to lead to significant, additional environmental improvements.
 Concerning upstream oil and gas: Stakeholders’ input confirmed that upstream oil and gas
operations could also be linked to environmental pressures other than methane emissions,
such as water and soil pollution, indicating that impacts from upstream oil and gas
industries are significant for greenhouse gases, and emissions to air, water, and soil.
32
Figure 5 maps these policy options with the core problem drivers, problem areas and specific objectives for the revision of the IED
33
6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS?
6.1. Introduction
This section presents an assessment of the impacts of all options against the baseline. This is
complemented by Annex 10 that provides a series of boxes and tables summarising key
information.
The vast majority of the individual measures considered in this impact assessment relate to
improving existing processes, such as the drafting of BREFs and BAT conclusions and the
issuing of permits to installations. The remaining measures introduce new processes, such as
INCITE to monitor emerging innovative techniques to address decarbonisation and
depollution, as well as measures addressing resource efficiency. Hence, the ultimate impacts
of the measures and related sub-options will depend on a sequence of successive processes
and events that may vary significantly.
Of particular importance are firstly, the levels of ambition of BAT requirements and
secondly, the degree to which they are implemented effectively by the relevant industry
sectors and the competent authorities who must set permit conditions taking the local and
specific circumstances of the installations into account.
Therefore, the majority of the measures considered do not lend themselves to quantitative
assessment of economic, environmental and social impacts. The impact assessment is in those
cases qualitative, and seeks to both identify the type of potential impacts and to rate their
potential magnitude.
The administrative burden for full implementation of the requirements associated with the
overall proposed revisions to the IED are split between operators and Member States. A
summary of the administrative burdens is provided in Annex 10, which gives details of the
resources that Member States will need to dedicate in order to fully implement the IED
revisions. Successful implementation of the revised IED will require Member States to fully
allocate the required resources. The IED is essentially a process directive, reliant on full
implementation by all parties concerned; the full impacts of any of the revision options
presented may not be realised if Member States’ implementation resources are jeopardised.
The vast majority of industrial installations covered by the IED do not meet the SME
definition criteria1
, the exception being the scope extension under PO5-a livestock sector,
where to ease the economic burden on smaller (SME) installations, a tailored permitting
approach is proposed.
However, as most measures improve existing processes or establish new ones, it has been
possible to monetise the administrative burden of implementing them. Detailed tables
providing the administrative costs are provided in Annex 10.
Policy sub-options PO5-a to PO5-i (sectoral scope expansion) are a notable exception and
their assessment could, to a degree, include quantitative elements where data was available,
such as the number of installations concerned and the related environmental impacts of the
1
SME definition: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/sme-definition_en; also SWD (2021)279
34
activities concerned2
. Furthermore, where assumptions could be made on what could likely
be defined as BAT, potential environmental and economic impacts could be quantified.
However, this has been limited by the availability of data and information and by the
uncertainty of which techniques would eventually qualify as BAT. An important feature to be
taken into account in the assessment of PO5 is that, by design, the IED and the BREF process
ensure that the definition of EU BAT requirements and their implementation in permits
remain proportionate. Annex 10 includes a table summarising the key information on these
options.
As options and sub-options are packages of measures, the impact assessment builds on the
assessment of the impacts of the individual measures, which is available in Annexes 8 (IED
measures) and 9 (E-PRTR measures). Where some individual measures dominate in the
impact assessment, the summary of the impacts of those individual measures is provided in
Annex 10.
Colour coding is used to summarise the assessment of impacts referring to the direction
(positive or negative) and magnitude (small or large) of any expected impacts (see Table 3).
Table 2: Coding used to present expected impacts


  0   

U
Extremely
negative
Strongly
Negative
Weakly
negative
“Zero”: i.e.
no or limited
impact
Weakly
positive
Strongly
Positive
Extremely
positive
“U”:
Unclear
An iterative process (see Annex 4) was used to obtain these point ratings, on a scale of “-10
to +10”, with 10 crosses representing the maximum negative impacts, and 10 ticks
representing the maximum positive impacts. This scale has more divisions than the more
usual scale of from “-5 to +5”, and was used owing to the wide disparities in the impacts, and
the need to represent impacts progressively from individual measures, to amalgamating them
into packaged options/sub-options. Each policy area was addressed by a dedicated
independent expert team, within the consultant team supporting this impact assessment, and
then the iterative process explained in Annex 4 was used to ensure coherence and consistency
between the scores given by individual teams for individual measures. This allowed
comparisons within and across policy areas. E-PRTR measures were rated in a similar
manner, enabling IED and E-PRTR scores also to be combined; note that the majority of E-
PRTR measures represent smaller, incremental positive or negative impacts, and thus often
score one, occasionally two ticks or crosses, compared to larger IED measures.
This impact assessment is one of the pilot cases for the one-in-one-out principle announced
by the European Commission on 1 December 20193
. Therefore, particular attention has been
2
Given this exception for PO5 options, a separate summary of the key impacts and of the (quantitative)
assessment results for PO5 options are provided in Annex 10.
3
Commission working methods P(2019)2; https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/working-methods.pdf
35
paid to providing comprehensive information on administrative burden. Those costs are
systematically presented under each option (with totals in the tables in Section 7), whereas a
more in-depth discussion can be found in Annexes 8 and 10. For ease of presentation, costs
provided in this report combine one-off and recurrent costs foreseen for 20 years, which then
are presented per annum. The former are linked mainly to BREF revisions, issuing,
reconsidering and updating a permit, application for a derogation or exemption, drafting
reports or plans. The latter involves monitoring, reporting and inspections that are an
important component of a number of measures. In addition, for the preferred policy package,
a detailed table on the calculation of administrative costs, broken into one-off and recurrent
costs, is included in Annex 3. Underlying assumptions behind the calculations are provided in
Annex 4.
6.2. Effectiveness: Analysis of Policy Option 1
See section 5.2.2 for short description of the measures; Annex 7 provides more detail.
6.2.1. Economic impacts
Administrative burden on businesses and public authorities: PO1-effectiveness would
lead to increased administrative activity by IED operators and public authorities. This would
include under PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs employing more resources due to increased
frequency and/or depth and breadth required in producing, collecting and reporting large
and/or new amounts of data and evidence; permit reconsiderations; derogations; and
enforcement activities under PO1-b-implementation and enforcement. PO1-a-achieving
BAT-AELs and PO1-c-rights of the public would require that operators and public
authorities spend marginally more resources bringing together and sharing data and
information online or otherwise. However, this additional administrative burden from the
IED elements would be limited. This corresponds per option to:
 PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs €1.4 million per year for operators and €0.89 million per year
for public administration in the Alternative 1 and €9.4 million and €7.89 million per year
in the Alternative 2;
 PO1-b-implementation and enforcement €4.6 million/year for operators and €5.65
million/year for public administration;
 PO1-c-rights of the public offers two Alternatives: with or without the E-PRTR#2
introducing reporting on installation’s level. This translates into €0.5 or €0.56 million of
admin costs per year for operators and doesn’t change for public administration: €2.9
million per year in both alternatives;
 PO1-d- simplification offers savings for both for operators: €11.8 million and for public
administration: €0.670 million.
Once the initial time and resources investment has been made in modernising private and
public administrations and maximising the use of the latest digital technologies for data
management, this should reduce significantly over time. The E-PRTR elements of PO1 are
estimated to bring an administrative saving of some €10.2 million per year for operators and
costs of about €0.9 million per year for public authorities.
Operating costs and the conduct of businesses: PO1-effectiveness may also lead to an
increase in and/or bring forward costs of doing business for IED operators, primarily by
introducing more stringent requirements and limiting the duration and/or reducing the
36
likelihood of approval of derogations from implementing BAT conclusions. Here it should be
recalled, that as safeguard for future competitiveness concerns, the IED definition of BAT in
Article 3 requires that it is cost-effective and during the drawing up and reviews of BREFs ,
economic viability is evaluated at the sector level. Usually, the economic viability of a
technique is established by noting that it is used in various installations across various
countries, under competitive market conditions.
PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs – alternative full BAT potential includes measure IED#5,
encouraging the most stringent end of the BAT-AEL range for setting ELVs, which could
entail significant capital (CAPEX) and operational expenditures (OPEX) for installations
across the EU. Whilst the specific investments and operating costs of IED#5 could not be
reliably quantified, as a partial illustration for one pollutant (NOX) and only five IED
activities4
, it was assumed that about 10% of installations would be affected by this measure,
and each of these installations might be required to invest at least €0.5 million additional or
earlier than in the baseline. This would bring the potential EU-wide CAPEX at €210 million
per year. However, the scale of these substantive compliance costs remains uncertain,
especially in this example where the measure would not mandate but encourage, where
possible, a more ambitious approach (by default) - to setting ELVs.
Competitiveness: Whilst uncertain, PO1 costs are expected to remain limited compared to
the overall costs and the turnover of installations in the concerned sectors. Again, as an
illustration of the relative impact on costs of doing business: the Iron and Steel BAT
conclusions ex-post assessment estimated total annualised compliance costs of the sector at
around €134 million per year, the annual turnover at around €123 billion and its annual
investment costs to be €3.9 billion. This sector includes about 300 installations and the
illustrative additional investment for NOx abatement of €15 million, representing 0.1% of
annual turnover. Hence, it is unlikely that IED#5 would have a significant impact on sector’s
global competitiveness. Furthermore, a growing number of non-EU countries around the
world are implementing legislation based on the BAT concept or using EU BREFs to provide
information for setting emission limit values, further mitigating any impact on international
competitiveness. The OECD is organising an exchange of information between international
experts on BAT-like legislation, which help to reduce differences in environmental
requirements at international level.
Furthermore, the overall improved environmental performance is also expected to have
operational and competitiveness benefits in the medium to longer term, for example, through
increased energy efficiency. Improved air quality would improve productivity through
reduced number of lost working days due to health impacts of air pollution. Finally, the IED
measure IED#6 may lead to the (temporary) closure of installations, which might also affect
the costs of doing business in the EU; but suspension of activities is not expected to be a
common occurrence.
Level playing field: PO1-effectiveness would have a positive impact on the level playing
field in the EU, primarily by homogenising and clarifying the requirements that businesses
must comply with and expected enforcement practices and more effective access to justice
and redress.
4
Glass; cement, lime and magnesium; large combustion plants, pulp and paper; refining of mineral oil
37
6.2.2. Environmental impacts
PO1-effectiveness is expected to have positive impacts especially on air, water and soil
quality with co-benefits for biodiversity and enhanced climate-resilience. These impacts
would result from PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs introducing shorter and/or fewer derogation
(IED#1, #2) and encouraging or setting stricter environmental performance requirements
(IED#3, #4, #5), and from PO1-b-implementation and enforcement ensuring stepped up
enforcement of, and compliance with, the IED regulatory framework (IED#6, #7, #8, #9).
The most significant environmental impacts are likely to result from PO1-a-achieving BAT-
AELs – alternative full BAT potential specifying that the starting point for setting emission
limit values should be closer or at the most stringent limit of the BAT-AEL range (IED#5).
This alone is expected to generate significant health and environmental benefits from reduced
emissions. Whilst these could not be reliably quantified, as a partial illustration for one
pollutant, monetised health and environmental benefits accruing from estimated potential
reductions of NOX emissions from the implementation of IED#5 across five sectors range
from €860 million to €2 800 million per year. Setting stricter ELVs in permits will also result
in lowered pollutants emission to water and may encourage phasing out the use of substances
of concern.
Indirectly, we would also expect that PO1-c-rights of the public – alternative public rights
would improve the public’s access to information, participation and justice (including
effective redress) (IED#11, #12, #13, E-PRTR #1, #3, #4) and increase the public’s leverage
and ability to influence the environmental performance ambitions, which may result in
marginal reductions in emissions over time, when compared to the baseline. These impacts
would be slightly stronger for PO1-c-rights of the public – alternative public rights that
introduces more disaggregate reporting (E-PRTR#2); this would provide policy relevant very
information for allowing to better track improvements in environmental performance.
Similarly, by clarifying and simplifying legal requirements PO1-d- simplification would likely
have indirect positive impacts on compliance with the legislation, which would result in
indirect positive impacts on the natural systems and public health. There is limited available
evidence, thus limiting the quantification and monetisation of these benefits.
6.2.3. Social impacts
All sub-options under PO1-effectiveness are unlikely to have any significant impacts on
employment in the EU. On the one hand, some measures will require additional staff to carry
out additional, or more intensive, administrative activities and enforcement/compliance-
related, when compared to the baseline. On the other hand, overall increases in the costs of
doing business and any additional, albeit limited, temporary closures of installations may put
pressure on businesses to increase their operating efficiency, including by reducing the
numbers of staff employed in the EU-27. There is limited evidence available to conclude on
the overall net effect. There are however other social impacts that PO1-a-achieving BAT-
AELs (IED#4) and PO1-c-rights of the public bring in, namely improving transparency on
permitting and emissions monitoring, and contributing to empower the public. For example,
this would allow researchers and concerned organisations and citizens to make informed
criticisms and requests relating to the state of industrial emissions.
Moreover, the environmental impacts outlined earlier, especially the reduction in pollutants
emission to the environment resulting from PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs – alternative full
38
BAT potential (IED#5), are likely to have positive impacts on public health in the EU by
reducing the exposure to pollutants and the subsequent risk of disease, especially respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases, and by leading to reductions in health and social care costs
affecting EU citizens, residents and public authorities primarily. Health damage costs are
provided in the environmental impacts section.
When costs towards business cannot be passed on through changes in prices of products sold,
they may impact profitability and, therefore, employment. However, the illustrative
calculation of costs potentially incurred under the most onerous measures retained (IED#5)
suggest that additional costs would be of the order of magnitude of less than 0.1% of annual
turnover. Hence, it is unlikely that this would perceivable impacts on consumer prices.
6.3. Accelerating innovation: Analysis of Policy Option 2 (PO2)
See section 5.2.3 for short description of the measures; Annex 7 provides more detail.
6.3.1. Economic impacts
Administrative burden on businesses and public authorities: All three PO2 options would
increase administrative burden for IED operators and public authorities overall, when
compared to the baseline. PO2-a-frontrunners would primarily include a number of
installations seeking flexibility to develop and/or test innovative emerging techniques that are
additional to the baseline. This is expected to entail additional administrative cost for
business of around €1 million a year for business as well as of around €0.5 million a year for
the competent authorities. PO2-b-stimulate innovation would require managing and
engaging with more frequent BREF processes that may not completely substitute, but rather
complement, the baseline. Both alternatives would trigger additional or more demanding
permit reconsiderations and updates. Systematic short BREF cycles (IED#19) would likely
cause more frequent permit reviews than BREF reviews triggered by INCITE (IED#20). This
option would also yield further costs for public authorities, via the set up and operation of
INCITE. Finally, PO2-c-supporting transformation would require that operators
demonstrate to competent authorities that they need more time, as part of a derogation
(IED#21), for deep transformation or that they develop Transformation Plans (IED#22) as
either a part of a permit review or they will integrate Transformation Plans in the EMS. The
administrative burden will depend on the number of derogation or permit review procedures
they will drive; derogations would concern a limited number of operators, whilst
transformation plans would be required from all operators. The central estimate is €0.6
million a year for businesses and €0.3 million for competent authorities in IED #21. Making
Transformation Plans (IED#22) part of a permit review will cost €50 million for both
operators and competent authorities, and integrating them in EMS (PO3-b) would limit the
admin burden for operators to €20 million p.a and would relieve competent authorities from
having to review the permit (there will be no permit review).
Innovation and research: PO2-a-frontrunners, PO2-b-stimulate innovation and PO2-c-
supporting transformation are likely to encourage more investment in the development and
testing of innovative techniques and technologies. This will bring a push for a higher uptake
of low-emission techniques becoming then a benchmark for taxonomy criteria, documented
in BREFs. There is limited quantified evidence, and substantial uncertainties regarding the
positive impacts of these measures on innovation and research. However, as part of the
39
consultation activities, the majority of stakeholders also agreed that these policy sub-options
may contribute, from moderately to significantly, to increasing the uptake of innovative
technologies by IED operators. When these options were explored through focus groups and
interviews, including of experts, it was highlighted that, for the IED to encourage operators to
invest in innovative technologies, these options should be complemented by financial and
policy incentives, as well as clear legal requirements. This would be, e.g. funding via Horizon
Europe or the Innovation Fund, and potential avenues of incentives via pending policies
currently being revised, e.g. EU Taxonomy decisions and state aid guidelines. It is also
intended that the revised IED/ E-PRTR framework should serve to improve the provision of
information on sustainable industry practices, mainly technologies, to then be useful in the
development of future initiatives under EU funding instruments and sustainable finance
policy.
Operating costs and the conduct of businesses: PO2-c-supporting transformation may
lead to an increase in and/or bring forward costs for IED operators, especially CAPEX, by
encouraging industrial transformation and favouring innovative and emerging technologies.
The scale of impact will depend on the speed of technological advancement and technology
cost curves. For example, CAPEX and OPEX from operators would depend upon the
Transformation Plans and/or novel techniques selected to contribute to their “deep
transformation”. Cost that could be brought forward are linked to earlier retrofits to existing
heavy industry installations; this would concern one-off investments ranging from €0.5 to
€200 million per IED site, based on expert opinion. The plan would ensure alignment of
investments required for pollution reduction and decarbonisation. PO2-a-frontrunners and
PO2-b-stimulate innovation could have similar effects, although evidence available and
expert opinion suggest that these are likely to be less significant than the impacts from PO2-c.
Competitiveness: The available evidence is unclear as to what extent PO2-b-stimulate
innovation and PO2-c-supporting transformation may affect the competitiveness of
businesses in a global context. The main drivers of a deep transformation of industry are the
carbon neutrality policies, the IED would accompany such transformation rather than trigger
it. On the one hand, these options may increase the cost of doing business relative to
competitors in the global context and thus reduce the competitiveness of EU industry. On the
other hand, these options could put the EU’s industry in the vanguard of transformation,
potentially gaining first-mover advantage and even exporting any acquired know-how or
innovative techniques. In addition, a low environmental footprint and resulting compliance
with criteria under the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities5
will facilitate access to green
finance putting the industry in an advantageous position on the financial market. Finally,
through introducing a price on carbon in imports of specific products the carbon border
adjustment mechanism6
may mitigate some of the impacts of these options on
competitiveness, where they are related with higher CO2 emission abatement.
6.3.2. Environmental impacts
PO2-a-frontrunners, PO2-b-stimulate innovation and PO2-c-supporting transformation
would be likely to have positive environmental impacts by encouraging innovative
5
https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/sustainable-finance/eu-taxonomy-
sustainable-activities_en
6
COM(2021) 564 final
40
technologies with improved environmental performance. PO2-b-stimulate innovation and
PO2-c-supporting transformation are likely to have more significant positive impacts on
air, water and soil quality and resources, especially if INCITE (IED#20) triggering BREF
reviews to take account of the availability of high maturity emerging techniques and the
permit review obligation (IED#22) are taken forward. PO2-c-supporting transformation
would also have positive impacts on the climate by encouraging GHG emission reductions
from industrial sectors covered by the IED.
The scale of environmental impacts across the selected categories would depend on
technological progress and the outcomes of INCITE, together with any more frequent BREF
reviews and resulting actions triggered.
6.3.3. Social impacts
PO2-a-frontrunners, PO2-b-stimulate innovation and PO2-c-supporting transformation
are unlikely to have any significant impacts on employment in the EU. On the one hand,
some measures entailing additional Research and Innovation and other, possibly including
administrative, activities, may require additional staff.
Moreover, environmental impacts, especially the reduction in emissions to air, are likely to
have positive impacts on public health in the EU by reducing the risk of disease, especially
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and by leading to reductions in health and social care
costs across the EU.
6.4. Resource efficiency and chemicals: Analysis of Policy Option 3 (PO3)
See Section 5.2.4 for short description of the measures; Annex 7 provides more detail.
6.4.1. Economic impacts
Administrative burden on businesses and public authorities: All seven sub-options
envisaged by PO3 (see Table 2) would increase administrative activity by operators and
public authorities, when compared to the baseline.
PO3-a-performance levels would essentially require operators to provide measurable
information as regards resource efficiency, waste prevention and circular economy
performance levels (BAT-AEPLs) when seeking a new permit/updating an existing one, as
well to carry out related reporting and compliance activity. BAT conclusions already include
specific plans to monitor and manage resource efficiency of water, energy, and certain
materials, and operators subject to these requirements will face a limited increase in admin
burden compared to the baseline. Evidence collated suggests that 20-40% of IED operators
may not be currently subject to any permit conditions based on BAT-AEPLs and could,
therefore, be affected by an increase in their administrative costs associated with permit
reconsideration and compliance/reporting activities. The measure privileging binding BAT-
AEPLs (IED #23) will result in €7 million/year (around 540 EUR/year per installation) for
business above the baseline and €6 million/year for administration; for the alternative
allowing use of either binding BAT-AEPLs or benchmarks used in the operator’s EMS
(IED#24), the estimate is €16 and €12 million accordingly.
PO3-b-EMS would require operators to produce, implement and/or monitor a Resource
Efficiency and Circular Economy Plan and a Chemical Management System (CMS) as part
of the Environmental Management System (EMS). Both may require additional
41
administrative efforts by operators, to assemble the information and/or plans as well as to
maintain the EMS periodically. The scale of these costs would depend on the complexity of
the plans and systems, and thus their maintenance and audit requirements; this is estimated to
be €46 million a year for business and €23 million for the administration.
Both PO3-a-performance levels and PO3-b-EMS will require additional enforcement-
related activity from public authorities, including managing confidential business information
issues, monitoring and enforcing binding BAT-AEPLs, and the evaluation and control of the
EMS of each installation, including of how benchmarks contained in BAT conclusions are
addressed in the EMS.
PO3-c-symbiosis plans would require public authorities to develop and implement a plan of
action related to industrial symbiosis. The scale of this impact is unknown, although this is
likely to be limited in the shorter term, and it would likely have both highlight new
opportunities whilst required supplementary administrative activity from businesses.
PO3-d-pollutants list entailing the dynamic updating of the list of pollutants to be reported,
would make the E-PRTR more responsive to emerging environmental issues. It would lead to
a greater number of facilities having to report data for air, water and soil emissions, but this
could be offset, to some extent, by the corollary ‘sunset’ list for removing the need to report
on other pollutants. The estimated burden for operators should not exceed €3.9 million a year.
PO3-e-report resource use would require additional administrative efforts by operators (€35
million/year) to gather data on progress made in achieving enhanced resource efficiency.
There are also likely to be issues regarding confidential business information, which could
restrict data usefulness.
Similarly, the additional reporting requirements on waste transfers under PO3-f-tracking
waste transfers would require significant additional administrative efforts by operators and a
cautious estimations due to the numerous and complex waste flows indicate that they should
not exceed €0.7 million/year. The PO3-g-report on products would create significant
administrative impact for competent authorities required to gather information on
environmental releases via products and also significantly diverge from the E-PRTR’s core
role. It also has the potential to overlap with other initiatives, notably the product passport
under the Sustainable Products Initiative that would, contain inter alia similar information.
Because of the complexity of implementing PO3-g, these costs could not be quantified.
Operating costs and the conduct of businesses: PO3-a-performance levels and PO3-b-
EMS will likely require upfront CAPEX from operators (although PO3-b should already be
partly established by operators in all IED sectors). These may include energy and resource
efficiency measures, including water reuse, which may reduce OPEX in the longer term.
Other operational measures may introduce additional costs into production processes, such as
the use of less-toxic chemical alternatives as an input to production. The scale of these
economic impacts would vary across Member States; however, it is expected that the net
economic impact would be somewhat negative in the shorter term, and the long-term trend is
hard to anticipate. It will depend in large part on how the investment costs decline due to
technological advances, and the evolution of resource costs. PO3-c-symbiosis plans could
also have impacts on operating costs and the conduct of business in the EU, although these
42
will depend on the nature and approach taken by national authorities to produce and
implement industrial symbiosis plans.
Competitiveness: The available evidence is unclear as to what extent this option will impact
competitiveness. Whilst increased operating costs may affect it negatively, increased
transparency on overall performance generates confidence, facilitates cross-sectoral and
cross-value chain collaboration; and would lead to efficiency-based cost reductions.
Transparency will not involve sharing confidential and sensitive, which would negatively
affect business.
Innovation and research: PO3-a-performance levels, PO3-b-EMS and PO3-c-symbiosis
plans are likely to encourage innovation and research. An explicit binding status of BAT-
AEPLs could further encourage businesses to identify innovative processes and techniques
that would enable them to meet BAT-AEPLs at the lowest possible cost. This impact may be
limited, however, since BAT-AEPLs are already implemented in this way in some Member
States. Any increase in focus on research and innovation is likely to indirectly benefit the
implementation of strategies and plans focussed on improving energy and resource
efficiency, resource circularity and a transition to less toxic chemicals as these will
necessarily require new or adjusted process technologies, eco-design, and cross-sectoral
collaboration (e.g. industrial symbiosis). These conclusions are also supported by findings
from the IED evaluation (Ricardo et al, 2020), which showed that a majority of stakeholders
(>75%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the IED, BREFs and BAT conclusions stimulated
innovation, with BAT conclusions being indicated as the most important driver.
Although administrative and compliance costs will marginally increase for all businesses,
those costs will be more significant for SMEs. Energy and resource efficiency strategies, as
well as the use of less toxic chemicals or alternatives are likely to increase operating costs at
the installation level, which might pose challenges, particularly for smaller businesses with
more restricted access to the technological and financial resources needed to innovate and
optimise processes. However, resource efficiency is one of the main drivers of companies'
competitiveness as they spend, on average, 40% of their costs on raw materials, with energy
and water pushing this to 50%7
. Therefore, improving the resource efficiency of SMEs offers
enormous potential for reducing production cost and increasing productivity while, at the
same time, making a significant contribution to addressing environmental and climate
challenges. Furthermore, 25% of EU SMEs work on green products or services8
, and might
particularly benefit from increased focus on energy, resource efficiency and safer chemicals.
Improved water use and reuse practices contribute to enhanced resilience to climate change,
as recognised and called for in the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy9
. There is limited
evidence available to conclude on the overall net effect.
7
https://www.fitreach.eu/sites/default/files/editor/publications%20ENG/FFR_Finl%20report_cover%20version
%202%20full.pdf
8
Eurobarometer survey: SMEs are important for a smooth transition to a greener economy
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_12_218
9
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0082&from=EN
43
6.4.2. Environmental impacts
Efficient use of resources: PO3-a-performance levels, PO3-b-EMS and PO3-c-symbiosis
plans would likely result in an improved and more efficient use of energy, water and
materials by industry. This could in particular contribute to combating increasing water
scarcity. Efficiency measures encouraged by the proposed policy options, especially PO3-a-
performance levels and PO3-b-EMS, would aim to decrease consumption of resources per
unit of production, both in-house and upstream or downstream in the production chain. It
would also ensure that chemicals risk management is appropriately addressed in the
operator’s EMS10
resulting in use of safer substances, the use of which is not prohibited under
REACH, and reduced toxic emissions. The use of materials can be (i) minimised, by
producing less waste per unit of production output; (ii) eliminated, referring particularly to
the use of toxic and hazardous substances, which should thus reduce the hazardousness and
increase the recyclability of the installation’s production residues; (iii) substituted, e.g. by
recycled, waste-based, or less resource intensive materials; or (iv) better managed, by
implementing measures that reduce material losses over the production process. These
strategies will particularly affect industrial installations of the most material-intensive
production chains. The scale of these impacts would depend upon the extent to which:
 Binding BAT-AEPLs or benchmark are taken forward by IED operators, although
evidence suggests that the introduction of the sub-option to introduce the possibility of
both binding BAT-AEPLs and benchmark levels (IED#24) could be more effective in
encouraging a more efficient use of resources when compared to the baseline.
 Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Plans, and Chemical Management Systems
(PO3-b) set by operators are ambitious, effectively implemented by operators, and
monitored and enforced by competent authorities.
Waste production, generation and recycling: Energy, water and materials efficiency
improvements (PO3-a-performance levels and PO3-b-EMS) will indirectly have significant
positive effects, by reducing waste production and generation and/or increasing material re-
use and recycling. National plans (PO3-c-symbiosis plans) may increase the uptake and
implementation of industrial symbiosis, avoiding waste generation when compared to the
baseline. There is, however, very limited evidence regarding the potential uptake of industrial
symbiosis based on national plans; industrial symbiosis is rather dependent on local
conditions, such as proximity of symbiosis partners and by-products that instead of becoming
waste are used as a “circular” input to other processes.
Climate: Energy, water and materials efficiency measures and improvements should result in
reductions in industrial GHG emissions, and support adaptation to climate change. PO3-a-
performance levels will encourage or require BAT-AEPLs on energy use/efficiency, and/or
materials consumption, with consequent reductions in environmental footprints. PO3-b-EMS
would require Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Plans, decreasing consumption of
resources per unit of production, including fossil energy carriers, and consequent indirect
10
The Fit for REACH project financed under Life concluded that ‘Chemicals risk management is not sufficiently
considered in the environmental management systems (EMAS, ISO 14000, corporate sustainability reporting,
etc.)
https://www.fitreach.eu/sites/default/files/editor/publications%20ENG/FFR_Finl%20report_cover%20version%
202%20full.pdf
44
GHG emissions. Adopting measures oriented towards resource efficiency will likely have
knock-on, positive impacts on GHG emissions, particularly on installations within the most
energy-intensive production chains. PO3-c-symbiosis plans may also lead to direct and
indirect reductions of emissions of GHGs, although with greater uncertainty, depending on
national plans and local conditions.
6.4.3. Social impacts
The PO3 group of policy options are unlikely to have any significant impacts on employment
in the EU. The reduction and/or recovery of waste and the use of safer chemicals could have
positive social and public health impacts across the EU. These impacts have not been
quantified due to limited availability of evidence.
6.5. Decarbonisation: Analysis of Policy Option 4 (PO4)
See Section 5.2.5 for short description of the measures; Annex 7 provides more detail.
6.5.1. Economic impacts
Administrative burden on businesses and public authorities: The four sub-options under
PO4 would lead to increased administrative activity by IED operators and public authorities
overall, when compared to the baseline, although this would be very limited for the
alternative of PO4-b-IED/ETS interface review (IED#28). PO4-a-energy efficiency, as
well as the more ambitious alternatives within PO4-b-IED/ETS interface sub-options to
introduce a sunset date for Article 9(1) IED (IED#29) and immediately delete Article 9(1)
(IED#30), will require adjustments to the BREF and permitting processes, which are likely to
increase the frequency and duration of administrative activities for businesses and public
authorities. The sub-option of a future review of Article 9(1) PO4-b-IED/ETS interface
(IED#28) would have a very limited administrative burden primarily on public authorities,
although operators may be consulted. The IED elements would entail an administrative
burden of €100 million per year for operators and €72 million per year for public authorities,
over the next 20 years. The E-PRTR elements would have an administrative burden of around
€0.004 million per year for operators and about €0.006 million per year for public authorities.
Innovation and research: PO4-a-energy efficiency and alternatives within PO4-b-
IED/ETS interface (IED#29, IED#30) will likely encourage more investment in developing
and testing innovative techniques and technologies, to help operators comply in a cost-
efficient manner with potentially more stringent energy efficiency and GHG requirements.
Operating costs, and the conduct of businesses: PO4-a-energy efficiency and alternatives
within PO4-b-IED/ETS interface that delete Article 9(1) later (IED#29) or immediately
(IED#30) will also lead to an increase in CAPEX and OPEX for IED operators, who would
be required to increase decarbonisation and energy efficiency efforts. This, however, could
lead to more carbon allowances becoming available for trading in the ETS, which could
impact the carbon price and affect incentives for emissions reductions in other ETS sectors.
The scale of impact will depend on whether measures are taken to address potential impacts
on the carbon price, e.g. through the Market Stability Reserve, the timing of measures,
derogations allowed, speed of technological advancement, technology cost curves, and
energy efficiency gains achieved. Subsequent to the initial investment, operators’ life cycle
costs would diminish. Given the evidence available and significant uncertainties, it has not
been possible to quantify these impacts. The alternative requiring a review (IED#28) would
not have impacts until action has been implemented subsequently to the review
45
6.5.2. Environmental Impacts
PO4-a-energy efficiency would likely have positive environmental impacts, by requiring
that industrial operators improve their energy efficiency. The scale of this impact will likely
vary by sector, with those operating bespoke energy systems, such as iron and steel
installations, likely to see less savings than those sectors using a more standard energy
boiler/generator system, although the evidence is limited. This option should also have
positive knock-on effects on air quality and other environmental categories via reduced fuel
use and combustion.
PO4-b-IED/ETS interface could have a wide range of impacts, depending on the selected
alternative: review clause (IED#28), sunset date for deletion (IED#29) or immediate deletion
of Article 9(1) (IED#30). Immediate deletion would likely result in GHG emission reductions
at the specific installations, depending on the stringency of GHG emission limits derived
under IED. This may also have other positive environmental impacts, such as on air quality
and resource use, as decarbonisation techniques may have also positive impacts on overall
depollution, and hence environmental protection. Introducing a review (IED#28) or sunset
(IED#29) clause into Article 9(1) may delay potential positive impacts.
Reporting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) as individual pollutants
(PO4-c-disaggregated reporting) would provide a better understanding of GHG
contributions, since HFCs and PFCs are currently reported as total masses, even though
component species have different global warming potentials. The costs of doing so should be
limited, since the required data should be already available to operators. Reporting individual
HFCs and PFCs via their mass of CO2 equivalent (PO4-d- CO2 eq. reporting) would also
give a better understanding of GHG contributions compared to the current aggregated data.
This measure is likely to have limited economic impact as it involves a relatively simple
additional step before reporting data to the E-PRTR.
6.5.3. Social impacts
PO4-a-energy efficiency and PO4-b-IED/ETS interface are unlikely to have any significant
impacts on employment in the EU. Moreover, environmental impacts, especially the
reduction on emissions to air, are likely to have positive impacts on public health in the EU,
by reducing the risk of disease, especially respiratory disease, and leading to reductions in
health and social care costs across the EU. Any reductions in GHG emissions would
contribute to climate change mitigation.
6.6. Sectoral scope: Analysis of Policy Option 5 (PO5)
A short description of the measures is provided in Section 5.2.5 whilst Annex 7 provides
more detail. Annex 10 includes a table summarising the key information underpinning the
assessment of Policy Option 5.
6.6.1. Economic impacts
Administrative burden on businesses: All nine sub-options entailed by PO5 would lead to
additional administrative activity by operators, when compared to the baseline. IED permit
review and compliance with permit conditions (i.e. implementation of BAT) occur within
four years of publication BAT conclusions. PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting would
affect the highest number of installations which could amount to an additional 84 000-330
000 cattle farms and 77 000-187 000 extra pig and poultry farms; resulting in IED covering
46
the largest and most polluting cattle, pigs and poultry farms existing in the EU representing
10-40% of all non-subsistence farms. These additional operators would then need to apply for
permits, and implement BAT as defined in BAT conclusions, as well as address permit
(re)considerations and reporting under E-PRTR. Implementation by Member States of the
tailored permitting included in this sub-option results in lower administrative costs. The full
IED permitting process would amount to €2182-595 million per year (depending on the
specific threshold within the range of 50-150 LSU). The tailored approach reduces this by
€63-232 million for farms newly brought under the IED scope; there would be additional
reductions should Member States opt for also applying the tailored permit to the farms
already covered by IED. The new CAP promotes more sustainable, including less polluting,
farming. Hence, until the new IED introduces binding EU standards, Member States may
include, in their CAP strategic plans, measures to support emissions reductions also at
relevant farms. Once they will become binding EU standards, compliance with them will
however be seen as compliance cost, in principle no longer eligible for EU co-funding. Given
the number of potential installations per sector and despite significant uncertainties, PO5-b-
expand existing IED activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture and
PO5-f-oil and gas could yield a total administrative burden on businesses of around
€43million per year, primarily from engaging with the relevant permitting processes
following the publication of BAT conclusions (assuming publication of two BAT conclusions
and thus two permit reviews within 20 years), as well as related monitoring and reporting
requirements, and inspections. The E-PRTR elements of PO5 (g-align to IED and h-align to
other law) are expected not to exceed €37 million per year for businesses.
Administrative burden on public authorities: All PO5 sub-options would lead to
additional administrative activity by public authorities, when compared to the baseline. These
costs would be driven primarily by the BREF and permitting processes, although other
related activities such as enforcement and inspections would also be relevant. PO5-a-cattle
and tailored permitting would have the relatively highest burden on public authorities,
reaching €182-595 million per year (range of 50-150 LSU) for full IED permitting of farms
over a period of 20 years, including the cost of engaging with the BREF and permitting
processes for hundreds of thousands of farms, and related compliance and enforcement
activities. A tailored regulatory process may require significantly less input from public
authorities, reducing this burden significantly by €63-232 million per year (range of 50-150
LSU). PO5-b-expand existing IED activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-
aquaculture and PO5-f-oil and gas could yield an administrative burden on public
authorities of €30 million per year over a 20-year period, primarily from the relevant BREF
and permitting processes, as well as carrying out inspections. PO5-h, depending on the
measure will cost €5.5 million (E-PRTR#29) or €3.5 million (E-PRTR#30) for operators and
€0.3 or €0.2 million for the authorities. The E-PRTR elements of PO5 would have an
administrative burden in the range of €2.8 to €3 million per year for public authorities.
Industrial installations newly brought into the scope will differ in size and activity
significantly, also covering a wide range of industrial sectors, which will impact their
administrative costs. These will be significantly lower for the tailored permitting system
applied to farms than to other industrial installations newly brought into the scope.
Furthermore, administrative cost were estimated in Annex 8 taking a fictitious baseline of
zero IED-like controls being currently applied by Member States. As at least part of such
47
controls will in fact already be applied at national level on part of all of these installations, the
estimated administrative costs are over-estimated.
Operating costs and the conduct of businesses: All options would lead to substantial
compliance costs, both one-off and recurring, for operators, when compared to the baseline.
PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting would likely have significant compliance costs on
businesses. Ricardo (2021) identified two key environmental issues for the sector of rearing
of animals, that is, the reduction of emissions to air of ammonia and methane. The total EU-
27 compliance costs are estimated to be around €265-812 million per year for applying
abatement techniques tackling ammonia and methane emissions. Overall compliance costs
are likely to be higher in practice after all BAT are defined and implemented, not just on
techniques tackling ammonia and methane emissions. PO5-b-expand existing IED
activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture and PO5-f-oil and gas
would also yield substantial compliance costs. Although fewer installations would be affected
by these, PO5-b through to PO5-f sub-options, these installations could have more complex
and costly BAT requirements. The scale of impact on operating costs and the conduct of
businesses across the sectors covered by these sub-options is highly dependent upon the
stringency of the adopted BAT requirements.
While the IED typically covers large, complex and capital intensive activities, PO5-a may
affect SMEs as the livestock farms tend to be more often smaller installations. A clear
breakdown of farms by employment level and turnover is not available to determine the
SMEs population within the sector. There is extremely limited information available on
whether farms meet the SME defining criteria. It is however likely that the scope increase
will capture a number of the bigger SMEs of the sector (much bigger than subsistence farms).
Therefore, PO1-a implements the tailored permit11
to mitigate any impacts on the SMEs,
with less complex regulatory means and focussing on a smaller number of key issues.
Furthermore, as livestock installations are not complex, typical compliance costs are
significantly lower than for other IED activities.
Innovation and research: PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting, PO5-b-expand existing
IED activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture, and PO5-f-oil and
gas are likely to encourage some innovation and research. The IED evaluation concluded that
the IED, BREFs and BAT conclusions had stimulated innovation, albeit that more could be
done. Hence, inclusion of these sectors may have a similar limited positive impacts on
innovation and research. However, any sub-options addressing problem area 2 on innovation
retained in the preferred policy package would contribute to amplifying this promotion of
innovation.
Competitiveness: PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting, PO5-b-expand existing IED
activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture, and PO5-f-oil and gas will
lead to an increase in the cost of the doing business in the EU and, as a result, these policy
options may negatively affect competitiveness. Nevertheless, little information is available on
the potential impact on competitiveness in the international meat or dairy products markets.
11
The tailored permit will build on national permitting systems, including only basic requirements and will not
entail the revision of each individual permit. It will not include components of IED permits that have a
significant administrative burden for operators, e.g. the baseline report, the EMS nor the transformation plan.
48
Whilst production costs of newly covered farms are expected to increase to meet the
requirements, available estimations suggest that compliance and administrative costs are very
small compared to turnover12
, representing indicatively about €2300 for an average farm. It is
therefore clear that there are significantly stronger factors affect the competitive position of
the EU producers, such as disease outbreaks, costs of feed, changing consumption habits (e.g.
growing sales of meat substitutes) or growing meat/diary production capacities in other parts
of the world. The 2014 study13
which looked into farmers’ costs of compliance with the EU
legislation concludes that any effect on competitiveness under PO1-a is likely to be
overshadowed by more significant forces than environmental legislation such as movements
in exchange rates, shifts in consumer demand, differences in labour costs, health and safety
standards or trade policies. Moreover, the IED evaluation concluded that there was no
evidence that the IED so far materially impacted the EU’s competitiveness in the global
context. This should hold in particular also for the expanded scope under PO1-a to f, and any
potential negative impact on business competitiveness is, therefore, likely to be limited.
Level playing field: PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting, PO5-b-expand existing IED
activities, PO5-c-landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture, and PO5-f-oil and gas will
improve the level playing field EU-wide, especially in the case of PO5-a and PO5-d;
experience shows that that bigger pig or poultry farms were being artificially split into
smaller farms, to escape the IED regime. In addition, available evidence suggests that cattle
farming has been regulated differently across the EU; as such, the introduction of cattle
farming under the scope of the IED should address these differences and level the EU
regulatory playing field.
6.6.2. Environmental Impacts
PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting. In the EU, overall, the rearing of cattle, pigs and
poultry emits each year 2138kt of ammonia to air. The IED already covers a number of pigs
and poultry farms representing 18% of those emissions. The scope extension raises that
coverage to 60-88%, as the farms newly covered by the IED emit between 950-1 548kt
ammonia per year, depending on the specific LSU threshold (50-150 LSU). Conservative
estimations, based on a limited set of techniques very likely to be included in BAT
requirements, suggest reducing ammonia emissions by the newly regulated farms by at least
115-185kt each year, i.e. a reduction by at least 12% of their emissions14
. These 115-185kt of
ammonia emissions would represent an annual saving of 3-5% of total EU-27 ammonia
emissions.
In the EU, overall, the rearing of cattle, pigs and poultry emits each year 6100kt of methane,
which represents the overwhelming majority of GHG emitted by those activities15
. The IED
already covers a number of pigs and poultry farms representing 3% of those emissions. The
scope extension raises that coverage to 42-77%, as the farms newly covered by the IED emit
12
This is also confirmed by the study referred to in a next footnote (environmental compliance costs are
marginal in total costs of production of diary and meat production).
13
CRPA Assessing farmers' costs of compliance with EU legislation in the fields of the environment, animal
welfare and food safety; final report. Environmental legislation included among other things the IED
predecessor, the IPPC Directive (2008/1/EC).
14
Weighted average for all three types of livestock; it is 12% for cattle, 7% for pigs and 20% for poultry.
15
Methane represents 84% of all GHG emissions from the rearing of cattle, pigs and poultry.
49
2 500-4 740kt methane per year. Conservative estimations, based on a limited set of
techniques very likely to be included in BAT requirements, suggest reducing methane
emissions by the newly regulated farms by at least 260-460kt each year, i.e. a reduction by at
least 10% of their emissions16
. These 260-460kt of methane emissions would represent an
annual saving of around 1.6-2.8% of all EU-27 agricultural sector GHG emissions. This has
particular relevance for the 2030 and 2050 EU climate objectives, as methane is a GHG
having a higher global warming potential (GWP)17
in the 20-year timescale (84) than in the
100-year timescale (28 – used in the above calculations).
Using EEA damage costs, the reductions of ammonia and methane are valued at between €5
450 and €9 240 million per year. Around half these reductions estimated to accrue in France,
Germany and Spain.
This sub-option is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on water and soil quality
and resources; however, available evidence is limited, and the scale of impacts is uncertain.
Water pollution from these activities is mainly related to manure land runoff and/or seepage
of pollutants to surface water or groundwater (organic matter, nutrients, pesticides).
PO5-b-expand existing IED activities. The activities regulated under this sub-option may
contribute to improving air quality, albeit this is expected to be significantly lower than PO5-
a. This sub-option is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on water and soil
quality and resources. Some activities under this sub-option consume large quantities of
water (e.g. cold rolling of steel), and others such as textile finishing in particular, can lead to
polluted water being discharged. Battery gigafactories that will be constructed will comprise
energy-intensive processes and entail a number of complex manufacturing procedures using
hazardous substances, potentially leading to impacts to air, water (use and quality) and waste
generation. In addition to these impacts, it is expected that the BAT conclusions for these
activities could be effective in addressing the use of resources, chemicals and in accident
prevention (e.g. through an EMS). This sub-option may also contribute to reducing GHG
emissions, albeit significantly less than PO5-a. Evidence on the potential reduction of GHG
emissions of activities has been somewhat limited and, therefore, it has not been possible to
further quantify these impacts.
PO5-c-landfills. Landfill installations contribute to 1.3% of total NMVOC from all IED
industry sectors, 1.9% of ammonia totals, and 1.4% of SOX totals, part of which can be
abated as a result of the BREF and permitting processes. This sub-option is likely to have
limited to weakly positive impacts on water and soil quality and resources. In particular this
sub-option could further improve the prevention or reduction of water pollution from leachate
ending up in groundwater and/or surface water. However, available evidence is limited, and
the scale of impacts is uncertain. This sub-option may also contribute to reducing GHG
16
Weighted average for cattle and pigs; it is 8% for cattle and 37% for pigs. This is a conservative assessment
as significantly higher methane emission reduction potential is reported in some publications. Detailed
assessment of specific feeding techniques is required to validate such potential. This would take place as part
of the preparation of the BAT requirements for these activities.
17
GWP indicates the effectiveness of a substance to absorb thermal infrared radiation relative to CO2. On a
100-year timescale, methane has 28 times greater GWP than CO2 and is 84 times more potent on a 20-year
timescale. F-gases, other powerful GHGs, have a GWP that can be thousands of times higher than that of CO2
50
emissions, albeit significantly less than PO5-a. Evidence on the potential reduction of GHG
emissions of activities has been somewhat limited and therefore, could not be quantified.
PO5-d-mining. Minerals extraction activities may lead to substantial emissions of PM10,
equivalent to around 4.4% of total industrial emissions covered by the IED (E-PRTR data).
Therefore, this sub-option is likely to have a positive impact on air quality, though further
work is needed to ascertain the extent to which dust suppression techniques are already
deployed in the non-energy minerals extractive industry and associated potentials for further
reductions. PO5-d will likely lead to weakly positive or positive impacts on water pollution,
depending on the subsector, as different extracted materials can lead to different impacts on
the water quality and the quantity used. Land is also affected by extractive activities, with
land use change practices potentially contributing to a loss of soil functions and of
biodiversity. This sub-option may also contribute to reducing GHG emissions, albeit
significantly less than PO5-a. Evidence on the potential reduction of GHG has been limited
and, therefore, could not be quantified.
PO5-e-aquaculture is unlikely to have any significant impact on air quality. PO5-e is likely
to have weakly positive impact on water quality and resources. The main environmental issue
caused by aquaculture which falls within the scope of the IED is nutrient loading, caused by
excessive release of nitrogen and phosphorus into the natural environment. Nutrient releases
could lead to changes in water chemistry, leading to eutrophication within water bodies.
Including aquaculture under the scope of the IED could be equivalent to regulating an
additional 3% of total industry releases of nitrogen and approximately 5% of total industry
releases of phosphorus for the industry sectors reporting under the E-PRTR (data from 2018).
Aquaculture however also contributes to other environmental issues that are not typically
regulated by the IED, including pharmaceuticals contributing to antibiotic resistance,
damaging wild fish populations by reducing genetic diversity, introduction of invasive
species, and, finally, diseases with potential impacts on biodiversity. This sub-option is
unlikely to have significant climate impacts.
PO5-f-upstream oil and gas installations contribute to methane emissions, with fugitive
emissions from these installations accounting for 54% of the emissions in the energy sector.
Upstream oil and gas installations appear to contribute around 0.75% of NOx emissions and
1.75% of NMVOC covered by the IED. This sub-option is likely to have limited to weakly
positive impacts on water and soil quality and resources; however, available evidence is
limited, and the scale of impacts is uncertain.
Sub-options PO5-g (align E-PRTR to IED) and PO5-h (align E-PRTR to other law)
ensure that the coherence between the E-PRTR Regulation and the IED, as well as other
instruments, is enhanced. These sub-options can have an indirect impact on the environment
through for example enabling a better comparison of performance of activities across the EU
as well as a greater engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making.
PO5-i-watch mechanism. By monitoring emerging concerns related to emissions from agro-
industrial installations and including relevant activities within the scope of the IED and/or the
E-PRTR, this sub-option has the potential to enable an increased scope coverage over time
and hence further emission reductions.
51
6.6.3. Social impacts
PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting, PO5-b-expand existing IED activities, PO5-c-
landfills, PO5-d-mining, PO5-e-aquaculture, PO5-f-oil and gas and PO5-i are likely to
have mixed effects on employment in the EU. Net impacts on employment are unclear. When
costs towards business cannot be passed on through changes in prices of products sold, they
may impact profitability and, therefore, employment. However, the costs incurred by farms
newly brought into the scope of the IED are very limited, estimated at €2300 for an average
farm, which would be unlikely to affect consumer prices.
Importantly, environmental impacts, especially the reduction on emissions to air, are likely to
have positive impacts on public health in the EU, by reducing the risk of disease, especially
respiratory and cardiovascular, and leading to reductions in health and social care costs across
the EU. Significant benefits have been monetised for PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting,
as a result of air quality improvements from implementing a tailored permitting system for
livestock farms.
7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE?
This section compares the options per problem area. It seeks to highlight the key aspects of
the impact assessment relevant for supporting decision-making on the choice of options and
sub-options to include in the preferred package. In particular, it identifies which sub-options
have a favourable cost-benefit profile. Furthermore, where sub-options include alternatives,
their impacts are compared. The sub-options retained for inclusion in the preferred policy
package are presented at the end of the section concerning each problem area.
7.1. Effectiveness
7.1.1. Comparison of sub-options
PO1 comprises four sub-options that can all be combined. PO1-a and PO1-c each include
two alternatives. Table 3 compares the impacts of these sub-options.
Table 3: Summary of impacts for PO1-a to PO1-d
Policy option Main impacts Admin.
costs
€million/y
Key aspects
Econ. Env. Social
PO1-a achieving
BAT-AELs
Alternative clarify
flexibilities
  O
Business
1.4
Public
authorities
0.89
Clarifies the limits of flexibilities to ensure
more consistent implementation by
Member States and contributes to levelling
the playing field at a high level of
protection.
PO1-a achieving
BAT-AELs
Alternative full
BAT potential
  O
Business
9.4
Public
authorities
7.89
Clarifies the limits of flexibilities to ensure
more consistent implementation by
Member States.
Implements better the polluter pays
principle, in line with the
recommendations of the European Court
of Auditors
Contributes to levelling the playing field at
a high level of protection.
PO1-b
implementation
and enforcement
  
Business
4.6
Public
Promotes better implementation and
enforcement, also through better
functioning, penalty and damage redress
systems.
52
Policy option Main impacts Admin.
costs
€million/y
Key aspects
Econ. Env. Social
administration
5.65
PO1-c rights of
the public
Alternative public
rights
  O
Business
0.5
Public
administration
2.9
Ensures compliance with, and better
implementation of, the EU’s international
obligations under the Aarhus Convention
and Kyiv Protocol.
PO1-c rights of
the public
Alternative
enhanced public
rights
  O
Business
0.56
Public
administration
2.9
Ensures compliance with, and better
implementation of, the EU’s international
obligations under the Aarhus Convention
and Kyiv Protocol.
Ensures better coherence between the
closely-related IED and E-PRTR
Regulation, and related data.
PO1-d
simplification  O/ O
Business
-11.8
Public
administration
-0.670
Clarifies provisions that stakeholders have
flagged as problematic.
Reduces administrative burden, in
particular of farms.
Overall, benefits are likely to outweigh costs for all sub-options, in particular:
PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs-full BAT potential is the most significant sub-option as it
contains measure IED#5 (requiring setting stricter ELVs within the BAT-AEL range). It is
expected to generate significant health benefits. Whilst these could not be reliably quantified,
as a partial illustration, potential reductions of NOX emissions from the implementation of
IED#5 across five sectors were monetised to range from €860 million and €2 800 million per
year while the corresponding CAPEX was estimated at €210 million per year.
PO1-b implementation and enforcement will promote more consistent and proportionate
Member States approaches and thereby promote a more level playing field and reduce any
territorial divergence of environmental performance of industry across Member States.
PO1-c rights of the public will significantly empower the public through eased access to
information and access to justice, and enhanced participation in permitting processes. The
harmonised digital permit summary will solve serious problems in accessing information on
permit provisions, such as emission limit values, which will also facilitate monitoring of
compliance at all levels of government.
PO1-d simplification introduces simplifications identified as needed by Member States and
stakeholders. A codification after adoption of the revised act will allow eliminating
provisions that have become obsolete.
53
7.1.2. Retained sub-options
Table 4 lists the sub-options addressing the effectiveness of the legislation retained in the
preferred policy package. It also summarises the broad rationale for selecting or discarding
sub-options. Retained sub-options/alternatives appear in bold.
Table 4: Sub-options included in and discarded from the preferred policy package
2- Supporting innovation
PO1-a achieving
BAT-AELs
Sub-option clarify
flexibilities (discarded)
Alternative full BAT
potential
Clarifies the limits of flexibilities to ensure more consistent implementation by
Member States.
Sub-option full BAT potential implements better the polluter pays principle than sub-
option clarify flexibilities, resulting in significantly higher environmental and health
benefits, in line with the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors.
Contributes to levelling the playing field at a high level of protection.
PO1-b
implementation and
enforcement
Promotes better implementation and enforcement, also through better functioning,
penalty and damage redress systems.
PO1-c-supporting
transformation
Alternative public
rights (discarded)
Alternative enhanced
public rights
Ensures compliance with, and better implementation of, the EU’s international
obligations under the Aarhus Convention and Kyiv Protocol.
Ensures better coherence between the closely-related IED and E-PRTR Regulation
than sub-option public rights.
PO1-d simplification Clarifies provisions that stakeholders have flagged as problematic.
Reduces administrative burden, in particular for farms.
7.2. Innovation
7.2.1. Comparison of sub-options
PO2 comprises three options that can all be combined. PO2-b and PO2-c include two
alternatives. Table 5 compares the impacts of the sub-options.
Table 5: Summary of impacts for PO2-a, PO2-b, and PO2-c
Policy option Main impacts Admin.
costs
€million/y
Other key aspects
Econ. Env. Social
PO2-a-
frontrunners
More time to
develop and deploy
emerging
techniques
  O/ U
Business
1
Public
authorities
0.5
Supports front-runners.
Accelerates innovation by creating better
conditions for deploying emerging
techniques.
Avoids investments in traditionally
determined BAT when Emerging Techniques
are expected to be available in short to mid-
term.
PO2-b stimulate
innovation
Alternative 1:
shorter BREF
cycles
(shorter BREF
cycles)
  O/ U
Business
3
Public
authorities
5
Short BREF cycles would require substantial
increase of resources dedicated to BREF
reviews by Member States, stakeholders and
the Commission.
Frequent updates would create too short or
even overlapping investment cycles,
negatively affecting economic costs and
efficiency of policy as emphasised by
Member States and industrial stakeholders.
PO2-b-accelerate
innovation
Alternative 2:
  O/
Business
3
Enables continuous monitoring of IED-
relevant innovative techniques at EU and
international level.
54
Policy option Main impacts Admin.
costs
€million/y
Other key aspects
Econ. Env. Social
INnovation Centre
for Industrial
Transformation &
Emissions
(INCITE)
Public
authorities
4
Informs the European Commission on the
best timing/prioritisation of BREFs reviews
to harness innovation and accelerate
transition to clean and decarbonised
production.
PO2-c-
transformation
Alternative 1: more
time to implement
deep
transformation
BAT (plans)
  O/
Business
0.6
Public
authorities
0.3
The moment of technological readiness for
deep transformation is unknown and will
vary across sectors and installations and
requires case by case planning.
Concerns only the sectors where a significant
process change has been qualified as BAT.
PO2-c-
transformation
Alternative 2:
Permit review &
Transformation
Plans (review)
  O/
Business
50
Public
authorities
50
Makes the perspective of transformation
(depollution and decarbonisation, in line with
2050 targets) concrete for all operators and
competent authorities via an organised case-
by-case approach.
Promotes predictability for all operators and
competent authorities regarding upcoming
required transformations.
PO2-c-
transformation
Alternative 3:
integrating
Transformation
Plans in EMS
  O/
Business
20
Public
authorities
0
Similar to the Alternative 2 but achieved at
lower costs.
Overall, benefits are likely to outweigh costs. In particular:
 PO2-a-frontrunners: The overall scale of benefits is likely to be relatively small, albeit
nevertheless beneficial and having particularly importance for the frontrunners concerned,
to encourage the testing and uptake of emerging technologies, especially when coupled
with other existing R&I incentives and available funding.
 PO2-b-stimulate innovation: The benefits of the alternative measures, shorter BREF
cycles (Alt 1 - IED#21) or establishing INCITE (Alt.2 – IED#22), are likely to outweigh
costs. However, INCITE is expected to result in a more effective and efficient
intervention, especially as it would be designed to monitor sectors and update BAT
Conclusions and/or trigger BREF reviews, rather than following a shorter yet periodic
cycle that substitutes or complements the existing BREF process. The magnitude of costs
and benefits associated with INCITE is uncertain and depends on the output of INCITE’s
work, as well as its future-oriented ability to efficiently encourage and/or trigger stricter
environmental requirements in as many installations as possible.
55
 PO2-c-supporting transformation: Similarly, the benefits of the alternatives, allowing
more time to implement BAT conclusions where deep transformation is required
(IED#21) or Transformation Plans (IED#22), are likely to outweigh costs. The IED#22 is
likely to gain more traction with IED operators, as it should improve the collective
understanding of all IED industry sectors’ transformation needs and overall preparedness
for industry to accelerate implementation and increase transparency and provide
confidence that specific actions will be taken forward by industry. Within the IED#22, the
alternative to integrate Transformation Plans in EMS allows for achieving those
objectives at lower costs than the permit review alternative.
7.2.2. Retained sub-options
Table 6 lists the sub-options supporting innovation retained in the preferred policy package. It
also summarises the broad rationale for selecting or discarding sub-options. Retained sub-
options/alternatives appear in bold.
Table 6: Sub-options included in and discarded from the preferred policy package
2- Supporting innovation
PO2-a-frontrunners Lifts obstacles for testing and deploying more environmentally effective emerging
techniques.
PO2-b-accelerate
innovation
Alternative shorter
BREF cycles
(discarded)
Alternative INCITE
Creates a permanent mechanism, the INnovation Centre for Industrial Transformation
& Emissions (INCITE), to monitor innovation and trigger the review of BREFs when
emerging techniques reach a high level of maturity. By contrast, shorter BREF cycles
would be costly and cumbersome to implement and would not be sufficiently flexible
to adapt to the dynamics of innovation.
PO2-c-supporting
transformation
Alternative time
(discarded)
Alternative
plans/review
(discarded)
Alternative plans/EMS
The vast majority of IED operators will need to fundamentally transform their
installations in response to the challenge of global warming. Transformation plans
develop by 2030 meet this need and allow better predictability for operators and
competent authorities. On the other hand, introducing more time for transformation
required by BAT conclusions would only concern a limited number of operators
acting upon their publication. Under two alternatives for developing Transformation
Plans, the less costly was chosen.
7.3. Efficient use of resources and use of less toxic chemicals
7.3.1. Comparison of sub-options
PO3 comprises seven sub-options that can all be combined. PO3-a includes two alternatives.
Table 7 compares the impacts of the sub-options.
Table 7: Summary of impacts for PO3-a to PO3-g
Policy Option Main impacts Admin.
Costs
€million/y
Other key aspects
Econ. Env. Social
PO3-a
Alternative 1: Only
binding
performance levels
(binding)
  O/U
Business
7
Public
authorities
6
Setting at EU level meaningful binding BAT
associated environmental performance levels
(BAT-AEPLs) is only possible for activities
that are highly homogenous across the EU.
Industrial stakeholders emphasised that this
could be economically inefficient.
PO3-a
Alternative 2:
Binding
  O/ U
Business
16
Enables BREF TWGs to address both
activities that are homogeneous across the
EU (binding levels) and activities that vary
56
Policy Option Main impacts Admin.
Costs
€million/y
Other key aspects
Econ. Env. Social
performance levels
and benchmarks
(binding and
benchmarks)
Public
authorities
12
depending on local conditions or installation
specificities (benchmarks).
Although the benchmarks are not binding,
operators will have the obligation to monitor,
analyse and report the concerned parameters.
PO3-b
Environmental
management system
(EMS)
  O/U
Business
46
Public
authorities
23
Provides a transparent instrument to secure
implementation of parts of BAT conclusions
that Member States struggle to incorporate in
permit conditions.
Builds on the already required EMS under
IED, thereby limiting the additional
administrative burden suggested by industrial
stakeholders.
Supports the proposed Energy Efficiency
Directive by ensuring that relevant audits and
plans required by the EED and integrated
into the EMS are controlled by the IED
competent authorities, and actions monitored.
Supports chemicals policy in promoting use
of less toxic substances.
Flexibility of EMS allows adaptation of
requirements to the needs of individual
installations.
PO3-c
National industrial
symbiosis plans
U/ U/ O/U
0 Industrial symbiosis requires action at the
local level where supporting partnerships
between businesses can take place. This
limits the potential effectiveness of national
plans.
However, action under the baseline to
include in BREFs information on industrial
symbiosis opportunities may support such
local action
PO3-d
Dynamically
updating the list of
pollutants to be
reported
  O
Business
3.9
Public
authorities
0.3
Ensures continuous relevance of the E-
PRTR, which can then be responsive to
information needs regarding emerging
(water) priority substances and other
pollutants of concern.
PO3-e
Reporting of
resource use
  O
Business
35
Public
authorities
0.03
Provides a more holistic picture of the
environmental impacts of industrial activities
and information supporting circular economy
aspirations.
PO3-f
Reporting waste
transfers in more
detail
  O
Business
0.6
Public
authorities
0.03
The most important transboundary waste
transfers are tracked under other EU law
(waste shipment regulation). Tracking all
intra-EU waste transfers between all
operators would be even more complex.
PO3-g
Reporting on
releases from
products
  O
Not
assessed
Other EU initiatives may be more effective
and efficient in making information on
products available to the public, in particular
product passports that are being considered
under the Sustainable Products Initiative.
57
Overall, benefits are likely to outweigh costs for PO3-a and PO3-b, PO3-d and PO3-e.
Doubts remain about the following measures: the introduction of national symbiosis plan
requirements via the IED (PO3-c), more detailed reporting of waste transfers (PO3-f) and
reporting on products (PO3-g). In more detail:
 PO3-a-performance levels: The benefits of the alternative measures, clarifying explicitly
binding BAT-AEPLs (IED#23) or for explicitly binding BAT-AEPLs and setting
benchmark levels for inclusion in EMS (IED#24), are likely to outweigh costs. More
flexibility for the TWG is provided by the latter option (IED#24) that would likely result
in a more efficient and practical approach when compared to the “binding” option put
forward by measure (IED#23). The scale of the benefits, however, would depend on the
uptake of the binding BAT-AEPL and/or benchmark-setting options when compared to
the baseline.
 PO3-b-EMS: The benefits that may be accrued from introducing Resource and Energy
Efficiency Plans and Chemical Management Systems via the EMS could be significant,
especially in improving energy and resource efficiency, and reducing waste and industrial
sectors’ overall carbon footprint. These options would entail economic costs for operators
and public authorities, but these are expected to be comparatively much lower in
magnitude and they can be mitigated to some extent by promoting digital solutions, and
there will be reduced cost of resources thanks to reduced use of resources and energy. The
scale of these costs and benefits would depend upon the ambition and effective
implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the plans outlined as part of the EMS.
 PO3-c-symbiosis plans: The evidence remains uncertain regarding technical feasibility,
and whether benefits would outweigh the costs of requiring Member States to develop
and implement national symbiosis plans, especially via the IED. In particular, the
effectiveness of this measure is very uncertain. However, action under the baseline to
include in BREFs information on industrial symbiosis opportunities may support such
local action.
 PO3-d-pollutants list: Introducing a mechanism, most likely a delegated act, for
dynamically updating the E-PRTR pollutant list would have economic costs for operators,
as it will lead to a greater number of facilities having to monitor/assess/report data for air
and water emissions. This would partly be offset by synergies and avoided costs related to
monitoring efforts for surface water pollutants under EU water legislation and reduced
need for reporting the same data under various instruments, as well as promotion of
digital solutions. Significant benefits would also accrue via better aligning the E-PRTR
with up-to-date information needs, thus better supporting associated policies such as
REACH and EU water legislation.
 PO3-e-report resource use: Adding requirements, for operators to report their use of
energy, water and raw materials would have significant economic costs for operators
since the reporting obligation could apply to every E-PRTR facility. This extra cost is
particularly marked for the use of raw materials, since data gathering will depend on a
number of factors, such as the types of products and processes. The environmental
benefits are slightly positive, as it may enable benchmarking of the environmental
performance of different industrial activities. However, this may be compromised by data
sharing restrictions stemming from business confidentiality issues.
 PO3-f-tracking waste transfers: The more detailed reporting of waste transfers within
between installations in a Member State would have significant economic costs for
operators, since reporting obligation would apply to a large number of E-PRTR facilities.
58
Benefits: a better understanding of waste flows and improved corporate accountability on
waste management.
 PO3-g report on products: Gathering information on products in the E-PRTR would not
be technically feasible due to the diverse and complex nature of industrial products, and
would mean a significant divergence from the E-PRTR’s core role, which would likely be
better delivered by the Commission’s Sustainable Products Initiative and its concept of a
product passport.
7.3.2. Retained sub-options
Table 8 lists the sub-options contributing to a non-toxic and resource efficient circular
economy retained in the preferred policy package. It also summarises the broad rationale for
selecting or discarding sub-options. Retained sub-options/alternatives appear in bold.
Table 8: Sub-options included in and discarded from the preferred policy package
3- Contributing to a non-toxic and resource efficient circular economy
PO3-a-performance
levels
Alternative binding
(discarded)
Alternative binding
and benchmarks
It will be possible to set binding resource efficiency performance levels only in a few
cases where industrial processes are highly homogeny across the EU and the
performance is directly related to well-defined techniques. Non-binding benchmarks
will give valuable information to all relevant operators and competent authorities on
the potential for improving resource efficiency performance also in cases where the
processes are not so homogenous across the EU or the performance depends highly on
local circumstances and technical characteristics of the installations. Therefore, both
binding levels and non-binding benchmarks should be available in BREFs, as
appropriate. Benchmarks would be particularly efficient when combined with option
PO3-b-EMS.
PO3-b-EMS Strengthening the role of the already required EMS clarifies the legal status of BAT
conclusions. It provides a means of implementation for those conclusions that require
adaptation to the circumstances of individual installations, e.g. conclusions including
resource efficiency benchmarks and a list of measures to be considered by operators
to reach those benchmarks.
PO3-c-symbiosis plans
(discarded)
National plans are not the right level of intervention for promoting industrial
symbiosis, which rather requires local action tailored to the specificities of businesses
and markets.
However, action under the baseline to include in BREFs information on industrial
symbiosis opportunities may support such local action.
PO3-d-pollutants list Allows E-PRTR to better take into account substances of emerging concern. Thereby
enhances coherence within relevant environmental polices (air, water, soil,
chemicals).
PO3-e-report
resource use
Enables the benchmarking of different industrial activities.
PO3-f-tracking waste
transfers (discarded)
Reporting more detail on waste transfers between installations (both within and
between Member States) is unlikely to provide reliable data and would have high
administrative costs.
PO3-g-report on
products (discarded)
Gathering information on products in the E-PRTR would not be technically feasible.
The EU’s Sustainable Products Initiative will better address public information on
environmental characteristics of products.
59
7.4. Decarbonisation
7.4.1. Comparison of sub-options
PO4 comprises four sub-options that can all be combined. PO4-b includes three alternatives.
Table 9 compares the impacts of these sub-options.
Table 9: Summary of impacts for PO4-a to PO4-d
Policy option Main impacts Admin.
costs
€million/y
Key aspects
Econ. Env. Social
PO4-a
Inclusion of
mandatory binding
conditions on
energy efficiency
in the permits
  O/U
Business
29
Public
authorities
21
Levels the EU playing field by ending the
situation where installations were subject
to binding permit conditions on energy
efficiency in some Member States, but not
in others.
Supports the aim of the newly proposed
revisions to Energy Efficiency Directive
by ensuring that IED permitting authorities
are mobilised to monitor implementation,
and enforce obligations and actions.
PO4-b IED/ETS
interface
Alternative IED#28
IED and ETS
review (review)
O O O
0 Mirrors the FF55 ETS revision proposal
that includes a review of its interaction
with the IED in light of industry
decarbonisation evolution dynamics.
Sets the date at which both reviews are to
be undertaken, thus strengthening the legal
signal for innovation to increasingly tackle
both decarbonisation and depollution
challenges.
PO4-b IED/ETS
interface
Alternative
IED#29
Sunset date for Art.
9(1) (sunset)
U/ U/ 
Business
15
Public
administration
11
There is a limited understanding of how
innovation and industrial transformation
dynamics will affect coherence between
the ETS and the IED in the medium- to
long-term, also limiting the possibility to
assess impacts of this option.
PO4-b IED/ETS
interface
Alternative IED#30
Immediate deletion
of Art. 9(1) (delete)
U/ U/ 
Business
56
Public
administration
40
May negatively affect effectiveness and
efficiency of the ETS market mechanism.
It could lead to more carbon allowances
becoming available for trading, ultimately
reducing carbon market-based incentives
for emissions reductions across ETS
sectors.
PO4-c
Disaggregation of
reported GHG
emissions
  O
Close to 0.02
to both
Improves understanding and emission
control of the sources of various types of
GHGs and their fuller environmental
impacts, e.g., for types of refrigerants.
PO4-d
Reporting of GHG
as CO2 equivalent
 O O
Close to 0.02
to both
The same objective could be met by
including automated protocols in E-PRTR
software to convert reported amounts of
GHGs into CO2 equivalents.
Overall, benefits are likely to outweigh costs. In more detail:
 PO4-a-energy efficiency: The scale of benefits is likely to be relevant but small,
especially dependent on how energy efficiency and reductions in emissions of associated
GHG and other pollutants - incentivised via the IED - may interact with the EU ETS
framework. This would include potential air quality and other benefits, depending on the
60
measures taken by individual operators. The overall environmental benefits are expected
to outweigh the associated costs.
 PO4-b-IED/ETS interface: The alternative measures ‘sunset clause’ (IED#29) and
‘delete immediately’ (IED#30) are expected to reduce GHG emissions, but the extent of
these reductions is uncertain. It may interfere with the objective of the EU ETS to achieve
GHG emission reductions in the most cost-effective manner. The alternative ‘future
review’ (IED#28) secures consistency with the policy approach chosen by the European
Commission in the recently tabled Fit for 55 package, strengthens the signal in terms of
needed technological innovation tackling both decarbonisation and depollution, whilst
granting sufficient time to identify concrete opportunities for strengthening the synergies
between the IED and the ETS.
 PO4-c-disaggregated GHG: Knowledge benefits will accrue to all E-PRTR users from
this refinement and the costs are minimal since the data readily exist.
 PO4-d- CO2 equivalent: Few benefits from this measure as CO2 equivalent can be
calculated from the already provided raw data.
7.4.2. Comparison of sub-options
Table 10 lists the sub-options addressing decarbonisation of industry retained in the preferred
policy package. It also summarises the broad rationale for selecting or discarding sub-options.
Retained sub-options/alternatives appear in bold.
Table 10: Sub-options included in and discarded from the preferred policy package
4- Addressing decarbonisation of industry
PO4-a-energy
efficiency
Ends the situation where installations were subject to binding permit conditions on
energy efficiency in some Member States, but not in others. Supports the Energy
Efficiency Directive by ensuring that IED permitting authorities are mobilised to
monitor implementation and enforce obligations.
PO4-b-IED/ETS
interface
Alternative review
Alternative sunset
(discarded)
Alternative delete
(discarded)
The impacts of deleting or putting a sunset date on Art. 9(1) of the IED are unclear
and may negatively affect the EU ETS carbon market. The review is consistent with
the FF55 ETS revisions proposal and will allow revisiting, at a set date still within this
decade, the coherence and potential for enhanced synergies between the IED and the
ETS, in light of the dynamics of innovation.
PO4-c-disaggregated
reporting
Provides better and low cost information on pollutants such as CFCs that are currently
reported as combined totals.
PO4-d- CO2 eq.
reporting (discarded)
This information can be derived by calculations based on already reported data.
PO4-c and PO4-d were considered as alternative measures. There were pros and cons
to both and the preferred way only became apparent late in the impact assessment.
The chosen measure, PO4-c, provides more useful information as emission data is
obtained for each GHG, from which the CO2 equivalent can be calculated, as needed.
61
7.5. Sectoral scope
7.5.1. Comparison of sub-options
PO5 comprises nine sub-options that can all be combined. Table 11 compares the impacts of
the sub-options.
Table 11: Summary of impacts for PO5-a, to PO5-i
Policy option Main impacts Admin.
costs
€million/y
Other key aspects
Econ. Env. Social
PO5-a
Livestock
production &
tailored permit




Businesses:
c. 148-392
Public
authorities
c. 122-366
These activities are a main contributor to
ammonia and methane emissions and have
historically not contributed as much as
other sectors of industry and society to
emission reductions.
Brings under the scope additional 84 000-
330 000 cattle farms and 77 000-187 000
pigs and poultry farms, resulting in the 10-
40% largest EU non-subsistence farms to
be covered by the legislation.
The tailored permitting approach
significantly reduces the administrative
cost by 20 to 30%, depending on the
specific activity.
The increased scope enhances IED
coverage from 18 to 60-88% of emissions
of ammonia by rearing of cattle, pigs and
poultry and from 3% to 42-77% for
methane emissions.
Minimum expected reductions in methane
and ammonia emissions are valued at
between €5 450 and €9 240 million/year
and the related compliance costs would be
between €265-812 million/year.
PO5-b
Extension in
current sectors
  O
Businesses:
c. 17
Public
authorities:
c. 11
Covers smaller activities (lower thresholds
or associated activities) related to existing
Annex I activities and addresses the
potential negative environmental impacts
of rapidly growing batteries gigafactories.
The environmental impacts of these smaller
and associated activities are well known
and can be addressed by the IED approach.
Ensures that certain loopholes in the scope
of the IED are closed (smaller smitheries,
textiles finishing, forging presses, cold
rolling and wiredrawing).
Battery production is a growing sector
surrounded by more uncertainty in terms of
installations and their emissions profile.
IED covers already many activities in the
batteries value chain.
The option would bring in additional 725 to
1 000 installations under the scope of the
IED (full IED permitting). This includes c.
20-95 battery factories.
PO5-c
Landfills
  O No/Limited
Adoption of BATC would lead to
improvement in existing standards and
continuous improvement moving forward.
The adoption of BATC can contribute to
62
Policy option Main impacts Admin.
costs
€million/y
Other key aspects
Econ. Env. Social
the EU Methane Strategy.
This option does not change the number of
landfills covered by the legislation.
PO5-d
Mining
  O
Businesses:
c. 12
Public
authorities:
c. 8
The demand for critical minerals and base
metals will continue to place demands on
specific mining installations in the EU and
outside the EU.
Could facilitate a level playing field across
the EU, and ensure confidence in pollution
control post-EIA. The option could support
one of the Commission’s priority actions in
2022, i.e. streamlining permitting
procedures for battery raw material projects
in Member States, in line with highest
environmental standards.
The option, which would include metallic
and industrial minerals and exclude
quarrying, would include between 800-900
minerals extraction installations to be
regulated under the IED.
PO5-e
Aquaculture
/U /U O/
Businesses c.
2
Public
authorities
c. 2
The demand for seafood is expected to
increase and EU-based aquaculture can
help to meet that demand.
The sector includes about 12 000
installations mainly micro-enterprises or
SMEs, 80% employ 5 or less workers.
There are between 55 and 250 aquaculture
installations which produce >1000t a year.
Whilst IED could help addressing nutrient
loading (nitrogen and phosphorus), some
key environmental pressures (use of
pharmaceuticals, invasive species, diseases,
antibiotic resistance) from the sector are
not typically regulated by the IED
(pollution prevention and control).
PO5-f
Upstream Oil &
Gas
 U/ O/
Businesses
c. 23
Public
authorities
c. 15
A Commission proposal is forthcoming
under the Methane Strategy to address
methane leaks (by far the main pollutant
emitted from these activities).
There are around 1 000-2 000 installations
(offshore and onshore) in the EU.
PO5-g
Align E-PRTR
to IED (full
alignment)
  O
Businesses
c. 0.3
Public
authorities
close to 0.01
Re-establishes the E-PRTR as a primary
implementation check on IED activities.
PO5-h - Align
E-PRTR to
MCPD and
UWWTD
Alternative E-
PRTR#29 (fulll
alignment)
  O
Business
5.5
Public
authorities
0.3
Creates reporting obligations for a large
number of small installations.
PO5-h - Align
E-PRTR to
  O
Business
3.5
Creates better E-PRTR coherence with two
closely-related EU instruments.
63
Policy option Main impacts Admin.
costs
€million/y
Other key aspects
Econ. Env. Social
MCPD and
UWWTD
Alternative E-
PRTR#30
(partial
alignment)
Public
authorities
0.2
PO5-i
Dynamic
updating of
sectoral scope
U/ U/ U/
Enables “future-proofing” of the IED and
E-PRTR regarding dynamic scope
extension possibilities, without the need for
primary legislation changes.
All new legislative measures introduced by PO1-PO4 will have to apply to a larger number of
installations proposed in PO5. Therefore, costs associated with PO1-PO4 are calculated and
presented in the total costs of PO5. Activities newly brought within the IED scope would fall
under the existing proportionate framework, i.e. BAT being defined as the most
environmentally effective and economically viable techniques, with derogations being
allowed in cases where EU-defined BAT implementation in an individual installation would
lead to disproportionate costs. However, these activities more or less lend themselves to
regulation via the IED.
Overall, benefits are likely to outweigh costs for PO5-a, PO5-b, PO5-c, PO5-d, PO5-g, PO5-
h and PO5-i. At this stage, it is, however, uncertain whether the benefits generated by PO5-e
and PO5-f would outweigh the costs. In more detail:
 PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting: Potential benefits are likely to be significant and
outweigh costs. About 13-31% of pigs and poultry farms18
and 10-40% of cattle farms
would be newly brought under the IED’s framework, representing an additional 161 000-
517 000 farms added to the scope. This would result overall in about 10-40% of pigs,
poultry and cattle non-subsistence farms being covered by the IED. Reductions in
methane and ammonia emissions from widening the IED coverage of livestock farms are
valued at between €5 450 and €9 240 million/year and the related compliance costs would
be between €265-812 million/year. Challenges with the implementation of such a
significant scope expansion, especially the administrative burden on competent
authorities, would be mitigated by introducing the tailored permitting framework. This
adjusted framework would improve the efficiency of permitting within the IED, whilst
retaining its effectiveness. Cleaner livestock rearing would also help preserving and
improving the quality of rural territories.
 PO5-b-expand existing IED activities, PO5-c-landfills and PO5-d-mining: Potential
benefits are likely to outweigh costs, although there is limited quantitative evidence
available, especially with regards to the potential scope of option PO5-c and PO5-d.
 PO5-e-aquculture and PO5-f oil and gas: The balance of benefits and costs associated
with this measure is uncertain and the scale of benefits, although uncertain, is unlikely to
be significant when compared to the benefits that may accrue from PO5-a and even PO5-
b.
18
In addition to 4% of pigs and poultry farms already covered by the IED.
64
 PO5-g align E-PRTR to IED: Although there is limited quantification of the benefits
and costs, this measure would improve the coherence of the two instruments thus
providing greater overall effectiveness.
 PO5-h - align E-PRTR to MCPD and UWWTPD: Whilst there are weakly negative
economic impacts from this measure, there are considerable benefits from improved data
on the environmental performance of MCP and UWWTP, as well as enhanced coherence
between the two instruments and their reporting mechanisms resulting. This will
empower citizens and policy makers, and therefore drive improved performance.
 PO5-i-watch mechanism: As this is a mechanism that may trigger future decisions, it is
only when future decisions are in the making that impacts can be assessed. The
mechanism includes a requirement for assessing impacts, suggesting that sectors would
only be included in the scope where the cost-benefits balance is favourable. In the
meantime, this sub-options ensures transparent monitoring of the relevance of sectors for
inclusion in the scope, thereby informing society and policy makers.
Territorial distribution of activities is uneven across the Member States. Hence, Member
States will not be equally impacted by the different PO5 sub-options. For example, EU
aquaculture production is mainly concentrated in four Member States: Spain, France, Italy,
and Greece; most of the upstream oil and gas activities are located in eight Member States:
Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania; extraction
of non-energy minerals mainly takes place in countries such as Bulgaria, Germany, Greece,
Finland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.
7.5.2. Retained sub-options
Table 12 lists the sub-options on industrial scope retained in the preferred policy package. It
also summarises the broad rationale for selecting or discarding sub-options. Retained sub-
options/alternatives appear in bold.
Table 12: Sub-options included in and discarded from the preferred policy package
5- Industrial scope
PO5-a-cattle and
tailored permitting
Steers the reduction of pollution from activities that have much less contributed to
reducing emissions of pollutants than other sectors of society, in particular as regards
ammonia and methane emissions. The scope increase results in the 10-40% largest
farms being covered by the IED. The light tailored permitting regime allows
proportionate regulation of the wide range of farm sizes.
PO5-b-expand
existing IED activities
Closes loopholes in sectors and activities already covered by the IED where sub-
activities with high pollution potential were not covered, e.g. textile finishing.
Addresses the potential negative environmental impacts of rapidly growing batteries
gigafactories.
PO5-c-landfills
Alternative BAT
conclusions
Alternative cover
smaller landfills
(discarded)
Removes legal obstacle preventing the updating of historic BAT requirements dating
from the 1990’s, for landfills already falling under the IED.
IED already covers the vast majority of landfills; covering smaller landfills would not
be efficient.
PO5-d-mining Contributes to establishing a level playing field at a high level of protection for
extraction activities forecast to grow fast and responsible for significant emissions of
pollutants. Regulates the emissions from the most polluting non-energy mineral
extraction activities (metallic and industrial minerals).
65
PO5-e-aquaculture
(discarded)
The sector is mainly comprised of micro-enterprises (around 80% of enterprises
having less than 5 employees within the EU27 and are often ‘family-owned’). Though
nutrient loading is an important pressure that could be addressed by the IED, some
other main environmental pressures (use of pharmaceuticals, invasive species,
antibiotic resistance, biodiversity) from the sector are not typically regulated by the
IED.
PO5-f-oil and gas
(discarded)
A Commission proposal is forthcoming under the Methane Strategy to address
methane emissions in the oil, gas and coal sectors (by far the main pollutant emitted
from these activities).Whilst methane emission is a major environmental pressure
from this upstream oil and gas operations, other emissions to water and soil pollution
are considered significant. Hence, these activities are not at this stage retained for
inclusion in the scope and would be monitored under the watch mechanism.
PO5-g-align E-PRTR
to IED
Ensures that reporting under E-PRTR takes place for all IED installations, thereby
enhancing coherence between the instruments.
PO5-h- align E-PRTR
to other law
Alternative full
alignment (discarded)
Alternative partial
alignment
E-PRTR is a useful instrument to establish reporting synergies with other EU law, in
particular with the MCP Directive and the UWWTP Directive. Full alignment of
scope would however require reporting by numerous SMEs. Partial alignment ensures
proportionality of the measure.
PO5-i-watch
mechanism
Organises ongoing monitoring of emerging concerns related to emissions from agro-
industrial installations and inclusion of relevant activities within the scope of the IED
and/or the E-PRTR, through delegated/implementing powers, based on clear criteria
and full assessment of impacts.
8. PREFERRED POLICY PACKAGE
Table 13 lists the sub-options retained in the preferred policy package, as presented in section
7. Annex 3 presents the overall impacts of the preferred policy package. In case where the
sub-options retained included a choice between two alternatives, the retained alternative is
shown in italics as previously summarised in Section 7.
Table 13: Sub-options included in the preferred policy package
PO1- More effective legislation
PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs-full BAT potential: Clarify rules on derogations, indirect releases of pollutants
to water and on taking environmental quality standards into account, ensure transparent monitoring of related
impacts on air and water quality, and require consideration of the full BAT-AEL range when setting ELVs
PO1-b-implementation and enforcement: Empower competent authorities to suspend the operation of non-
compliant plants, harmonise the rules to assess plants’ compliance with their permits, make the provisions on
penalties more stringent and improve transboundary cooperation in permitting
PO1-c-rights of the public-enhanced public rights: improve and expand the public’s access to information,
participation and access to justice (including effective redress) by making clear permit summaries publicly and
digitally available, requiring systematic public participation in permit reviews, and more granular reporting of
emissions to E-PRTR in an INSPIRE-compliant manner
PO1-d- simplification: clarify certain definitions and activity descriptions, delete the indicative list of
pollutants in Annex II, compliance assessment rules under Chapter II of IED to take precedence over rules in
other chapters and top-down reporting for livestock farms and aquaculture
PO2- Accelerating innovation
PO2-a-frontrunners: Facilitate the development and testing of emerging techniques AND allow more time for
implementing these more innovative technologies and techniques
PO2-b-stimulate innovation- INCITE: Establish an INnovation Centre for Industrial Transformation &
Emissions (INCITE) documenting innovation and recommending BREF revisions
66
PO2-c-supporting transformation-plans: integrating the operator’s transformation plan in EMS
PO3- Contributing to a non-toxic and resource efficient circular economy
PO3-a-performance levels-binding and benchmarks: introduce both binding BAT-AEPLs AND performance
benchmarks to be used in the Environmental Management System
PO3-b-EMS: Require operators to address Resource Efficiency, Circular Economy and Chemicals
Management in their Environmental Management System
PO3-d-pollutants list: Dynamically updating the list of pollutants to be reported
PO3-e-report resource use: Require information on resource efficiency (energy, materials and water)
PO4- Supporting decarbonisation of industry
PO4-a-energy efficiency: Delete exemptions from setting energy efficiency requirements in IED permits
PO4-b-IED/ETS interface-review: Plan a review by 2028 of the interface between the IED and the ETS to
maximise synergise between the instruments in light of innovation dynamics
PO4-c-disaggregated reporting: Require more granular reporting for some GHG, in particular refrigerants
PO-5- Industrial scope
PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting: Broaden current sectoral coverage of the IED and E-PRTR Regulation
in rearing of animals (include cattle farms above a threshold within the range of 50-150 LSU, expand coverage
to pigs and poultry farms above a threshold within the range of 50-150 LSU), and introduce a tailored
permitting process for the rearing of animals
PO5-b-expand existing IED activities: Extend the IED and E-PRTR sectoral scope by closing loopholes for
smaller smitheries, regulating associated activities of textiles finishing, forging presses, cold rolling and
wiredrawing; better coverage of the battery value chain by including the rapidly growing batteries
gigafactories
PO5-c-landfills-BAT conclusions: enable the adoption of BAT conclusions for landfills
PO5-d-mining: Include metallic and industrial minerals extraction in the IED scope19
PO5-g-align E-PRTR to IED: Align E-PRTR activity descriptions to IED activity descriptions
PO5-h- align E-PRTR to other EU laws-partially: E-PRTR scope to cover medium combustion plants
between 20 and 50 MW and urban waste water treatment plants between 20 000 and 100 000 person
equivalents
PO5-i-watch mechanism: Establish a dynamic system to identify and include emerging activities/sectors of
concern, according to significance of pollutant emissions, and the potential to address these issues
19
Based on the assessment of impacts (Annex 8), it is concluded to focus the scope of this measure on only
extraction and treatment of metallic and industrial minerals, i.e. to exclude quarrying activities.
67
The preferred policy package will generate significant and positive environmental impacts
and incur limited negative economic impacts. Overall costs, will be largely outweighed by
the benefits, whilst the problems identified by the IED and the E-PRTR Regulation
evaluations would be comprehensively addressed, in addition to contributing to the EU’s
general objectives embedded in the EGD, the Glasgow Global Methane Pledge, and to
levelling the playing field at a high level of protection.
The IED includes in its design safeguards to ensure that BAT requirements remain
proportionate, i.e. that societal benefits are larger than economic costs incurred20
. This
proportionality was confirmed whenever a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) could be conducted.
Quantification has been achieved for the two measures having the most significant impacts.
Under PO1-a, illustrative calculations, for NOX emission reduction by five sectors resulting
from measure IED#5, have estimated health benefits to be at least between €860 million and
€2 800 million/year, and CAPEX and OPEX for businesses to be €210 million/year.
Furthermore, the assessment shows in particular that the main scope extension, under PO5-a
cattle and tailored permitting, is proportionate. Based on the assessment of setting the
threshold at 50, 100, 125, 150, 300, 450 and 600 LSU (livestock unit), thresholds within the
range of 50-150 LSU for cattle, pigs and poultry farms came out as proportionate and most
effective. This covers (i) an additional between 161 000 and 517 000 livestock farms covered
by a tailored permitting process (approximately between 84 000-330 000 cattle farms and 77
000-187 000 pigs and poultry farms, depending on the specific LSU threshold), resulting in
the 10-40% largest farms of the sector being covered by the legislation21
, out of a EU’s
existing c. 1.5 million non-subsistence farms. It would result in at least reducing the
emissions of newly regulated farms by 12% for ammonia and 10% for methane22
. The
monetised benefits from reducing methane and ammonia are valued at between €5 450 and
€9 240 million/year, depending on the specific LSU threshold, while the compliance costs are
€265-812 million and administrative costs for both operators and public administrations, are
€270-758 million23
, i.e. a benefit to cost factor of between 5-10 for the whole livestock (from
which 4-8 for pigs and poultry and 7-14 for cattle).
Other scope increases bring under IED between 1 500 and 1 900 installations from other
sectors covered by full IED permitting, i.e. an increase by 7% of the total of number of
installations other than farms covered by the IED. As for industrial activities already within
the IED scope, these are typically large, often multinational, companies. There is no
evidence24
of an intrinsically differing economic viability for BAT among Member States. If
for an individual installation this does not hold, then a derogation can be applied for.
Little evidence could be found on a potential impact on competitiveness and prices of final
products. Past reports summarising the cumulative costs of EU regulation of the EU energy
20
see Article 3(10) on the BAT definition and Article 15(4) on derogations
21
These 10-40% largest farms are responsible for 60-88% of emissions ammonia and 42-77% of methane from
the rearing of cattle, pigs and poultry.
22
This represents a 3-5% reduction of total EU ammonia emissions and 1.6-2.8% reduction of total methane
emissions from the agricultural sector.
23
This is split in €148-392 million for business and €122-366 million for public authorities, depending on the
threshold within the range of 50-150 LSU.
24
IED evaluation SWD(220)181 final.
68
intensive industry25
indicate that environmental legislation is not a leading factor contributing
to costs of operation. Within this picture, IED compliance costs are small compared to other
costs (energy, carbon emissions allowances, workers safety) and it is very unlikely that
sectors whose commodities are traded on global markets (e.g. aluminium, copper, meat) will
pass IED compliance costs onto consumers.
The total administrative burden is estimated within a range of €356-600 million/year for
industrial operators and €265-509 million/year for public authorities. Administrative
activities and costs estimated for the selected policy measures will necessarily have some
overlaps (e.g., many measures require adjustments of permit reconsiderations and updates
and, therefore, some efficiencies could be identified), resulting in over-estimation of the
overall administrative costs.
The preferred package will significantly support the EU’s decarbonisation agenda and
promote synergies and consistency of the EGD policies. In the shorter term, the scope
extension will amplify the current IED role in regulating non-ETS GHG emissions26
, in
particular methane, thereby supporting the Effort Sharing Regulation. Furthermore, the
proposals to make BAT on energy efficiency mandatory across all IED permits and to require
all IED operators to include in their Environmental Management Systems the outcome of
energy audits will support the Energy Efficiency Directive. In the medium to longer term, the
progressive uptake of technologies which cut both pollutant and GHGs emissions implies
that, over time, more synergies will occur between the IED and the ETS, as well as impacts
on the carbon market. Hence, coherence issues and opportunities for enhanced synergies that
may arise will be addressed by the review, proposed also as part of the FF55 package.
Furthermore, actions under the innovation area will also contribute to a better understanding
of how pollution reduction, decarbonisation and also a circular economy will be achieved.
INCITE will provide a better mapping of innovative technologies that are relevant for
depollution and decarbonisation. The requirement for IED operators to design, towards the
end of this decade, their transformation plans will allow them to focus efforts towards
achieving maximum beneficial synergies, based on technological innovation, between
depollution, decarbonisation and circularity for the 2030-2050 horizon.
9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?
The overall emissions of pollutants per sector, based on data reported by operators to the E-
PRTR, will remain key indicators to track progress against the objectives of this initiative.
The OECD has also identified27
that PRTR data can be used to evaluate progress towards
achieving United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, especially SDG 12.4. The
improved E-PRTR will also allow better monitoring of industry’s environmental performance
at sector level:
25
Implementing the “For a European Industrial Renaissance” communication COM(2014) 14 final; studies were
carried out among others: for steel, aluminium, chemicals and ceramics sectors.
26
Non-ETS GHG emissions currently covered by IED represent 4% of overall EU GHG emissions. After scope
extension, this will be about 15% of overall GHG emissions.
27
https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/pollutant-release-transfer-register/using-prtr-information-evaluate-
progress-towards-sustainable-development-goal-12.pdf
69
 The increased granularity of reporting of pollutant emission at installation level will allow
analysis of the main processes within sectors whose environmental performance is
improving or is lagging behind;
 The inclusion of reporting of resource use will allow defining new indicators on use of
materials, water and energy, that will enable tracking of resource efficiency
improvements;
 More dynamic updating of the list of substances covered by E-PRTR will allow defining
emission indicators of substances of emerging and current concern. This will enable the
tracking of improvements in the use and management of such substances.
These improvements will also help ensure that this monitoring can be effectively used in the
wider Zero Pollution Monitoring and Outlook framework which will be published every two
years from 2022 onwards28
. At the same time, the data on air, water and soil pollution
available through the Zero Pollution Monitoring will help evaluate the impacts of emission
reductions stemming from the installations falling under the IED/E-PRTR Regulation.
A central concern in the revision of the IED is to ensure that the whole range of BAT-AELs
is used. Analysis of this issue has been complex due to the lack of transparency of, and
difficult access to, permits. The future harmonised ‘permit summary’ will dramatically ease
the harvesting of ELVs set in permits, through automated IT tools. This will allow analysis
sector by sector of the distribution of ELVs within the BAT-AEL ranges, at the end of permit
revision cycles triggered by adoption of BAT Conclusions and improve clarity of information
contained in the permits to public.
The scale of progress in emissions reduction will depend on the technological progress,
outcomes of INCITE, any more frequent BREF reviews, and any actions that may be
triggered as a result. Understanding this requires monitoring of the pace of development and
uptake of innovations and the resulting required transformation of IED sectors for meeting
the EU’s 2030 and 2050 objectives. The harmonised permit summary will allow the
quantification of the number of cases where new flexibilities supporting frontrunners in
testing and deploying emerging techniques have been used. Wider impacts on innovation
dynamics will be more complex to monitor. New indicators will be defined in an industrial
transformation scoreboard published by INCITE that may include new indicators such as e.g.:
 Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of emerging techniques per sector;
 Emissions performance of emerging techniques;
 The anticipated “on the ground” uptake timeline of such techniques;
 Distance to target indicators, for each IED sector.
For the E-PRTR measures, the key indicators will include the timeliness and the
completeness of reporting, broken down by Member States, sector and by environmental
media. Web statistics from the Industrial Emissions Portal will allow the measurement of
progress, with regard to the public’s accessing of IED/ E-PRTR combined information.
Periodic publication of implementation information by Member States will complement this
by providing readily-accessible, machine-readable, common-format information on key
provisions via dynamic IT means. This will include information on:
28
See COM(2021) 400 and SWD(2021) 141
70
 The granting of flexibilities to support emerging techniques;
 The setting of stricter permit conditions in permits where required to meet
environmental quality standards;
 The granting of derogations allowing pollutant emissions higher than the BAT-AEL
range;
 Enforcement action taken.
Perceptions on improvements to legal clarity will be monitored via the BREF process,
through e-surveys addressed to the IED and E-PRTR stakeholder community.
The review, at a set date still within this decade, of the interaction of IED with the ETS and
decarbonisation developments will be a key milestone in monitoring and evaluating this
revamped and more holistic policy approach.


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Strasbourg, 5.4.2022
SWD(2022) 111 final
PART 3/5
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the documents
Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November
2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council
Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste
and
Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on reporting of environmental data from industrial installations and establishing an
Industrial Emissions Portal
{COM(2022) 156 final} - {SEC(2022) 169 final} - {SWD(2022) 110 final} -
{SWD(2022) 112 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0156 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
235
Annex 8: Impact of Shortlisted Measures – Industrial
Emissions Directive
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Annex 8: Impact of Shortlisted Measures – Industrial Emissions Directive ................................235
Overview .............................................................................................................................................238
Problem area 1: The IED has not been as effective as it could be............................................244
Measure 1: Introduce a time limit for derogations granted under Article 15(4). ............244
Measure 2: Mandate the application of a standardised methodology for assessing
the (dis)proportionality between costs of implementation of BAT
conclusions and the potential environmental benefits for assessing
applications for derogations under Article 15(4). ...................................................258
Measure 3: Amend Article 15(1) to introduce an explicit requirement that indirect
releases of polluting substances to water shall be assessed and evidence
must be provided to demonstrate that such releases would not lead to an
increased load of pollutants in receiving waters when compared to a
scenario where the IED installation applies BAT and meets AELs for direct
releases ..............................................................................................................................269
Measure 4: Amend Article 18 to require that stricter ELVs are set in permit
conditions in the case that environmental quality standards cannot be met
by implementing existing BAT conclusions.............................................................279
Measure 5: Clarify Article 15(3)(a) by specifying that when setting emission limit
values that do not exceed the BAT-AELs, the starting point is the lower limit
of the BAT-AEL range, unless the operator demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the competent authority that applying BAT techniques as described in
BAT Conclusions only allows meeting a higher ELV within the BAT-AEL
range. ..................................................................................................................................283
Measure 6: Allow Member State Competent Authorities to suspend non-compliant
installations in cases where non-compliance (Article 8) causes significant
environmental degradation until compliance is restored.....................................301
Measure 7: Introduce common rules for assessing compliance with emission limit
values under Chapter II of the IED. .............................................................................303
Measure 8: Require Member States, in determining the penalties under Article 79, to
give due regard to the nature, gravity, extent and duration of the
infringement as well as the impact of the infringement on achieving a high
level of protection of the environment.......................................................................307
Measure 9: Add a new provision in or linked to Article 26 for requiring effective
multidisciplinary cooperation among competent national administrative,
law enforcement and judicial authorities in cases of transboundary
pollution, and for Member States receiving a request for cooperation to
respond within three months of receipt. ...................................................................309
Measure 10: Require that information from Member States’ monitoring of the impact
of Article15(4) derogations is made publicly available..........................................311
Measure 11: Widen public participation in permitting as requested by the Aarhus
Convention Committee and facilitate access to justice and redress in case
of damages relates to non-compliance......................................................................314
Measure 12: Introduce a requirement for a uniform permit summary to be made
public. .................................................................................................................................317
236
Measure 13: Amend legislation to state that ‘the competent authority shall make
available to the public by publishing open-access on the internet’ the
information requirements listed in Article 24 (2) free of charge and without
restricting access to registered users .......................................................................320
Measure 14: Amend the legislation to clarify the scope of coverage of the IED
pertaining to gasification, liquefaction, and pyrolysis plants as well as to
biogas plants.....................................................................................................................323
Measure 15: Delete Annex II of the IED “List of polluting substances”. ..........................326
Measure 16: Introduce a provision in Chapter II of the IED that sets out that the
compliance assessment rules for Chapter II installations take precedent
over other compliance assessment provisions for those installations............328
Summary of problem area 1 measures.............................................................................................332
Problem area 2: The IED is not dynamic enough and does not support the rapid deployment
of innovative technologies ..................................................................................................335
Measure 17: Introduce legislative amendments to facilitate the development and
testing of emerging techniques over a longer period............................................335
Measure 18: Amend requirements to allow more time (6 to 8 years) for operators to
implement emerging techniques with Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 8-
9 or stricter long-term Emerging Techniques Associated Emission Levels
(ET-AELs) reflecting the expected environmental performance of emerging
techniques. Applicable to Key Environmental Issues only..................................339
Measure 19: Establish shorter, up to 5-year BREF cycles focussed on defining
stricter BAT-AELs based on recent innovations.....................................................345
Measure 20: Establish the INnovation Centre for Industrial Transformation &
Emissions (INCITE) to monitor the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and
environmental performance (BAT-AEPLs) of emerging and breakthrough
techniques. Recognition by INCITE of advanced techniques with TRL 8-9
(or improved environmental protection) would suggest an update of BAT
conclusions.......................................................................................................................350
Measure 21: Amend requirements to allow operators to have more time to
implement BAT conclusions where deep transformation of industrial
sectors is required. “Deep transformation” would refer to the adoption of
completely different process routes and/or primary process techniques that
facilitate a significant reduction in the emissions of pollutants and/or the
use of energy, raw materials (i.e. secondary, or ‘end-of-pipe’ techniques
would not qualify as ‘deep transformation’).............................................................357
Measure 22: Establish a permit review obligation by 2030 that focusses on the
capacity of the installations to operate in accordance with the EU’s general
zero pollution, circular economy and climate objectives. ....................................361
Summary of Problem Area 2 measures............................................................................................367
Problem Area 3: The IED has not been effective at addressing the use of hazardous
chemicals, resource efficiency or the circular Economy .................................................369
Measure 23: Introduce an option for Technical Working Group (TWG) to set either
binding resource efficiency and circular economy BAT-AEPLs or indicative
performance levels..........................................................................................................369
Measure 24: Introduce an option for Technical Working Group (TWG) to set
resource efficiency and circular economy benchmark levels, in addition to
binding BAT-AEPLs and indicative levels. ...............................................................379
Measure 25: Require operators to incorporate a Resource Efficiency and Circular
Economy Plan and Chemical Management System at the installation level
as separate sections of their Environmental Management System. Expand
the scope of monitoring and reporting to cover resource efficiency
237
techniques, indicators and performance levels, as well as the use of
hazardous chemicals and the level of substitution for safer alternatives........388
Measure 26: Require Member States’ national authorities (or delegated competent
authorities) to establish a national plan to promote industrial symbiosis.......407
Summary of problem area 3 measures.............................................................................................413
238
Overview
The retained external consultants’ project team collected evidence and analysed the impacts of
43 measures that were retained for a more in-depth assessment (together with an additional 30
measures related to the E-PRTR – analysed separately).
The key economic, environmental, and social impacts of the policy measures across the core
stakeholders – public authorities, industry (large and smaller businesses), citizens and workers,
third countries – were identified, mapped, and screened. A rapid assessment of the expected
absolute and relative magnitude of these impacts and their likelihood was carried out in line with
Tool 19 of the EU’s Better Regulation (EC, 2021). This process is described in more detail in
Annex 4.
As a result of this screening of impacts, thirteen economic, environmental, and social impact
categories were selected for an in-depth impact assessment. These categories are outlined in the
Table below. A brief description of the specific impacts and proxy indicators considered in this
assessment of options for the revision of the IED are also provided for clarity.
Table A8-1: Significant impacts for in-depth assessment and core indicators
Broad impact
category
Specific impact
category
Description
Economic
impacts
Administrative
burdens on
businesses
Any administrative costs, enforcement costs and/or direct regulatory
charges, including but not only through the permit application, derogation
and BREF processes, monitoring and reporting, hosting inspections, etc.
Operating costs
and conduct of
businesses
Substantive compliance costs, that is, the additional capital expenditure
and/or operating expenditure (excluding administrative burden) that are
required to comply with the policy measures’ requirements. This may
include upgrading installations and equipment, using alternative inputs of
production, etc.
Competitiveness of
businesses
Comparative advantage of the industry in an international context and
how this may be affected by changes to the costs of doing business in the
EU; and any impacts on the level playing field in the EU.
Position of SMEs Overall costs of the measures on the industry across differences in
business size; that is, whether the average administrative and compliance
costs per employee are comparable across larger and smaller businesses or
there is a significant difference in the impacts by size.
Innovation and
research
Level of investment in Research and Development and expected
innovation outcomes that may result from the implementation of proposed
measures.
Public authority Administrative, compliance and enforcement activity by public authorities
239
Broad impact
category
Specific impact
category
Description
impacts and other costs related to the BREF, permit-setting and derogation-
granting processes; compliance assessments and inspections; and/or
ensuring public access to permit procedures, among others.
Environmental
impacts
Climate Emissions of Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere (tonnes of CO2
equivalent)
Air quality Emissions of pollutants to air, which may include NOx/SOx, NMVOC,
dust, NH3, Hg, or any other pertinent pollutant.
Water quality and
resources
Releases of heavy metals (Cd, Hg, Pb, and Ni), N and P or any other
pertinent pollutant to water.
Soil quality or
resources
Emissions of pollutants to soil, which may include Arsenic, Cadmium,
Chlorides, Chromium, Copper, Halogenated Organic compounds, Lead,
Mercury, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Total Phosphorus and Zinc.
Waste production,
generation and
recycling
Volume of waste generated (tonnes) and recycled (tonnes).
Efficient use of
resources
Amount of energy consumed (TWh), volume of “virgin” water consumed
(m3
) and volume of “re-cycled” water consumed (m3
).
Social impacts Employment Number of employees, in full-time equivalent, in industry and/or public
authorities.
Across each of these specific categories, a diverse set of costs and benefits over a period of 20
years were considered, assessed and, where possible, quantified. These include administrative
and enforcement costs, compliance costs and regulatory charges and other direct and indirect
costs and benefits, in line with Tool 58 of the EU’s Better Regulation Guidelines (EC, 2021),
which may emerge as a result of the implementation of the shortlisted policy measures, when
compared against the baseline.
In general, colour coding is used to summarise the qualitative assessment of impacts referring to
the direction (positive or negative) and magnitude (small or large) of any expected impacts (see
Table A8-2). A more detailed description of the qualitative assessment methodology and other
analytical methods employed can be found in Annex 4.
240
Table A8-2: Coding used to present expected impacts


  0   

U
Extremely
negative
Strongly
Negative
Weakly
negative
“Zero”: i.e.
no or limited
impact
Weakly
positive
Strongly
Positive
Extremely
positive
“U”:
Unclear
The focus of the quantitative analysis has been to support the assessment of the proposed sectoral
scope extensions for the IED (Problem Area #5). Further, the quantification of administrative
burden on businesses and public authorities has also been prioritised. The table below outlines
key and cross-cutting assumptions employed in the quantification of administrative burden based
on the available evidence.
Table A8-3: Cross-cutting evidence-based assumptions employed in this report
Specific indicator Evidence-based assumptions Comments and sources
Number of existing IED
installations in the baseline
52 000
Average of the latest three years of data available via
the EU Registry
Number of new IED
installations expected each
year in the baseline, on
average
500
Average based on baseline data analysis carried out
for this report
Number of permit
reconsiderations (and updates)
every year in the baseline, on
average
5 200
Average based on the assumption that permit
reconsiderations and updates may take place at least
once every 10 years, in line with the BREF cycle
Number of BREF reviews
completed in a period of 20
years
60
Based on the assumption that a BREF occurs at least
once every 10 years, thus each of 30 sectors will be
reviewed at least twice in the 20-year period
BREF review costs for one
sector-operators (2020 €)
€1 million - €7 million, with a
central estimate of €2 million
Based on the recent IED Evaluation (Ricardo et al,
2020)
BREF review costs for one
sector-public authorities (2020
€)
€3 million - €14 million, with a
central estimate of €5 million
Based on the recent IED Evaluation (Ricardo et al,
2020)
One-off costs of issuing new
permits -public authorities
(2020 €)
€3 250 - €35 000, with a central
estimate of €23 400
Based on evidence from the IED IA 2007 (EC,
2007), adjusted for inflation over the period (GDP
Deflator sourced from the World Bank and
Eurostat), and contrasted with evidence gathered
through the recent IED Evaluation (Ricardo et al,
2020)
241
Specific indicator Evidence-based assumptions Comments and sources
One-off costs of issuing new
permits -operators (2020 €)
€10 000 - €62 250, with a
central estimate of €28 000
Based on data collected through stakeholder
engagement for this report, the IED Evaluation in
2020 (Ricardo et al, 2020), and a study to analyse
differences in costs of implementing EU policy (EC,
2015)
One-off costs of permit
reconsiderations and updates -
public authorities (2020 €)
€1 600 - €17 500, with a central
estimate of €11 700
Based on an assumption employed in the IED IA
2007 (EC, 2007) that permit reconsiderations and
updates costed around 50% of the permit issuance
costs
One-off costs of permit
reconsiderations and updates -
operators (2020 €)
€1 500 - €31 250, with a central
estimate of €14 000
Based on evidence provided by stakeholders
engaged for this report, and complemented by
evidence from the IED IA 2007 (EC, 2007).
Annual costs for managing
information and systems -
public authorities (2020 €)
€100 - €3 000 with a central
estimate of €2 000
Based on evidence provided by stakeholders
engaged for this report and the recent IED
Evaluation (Ricardo et al, 2020)
Annual monitoring and
reporting costs-operators
(2020 €)
€150 - €12 000 with a central
estimate of €8 000
Based on evidence provided by stakeholders
engaged for this report and the recent IED
Evaluation (Ricardo et al, 2020)
Inspection costs every two
years -public authorities (2020
€)
€500 - €12 000 with a central
estimate of €9 600
Based on evidence provided by stakeholders
engaged for this report and the recent IED
Evaluation (Ricardo et al, 2020)
Inspection costs every two
years -operators (2020 €)
€125 - €5 000 with a central
estimate of €4 000
Based on evidence provided by stakeholders
engaged for this report and the recent IED
Evaluation (Ricardo et al, 2020)
One-off applications for
derogations or exemptions -
public authorities (2020 €)
€550 - €4 250, with a central
estimate of €850
Although the burden is primarily on operators to
develop and submit the application, it is assumed
that public authorities spend half as much effort
reviewing and engaging in the process
One-off applications for
derogations or exemptions -
operators (2020 €)
€1 100 - €8 550, with a central
estimate of €1 700
Based on evidence from IED IA 2007 (EC, 2007),
suggesting applications for derogations could require
between 40 to 300 worker hours
One-off baseline reports -
public authorities (2020 €)
€4 000 - €20 000, with a central
estimate of €10 000
Based on an assumption public authorities would
engage with baseline reports provided by operators
and spend around 20% of the effort
One-off baseline reports -
operators (2020 €)
€20 000 - €100 000, with a
central estimate of €50 000
Based on the recent IED Evaluation (Ricardo et al,
2020)
Average hourly labour costs in
EU-27 (2020 €/h)
€29/h
Latest Eurostat statistics for EU-27 (Eurostat, 2021)
242
Other, more specific evidence-based assumptions were also employed in the assessment of
impacts. These are captured, as relevant, in the following sections.
There are, however, limitations to the level of quantitative analysis that could be carried out in
this report, primarily due to the nature of the IED. The BREF process results in BAT
Conclusions that are to be considered through the IED permitting process across a wide range of
sectors and industrial installations. Evidence on the techniques that may be selected as BAT is a
very resource-intensive process and attempting to pre-empt these conclusions is complex and
error prone. Quantifying substantive compliance costs and environmental impacts is, therefore,
very challenging and potentially not proportionate. Nevertheless, the study team, working with
the EC, has considered approaches to illustrate these impacts as quantitatively as possible, e.g.
using a typical installation approach, where we consider how core aspects of each policy option
could result in key changes in capital and operating requirements as well as environmental
performance.
In addition, the assessment of social impacts and associated ratings focus on how the measures
may affect employment levels across the EU. Public health and public health system impacts are
linked to environmental impacts and, therefore, are captured within this category. Similarly,
reductions in polluting emissions, especially by affecting public health, may also have impacts
on labour productivity and other economic impact categories. These impacts, generally benefits,
where directly related to the environment and captured as part of the monetisation of these
environmental benefits through the use of damage cost functions, have been captured in the
environmental impacts category and not considered in any other categories, primarily to avoid
confusion with the qualitative analysis and the interpretation of the qualitative ratings.
The measures are structured into five problem areas. Each section ends with a summary table
that provides a qualitative overview of the emerging conclusions from this analysis.
243
The abbreviations used in the report are listed below:
BATc Best available technique conclusions
BAT-AELs Best available technique associated emission levels
BREF BAT reference document
EC European Commission
ELV (permit) emission limit value
GHG Greenhouse gas(es)
GLS Glass manufacturing (BREF)
LCP Large Combustion Plant (BREF)
MS Member State
NOx Nitrogen oxides
WWTP Waste water treatment plant
244
Problem area 1: The IED has not been as effective as it could be
There are sixteen measures shortlisted to address that the IED has not been as effective as it
could be in terms of:
 Ensuring reduced pollutant emissions from industry, which includes issues such as BAT-
AELs not being achieved, inconsistencies in implementation, and transboundary pollution
remaining ineffectively addressed;
 Public access to information and participation;
 Coherence in implementation.
In particular, the policy measures were shortlisted to address these problems and shortcomings
and to achieve a set of objectives. The objectives are:
1. Prevent or, when impractical, minimise emission of pollutants by large industrial and
agro-industrial plants (including transboundary pollution between Member States)
2. Ensure access of private individuals and civil society organisations concerned to
environmental information, participation in environmental decision making and access to
justice, in relation to permitting, operation and control of large industrial and agro-
industrial plants
3. Clarify and simplify the legislation and reduce unnecessary burden whilst establishing a
level playing field across the EU for pollution prevention and control.
Each measure will be assessed individually, covering a more in-depth description of the measure,
an outline of the requirements for implementation and an assessment of their Economic,
environmental, and social impacts supported by evidence.
Measure 1: Introduce a time limit for derogations granted under Article 15(4).
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
The proposed measure would introduce a time limit for derogations granted under Article 15(4).
Article 15(4) of the IED allows derogation from paragraph 3 of Article 15 of the IED, allowing
competent authorities to issue less stringent permit limit values than BAT-AELs according to the
following criteria:
“Such a derogation may apply only where an assessment shows that the achievement of emission
levels associated with the best available techniques as described in BAT conclusions would lead
to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits due to:
(a) the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation
concerned
(b) the technical characteristics of the installation concerned.”
245
The IED does not indicate whether derogations can be provided indefinitely nor does it indicate
if there is an upper limit on a derogation period. No additional guidance on when a derogation
can be applied has been provided. There are no mandatory time limits stipulated on the duration
of the derogations. Consequently, this crucial aspect of the IED is open to interpretation to MS.
Evidence has been identified of a wide range of durations of derogations granted by some
Member States to operators. Evidence has also been identified suggesting that some derogations
have been granted without specifying an end date of the derogation, and thus the date from
which BAT-AELs would apply. Based on 2016 IED implementation reporting, at least two
Member States have addressed this issue of time-limiting derogations in their national guidance
for implementing the IED (Italy, Slovakia) (Ricardo, 2021).
As well as the reported information on derogations included in the EU Registry, information
made publicly available by Member States on Article 15(4) derogations is generally reported at
installation level and relate to permit documentation (Ricardo, 2021). Individual derogations are
granted for individual BAT-AELs, such that there can be multiple derogations per installation.
Objectives:
The measure will aim to improve the effectiveness of the IED through accelerating compliance
with BAT-AELs and levelling the playing field.
This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general ambition of zero-pollution in the EU and,
more specifically, contributing towards preventing or minimising the emission of pollutants by
large industrial and agro-industrial plants and levelling the playing field across the EU.
Implementation needs:
 The EU would amend the IED to introduce wording that provides a time limit in Article
15(4).
 Member States will need to transpose the new time limits into national legislation.
 EU (and/or public authorities) would develop guidance on the implementation of the
proposed changes, including whether the rule change will apply retrospEUtively to
derogations already granted or whether it would apply only to newly issued derogations.
Depending on the date when the new rules would come into force, the number of
derogations already granted and which remain in force and which have longer remaining
durations than the suggested cut-off value would vary.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
In summary, this measure is likely to have limited to weakly negative Economic impacts,
characterised by highly localised financial implications for a small proportion of IED
installations.
246
There are around 52 000 installations in the IED, and up to and including reporting for year
2019, 203 derogations were reported as having been granted to 130 installations. Therefore, 0.2
% of all IED installations received derogations.
After filtering these derogations for the derogations that could remain in place when this measure
could take effect (assumed to be 2024), 38 installations (<0.1% of all installations) are reported
in the EU Registry to have either unending derogations (29 derogations granted to 20
installations) or derogations with end dates beyond 2023 or longer than four years (27
derogations granted to 18 installations). The longest two derogations have been granted for 20
years.
The 2019 reported EU Registry data (without filtering for derogations that will cease by 2023) is
illustrated in the figure below.
Figure A8-1: Distribution of derogations by length (2019 data).
247
It can be seen from this figure that, of the existing derogations granted: around one third (37%)
were granted for periods of 3 years or less; around half (46%) were granted for periods of 4 years
or less; and around two thirds (64%) were granted for five years or less. This distribution could
be used by the EU to inform a view on what number of years could be an appropriate maximum
duration.
Installations which currently hold unending or lengthy derogations are likely to require deep
transformation to reach compliance with BAT conclusions, or are used for specific purposes(e.g.,
seasonally), which may make upgrading to BAT economically difficult. A small portion of
installations which do not currently hold a lengthy or unending derogation may rely on issuance
of a lengthy or unending derogation in the future. These installations may also require a deep
transformation to maintain economically feasible operations. Deep transformation, particularly if
it is not scheduled by an operator, may have significant economic impacts on installation
operators (see measures 21 and 22 for more details on this). The number of derogations which
will be affected by the measure depends on the time limit set for derogation, as outlined in Table
4. As the time limit rises, more derogations and installations will be affected.
248
Table A8-4: Derogation time limit (between 1 and 6 years) and corresponding number of
derogations affected based on 2019 derogations.
Derogation time
limit (years)
Derogations affected
1 193
2 145
3 127
4 109
5 73
6 61
The measure’s economic impacts are likely to be unevenly distributed between Member States.
According to analysis of the EU Registry , a significant portion, 40%, of derogations were issued
to installations in Sweden, while Czech Republic and Italy both accounted for 16% and the
remaining 20 were divided between 12 other Member States (Ricardo, 2021) The more recent
EU Registry data reported for 2019, after removing derogations that expire after 2023 suggests
the distributional effect remains high, with 30% of the derogations granted to Swedish
installations, 21% to Portuguese installations and 18% to Czech installations, and the remaining
derogations divided among 7 Member States. Most reported derogations have been for
installations for which the four-year implementation window following BATC adoption has
ended. Furthermore, the distribution of derogations among Member States indicates the
Economic impacts would not be evenly distributed, and would be concentrated in those Member
States (Sweden, Portugal, and Czech Republic) with the highest number of derogations. Sweden
reports that 76% of its derogations are time limited.
The measure’s Economic impacts are likely to be unevenly distributed between sectors. The
figure below demonstrates glass manufacturing (GLS) and pigs and poultry (PP) both received
significantly more derogations than other sectors in the 2018 reporting. Furthermore, glass
manufacturing installations received relatively long derogations. One example in GLS has been
granted a derogation of over 200 months. It is however not possible to predict in which sectors
more installations will be granted derogations; this depends on the stringency of the future BAT
conclusions’ BAT-AELs as well as the degree of national regulation already in force.
249
Figure A8-2: Box and scatter plot of durations for which Article 15(4) derogations apply, by BAT
conclusions (GLS = Glass manufacturing, PP = pigs and poultry) (Ricardo, 2018).
Where measures are granted to businesses for extended periods of time, this measure could
reduce the time allowed to reach compliance. Consequently, the measure would shift compliance
costs (i.e. installing and/or operating additional techniques) closer to the present day than they
would otherwise have been, and therefore, the measure would result in additional costs in the
shorter-term (earlier transition to desired state as a result of the measure than in the baseline). For
those installations with derogations set without an end date, this measure would introduce costs
for those installations (if they chose to comply) or may lead to installation closure.
Question 22 of the Targeted Stakeholder Survey asked respondents “If you are supportive of
introducing time limits for Article 15(4) derogations, what time limit would in your view be the
most appropriate and effective? (express in years and months)”. 91 stakeholders responded, 33
of whom indicated a maximum time limit for Article 15(4) derogations, broken down in the
Table below, which shows 5 years was the most popular answer (13 of 33 responses), 8 years
was the second most popular answer (7 of 33) and 4 years the third most popular response (5 of
33). In addition, 62 respondents provided an open text answer, most of which did not provide a
specific time limit for derogations. The most popular argument (34 of 62 responses) was that
time limits on derogations are not necessary and derogations should be assessed on a case by
case basis. Another popular response stated “derogations are already time limited”, which
received 17 of 62 responses. Other responses included, time limits should not exist (4 of 62),
derogations are already four years long (2 of 62), derogations should match BREF reviews
cycles (2 of 62), remove derogations completely (2 of 62) and that derogations should be
extended (1 of 62).
 Some position papers submitted by industry include responses related to Article 15(4)
derogations. One response, from the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP),
250
indicates that although very few derogations are applied to installations in their sector, those that
have been granted derogations are for units which are used only in specific conditions and for
specific reasons, such as, generating heat during severe frosts. The IOGP argue that adaptation of
these types of installations to BAT conclusions (i.e. removal of an option of an unending
derogation) would lead to higher costs than the environmental benefits gained, due to the low
running hours of the plants.
Table A8-5: TSS: number of responses in favour of various derogation time limits.
Years Count
1 1
3 1
4 5
5 13
6 2
8 7
10 3
15 1
 However, the example that was provided by the IOGP was concerning where a
derogation had been sought for an offshore platform LCP1
, with the derogation sought for the
installation’s lifespan for NOx emissions. It was quoted that upgrades to meet the BREF BAT-
AEL would have required modifications on the platform costing € 39m, and leading to NOx
reductions of 60 t/year for one unit and 700 t/year for a second unit. These NOx reductions, if
assumed to be in the North Sea, could be valued around €20 000/tonne2
, i.e. valuing the benefits
to be around €15.2m per year. Hence, in this example provided by the industry of a plant for
which long or unending derogations would be sought, it does not appear that the costs would
outweigh the benefits after assuming operation of the installation for at least ~2.5 years.
1
Of the six derogations listed in the 2019 reporting to the EU Registry as having been granted to LCPs, none appear
to be for offshore platform LCPs based on the BAT numbers granted for. The LCP BAT conclusions four-year period
for implementation finishes in 2021, so more derogations could yet be granted for this sEUtor than are currently
reported in the EU Registry.
2
ETC/ATNI Report 04/2020: Costs of air pollution from European industrial facilities 2008–2017
251
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to be limited to weakly negative impacts on administrative burden. The
scale of this impact per installation affected depends on whether an installation currently holds
an unending or lengthy derogation (and for these if the EU would wish to target these
derogations retrospectively, or if an installation has not yet been granted a derogation. However,
the number of installations affected will be small.
For installations which currently hold a derogation there is likely to be a small increase in
administrative burden. The scale of this impact depends on the specific length of the time limit.
The measure would require installations which currently hold a lengthy or unending derogation
(~0.1% of installations) to review their derogation to adhere with the time limit introduced by
this measure.
For installations which might require a derogation in the future, the measure would have a
weakly negative impact on their administrative burden. Operators would still go through the
same derogation application process and discussion with the competent authority. This process
would also be happening in the counterfactual where the measure is not introduced.
The measure may have a limited impact on organisations which have currently been granted a
derogation as well as organisations which might require a future derogation because it will cause
a slight increase in the frequency with which businesses must review their derogation with the
competent authority. If the measure introduces a time limit installations would foreseeably be
required to review their derogation more often than in the counterfactual where the measure is
not introduced. The impact the measure will have on administrative burden depends on the
specific time limit set. According to the 2019 data, the average length of derogations with end
dates was 3.4 years and the most common derogation length was 1 year or less (28% of all
derogations). However, the average derogation length does not account for unending
derogations; as illustrated earlier, 55% (111 of 203 derogations) of derogations granted are four
or more years long. Therefore, if, for example, the time limit is set at four years, 55% of
installations which held derogations in 2019 would be required to update their derogation more
regularly than in the counterfactual where the measure is not introduced.
For those installations which currently hold an unending or lengthy derogation (i.e. already
granted), the EU may seek to limit (or entirely avoid due to the possible uncertain legal
feasibility) the number of cases where renegotiation would be needed on an existing granted
derogation. If a renegotation were needed, the measure would incur an additional administrative
burden where the operator must renegotiate their derogation with the competent authority. In the
counterfactual where the measure is not introduced, these installations would not have been
required to do any further paperwork on their derogation. Again, the proportion of existing
derogations which would be affected in this way would depend on the specific time limit set. For
example, using the 2019 data and excluding all derogations which end before 2023, a four-year
time limit would mean 56 derogations across 38 operators would be reassessed earlier than in the
counterfactual where the measure was not introduced.
252
Assuming this measure would affect around 50 installations, the additional administrative costs
for businesses are estimated to be between €0.01m/yr and €0.8m/yr with a best estimate of
€0.6m/yr.
Operating costs and conduct of business
The measure’s overall impact on both the operating costs and conduct of businesses are likely to
be weakly negative. Whether the measure will increase a business’ operating costs and conduct
of business depends on whether a business currently holds a derogation, and if that derogation is
unending or set on a time limit or longer than the proposed time limit which could be introduced
under this measure. There will be a significant increase in operational costs and changes to
conduct of business for installations which rely on a future derogation, particularly installations
which currently have an unending derogation. Operating costs for installations which have not
yet been granted derogations will be higher if the measure is introduced because the length of
derogation will not be granted for as long as they might previously have been in the
counterfactual where the measure is not introduced. As discussed earlier, the scale of impact on
operating costs and conduct of businesses depends on the specific time limit set for derogations.
 For those derogations which are unending or due to expire beyond 2023 introducing the
measure will present completely new costs for these installations. Those operators with unending
or very long derogations may have these derogations curtailed, which would bring costs forward
or introduce new costs if the derogation was otherwise to the end of the Economic life of the
installation. As mentioned above, the EU may seek to avoid addressing this measure at existing
derogations.
Currently, it is unclear how the measure might affect business’ behaviour. However, one
foreseeable negative impact of the measure could be business’ decision to close plants which
may not be Economically feasible to transform even within an agreed period. This could occur in
both the situations where businesses have not yet received derogations and in the situation where
an installation currently holds a lengthy or unending derogation.
Competitiveness and level playing field
The proposed measure is likely to have a weakly positive impact on the level playing field. As
discussed above in the section on ‘Economic impacts’ derogations are concentrated in certain
sectors and Member States. Therefore, the measure will improve the consistency of derogation
lime lengths across Member States and sectors. This will eliminate the possibility that certain
Member States or sectors are granted longer derogations than installations in other states or
sectors, thus removing the potential competitive advantage held in those states and sectors with
longer derogations.
253
Position of SMEs
The impact of this measure on SMEs is uncertain. The level of impact depends on the size of
the installations which rely on derogations. The size of installations is not known from the EU
Registry data on derogations.
Innovation and research
The measure is unlikely to impact innovation and research. The measure is focused on
tightening the conditions for derogations, which concern installations behind current BAT.
Therefore, the measure is focused on incentivising uptake of existing BAT rather than
encouraging research into advanced technologies. It is considered unlikely that step-changes in
technology implementation might result from implementing this measure.
Public authority impacts
The measure is likely to have limited to weakly negative impacts on public authorities.
Changing the conditions for existing derogation will incur some additional managerial or
administrative tasks for public authorities concerned with issuing derogations. The measure is
likely to change the frequency by which public authorities must assess and issue derogations.
The measure will not impact public authorities because of changes to the process associated with
achieving derogation. In addition to this change, the measure is also likely to require public
authorities to write new guidance and communicate with operators to reflect the requirement of a
time limit which may cause some small impact on public authorities.
Whether the measure will incur impacts on public authorities also varies between businesses
which do not yet hold a derogation versus existing unending or lengthy derogations. There will
be fewer impacts on public authorities which regulate businesses which do not yet hold a
derogation than for public authorities which regulate businesses which have been granted
unending or lengthy derogations. As discussed above in ‘Administrative impact on businesses’,
the measure, depending on the specific time limit elected, is likely to mean public authorities will
review derogations not yet granted more regularly than in the counterfactual where the measure
is not introduced. For existing unending or lengthy derogations, the measure will create a short-
term increase in work for public authorities. Public authorities will be required to reassess
lengthy or unending derogations when the measure is introduced, thus incurring a short-term
spike in workload for public authorities. As discussed in ‘Economic impacts’ this will be most
severe for public authorities in Sweden, Portugal, and Czech Republic where the majority of
derogations are concentrated.
Assuming this measure would affect around 50 installations, the additional administrative costs
for public authorities are estimated to be between €0.02m/yr and €0.6m/yr with a best estimate of
€0.4m/yr.
254
Environmental impacts
Overall, the environmental impacts of the measure are likely to be weakly positive. The measure
is likely to cause a small overall reduction in IED installations’ environmental impacts
concentrated in a relatively small number of geographic areas. As noted earlier, the distribution
of derogations implies introducing a time limit on derogations is likely to have a significant
impact on a small proportion of IED installations.
Climate
The measure is likely to have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
Evidence: there were no derogations issued in 2019 which were relevant to climate impacts. The
only type of derogation which may affect the climate are derogations for energy efficiency. The
measure may have an impact on the climate if greenhouse gas emissions are brought within the
scope of the IED.
The evidence is supported by views of stakeholders: 47% of respondents to the TSS believe the
measure will have no impact on GHG emissions. There were significantly fewer responses in
favour of the measure having at least a slight impact, which constituted 22% of responses.
Air quality
The measure is likely to have a weakly positive impact on air quality, more so than the other
environmental issues concerned.
Evidence: In 2019 a total of 203 derogations were issued, out of which, 154 were for emissions
to air and 49 for emissions to water. This implies the measure could have a more significant
overall impact on emissions to air than emissions to water. Out of deorgations for emissions to
air, there were 48 derogations for SO2 emissions, 39 for NO2 emissions and 38 for dust
emissions. This indicates the measure’s environmental impacts will be concentrated on reducing
these pollutants. However, this approach does not account for disproportionately high
environmental impacts caued by toxic pollutants, for example, mercury emissions. Out of the
154 derogations issued to emissions to air, 43 were unending or exceeded 2023. The most
common pollutant with unending or lengthy derogations were dust emissions (15) and NO2 (12).
This suggests if the measure was introduced, these particualr existing derogations could be
reassessed to reflect the time limit on derogations, leading to a reduction in emissions for
installations in the areas local to the polluting installations.
The measure’s impacts on air quality are possible to estimate. For example, according to Ricardo
(2019) assessment of MS reports on IED implementation, the annual damage cost of dust and
PCDD/F emissions in the iron and steel sector due to derogations was estimated to be €17m/year
and €0.015m/year respectively3
. For the glass sector, derogations for NOx, SOx and dust resulted
3
Ricardo, 2019. Assessment and summary of Member States' reports for Modules 1, 3 and 4 of Annex II of
Commission Implementing DEUision 2012/795/EU. Retrieved from: https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/e6a8f5a7-
2b35-4bc5-a195-10acfaa49755/Final%20report.pdf
255
in associated damage costs of €19.5 m/year, €18.6 m/year and €3.6m/year respectively for the
years the derogations were active. As discussed in ‘Economic impacts’, the number of
derogations granted is particularly high in glass manufacturing. The high levels of additional
emissions and annual damage costs for glass manufacture highlight the potential environmental
value of introducing a time limit on derogations. If the measure is introduced, this will directly
reduce emissions from lengthy or unending derogations. Derogations which have not yet been
issued are likely to be, on average, shorter, implying there will be lower emissions than in the
counterfactual where the measure is not introduced.
It is not possible to reliably predict the future benefit of future derogations for air pollutants,
though the indications above suggest that the monetised benefits could be significant for the
small number of derogations that would apply for long periods.
ClientEarth provided a case study on Article 15(4) derogations: In 2018 in Bulgaria, there was
only one reported derogation which did not have an end date. However, 7 out of all 9 large coal
power plants in Bulgaria have applied for derogations under Large Combustion Plant BATC. As
of March 2021, 3 of these derogations have been granted4
. Based on the granted derogation for
the coal power plant TPP Maritsa East 2 EAD, this will allow the plant to operate for an
indefinite period of time under the following conditions: a desulphurization rate of 97%-97.5%,
which is equivalent to an emission limit value of 570 mg/Nm3
. For comparison: The general
BAT-AEL range (without derogation) under the LCP BATC is 10-130 mg/Nm3
, so the granted
value is between 4.4 to 57 times higher. With regards emissions of mercury, the permit limit
value is 30 μg/Nm3
. The BAT-AEL range under the LCP BATC for mercury is 1-7 μg/Nm3
, so
the granted value is 4.3 to 30 times higher.
The measure would not be expected to improve air quality equally across all Member States. As
might be expected, those Member States who utilise derogation mechanisms proprtioanally
rather more would benefit proportionallly most from the measure, regarding environmental/
health emissions and their effects, but with the corresponding “rectification” costs to reach the
approppriate sectoral BAT-AEL ranges. Figure A8-3 shows, by Member State, that more
derogations have been granted for BAT-AELs relating to emissions to air than for emissions to
water with the exceptions of Sweden, Germany and Denmark (Ricardo, 2021). This suggests the
measure is likely to have a more significant impact on air quality than water quality with the
exception of the situations in the mentioned Member States, particularly Sweden.
4
TPP Maritsa East 2 EAD (1602 MWе), TPP ContourGlobal Maritsa East 3 AD (908 MWe) and AES Maritsa East 1
EOOD (670 MWe)
256
Figure A8-3: Derogations by environmental medium, reported by Member States (except Slovakia)
(Ricardo, 2021)
Stakeholder input: According to the results of the TSS, 44% of respondents believe the measure
will have at least a slight simpact on emissions to air versus 44% of respondents who believe the
measure will have no impact at all.
Water quality and resources
The measure will have a weakly positive impact on water quality and a limited impact on use
of water resources.
Evidence: As illustrated in Figure A8-3, the majority of derogations are relevant to emissions to
air, not emissions to water with the exceptions of Sweden, Germany, and Denmark. Therefore,
the measure will have inconsistent impacts on water quality across the Member States: most of
the measure’s impact will be concentrated in those three Member States. With regards the
measure’s impact on water resources, the measure’s impact depends on whether the status of the
IED’s BAT-AEPLs are brought to have equal status with BAT-AELs.
In 2019 a total of 203 derogations were issued, out of which, 154 were for emissions to air and
49 for emissions to water. This implies the measure will have a more significant overall impact
on emissions to air than emissions to water. Out of the derogations to water, the most derogations
were granted for emissions of total suspended solids (17) followed by 6 derogations for total
phosphate and the remainder were divided between 7 other pollutants. Out of the 49 derogations
257
issued to emissions to water, there were 10 derogations which were unending or exceeded 2023.
Out of the unending or lengthy derogations, there were 4 derogations for total suspended solids
and 2 for chemical oxygen demand. If the measure was implemented, these derogations may be
reassessed, which would lead to an improvement in water quality in the areas local to the
polluting installations.
Stakeholder input: The results of Question 21 A to the TSS show a high proportion of
respondents believe the measure will have no impact on emissions to water (49%). Fewer
responses support at least a slight impact (36%) on emissions to water. Only 14% of responses
supported a “significant” impact on emissions to water. In comparison to the other environmental
areas examined there was a relatively low proportion of responses to “N/A” (11%).
Soil quality or resources
The measure is likely to have a limited to weakly positive impact on soil quality or resources.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
The measure is likely to have no impact on waste production, generation, and recycling.
Evidence: Limit values and performance levels for waste production, generation, and recycling
are not legally binding. Therefore, introducing a time limit for derogations will not have an
impact on this environmental issue.
The results of the TSS show a high proportion of respondents believe the measure will have no
impact on waste generation (57%), the highest proportion of responses in favour of “no impact”
out of all the environmental measures examined. There were significantly fewer responses in
support of the measure having at least a slight impact, accounting for only 26% of responses. Out
of all the environmental areas examined in relation to the measure in question, waste generation
received the fewest responses in favour of the measure carrying at least a slight impact and the
highest level of confidence that the measure would have no impact.
Efficient use of resources
The measure is likely to have a limited impact on efficient use of resources. Currently, resource
efficiency BAT conclusions do not have the same status as pollution abatement BAT conclusions
in the IED. However, if BAT associated performance levels were legally binding, this measure
would have a significant impact on the use of resources.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to have limited negative impacts on employment. As discussed in the
Economic impacts section above, the measure will affect a small proportion of IED installations,
some of which serve a unique function, for example, when electricity demand is at a peak.
Therefore, if the measure contribute to leading to the closure of installations this would likely
lead to job and Economic losses associated with plant closure. The evidence is limited and,
therefore, these effects cannot be quantified.
258
Measure 2: Mandate the application of a standardised methodology for assessing
the (dis)proportionality between costs of implementation of BAT
conclusions and the potential environmental benefits for assessing
applications for derogations under Article 15(4).
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
 The proposed measure is to mandate the application of a standardised methodology for
assessing the (dis)proportionality between costs of implementation of BAT conclusions and the
potential environmental benefits for assessing applications for derogations under Article 15(4).
Objectives:
The measure will aim to improve the approach to assessing disproportionality between costs and
benefits for the IED, raising standards in the Member States where this method is currently
underdeveloped.
This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general ambition of zero-pollution in the EU and,
more specifically, contributing towards preventing or minimising the emission of pollutants by
large industrial and agro-industrial plants and levelling the playing field across the EU.
Implementation needs:
Article 15(4) of the IED permits derogation from where achievement of emission levels
associated with BAT would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to (a)
environmental benefits due to the geographical location, the local environmental conditions, or
(b) the technical qualities of the installation.
There are several options which could be followed to successfully implement this measure in the
legislature:
 Article 15(4) could be amended to include reference to the universal methodology for
assessing costs of implementation and environmental benefits.
 Sub paragraphs (a) and (b), could be removed to avoid confusion between the official
methodology and individual interpretation of the legislation.
 The EU could provide a separate piece of guidance on how to carry out a standardised
methodology for Member State authorities. EU may introduce guidelines / a standardised
methodology could be appended to a section of Article 15(4)
The EU has confirmed the methodology would need to be developed by the EU first.
Effective implementation of this measure should be supported by guidance for competent
authorities from the EU. MS would need to integrate the EU guidance into the national guidance
documents and ensure operators understood the guidance and have the resources to implement
the methodology. This would require study and analysis of existing methodologies and
consultation among Member States on a draft methodology. It would need to address how cost
259
accounting would be done, how benefits accounting would be done, and some of these could
build on previous work on methodologies carried out for the EU examining methodologies for
estimating potential industrial emissions reductions and compliance costs (Ricardo, 2016).
The methodology could be developed as part of the revision of the reference document on
Economics and Cross-Media effects (EUM). The existing EUM document reference document
contains some information on how to carry out a cost assessment for BATs, but the document
was published in 2006 and a more thorough cost benefit methodology could be included in a
revised document. However this was intended as informing BREF process Economic
assessment rather than individual installation level Economic assessment. This would have
several benefits. The methodology developed by the EU could also benefit from the existing
methodologies and guidelines currently used by Member States. The table below includes an
overview of existing practices in 8 Member States.
Table A8-6: Summary of existing cost benefit methodologies in use in Member States and positions
on regulating for the use of a standardised method according to Member State representatives.
Member
State
Description of existing cost benefit analysis
method
Comments from Member State authority
representatives
Belgium
(Flanders)
In Flanders, the guideline document, Guideline
for determining the Best Available Techniques at
installation level (2017) is a voluntary tool which
can used by operators who wish to apply for an
Article 15(4) derogation or more generally to
assess employment of BAT. The guideline
document provides a point of reference for the
operator when there might be a need to
investigate how to proceed with adopting BAT or
applying for derogation. The guideline can also be
used by those conducting company specific BAT
studies, such as, research institutions. The
guideline is based on experience gained in
Flemish case studies, company-specific studies
and BREFs.
According to a representative from the
Environment Department of the Government of
Flanders, most Article 15(4) applications do not
use this guideline for the following reasons; it is
not mandatory to use this guideline, other
methodologies can be used and the guideline is
not specific for article 15(4). The representative
from Belgium Flanders argued they would
welcome more guidance on the cost benefit
analysis, specifically, which damage cost to use
to quantify the benefits.
However, the representative from the Belgian
department for environment does not believe the
methodology should be totally standardized for
all Member States. The situation in each
Member State is different. Discussions on which
damage costs to use, which benefits to
calculate/evaluate, with each Member State is
not an efficient option. Moreover, this will not
create a level playing field in the EU.
To accommodate for differences between
Member States as well as improving
homogeneity, the EU could produce a
framework/template on some of the key aspects.
In addition INCITE could develop and keep
updated a list of damage costs.
260
Member
State
Description of existing cost benefit analysis
method
Comments from Member State authority
representatives
Finally, this measure will not solve all the issues
with the article 15(4) derogations.
Italy According to a representative from the Italian
Ministry for Ecological Transition, specific
methodologies for conducting cost benefit
analysis do not exist. In Italy, the representative
believe, the cost-benefit analysis are evaluated by
an expert judgement of the competent authorities.
The representative is in favour of defining a
standardised methodology at EU level to
promote homogenous application. However, the
representative argues there are some risks
associated with regulating for the use of a
standardised methodology. For example, the
representative local conditions should not be
ruled out by a standardised methodology. As a
result, the representative suggests a trial period
to test the regulation and allow interested parties
to practice using a standardised tool.
Denmark Denmark uses technology descriptions and
associated financial calculations to help operators
identify BAT for agricultural installations. On the
basis of technology descriptions, standard
conditions are set on the size of the required
emissions reduction. The methodology is
currently under review.
A document shared by a representative of the
Danish Ministry of Environment provides a
detailed overview of the processes used to
evaluate.
Poland In Poland, BAT and derogations for emissions to
air released by IED installations is informed by
the European Environment Agency report Costs
of air pollution from European industrial
facilities 2008-2012.
A Ministry of Environment handbook supports
operators and competent authorities to implement
the approach (Ministerstwo Srodowiska, 2017). In
addition, there is an excel file to support
calculations (Ministerstwo Srodowiska, 2021).
The handbook and excel are developed
specifically for Large Combustion Plants.
However, certain parts of the guide are universal
and can therefore be used as a guide for other
types of installations. The manual is not designed
to be prescriptive or exhaustive and other
methods can justify a request for a derogation.
Regarding emissions to water, the representative
from Poland states Poland has not developed
According to a representative from Poland’s
Ministry of Climate and Environment, the
impact of standardising a cost benefit
methodology depends on how the method is
delivered. For example, if a "standardised"
method is translated through a guidance
document this could be easily delivered by the
relevant ministry in Poland. This is a similar
process to existing methods for informing cost
benefit analysis.
However if "standardised" referred to a legally
binding method this would be significantly
more challenging to implement (more so when
regulating emissions to air than water). The
regulation would have to be very detailed,
explaining each element of the procedure
(including definition of disproportion of costs
compared to the environmental benefits).
Delivering this kind of legislation would be
further complicated by political developments.
261
Member
State
Description of existing cost benefit analysis
method
Comments from Member State authority
representatives
guidelines for this. The recommended approach
has been communicated directly to the competent
authorities. The methodology used to regulate
emissions to water is based on qualitative
assessment where the environmental impact
considers the quality of the receiving water body,
properties of pollutants concerned, and the impact
of given installation on the identified state of
water body. As a priority, the government avoids
providing derogation where priority pollutants are
concerned.
Finland
The Finnish government have produced a
handbook BAT-päästötasoja lievempien raja-
arvojen hyötyjen ja haittojen arvioinnin hyvät
käytännöt (BAT emission levels advantages and
disadvantages of limit values good evaluation
practices), which outlines good practices for the
application and assessment of derogations on
emission limit values based on best available
techniques in the environmental permit process of
installations under the Industrial Emissions
Directive (2010/75/EU, art. 15(4) derogations).
The guidance provides recommendations for
operators and authorities to adapt to the
following:
1. Costs of emission reductions based on net
present values
2. Monetised environmental benefits
3. Lost environment benefits caused by
atmospheric emissions should be monetised
4. No commonly accepted methodologies
available on the EU level for evaluation of
environmental damage to water bodies. The
report rEUommends a first step to dermine
whether harm can be monetised might be
caused by excess emissions.
5. As a prerequisite to derogation the costs of
investment should exceed the
enviromnmental benefits
-
Portugal
Portugal’s environmental permitting unit has
developed a method for application based on
theBREF on Economics and Cross-Media Effects.
The guide is designed for cases when there is not
an obvious conclusion or a broad agreement on
A represenative of Portugal’s Department of
Environmental Permitting unit believes there is
margin for improvement but at least there is a
baseline for all operators.
262
Member
State
Description of existing cost benefit analysis
method
Comments from Member State authority
representatives
the preferred option to be implemented.
The guide is based on the fundamental principles
of the IPPC Directive; a method which allows for
a transparenet assessment of the costs of
implementing BAT, requirements that mst be
considered in analysis of Economic viablility. The
guide is also supported with an excel sheet to
support operators to make calculations.
France
The French Ministere Ministère de la Transition
écologique et solidaire has a methodology,
produced in collaboration with the public
technical institute Ineris (Ineris, 2017) and a
spreadsheet to support operators with calculations
(Ineris, 2017b).
Regarding environmental aspect, to government
request an update of the impact assessment
regarding the incidence of concern (if the
incidence is important, competent authority can
ask to include a propEUtive health risk
assessment, "Evaluation des Risques Sanitaires"
in French, and/or an assessment of the
environmental state of media, "Etude sur
l'interprétation de l'état des milieux"). The goal is
to quantify the impact.
Regarding the cost, the analysis takes into account
OPEX and CAPEX. Competent authorities can
also ask for proof and information about the last
investment regarding the source of the incidence.
In addition, the French government is currently
working on a methodology to identify and cover
better incidences which are not currently covered
or are partially covered by BREFs according to
Article 14(6).
The representative for France’s Ministère de la
Transition écologique et solidaire states that
cost-benefit calculation is a core aspect of BAT.
Therefore, harmonised guidance for cost-benefit
analysis in the EU to support a level playing
field and a high level of enviornmental
protection is crucial.
Sweden
Sweden’s Naturvardsverket does not have a
standardised cost benefit methofd for assessing
the proportionality between costs of
implementing BAT conclusions and potential
environmental benefits. Instead, assessments are
made by competent authorities on a case by case
basis.
Sweden assessed the proportionality between
costs of implementing BAT conclusions and
potential environmental benefits before the IED
entered into force. The Swedish Environmental
Code includes so-called ‘General Rules of
Consideration’. These are among others: Burden
-
263
Member
State
Description of existing cost benefit analysis
method
Comments from Member State authority
representatives
of proof principle, Proportionality principle,
PrEUautionary principle, Best Possible
Techniques Principle, Knowledge requirement.
These rules stipulate that all activities and
measures that may affect human health or the
environment must be carried out in a way that any
inconveniences or risks for inconveniences are
prevented or limited. These rules apply as long as
they are not unreasonable (Proportionality
principle) which means that application should be
environmentally justifiable and financially
reasonable in each case.
Spain
The Catalonian cost benefit methodology aims to
determine environmental effects, and to establish
which option has the best cost-benefit ratio
(Departament de Medi Ambient i Habitage,
2007).
-
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
In summary, the Economic impacts of mandating the application of a standardised cost benefit
methodology on both competent authorities and operators are likely to be weakly negative.
A small proportion of installations receive derogations from competent authorities, therefore, the
potential overall economic impact of increasing the standardisation of the method is low. As
indicated for measure 1, there were approximately 200 derogations for 130 of 52 000 IED
installations as of 2019 reporting. In 2019, 65 derogations were issued and 5 200 permit reviews
were conducted. Therefore, the most significant Economic impacts of this measure would be
limited to <0.0025% of IED installations or 1.25% of annual permits reviews. However, there
remains the potential for localised Economic impacts where installation operators expect to rely
on derogations to help the installation more financially viable. Increasing the standardisation of
the cost benefit methodology might have a negative Economic impact on operators which apply
for derogations in the future, where standardisation increases the stringency of the application
process. Whether the measure will increase the stringency depends on the quality and
consistency of existing cost benefit methodologies employed by competent authorities to issue
derogations.
In addition, this measure could potentially have Economic impacts for Member State authorities.
The measure would require authorities to produce, share and provide operators with guidance on
how to use the methodology. The existing cost benefit methods employed by competent
authorities are summarised in Table A8-6 and comments from Member State representatives on
the value of introducing a standardised method. Currently, Member State national level
264
authorities are varied, and none are mandatory. Therefore, requiring the use of a standardised
cost benefit methodology will change existing practices. A significant change in practices could
also have an Economic impact on operators by increasing the administrative burden on
businesses (discussed below) and in some cases may introduce an increased stringency that
increases the difficulty of successfully demonstrating to a competent authority that an operator
requires a derogation. Whether the measure will mean it is more challenging for operators to
successfully gain a derogation depends on whether the new methodology is more strict than
existing methodologies. Inconsistency between the measures currently used means Economic
impacts will vary based on in which Member State(s) a business operates.
Figure A8-4: Schematic diagrams of steps to be taken when carrying out an installation-level cost
benefit analysis. Right, Belgium (Flanders) (Vito, 2017) and left, Portugal (iSBS Consultancy, APA,
IP, 2013).
265
Administrative burden on businesses
The measure is likely to have a limited to weakly negative impact on business’ administrative
burden. Existing cost benefit methodologies are inconsistent. This has been confirmed by the
responses to the TSS. Therefore, if a standardised methodology to assess the costs and benefits
of derogations were developed, it is likely this will increase operator’s administrative burden in
most cases. However, this conclusion assumes a standardised methodology implemented by the
Member State authorities would be more detailed or stringent than the existing practices, which
remains uncertain at this stage. Assuming that this measure would increases the costs of a
derogation process by around 25% on average for operators, and that over the 20 year period 400
installations would make derogations applications, the additional administrative cost for business
is estimated to be between €0.1m/yr and €0.9m/yr, with a best estimate of €0.2m/yr.
Operating costs and conduct of business
The measure is likely to have a weakly negative impact on business’ operating costs and
conduct. As discussed above in the “Economic impacts”, it is possible the measure will make it
more difficult for operators to apply for derogations, as a result of an increase in the stringency
or level of detailed required to work with the standardised methodology.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure is likely to have positive impacts on the level playing field. The cost benefit
methodologies which are currently used by Member States and regional competent authorities
are inconsistent. Therefore, there is significant potential for the measure to improve the level
playing field both within Member States and between Member States by introducing a more
uniform process to assess the costs and benefits of derogation.
Position of SMEs
The measure’s impact on SMEs is unclear.
Innovation and research
The measure is unlikely to have an impact on innovation and research.
Public authority impacts
The measure is likely to have limited and negative short-term impacts on public authority
resources across the EU. However, the measure may have limited and positive long-term
impacts on all public authorities’ operational systems as a result of streamlining currently
separate/disparate approaches. Assuming that this measure would increase the costs of a
derogation process for public authorities to the level of half the cost of operators, and that over
the 20 year period 400 installations would make derogations applications, the additional
administrative cost for authorities is estimated to be between €0.06m/yr and €0.4m/yr, with a
best estimate of €0.09m/yr.
266
Short-term impacts on public authority resourcing will apply to high level European and national
level authorities. The measure will require the EU to develop a methodology and provide
guidance for operators and competent authorities on how to use the methodology. As illustrated
in the examples in Figure A8-2, none of the MS examined have a dedicated tool to cover Article
15(4) derogations across all sectors or pollutants which are regulated by the IED. Furthermore,
out of the tools which MS have produced, they are all voluntary. Therefore, most MS authorities
will have to either implement a new methodology or methodologies or adapt an existing
methodology to comply with the measure. MS will also need to produce guidance or offer
support to operators and competent authorities to support their use of the methodology. In the
grand scheme of public authority actions, creating and implementing the tool will have a
relatively limited demand on Member State resources. Furthermore, the initial investment is
likely to be somewhat offset by the marginal logistical benefits gained through streamlining.
If a more stringent cost benefit methodology is introduced, it is foreseeable that public
authorities in Member States which grant a relatively high number of derogations would be most
affected. As discussed above in ‘Economic impacts’, Sweden, Portugal and the Czech Republic
are the Member States with the most derogations. In the answers submitted to the Targeted
Stakeholder Survey questionnaire the representative from Sweden’s Naturvårdsverke stated they
were supportive of introducing time limit for derogations. The representative also stated it is
necessary and important to conduct assessments which are specific to the installation, sector, and
technological development in question. This indicates that Sweden, the Member State which
grants the most derogations in EU, does not believe the measure would have any significant
negative impacts on their operations, on the condition a standardised methodology has flexibility
to accommodate for different installations, sectors and technologies.
The representatives from Italy and Denmark’s environment ministries both suggested the EU
could produce information to support development of a standardised methodology, specifically
relating to damage costs. Therefore, if this measure is implemented, the EU could consider
provide MS with guidance to support MS to implement the measure. Effective guidance could
lessen the measure’s administrative burden on public authorities and increase the homogeneity of
the tools produced across Member States, thus improving the level playing field within the EU.
Environmental impacts
Generating a more standardised methodology that is applied across the MS should harmonise
how benefits and costs are calculated. When a derogation is being considered by an authority,
they will have a more comprehensive assessment to use to know whether to grant a derogation. If
the methodology is more comprehensive, with greater support provided in how to value benefits
and how to standardise the quantification of costs, this could mean fewer derogations are
granted. If fewer derogations are granted, or are granted on stricter terms, this may result in
limited to weakly positive impacts on the environment overall. In particular, this is expected
to be the case for the environmental issues most commonly within scope of Article 15(4)
derogations: emissions to air and emissions to water.
267
Climate
The measure is likely to have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
Evidence: there were no derogations reported in 2019 which were relevant to climate impacts.
The only type of derogation which may affect the climate are derogations for energy efficiency.
The measure may have an impact on the climate if GHG emissions are brought within the scope
of the IED (see measures in problem area 4).
The evidence is supported by views of stakeholders: 44% of respondents to the TSS believe the
measure will have no impact on GHG emissions. There were significantly fewer responses in
favour of the measure having at least a slight impact, which constituted 27% of responses.
Air quality
This measure is likely to have weakly positive impacts on air quality.
As identified for measure 1, the majority of derogations granted to date have been for emissions
to air. The use of a standardised methodology may lead to reduced numbers of derogations or
derogations granted with more stringent limits. Hence weakly positive impacts may occur in
these cases, though no benefits would accrue if derogations continue to be granted.
The evidence is supported by views of stakeholders: a high proportion of respondents believe the
measure will have no impact on emissions to air (47%). There were slightly fewer responses in
favour of the measure having at least a slight impact, which constituted 41% of responses. In
comparison to the responses to the other environmental fields examined, this was the joint-
highest level of support alongside emissions to water.
Water quality and resources
This measure is likely to have weakly positive impacts on water quality.
As identified for measure 1, a minority of derogations granted to date have been for emissions to
water. The use of a standardised methodology may lead to reduced numbers of derogations or
derogations granted with more stringent limits. Hence weakly positive impacts may occur in
these cases, though no benefits would accrue if derogations continue to be granted.
The results of the targeted survey support the evidence found on releases to water. In comparison
to air quality, a high proportion of respondents believe the measure will have no impact on
emissions to water (46%). There were slightly fewer responses in favour of the measure having
at least a slight impact, which constituted 41% of responses. In comparison to the responses to
the other environmental fields examined, this was the joint-highest level of support alongside
emissions to air.
Soil quality or resources
The measure is likely to have a limited impact on soil quality or resources.
Evidence: very few derogations granted appear to affect releases to soil.
268
The results of the targeted survey support the conclusion reached using data on permits for
releases to soil: a high proportion of respondents believe the measure will have no impact on
emissions to soil (48%). There were significantly fewer responses in favour of the measure
having at least a slight impact, which constituted 31% of responses. This could reflect the view
held among many that in its current state the IED does not do much to regulate emissions to soil.
Therefore, without broader changes to the IED, this measure alone would have a limited impact
on emissions to soil.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
The measure is likely to have no impact on waste production, generation, and recycling.
Evidence: Limit values and performance levels for waste production, generation, and recycling
are not legally binding, and derogations have not been granted for these topics.
The results of the targeted survey support the conclusion reached based on the nature of limit
values and performance values for waste production: a high proportion of respondents believe
the measure will have no impact on waste generation (52%), the highest proportion of responses
in favour of “no impact” out of all the environmental measures examined. The responses in
favour of the measure having at least a slight impact was half the number of responses in
favour of the measure having no impact, accounting for only 26% of responses. Alongside
resource use of other materials, waste generation received the lowest level of support from
stakeholders in the measure having an impact.
Efficient use of resources
The measure is likely to have a limited impact on efficient use of resources.
Evidence: Currently, resource efficiency BAT conclusions do not have the same status as
pollution abatement BAT conclusions in the IED, and derogations have not been granted for
these topics.
The results of the targeted survey support the conclusion reached based on the nature of limit
values and performance values for waste production: a high proportion of respondents believe
the measure will have no impact on energy use (51%), water use (50%) and use of other
materials or resources (48%). There were significantly fewer responses in favour of the measure
having at least a slight impact on energy use (28%), water use (27%) and use of other materials
or resources (26%) of responses.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to have limited impacts on employment. Where public authorities
operated a less rigorous or stringent methodology to calculate the cost of compliance against
environmental benefit, this measure may reduce the number of derogations issued to businesses.
With reduced derogations, businesses will be forced to invest in implementing new techniques.
This could have some positive impacts in terms of the employment impacts to install to
269
techniques, and/or some negative impacts if the business’ ability to employ the same number of
FTEs is affected by reduced margins.
Measure 3: Amend Article 15(1) to introduce an explicit requirement that indirect
releases of polluting substances to water shall be assessed and evidence
must be provided to demonstrate that such releases would not lead to an
increased load of pollutants in receiving waters when compared to a
scenario where the IED installation applies BAT and meets AELs for direct
releases
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would amend Article 15(1) to introduce an explicit requirement that indirect
releases of polluting substances to water shall be assessed and evidence must be provided to
demonstrate that such releases would not lead to an increased load of pollutants in receiving
waters when compared to a scenario where the IED installation applies BAT and meets AELs for
direct releases.
Under the existing IED legislation, the first paragraph of Article 15(1) states that emission limit
values apply at the point when the pollution leaves the installation and clarifies that the effect of
any processes which dilute the final emission should be disregarded:
“The emission limit values for polluting substances shall apply at the point where the
emissions leave the installation, and any dilution prior to that point shall be disregarded
when determining those values.”
However, the second paragraph of Article 15(1) makes an exception for emissions assessment in
the context of water pollution. This exception allows for consideration of the treatment processes
in a water treatment plant when evaluating limit values on final emissions. Pollution in all other
circumstances cannot consider the effect of “any dilution prior to that point”. The text in
question, paragraph two of Article 15(1), states:
“With regard to indirect releases of polluting substances into water, the effect of a water
treatment plant may be taken into account when determining the emission limit values of
the installation concerned, provided that an equivalent level of protection of the
environment as a whole is guaranteed and provided this does not lead to higher levels of
pollution in the environment.”
 Therefore, the suggested measure would remove or adjust the exception in Article 15(1)
for water treatment plants and indirect water pollution more generally. Consequently, emission
limit values in the context of releases to water would be assessed based on BAT. The 2nd
paragraph of 15(1) currently allows for the effects of waste water treatment plants (WWTP) to be
accounted for. The measure is to strengthen this, to say if a WWTP is used [i.e., indirect releases]
that would not lead to an increased load of pollutants in the final release environment compared
270
to if no WWTP was used and the installation applied BAT and meets the BAT-AELs for direct
releases. According to this approach, it would be necessary to show that using a WWTP would
not lead to a worse result than if BAT was applied directly. Other conditions which could be
considered include, released pollutants do not impede the operation of the WWTP (e.g. they are
not toxic to the biological process) and the receiving WWTP is designed to abate these
pollutants.
Objectives:
The measure aims to reduce industrial indirect releases to water bodies. This measure will,
therefore, contribute to the general ambition of zero-pollution in the EU and, more specifically,
contributing towards preventing or minimising the emission of pollutants by large industrial and
agro-industrial plants and levelling the playing field across the EU.
Implementation needs:
 EU to amend IED legislation
 MS to transpose legislation onto the national legal frameworks
 EU/MS to provide guidance or communication for operators on the changing of practice
 Operators to implement requirements to monitor, assess and provide evidence on indirect
releases to water.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
In summary, the measure has potential to have weakly negative Economic impacts on
installations which release emissions to water indirectly. Therefore, including indirect emitters
within the scope of the Directive will require operators to demonstrate equivalence with BAT.
Two factors are examined to estimate the Economic impact of the measure on operators: the
nature of the BAT conclusions and the sectors and types of installations which would be affected
by the measure.
The majority of existing BREFs for water emissions do not include changes to manufacturing
processes technologies. This implies the measure will not have significant Economic impacts of
in the short term. According to a 2018 study of the IED’s potential contribution to broader water
policy, most techniques included in the BREFs for water emission reductions include abatement
or managerial techniques (Ricardo, 2018). A small proportion of techniques aim to change or
select a given primary manufacturing process that leads to lower emissions to water. In the
BREFs reviewed under the IED for the same study, 80% of BAT conclusions related to water
emission topics do not contain a BAT-AEL. Most techniques inside the BAT conclusions
documents do not contain BAT-AELs. The most common generic conclusions on water topics
included in the BREFs since 2011 (IED) are environmental management systems, monitoring of
emissions to water, and wastewater strategies.
271
The Economic impacts of this measure are likely to be unevenly distributed between installations
based on their size. Emissions to water from small industrial installations are more often classed
as indirect releases to water than large installations (Ricardo, 2018). Economic impacts of the
measure are also likely to be unevenly distributed between sectors, whereby some sectors are
more responsible for emissions to water than others (Ricardo, 2018). For example, the chemicals
sector is responsible for most fluorine emitted to water and is one of the top IED emitters of
nitrogen while the pulp, paper and board industry emits three times the quantity of TOC than the
second largest polluter (organic chemical production) (Ricardo, 2018).
The number of installations estimated to be affected has been taken from the number of EU27
facilities reporting pollutant transfers in water in E-PRTR in 2018: 1 056 facilities, assumed to be
1 056 installations.
The measure will have a limited Economic impact on installations which currently use
independently operated WWTPs to treat their waste water. Independently operated WWTPs are
normally plants dedicated to the treatment of industrial waste water which serve several
installations located in proximity to each other. For certain industrial waste water effluents this
can be a more efficient option compared with treatment onsite, as EUonomies of scale and
synergies between waste water types can be exploited (EEA, 2018). According to E-PRTR data
from 2017, there are 74 independently operated WWTPs in Europe which are regulated by the
IED. Independently operated waste water treatment plants are more likely to be able to filter out
harmful pollutants due to their Specialist design. Therefore, it is unlikely installations which are
served by independently operated WWTPs would release fewer indirect emissions into the
receiving body of water if they implemented BAT at the plant level. However, since a small
proportion of installations are served by independently operated WWTPs, the measure is still
likely to have, overall, a negative Economic impact on installations.
The position papers submitted by CEFIC, an association for the EU chemicals industry, and by
Verband Der Chemischen Industrie (VCI), an association for German chemical companies, argue
a centralised system for treatment of waste water is the most Economically efficient approach
(no quantitative evidence provided). The papers note that decentralised and additional treatment
plants focus on selected substances, at the expense of overall efficiency.
The position paper from industry stakeholder IOGP notes that while there already exists well-
established and clear waste water legislation which serves to regulate indirect water discharge to
water bodies via treatment plants, they “urge careful consideration of the potentially detrimental
effects that may stem from a lack of efficiency if each installation covered by the IED had to
conduct its own waste water treatment [and] underline the need for a pragmatic approach in all
the circumstances.”
Administrative burden on businesses
 The measure will have weakly negative impacts on the administrative burden on
businesses. Environmental management systems, monitoring of emissions to water, and waste
272
water strategies are all frequent requirements in BAT conclusions concerned with water quality
(Ricardo, 2018). The need to introduce and comply with environmental strategies and monitoring
would be one of the driving forces increasing business’ administrative burden. In addition, the
IED operator and the WWTP operator would need to cooperate closely, including,
communicating what its pollution load is and what is the reference load to be complied with (i.e.
corresponding to BAT-AEL for direct discharge).
 In comparison to the total costs in the baseline, this measure is expected to require
additional resource from operators, assumed at around an additional 5% in costs during permit
reviews, inspections and monitoring and reporting activities. Over a 20-year period, therefore, it
is estimated that operators may incur an additional €0.01m/yr to €0.8m/yr, on average, with a
central estimate of €0.6m/yr.
Operating costs and conduct of business
The measure is likely to have negative impacts on the operating cost of businesses.
It is however difficult to quantify the impact of this measure. The likely consequence is that
some IED installations would need to install their own WWTP in the cases where they would not
be able to prove they were able to meet the demands of the revised Article 15(1) text. The
additional costs for WWTP could be rather significant CAPEX and OPEX. However, whether a
WWTP would be required would be specific to each installation, based on the quantities
released, and the local situation with the existing receiving WWTP. This is impossible to predict
the number of installations that may incur the costs. The possible level of costs for one
installation is quoted by one source5
for large industrial WWTP to be between $20 000 and
$40 000 per cubic meter per hour (m3
/h), with a central estimate at $25 000 /m3
/h for capital
costs, and with operating costs principally due to additional chemical consumption to be $3/m3
.
A paper provided by CEFIC argues that large-scale waste water treatment plants can remove
pollutants more effectively than decentralised systems. Therefore, the organisation argue that this
measure is not an efficient way of reducing emissions to water.
Competitiveness and level playing field
The measure is likely to have limited to weakly negative impacts on competitiveness, resulting
from significant increase in the costs of conducting business. The measure is also likely to
improve the level playing field across the EU on how indirect releases are monitored and
managed across the EU.
Current BAT-AELs for pre-treatment are fixed, but implementation varies among Member
States. Furthermore, due to the non-binding nature of BAT-AEPLs (Art. 14(3) of the IED) only a
few Member States implement these values as intended. Clarifications on setting and interpreting
BAT-AELs for waste water discharge is needed, and specifically, where technically reasonable
5
https://www.watertEUhonline.com/wastewater/article/14183810/industrial-wastewater-treatment-print. No
cost data were identified in the CWW BREF.
273
and justified, BAT-AELs should be derived separately for direct and indirect discharge. An
updated BREF Guidance (Implementation Decision 2012/119/EU) could be used to stipulate pre-
treatment as binding.
There is limited further evidence to support the assessment of this measure. The remaining
assessment is from stakeholder consultation:
 ClientEarth (Environmental NGO) suggests that the monitoring of indirect releases is
likely to result in a slight improvement in the harmonisation between sectors and
Member States.
 Jernkontoret and VCI (national industry associations) in contrast do not expect the
monitoring of indirect releases to improve harmonisation between sectors and Member
States. VCI argue that this measure would lead to a more than 15% decrease EU
competitiveness.
 EUROCOAL (EU industry association) request the effects of waste water treatment
plants should be taken into account (rather than Article 15(1) ‘may be’) when
determining permit ELVs, to support the integrated approach. Euracoal note that “often,
Special water treatment plants are better suited for removing pollutants, rather than
installations within the site boundaries of IED-regulated plants”.
Position of SMEs
The measure will likely have weakly negative impacts on SMEs. According to (Ricardo, 2018)
most installations responsible for indirect releases of pollutants are small-scale. Therefore, the
measure is likely to disproportionally affect SMEs than larger organisations.
Innovation and research
The measure will likely have no impact on innovation and research.
Public authority impacts
In the short-term, this measure is likely to result in weakly negative impacts on public
authorities to engage with and review the evidence provided by operators on how indirect
releases are being managed. Analysis of the implications of this measure and associated costs is
ongoing.
The measure would create additional burden for public authorities in permit reviews, inspections
and information management. In comparison to the total costs in the baseline, this measure is
expected to require additional resource from public authorities , assumed at around an additional
5% in costs during permit reviews, inspections and monitoring and reporting activities. Over a
20-year period, therefore, it is estimated that public authorities may incur an additional
€0.02m/yr to €0.5m/yr, on average, with a central estimate of €0.4m/yr.
Member States which have not yet implemented Article 15(1) may be left behind if the measure
is implemented. The existing legislation requires competent authorities to assess how indirect
emissions are abated in the WWTP. This implies competent authorities which are currently
274
implementing measures will have experience and knowledge in calculating indirect emissions to
water and examining how effective WWTPs are in abating indirect emissions. The findings of a
Ricardo study indicate there are at least six Member States which do not currently implement
Article 15(1) will have more work to do to successfully implement the measure (Ricardo,
2020b).
The measure includes the requirement to understand whether indirect releases of polluting
substances to water do not lead to an increased load of pollutants in receiving waters. Estimating
the impact of an installations’ indirect emissions on the receiving body of water is
technically challenging (Ricardo, 2020b). Special conditions such as dilution or synergistic
effects need to be considered by the competent authorities. When mixed streams occur, a case-
by-case approach is necessary to account for the specific circumstances of each installation.
Successfully implementing the measure requires competent authorities to compare emissions
between scenarios where the installation applies BAT in comparison to relying on the WWTP to
abate emissions. Therefore, the measure would be challenging for authorities to implement
which are unfamiliar with the technologies and approaches to measure emissions where
pollutants are mixed in the waste water stream.
Mixing of waste water streams presents a technical challenge for implementing this measure for
public authorities. The measure relies on the public authority’s capability to estimate the quantity
and severity of indirect emissions, which can be amplified or reduced by the synergistic effects
following mixing waste water streams. Existing practices to tackle mixed waste water streams
are employed in a handful of Member States (Ricardo, 2020b). Belgium (Flanders) uses
additional monitoring requirements where necessary (e.g. monitoring of the individual streams)
to enable a complete assessment of mixed streams. This testing has allowed competent
authorities in Belgium to identify examples of a positive effects of mixing waste water streams,
including neutralisation resulting from the mixing of basic and acidic waste water and the use of
waste water with a high TOC value as a carbon source for biological treatment. In Austria,
Belgium (Flanders) and Sweden (as well as Norway), ELVs are established individually for each
waste water stream before their confluence. This is useful where at least one stream presents a
high risk for humans or the environment. In Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Germany, Poland and
Portugal, exceptions are also possible for substances that do not present a high risk. In such
cases, the substances can be treated either at a WWTP or, where separate treatment is not
possible, a mixing rule can be applied to establish a combined ELVs for emissions after
treatment in the WWTP. Therefore, successfully implementing this measure will require public
authorities to have the technical expertise to account for the impacts of waste water mixing..
In question 26 of the Targeted Stakeholder Survey, respondents were asked if their Member
State had implemented or is planning to implement measures to set ELVs for indirect releases of
polluting substances to water when taking into account the effect of a waste water treatment
275
plant. 15 Member States plus Norway6
answered “yes” and 7 Member States answered “no”7
.
Out of the Member States which answered “yes”, some Member States described how they set
ELVs for indirect releases of polluting substances to water, and some MS expanded on their
answers to explain they are working in compliance with Article 15(1) to set ELVs for indirect
releases considering the effect of a WWTP.
Environmental impacts
There are excessive releases of pollutants to water bodies in the EU (European Commission,
2020b). Data on direct and indirect releases reported by IED industry, which are reported
separately under the E-PRTR, show that direct releases have been significantly reduced,
especially heavy metals, but that indirect releases going to centralised waste water treatment
plants including urban waste water treatment plants have remained rather stable over the last 10
years (European Commission, 2020b). Reporting of indirect water releases is however rather
incomplete. Competent authorities have difficulty in applying the existing legislation, and there
are inconsistencies in the joint implementation of the IED and the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive (European Commission, 2020b). Therefore, there may be a need to change the existing
legislation to reduce emissions to water at source.
The measure will encourage more installations to comply with existing BAT conclusions on
releases to water (as opposed to devolving clean-up to off-site WWTP). Implementing existing
BAT conclusions on emissions to water can have a significant impact on reduction of water
pollution. BAT-AELs may be useful for indirect discharges of pollutants for which municipal
waste water treatment plants are generally not designed (e.g. substances that are difficult to
degrade/not degradable, heavy metals, AOX, volatile substances, stubborn substances). For
example, those BAT conclusions forcing higher monitoring frequencies will normally lead to
better water effluent management and thus lower emissions to water, but the absolute impact is
highly uncertain. The potential emission reductions of key pollutants due to BAT-AELs vary by
BATc. In some sectors’ processes emissions could be reduced by up to 80% while there might be
negligible reductions in other processes. For example, in the production of pulp, paper and board,
there would be significant reductions in high quantity pollutants such as chemical oxygen
demand and Total Nitrogen to meet lower BAT-AELs, as well as reasonable reductions to meet
the upper BAT-AELs as well.
Climate
This potential impacts of this measure on the climate are uncertain. The position paper
submitted by the business association for the chemical industry highlights that WWTPs are
major consumers of power. The considered measure may result in additional waste water
processing on site at the installation, which would be expected to be an increase in power
6
Belgium, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Norway,
Portugal, Romania, and Spain
7
Sweden, Croatia, Cyprus, CzEUhia, Poland, and Slovenia
276
consumption compared to the utilisation of a combined offsite waste water treatment plant. This
would increase greenhouse gas emissions in Member States where fossils fuels are still a core
part of the energy mix.
Air quality
This measure is likely to have limited impacts on air quality, at least directly.
The application of BAT to control water pollutant loads from industrial installations is not
expected to have an impact on air pollutant releases.
48% of TSS respondents think the measure will have no impact on emissions to air. The next
largest proportion were 7% of respondents that think the measure will have a slight impact on
emissions to air.
Water quality and resources
The measure will have weakly positive to positive impacts on emissions to water, although this
is highly uncertain due to the unknown number of installations that may need to fit WWTP.
Table A8-7 provides an overview of the key indirect water pollutant releases from main IED
activities which the measure would affect. The table has been compiled using 2018 E-PRTR EU-
27 data on transfers and releases to water. The table estimates (final column) the possible benefit
of this measure from the difference in the average emission rate per installation between reported
transfers and reported releases. Activity/pollutant combinations where the average emission
release per installation was higher than the average emission transfer are excluded. The analysis
is based only on quantities of emissions from IED activities with at least 10 installations
reporting to the E-PRTR in an attempt to identify the main polluters / key environmental issues.
Therefore, the results are underestimates. Furthermore, the analysis is limited by installation
reporting to E-PRTR being limited by the reporting thresholds, and thus is a further
underestimate. From the very approximate results, the sector with the largest quantity of releases
are plants for the pre-treatment or dyeing of fabrics and textiles, which release over 200 thousand
tonnes of total organic compounds indirectly to water per year in 2018.
Table A8-7: Emissions to water by IED activity which the measure would affect, based on E-PRTR
E-PRTR
activity code
E-PRTR Activity Pollutant Estimated
emission
reduction of
measure
(tonnes/year)
1(c) Thermal power stations and other combustion
installations
TOC 750
2(f) Installations for surface treatment of metals and
plastic materials using an electrolytic or
Cr and
compounds
20
277
E-PRTR
activity code
E-PRTR Activity Pollutant Estimated
emission
reduction of
measure
(tonnes/year)
chemical process
Zn and
compounds
10
4(a)(ii) Chemical installations for the production on an
industrial scale of basic organic chemicals:
Oxygen-containing hydrocarbons such as alcohols,
aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, esters, acetates,
ethers, peroxides, epoxy resins
TOC 1 210
4(e) Installations using a chemical or biological
process for the production on an industrial scale
of basic pharmaceutical products
TOC 510
5(a) Installations for the recovery or disposal of
hazardous waste
Phenols 60
5(c) Installations for the disposal of non-hazardous
waste
Ni and
compounds
10
5(d) Landfills (excluding landfills of inert waste and
landfills, which were definitely closed before
16.7.2001 or for which the after-care phase
required by the competent authorities according
to Article 13 of Council Directive 1999/31/EU
of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste has
expired)
Cr and
compounds
10
Hg and
compounds
10
Phenols 20
6(b) Industrial plants for the production of paper and
board and other primary wood products (such as
chipboard, fibreboard and plywood)
TOC 23 790
7(a)(ii) Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs
with 2,000 places for production pigs (over 30
kg)
TOC 1 510
8(a) Slaughterhouses TOC 10 910
8(b) Treatment and processing intended for the
production of food and beverage products.
TOC 9 670
Total phosphorus 30
8(b)(i) Treatment and processing intended for the
production of food and beverage products from
animal raw materials (other than milk)
TOC 1 070
8(c) Treatment and processing of milk Total nitrogen 610
278
E-PRTR
activity code
E-PRTR Activity Pollutant Estimated
emission
reduction of
measure
(tonnes/year)
Total phosphorus 90
9(a) Plants for the pre-treatment (operations such as
washing, bleaching, mercerisation) or dyeing of
fibres or textiles
TOC 208 980
Total nitrogen 90
Total phosphorus 20
Zn and
compounds
10
In the response to the consultation, Question 21 A and B of the TSS asked stakeholders to
estimate the environmental impacts of the proposed measure. As would be expected, a large
proportion of stakeholders believe the measure’s largest potential positive impact will be on
emissions to water. A relatively high proportion of respondents, 40% believe the measure will
have at least a slight impact on emissions to water, divided between significant (13%), moderate
(9%) and slight (18%). However, 39% of stakeholder responses considered this measure may
have no impact on emissions to water.
Environmental NGO EEB expect a lower pollution load to enter into the WWTP input waste
water stream and hence a lower discharge into the receiving water if pre-treatment is applied
prior to indirect emissions release to UWWTP. EEB support this measure or a more stringent
interpretation of prohibiting all indirect releases of waste water, and they consider it should be
BAT to monitor emissions from both direct and indirect discharges.
Soil quality or resources
This measure is likely to have limited impacts on soil quality, at least directly.
44% of TSS respondents think the measure will have no impact on emissions to soil. The next
largest proportion were 7% of respondents that think the measure will have a slight impact on
emissions to soil.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure is likely to have no impact on waste production, generation and recycling.
55% of TSS respondents think the measure will have no impact on waste generated. The next
largest proportion were 7% of respondents that think the measure will have a slight impact on
waste generated.
279
Efficient use of resources
The measure is likely to have no impact on resource efficiency.
The application of BAT to control water pollutant loads from industrial installations is not
expected to have an impact on water use.
53% of TSS responses believe the measure will have “no impact” on water use. 17% of
respondents believe the measure will have at least a slight impact on water use, divided between
significant (2%), moderate (8%) and slight (8%).
Social impacts
The social impacts of this measure are uncertain.
Measure 4: Amend Article 18 to require that stricter ELVs are set in permit
conditions in the case that environmental quality standards cannot be met
by implementing existing BAT conclusions
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would amend Article 18 to require that stricter ELVs that go beyond current BAT
shall be set in permit conditions in the case that environmental quality standards cannot be met
by implementing existing BAT conclusions.
As part of the IED evaluation some stakeholders suggested that current wording of Article 18 is
not specific enough with regard to concrete actions that have to be carried out. Currently Article
18 states that:
“Where an environmental quality standard requires stricter conditions than those
achievable by the use of the best available techniques, additional measures shall be
included in the permit, without prejudice to other measures which may be taken to
comply with environmental quality standards.”
The existing legislation does not specify what ‘additional measures’ should be prescribed by
competent authorities in the case that BAT do not meet environmental quality standards. The
revision proposed by this measure would clarify that permit ELVs need to be set below the lower
end of BAT-AEL range (or in the cases where the BAT-AEL lower range is not specifed, and
instead a “<” sign is used, to be towards the lower end of the BAT-AEL range) where the
environmental quality standards are not met by setting ELVs in line with BAT-AEL range. This
revision would therefore contribute to a higher level of environmental protection.
Objectives:
The measure aims to clarify the intention of Article 18 and contribute to ensuring that
environmental quality standards are met. This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general
ambition of zero-pollution in the EU and, more specifically, contributing towards preventing or
280
minimising the emission of pollutants by large industrial and agro-industrial plants and levelling
the playing field across the EU.
Implementation needs:
 EU to update Article 18 of the IED.
 EU and Member States to issue guidance for competent authorities and businesses which
experience a change in practice as a result of the rule change.
 Competent authorities and installation operators to update permits.
 Installation operators may lead to changes related to additional techniques deployed.
Assessing impacts
In general, very few permit conditions have been reportedly set to date that are more ambitious
than those achievable by the use of BAT. For reporting year 2018, only Sweden and Germany
reported setting stricter ELVs in permit conditions, in relation to Article 18 (to meet
Environmental Quality Standards; stricter conditions set in 5 cases).8
This information was
reported in Ricardo (2021), and the latest reporting for 2019 does not materially change this (6
installations are mentioned, when considering reporting years 2018 to 2019). Further conditions
may still be reported by Member States as further BATC are implemented though. The 5 cases
reported in the IED registry for 2018 represents 0.01% of all installations. Analysis in Ricardo
(2021) suggests that this lower level of reporting of Article 18 uptake compared to previous IED
implementation reporting (against Commission Implementing Decision 2012/795) reflects an
improvement from previous misunderstanding among some Member State competent authorities.
The conclusion from the reported data is that competent authorities rarely set stricter permit
requirements that are below the lower end of the BAT-AEL range, particularly in relation to
Article 18 of the IED.
However, based on limited information provided during the stakeholder workshop held in July
2021, German authorities indicated that “Environmental Quality Standards in Germany often
trigger stricter conditions than those based on BAT only”, and the approach followed is to first
apply BAT and then check if this allows meeting EQSs; if not, stricter conditions are applied.
However, these occurrences have not been reported within the IED reporting mechanism but
they do exist.
The Eunomia reports9
on the distribution of ELVs in relation to BAT-AEL ranges do
nevertheless concur that the overriding majority of permit ELVs are set at upper BAT-AEL
levels. It is concluded that the number of installations setting permit conditions related to Article
18 must be very low.
Furthermore, the installations that are the subject of this measure are already some of the lowest
environmental performers, by definition.
8
In addition, 16 cases of stricter permit conditions related to Article 14(4) (to achieve greater emission reductions
than those achievable by the use of BAT in the adopted BATC) were reported for year 2018.
9
E.g. Eunomia Research & Consulting (2019), “An Assessment of IED Permitting Stringency”
281
All impacts related to implementation of this measure are, therefore, expected to be very
limited.
Economic impacts
The measure will have very limited Economic impacts overall.
Administrative burden on businesses
The measure will have very limited negative impacts on the administrative burden on business.
A very small number of installation operators may need to negotiate an updated permit.
Operating costs and conduct of business
The measure will have very limited negative impacts on the operating costs and conduct of
business. A very small number of installation operators may need to change installation
operation to meet stricter ELVs.
Competitiveness and level playing field
The measure will have limited to no impact on competitiveness or the level playing field.
Position of SMEs
The measure will have no additional impacts on the position of SMEs.
Innovation and research
The measure will have no impact on innovation and research.
Public authority impacts
The measure will have a very limited negative impact on the competent authorities which apply
emission limit values that are stricter than the BAT-AELs. Authorities may have to adjust the
processes used to issue stricter permit conditions with ELVs, incurring some small
administrative changes.
Environmental impacts
The measure will have very limited environmental impacts.
Climate
The measure will have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
Air quality
The measure will have very limited positive impact on air quality, for those installations where
the stricter ELVs lead to lower emissions to air.
Water quality and resources
The measure will have very limited positive impact on water quality, for those installations
where the stricter ELVs lead to lower emissions to water.
282
The European Commission’s Staff Working Document on the Water Framework Directive
Fitness Check10
indicated in its Section 3.1 on State of European waters that surface water status
was more problematic than groundwater status, and that for surface waters, industrial releases
made a 3% contribution (emphasis added below):
 Surface water:
o For surface waters, good chemical status is determined by limits (environmental
quality standards) on the concentrations of certain pollutants found across the
EU, known as priority substances. In the second RBMPs, 38% of surface water
bodies had good chemical status, while 46% had not achieved good chemical
status and for 16% their status was unknown.
o The most common pressure for surface water bodies is hydromorphology, which
affects 40% of surface water bodies, followed by diffuse source pollution (38%),
atmospheric deposition (38%), point source pollution (18%) and abstraction
(7%).
o Diffuse source pollution is mostly due to excessive emissions of nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus) and chemicals such as pesticides, as well as deposition
of some persistent substances from the atmosphere. For surface waters,
agricultural production is a major source of diffuse pollution (25%). Other
drivers include rural dwellings (emissions from households not connected to
sewerage systems (11%), and run-off from urban areas (3%) and forested land
(4%).
o The point source pressures on surface waters relate mostly to effluent discharges
of pollutants from urban waste water (12%), followed to a lesser degree by
discharges from storm water overflows (4%), industrial sites (3%) and
aquaculture.
 Groundwater
o With respect to groundwater, 74% and 89% of the area of groundwater bodies
had good chemical and quantitative status respectively.
o The primary impact on groundwater is from chemical pollution (22% of
groundwater body area), followed by nutrient pollution (18%).
o The point source pressures affecting groundwater relate more to the leaching of
hazardous substances from landfills and contaminated sites, including industrial
sites, waste disposal sites, and mining areas, together with urban waste water.
This suggests that, in terms of making a greater contribution to environmental quality standards,
the potential contribution to reduction from industrial installation water pollution is limited.
10
https://EU.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/swd_2019_0439_en.pdf
283
The measure will have no impact on water resources.
Soil quality or resources
The measure will have no impact on soil quality.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
The measure will have no impact on waste production, generation, and recycling.
Efficient use of resources
The measure will have no impact on the efficient use of resources.
Social impacts
The measure will have no social impacts.
Measure 5: Clarify Article 15(3)(a) by specifying that when setting emission limit
values that do not exceed the BAT-AELs, the starting point is the lower limit
of the BAT-AEL range, unless the operator demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the competent authority that applying BAT techniques as described in
BAT Conclusions only allows meeting a higher ELV within the BAT-AEL
range.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
The measure would seek to introduce a process that encourages the setting of emission limit
values (ELVs) at the lower end of the BAT-AEL range as default, through implementation
guidance and/or legislative amendments in Article 15(3). To deviate, the operator would need to
demonstrate why the ELV cannot be set at this level during the permitting and/or permit
reconsideration processes.
Under Article 14(1)a of the IED, permits must include emission limit values for polluting
substances, or equivalent parameters, or technical measures (Article 14(2)) and conditions should
be set based on best available techniques (Article 14(3)). However, this mechanism does not
specify or encourage a default emission limit value, allowing competent authorities to determine
the emission limit value based on individual circumstances within the constraints of Article
15(3).
The intention of the IED is to provide a high level of protection for the environment as a whole
through the use of BAT. In practice, however, installations permitted under the IED typically
have ELVs set at the upper end of the range that represents BAT. Therefore, this measure is
intended to redress this shortcoming by requesting that competent authorities use the lower end
of BAT-AEL ranges as the starting point for discussions with operators for the setting of permit
ELVs, given that this represents a potentially significant opportunity to contribute towards the
284
zero-pollution ambition. The aim by adopting this measure is that more installation permits will
end up with lower ELVs than they would do if continuing with the status quo.
The measure is not foreseen as a means to make the lower end of BAT-AEL ranges mandatory,
but rather to encourage a reflection by the authorities when setting and reviewing permit ELVs
and, where operators seek to set ELVs that are higher than the lower end of BAT-AEL ranges,
operators shall demonstrate why more ambitious ELVs are not possible despite having been
judged as achievable with BAT. Competent authorities can use the evidence supplied by
operators during permitting issuance or permit reconsideration processes to make decisions on a
case-by-case basis, continuing to account for local environmental conditions and the technical
characteristics of the installation, i.e. allowing for the possibility to set ELVs towards or at the
upper end of the BAT-AEL range.
 However, there are times when the lower BAT-AEL is not feasible, for various reasons
and national bodies and inspectors would have a difficult time if the values are too restrictive,
hence the retention of the flexibility of the BAT-AEL range is important. There would be risk
however that this measure may increase administrative burdens (without necessarily leading to
lower permit ELVs and hence environmental benefits) and could lead to discrepancy between
best and worst performing Member States.
There is potential for positive synergies with other policy measures such as the introduction of a
standardised cost-benefit methodology (measure #2). Setting the lower limit value as a default
will increase the discussion between competent authorities and operators. A standardised
methodology will improve the consistency and quality of discussions between competent
authorities and operators, particularly important this measure increases the frequency and detail
of these discussions.
Objective(s):
This measure will encourage a tightening of the emission limit values or increase in ambition in
permit conditions for installations across the EU. This measure will, therefore, contribute to the
general ambition of zero-pollution in the EU and, more specifically, contribute towards
preventing or minimising the emission of pollutants by large industrial and agro-industrial plants
as well as levelling the playing field across the EU.
Implementation need(s):
 EU to make minor changes to the BREF process. BREFs would need to be adjusted to
provide clearer information on the emission levels associated with each technique. This
could be achieved by providing clearer information on which techniques are associated
with lower BAT-AELs or by identifying more AEL ranges to better reflect process
configurations and techniques used. Since the BREF process already gathers this
information through the existing data collection, no major change would be foreseen.
However, minor increases in the efforts to analyse the collected data may be needed. This
measure may also increase the emphasis on the combination of techniques rather than
285
individual techniques. The constraining of the upper BAT-AEL in the BAT Conclusions
will continue to represent a very important approach to providing minimum standards
(excepting of cases of derogations) and provides a mitigation against the possibility that
this measure only leads to additional discussion between authorities and operators
without any lowering of permit ELVs and their associated environmental benefits.
 EU to decide whether the measure should apply to both new and existing permits or only
to new permits.
 EU to consider introducing a method to “police” the measure, for example, considering a
role for INCITE, or alternatively to tighten implementation checks at the Joint Research
Centre or overall European Commission level. Introducing a new body to police the
measure would need to be resourced.
 EU to make legislative change to the IED: The measure could be implemented via a
legislative change through a change to the wording of e.g., Article 15(3)(a):
“… (a) setting >> emission limit values at the lowest level possible associated with
the best available techniques (lower BAT-AEL), or at the very least setting <<
emission limit values that do not exceed the emission levels associated with the best
available techniques.”
Other legislative amendments could be envisaged. Implementing a legislative change to the IED
would provide more clarity and certainty of the change but would also lead to a transposition
requirement for the Member States to implement. This could also be complemented as a
guidance document from the Commission/ EU, confirming their interpretation.
Further consideration of baseline
Member States from three public authorities (Belgium (Flanders), the Netherlands and Sweden)
returned with information on their permitting process.
 The Flanders Government of Belgium use the upper AEL as default. When permits are
reassessed, lower AELs are considered. The Flemish authorities do not check permits
individually on a regular basis. The lower AEL is not considered for political reasons. In
some cases, local legislation mandates the lower AEL or value close to the lower AEL.
 In the Netherlands, the approach is to apply the lower BAT-AEL for new installations.
For existing installations, they use the information from BATIS about performance of 30
reference plants set ELVs at 30% above the lower AEL. If the operator believes
implementing an ELV 30% above the lower AEL would lead to costs outweighing the
benefits, the operator must demonstrate why it is not possible to the competent authority.
In this approach, not every ELV set is a discussion.
 In Sweden, permits are primarily allocated based on best available technologies. The IED
limit values and Economic considerations are secondary. A representative from Sweden’s
286
Environmental Protection Agency stated that implementing the measure would require a
significant overhaul of the approach to permitting in Sweden.
The existing approaches employed by Member State public authorities to determine appropriate
emission limit values vary. Therefore, the measure could harmonise the approach Member States
take to set emission limit values in permits.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
This measure could have limited to weakly negative Economic impacts, although this is highly
uncertain and depends on the extent to which the measure would lead to installations adopting
new practices to meet lower emission limit values, and whether the measure will apply to both
new and existing permits or only to new permits. The difference between existing upper and
lower limit values is also a determining factor for the measure’s Economic impacts. A larger
difference between upper and lower limit values will require larger reductions in emissions,
potentially requiring more advanced techniques or alternative processes to reduce emissions
which would result in higher Economic impacts for operators. Secondly, the distribution of
existing permit emission limit values will indicate the proportion of installations which will need
to reduce their emissions.
Additional evidence is expected in a forthcoming study currently being conducted for the
Commission entitled “Assessment of BAT Conclusions Implementation in Permits”.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure will have negative impacts on the administrative burden for the regulated
industries. By making the lower BAT-AELs the default option for discussions when agreeing
permit ELVs, operators will need to engage in more discussions with the competent authority
and there will be an increase in resources devoted to developing and exchanging information in
the BREF process.
These additional administrative efforts will build upon the baseline permitting processes, both
issuing new permits as well as reconsidering and updating existing ones. There are around 52
000 existing IED installations which may undergo permit reconsiderations and updates at a
frequency of once every 10 years (in line with the BREF review cycle). It is assumed that this
measure could require around 10% of additional effort from operators that undergo a permit
reconsideration and update. In addition, evidence available and analysis suggests that there might
be 500 new permits issued every year, on average, which would require additional effort from
operators assumed at around 5% of baseline costs. In summary, this measure would add between
€1.0m/yr and €17.8m/yr of additional burden each year, on average, over a 20-year period, with
a central estimate of around €8.0m/yr (2020 euros).
287
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure’s impact on the operating costs and conduct of business are likely to be negative
to strongly negative, although the degree of how negative this will be is highly uncertain and
depends on several interacting factors.
The measure’s impact on the operating cost on businesses are uncertain as it is difficult to predict
how stakeholders will respond, and because the details of the measure are uncertain (e.g. whether
this would apply retrospectively. If the measure is implemented, operators who wish to prove the
lower limit value would lead to an imbalance of costs and benefits for their installation must
submit evidence to the competent authorities. Operators would weigh up the administrative costs
of submitting evidence against the costs of changing practices or technology. Based on insight
gained through interviews with representatives of Member State ministries for environment, it is
likely the majority of operators would submit evidence rather than electing to change production
practices. Once an operator has submitted evidence to the competent authority, the competent
authority would judge whether the evidence proves setting the permit ELV at the lower BAT-
AEL would lead to an imbalance of costs and benefits.
The overall outcome of this decision will be strongly influenced by the method Member States
use. There is potential for synergy with proposed measure #2 “standardised cost-benefit
methodology”. Implementing a consistent and rigorous method could result in issuing of permits
which are stricter. If this is the case, the operating costs and conduct of business could be
strongly negatively impacted. Stricter ELVs may require different techniques to be fitted at
installations to achieve lower emission levels. The different techniques will still be recognised as
BAT, and the identification of BAT through the BREF process accounts for the Economic
aspects of techniques and uses examples of commercial deployment of the techniques, which
ensures that even if alternative techniques were needed, this should still be economically viable.
Examining the baseline for BAT-AEL ranges can also be used to estimate the measure’s impacts
on operating costs for business.
The difference between the upper and lower ends of a BAT AEL range will determine how
significant the change will be. Using the Commission’s BAT-AEL tool (EC, 2020), it is possible
to provide an overview of the percentage decrease from the upper to the lower BAT-AELs, as
outlined for the glass manufacturing BREF in Figure A8-5. The GLS BREF shows the majority
of the decreases from the upper to the lower BAT AEL are between 40% and 80%. This
demonstrates the difference between BAT AELs is relatively high, implying the measure has the
potential for significant environmental improvements as well as economic costs for operators
required to change production practices, depending on the level of implementation of this
measure which is not mandatory.
288
Figure A8-5: Histogram of % reduction of the lower BAT-AEL from the upper BAT AELs for the
glass manufacturing sector
The number of installations which currently operate with ELVs around or at the lower BAT-AEL
will influence the number of installations affected by the measure. In the most detailed
comprehensive ex-post assessment of BAT conclusion compliance carried out, which assessed
the impacts of the Iron and Steel Production BAT conclusions, no installations were identified
with ELVs at the lower end of the BAT-AEL ranges. Furthermore, no information was available
from operators when consulted in that study on what techniques they would have fitted if the
ELVs applicable at their installations had been at the lower BAT-AEL range (Ricardo, 2018).
That study confirmed that, to carry out a robust assessment of the impacts of BAT conclusions, a
very high-level of effort is needed and extensive stakeholder engagement as well as dedicated
data sources.
One 2019 study by Eunomia, An Assessment of IED Permitting Stringency examines the
emission limit values for 117 permits for European cement installations and 24 electric arc
furnaces (Eunomia, 2019). The results are outlined in the tables below for cement installations
and electric arc furnaces. The results indicate that most installations have ELVs set in line with
the upper BAT-AEL (79%), while a minority have derogations (9%, i.e. above the upper BAT-
AEL) or were set at the lower BAT-AEL (11%). When the pollutants with no AEL range
(BAT16, BAT25, BAT26, BAT28 (all)) are removed from calculations, 64% of installations
have permit ELVs set at the upper BAT-AEL, 18% are set at the lower BAT-AEL and 18% have
ELVs above the upper BAT-AEL. This indicates that most installations in the cement sector
289
(82%) would need to change or upgrade their practices to comply with the lower BAT-
AEL. The following BATs relevant to the cement industry and examined in the Eunomia study,
BAT16, BAT25, BAT26, BAT28 (all) do not contain ranges.
Out of the nine BATs for electric arc furnaces examined, only BAT90 contains a BAT AEL with
a range, which itself was only relevant to 5 of the 24 furnaces examined. Therefore, the electric
arc furnace data from the Eunomia study is not able to deliver much information relating to the
Economic impacts of this measure.
Table A8-8: Permit limit values according to Eunomia (2019) and BAT AELs according to the
BREF for Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide industries (European Union, 2013).
Pollutant Number
permits
examined
BAT-AELs Installations
incompliant
with upper
BAT-AEL
Installations
compliant
with upper
BAT-AEL
Installations
compliant
with lower
BAT-AEL
BAT16 – Dust
(channelled)
47 <10 mg/Nm3
2 10 NA
BAT17 – Dust (kiln
firing)
74 <10 – 20 mg/Nm3
7 48 19
BAT18 – Dust
(cooling/milling)
69 <10 – 20 mg/Nm3
10 43 16
BAT19 – NOX
(preheater kiln)
91 <200 – 450 mg/Nm3
50* 31 10
BAT19 – NOX
(long rotary)
5 <400 – 800 mg/Nm3
0 5 0
BAT20 – NH3
(slip)
74 <30 – 50 mg/Nm3
16 42 16
BAT21 – SO2** 95 <50 – 400 mg/Nm3
8 62 25
BAT25 – HCL 90 <10 mg/Nm3
0 90 NA
BAT26 – HF 92 <1 mg/Nm3
0 92 NA
BAT27 – PCDD/F 94 <0.05 – 0.1 ng PCDD
F I-TEQ/Nm3
0 94 7
BAT28 – Hg 96 <0.05 mg/Nm3
0 96 NA
BAT28 – Sum of
Cd & TI
95 <0.05 mg/Nm3
0 95 NA
BAT28 – Sum of
As, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn,
Ni, Pb, Sb, V
94 <0.5 mg/Nm3
0 94 NA
* All 50 which are incompliant with the upper BAT-AEL for combustion of fuels are compliant with the ELV used
when plants burn waste materials
290
** It was not possible to differentiate between permits where plants burnt waste or fuels, which prescribe different
limit values (lower limit value for waste, higher limit value for fuels)
Table A8-9: Permit limit values according to Eunomia (2019) and BAT AELs according to the
BREF for iron and steel production (European Union, 2012).
Pollutant Number
permits
examined
BAT-AELs Installations
incompliant
with upper
BAT-AEL
Installations
compliant
with upper
BAT-AEL
Installations
compliant
with lower
BAT-AEL
BAT88 – Dust emissions
to air (primary and
secondary dedusting)
24 <5 mg/Nm3
6 18 NA
BAT88 – Hg, emissions
to air (primary and
secondary dedusting)
18 <0.05 mg/Nm3
1 17 NA
BAT89 – PCDD/F,
emissions to air (primary
and secondary dedusting)
18 <0.1 ng I-TEQ
/Nm3
3 15 NA
BAT90 – Dust,
emissions to air (on-slag
processing)
5 <10 – 20
mg/Nm3
0 1 4
BAT92 – Suspended
solids, emissions to
water (continuous
casting machines)
15 <20 mg/l 6 15 NA
BAT 92 – Fe, emissions
to water (continuous
casting machines)
15 <5 mg/l 5 10 NA
BAT 92 – Zn, emissions
to water (continuous
casting machines)
16 <2 mg/l 3 13 NA
BAT 92 – Total
Chromium, emissions to
water (continuous
casting machines)
16 <0.5 mg/l 3 13 NA
BAT 92 – Hydrocarbons,
emissions to water
(continuous casting
machines)
16 <5 mg/l 7 9 NA
291
Comparing the permit conditions between the examined installations in the cement sector
highlights that there are some pollutants where ELVs are relatively consistent, for example,
BAT19 NOX (preheater kiln) and PCDD/F, while there is considerable variation in permit
conditions in other BATs such as BAT21 SO2 and BAT20 NH3, illustrated in Figure A8-6. This
indicates that introducing a measure to make the lower end of BAT AEL ranges the default
option will not have an even Economic impact across installations.
Figure A8-6: Variation between permit conditions across permits for cement sector installations
examined by Eunomia (2019).
(The red dotted lines indicated the BAT-AELs. In the lower two diagrams, measurements above
the lines indicate non-compliance. Top left BAT19 NOX (preheater kiln) and top right BAT27
PCDD/F examples with relatively low variation. Bottom left BAT21 SO2 and BAT20 NH3 (slip)
examples with relatively high variation.)
A detailed ex-ante assessment of the possible impacts of BAT conclusions was carried out for
selected plants under scope of the LCP BAT conclusions. This found that, for the largest plants
(>300MWth) firing solid fuels, there was an appreciable increase in the expected compliance
costs to comply with lower BAT-AELs for SO2, NOX, dust and Hg compared to if the upper
BAT-AEL was met (Ricardo, 2017). The estimates from that study were total annualised costs
292
of €0.6bn/year for meeting upper BAT-AELs, rising 10 times to €5.7bn/year for meeting lower
BAT-AELs (two thirds of this higher cost was estimated to be due to fitting high efficiency SO2
reduction measures), i.e. around 10 times the cost of meeting upper BAT-AELs. These estimates
included the assumption that existing LCPs would have needed to comply with minimum
standards (IED Annex V ELVs) prior to achieving BATC compliance (and this existing
compliance was accounted for in the estimation of costs). This latter point is important to note
due to it being specific to this sector and because it leads to increases in estimated compliance
costs due to a proportion of the costs being stranded assets. The specificities of this sector’s
situation mean that it would be inappropriate to assume the findings from this single information
source could be extrapolated to other sectors.
In Q4 2020 the EC launched a contract to further assess how BAT conclusions are implemented
within permits - "Assessment of BAT conclusions implementation in IED Permits"11
. This
benefitted from the experience of previous pilot projects and focused on four IED sectors: glass,
pulp and paper, non ferrous metals and wood based panels. Pre-final estimations show that,
overall, 75-85% of ELVs in permits are based on the upper level of BAT-AEL range (or are
above), ith variations by sector and pollutant. This project also showed that the access to the
permits as well as permits quality is various across member states.
Despite these uncertainties and as a partial illustration of the potential scale of impact, it is
assumed that around 10% of existing 52 000 installations and 5% of 500 new installations every
year over a period of 20 years may increase their environmental ambitions as a result of this
policy measure IED#5. This means that around 5 700 installations could require additional
(and/or earlier) capital investments over the period. Based on expert input, these investments
could be at least €0.5 million for each installation. Thus, additional (and/or earlier) capital costs
could be at least €2 850 million over the 20-year period or an equivalent annual cost of around
€210 million per year over the period.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure is likely to have weakly negative impacts on the competitiveness of EU industry
internationally, for those sectors that compete with international businesses. Further tightening
environmental standards in the EU will increase capital and operational costs, with the
consequence of making products less competitive (purely based on price) with products imported
from nations with lower environmental standards. There could also be negative impacts within
the EU on intra-EU trade, if there is variation in implementation between the Member States on
the degree to which operators are pushed to accept permit ELVs at lower BAT-AELs (and hence
the potential importance of standardised methodologies for cost-benefit analysis, similar to
measure 2).
The measure is likely to have weakly positive impacts on the level playing field, particularly for
those MS which currently set lower emission levels than the upper BAT-AEL. Findings on the
regulatory baseline indicate there is substantial variation between Member States approaches to
11
Terms of reference available at: Circabc (europa.eu)
293
setting ELVs in permits. Therefore, there is scope to increase the consistency by which Member
States allocate permits. Consequently, this would improve the level playing field for operators
working in different Member States. There would be risk however that this measure may
increase administrative burdens (without necessarily leading to lower permit ELVs and hence
environmental benefits) and could lead to discrepancy between best and worst performing
Member States, manifest as an unlevel playing field.
Position of SMEs
The measure’s impacts on SMEs are uncertain.
Innovation and research
The measure is likely to have a positive impact on innovation and research. If the lower end of
BAT-AEL ranges are adopted as ELVs by more operators, there will be incentives to increase
investment in research, development and demonstration to make complying with more stringent
environmental standards more cost-effective.
Public authority impacts
This measure will have negative impacts on the administrative burden for Member State
competent authorities.
In setting or reconsidering and updating permit conditions, competent authorities need to assess
each installation individually to consider the appropriate ELVs that should be included in said
conditions, except if General Binding Rules are used for which no case-by-case approach is
taken. This measure will not change the ability to use General Binding Rules. However, it will
require additional effort for authorities to consider evidence provided by operators in a new
context where the lower end of BAT-AEL ranges are set as default for consideration in the
permitting processes.
These additional administrative effort will build upon the baseline permitting processes, both
issuing new permits as well as reconsidering and updating existing ones. There are around 52
000 existing IED installations which may undergo permit reconsiderations and updates at a
frequency of once every 10 years (in line with the BREF review cycle). It is assumed that this
measure could require around 10% of additional effort from public authorities when engaging
with permit reconsiderations and updates. In addition, evidence available and analysis for this
study suggests that there might be 500 new permits issued every year, on average, which would
require additional effort from public authorities assumed at around 5% of baseline costs. In
summary, this measure would add between €0.9 million and €10 million of additional burden
each year, on average, over a 20 year period, with a central estimate of around €6.7 million
(2020 euros).
On the assumption that operators may try to bring more evidence to the authorities to show why
they cannot meet lower BAT-AELs, this may increase the time needed for competent authorities
to assess the evidence provided by operators. This is a concern raised by authorities in the
294
response to the TSS for this study. The results, illustrated in the figure below show that, with one
exception, all public authority respondents believe that making the lower limit values of BAT-
AEL ranges the default option will increase their administrative tasks. On average, the
respondents expect a medium impact, in fact, their responses are distributed evenly between a
little or no impact (+/-5% increase) medium impact (5-15% increase) and large impact (>15%
increase) on administrative costs.
Figure A8-7: Distribution of responses to question 25 to the targeted stakeholder survey: “To what
extent would you expect the following options to impact on annual administrative costs i.e. related to
permitting, compliance, inspection and enforcement (relative to existing annual costs)?”
Environmental impacts
This measure is likely to have positive impacts on the environment overall, although this is
uncertain and will depend on the number new installations that set ELVs at the lower end of
BAT-AEL ranges and existing installations that tighten their ELVs as part of permit
reconsiderations and updates.
The evidence gathered by Eunomia (2019) (and included above) indicates setting the lower limit
value as default would have positive environmental impacts if the measure encourages
operators and public authorities to consider whether the environmental benefits of adopting the
lower limit value outweigh the costs. The data on ELVs in permits for cement sector installations
shows 64% of permits examined are compliant with the upper limit value. This suggests the
measure will lead to discussions with a large proportion of installations’ operators. By increasing
the number of discussions between the public authorities and operators it is likely some
proportion of the discussions will translate into stricter ELVs for companies which previously
had permits ELVs set at the upper BAT-AEL.
Analysis of the typical difference between upper and lower BAT-AELs (Figure A8-5) also
confirmed that a potentially significant drop in emissions would be expected after dropping
ELVs from the level of upper to lower BAT-AELs.
295
Some BAT-AELs do not include ranges of emissions, which means these standards would not be
affected by this measure unless the BREFs are updated to refine such ranges.
The position paper for the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) highlights that this measure
would not affect all environmental issues as some BAT Conclusions do not necessarily cover the
environmental issue, such as, substitution of the production of chemicals of high concern in the
LVOC BREF and further use of treated waste in the Water Treatment BREF.
According to a position paper from the business associations European Federation of Intelligent
Energy Efficiency Services, Business Europe, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
and Euro Heat and power, the measure could have a detrimental effect on the IED’s effectiveness
as a tool to reduce environmental impacts in an integrated approach. The position papers make
the argument that BAT-AEL ranges are crucial to accommodate for interactions between
pollutants. The papers highlight as an example that CO2 and NOX emissions are interlinked (an
abatement in NOX emissions would lead to an increase in waste or CO2 emissions). Therefore,
the argument goes that making the lower limit value the default for NOX emissions, CO2
emissions would rise, creating a trade-off between air quality and global warming.
The position paper from ClientEarth highlights the interaction between this measure and measure
1, which focuses on implementing a strict and clear regime to manage derogations. The paper
argues that the environmental impacts of implementing this measure are dependent on whether
an improved regime to implement derogations is introduced.
Climate
The measure is likely to have a limited impact on climate change because, in its current state,
GHGs are not in scope of the IED such that permit ELVs are not set for GHGs.
According to responses to the TSS, 40% of participants believe the measure will have no impact.
Respondents who believe the measure will have an impact on GHG emissions were divided
between slight, moderate or significant, with 11%, 8% and 7% of responses respectively. More
respondents answered “I don’t know” for the measure’s impacts on greenhouse gas emissions
than for the other emissions; 24% in comparison to 10%, 9% and 16%.
The relatively high proportion of respondents answering “I don’t know” could reflect uncertainty
relating to whether greenhouse gas emissions are within the IED’s scope. If the measure reduced
energy usage this could have an indirect impact on greenhouse gas emissions where energy is
produced using non-renewable sources.
Air quality
The measure is likely to have a positive impact on air quality.
Figure A8-6 demonstrates most installations are compliant with the upper limit value for the
emissions to air examined (PCDD/F, NOx, SO2, NO3). This demonstrates the measure would
force discussion between the operator and public authorities on the costs and environmental
benefits of issuing a permit with lower emission limit values. The environmental impacts are
296
challenging to quantify. It is unclear how many discussions between public authorities and
operators could translate into a stricter ELV than before.
Figure A8-8 demonstrates the % decrease from the upper to the lower BAT-AEL for dust
emissions across all BATC. The data shows % decrease from upper to lower BAT-AEL is
relatively high. If the measure encourages public authorities to consider issuing permits at the
lower limit value or closer to the lower limit value, the emissions reduction for dust emissions
would be significant.
Figure A8-9 demonstrates the % reduction from the upper to the lower BAT-AELs for emissions
to air of NOx. The figure shows the range of differences between the upper and lower BAT-
AELs for NOx is slightly different to dust emissions. This indicates the measure will have an
uneven impact across the different emissions to air which the IED regulates.
Figure A8-8: Histogram of % reduction from the upper to the lower BAT-AEL for dust emissions
297
Figure A8-9: Histogram of % reduction from the upper to the lower BAT-AEL for NOx emissions
to air for all BATC
NOx, as one of the key air pollutants which also happens to be a key environmental issue for
several sectors, is taken as an illustration of the possible scale of impacts of policy measure
IED#5. It is noted of course that this is an illustration only of partial impacts of this measure and
is not a comprehensive assessment of impacts. In Table 10, BAT-AELs for emissions of NOx to
air are examined by sector to estimate the potential percentage emissions reduction if the
measure was introduced. The percentages were calculated by taking an average of the percentage
reductions from the upper to the lower BAT-AEL across all the sectors’ BAT-AELs (for varying
processes) and multiplying by 10% (the estimated proportion of existing installations that might
set an ELV at the lower BAT-AEL as a result of this measure). To complement this, the sectoral
NOx emissions for 2019 were extracted from E-PRTR to estimate the very approximate
hypothetical NOx emission reductions of this measure. Together with the damage cost of NOx
(taken from Schuchte et al. (2019)), this has allowed an estimate of the monetised value of these
hypothetical emissions reductions. This shows that, for five sectors, the monetised NOx emission
reductions could range between €0.9bn and €2.8bn per year.
298
Table A8-10: Potential reduction of NOx emissions to air across selected BATC which include
BAT-AELs for releases of NOx to air, and their range of monetised impacts
BREF Reductions
from
measure 5
(%)
E-PRTR NOx
emissions
(2019)
(kt/year)
NOx emission
reductions of
measure (kt/year)
Damage cost (€/t) Monetised emission
reduction €m/year
low high low high
CLM 7% 163 (1)
11.4 16 767 54 815 191 625
GLS 7% 27 1.9 31 102
LCP 8% 391 31.3 525 1716
PP 8% 56 4.5 75 244
REF 5% 43 2.1 36 118
Total 679 51.2 858 2 805
(1) NB emissions from cement sector only, excluding lime and magnesium production
The total benefits for this measure would sum the impacts across all environmental issues. A
brief assessment for SO2 emissions to air of the reductions from upper to lower BAT-AELs
identified broadly similar average percentage reductions as those identified for NOx in Table 10.
Overall, these would be expected to be in the tens of €billions per year.
Drawing on previous evidence, Ricardo (2017) estimated for large solid fuelled LCPs the
benefits and costs of reaching lower BAT-AELs compared with upper BAT-AELs. The findings
were that benefits still outweighed costs at the lower BAT-AEL levels, although by a smaller
margin (benefit-cost ratio around 2 at lower BAT-AEL rather than around 5 at upper BAT-AEL).
Given this finding, it would be presumed that the monetised air pollutant impacts of this measure
would exceed the costs of the measure.
According to responses to the TSS, 48% of respondents believe the measure will have at least a
slight impact on emissions to air, which is the highest proportion of respondents out of all the
environmental areas examined. In particular, this is split into slight, moderate, or significant,
with 16%, 16% and 17% of responses respectively. The rest, 37% of participants, believe the
measure will have no impact on emissions to air.
Water quality and resources
The measure is likely to have a positive impact on water quality, and unclear impacts on water
resources as BAT-AEPLs are not currently mandatory. Figure A8-10 demonstrates the %
reduction of the lower BAT-AEL from the upper BAT-AEL for emissions of metals to water.
The figure demonstrates the difference between the upper and lower values is relatively high in
comparison to emissions to air for dust for example. This indicates the measure could have
significant positive impacts on emissions to water.
299
Figure A8-10 Histogram of % reduction of the lower BAT-AEL from the upper BAT-AELs for
emissions of metals12
to water
Similar to the analysis on NOx emissions, Table 11 examines BAT-AELs for heavy metal
emissions to water, by sector. The percentage of emissions reduction that could result from the
introduction of the measure has also been estimated. These percentages were calculated by
taking an average of the percentage reduction from the upper to the lower BAT-AEL,
multiplying by 85% (the rough proportion of installations that are issued at the upper limit value)
and then multiplying by 10% (the proportion of existing installations which are assumed to
potentially set EVLs closer to the lower end of BAT-AEL ranges as a result of this measure).
The analysis suggests the difference between the lower and upper limit values is greater in BAT-
AELs for emissions to water, than for emissions to air. This would imply that the measure
could have a significant positive impact on emissions to water.
12
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Tin and Zinc
300
Table A8-11: Potential percentage reduction of heavy metal emissions to water across selected
BATC which include BAT-AELs for heavy metal releases to water
BREF % emission reduction for existing
installations subject to permit
reconsiderations, assuming 10% of
existing installations are affected by
measure IED#5
CWW 9%
LCP 9%
TAN 9%
WI 9%
WT 8%
Some Member States have implemented or are exploring ways to issue lower limit values for
water BAT-AELs (Ricardo, 2020b). For example, authorities in Germany, Belgium (Flanders)
and Bulgaria have issued recommendations on the application of BAT and the setting of ELVs.
In 2018, Finland was considering introducing daily average values is being considered when
setting ELVs to clarify permit controls (Ympäristöministeriö, 2018). This approach would
establish a threshold under which the daily average ELV would be compliant (e.g., where over
80% of the daily operating conditions during a calendar year fall below the ELV and where an
individual sample does not exceed the limit by more than 100%). The approach may also set a
maximum load per installation, e.g., on an annual basis (kg p.a.), to avoid any adverse effects
that might result from high cumulative emissions. The evidence collected by Ricardo indicates
existing practices to issue lower limit values are in the minority and are inconsistent between
Member States. Therefore, although the measure may have less of an impact in the mentioned
Member States (Germany, Belgium (Flanders), Bulgaria, and Finland) the measure is likely to
have a positive impact on overall water quality.
Responses to the TSS indicate that more than 40% of respondents believe this measure will have
at least a slight impact on emissions to water, which is the second highest proportion of
respondents out of all the environmental areas examined. 39% of participants believe the
measure will have no impact on emissions to water.
Soil quality or resources
The measure is likely to have a limited to weakly positive impact on soil quality and resources.
This is due to the limited BAT-AELs specifically targeting releases to soil. That said, the
reductions for releases to water may have knock on positive impacts on eventual releases to soil.
301
Responses to the TSS indicate that a third of respondents believe the measure will have at least a
slight positive impact on emissions to soil. However, 46% of participants believe the measure
will have no impact on emissions to soil. Additional analysis is ongoing to illustrate the potential
impacts of this measure on soil quality.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
The measure is likely to have a weakly positive impact on waste production, generation and
recycling.
Responses to the TSS indicate that a quarter of respondents believe the measure will have at least
a slight impact on waste generation.
Efficient use of resources
The measure is likely to have weakly positive impacts on efficient use of resources. If BAT-
AEPLs are made mandatory this measure could also have additional positive impacts on energy,
water, material consumption and on waste generation.
Responses to the TSS indicate that a fifth of respondents believe the measure will have at least a
slight impact on energy use, water use, use of other resources and waste generation. For energy
use, water use, use of other resources and waste generation, respectively 24%, 23%, 24% and
21% believe the measure will have at least a slight impact on the efficient use of resources. On
the other hand, 43%, 60%, 41% and 48% respectively believe the measure will have no impact.
Additional analysis is ongoing to illustrate the potential impacts of this measure on the use of
resources.
The position paper from the European Environmental Bureau argues that the impact of the
measure on efficient use of resources depends on whether the Commission gives BAT-AEPLs an
equal legal status as BAT-AELs, as well as noting that if the measure was applied to BAT-
AEPLs, the measure would need to be inverted. This inversion is needed becuase in the context
of efficient use of resources, the upper limit corresponds with the improved performance level.
Social impacts
The measure’s social impacts are uncertain.
Measure 6: Allow Member State Competent Authorities to suspend non-compliant
installations in cases where non-compliance (Article 8) causes significant
environmental degradation until compliance is restored.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would amend Article 8 to allow Member State Competent Authorities to suspend
non-compliant plants in cases where non-compliance causes significant environmental
degradation until compliance is restored.
302
In the responses to the TSS, a potential issue with Article 8 of the IED (and potentially the same
article of the MCPD) was further elaborated. It has been stated that in some Member States, even
if the competent authority suspends the Economic activity of an operator due to a serious breach,
this suspension can itself be suspended. This could be as the result of the operator challenging
the sanction decision in the court. It has been argued in the responses to the TSS that such a
challenge would effectively and immediately suspend the sanction previously applied until the
court case is settled. This process can take several years meaning that the operator can continue
its operation until the final decision has been made.
Objectives:
The measure is expected to bring legislative certainty with regards to non-compliant plants.
Implementation needs:
Under this measure, the competent authorities are allowed to suspend operation of non-compliant
plants. This is drawing on experience with MCPD Article 8(3) whereby in cases that “non-
compliance causes a significant degradation of local air quality, the operation of the medium
combustion plant shall be suspended until compliance is restored”.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
The measure is expected to have very limited negative impacts on the administrative burden on
businesses, especially as this is expected to affect a relatively small number of the IED
installations.
Based on the limited evidence available and expert input, it is assumed that around 0.05% of the
baseline number of (52 000) IED installations could be affected by enforcement of this measure
or around 26 installations. This figure is based on a personal communication with the European
Commission reference in the IED evaluation report that expects only a few tenths of a percent of
all the IED installations may be taken to court as the result of uncooperative operators or very
serious pollution incidents.
There has also been an indication in the responses to the TSS that a number of IED installations,
including several coal power plants, such as CET Govora, Turceni, Paroşeni and Mintia, all
situated in Romania, could be affected as the result of introducing more stringent enforcement
mechanisms within the IED.
The operators of these installations would be affected by some additional limited administrative
burden to gather evidence, particularly through further monitoring campaigns. These costs have
been estimated to be €0.004m/year to €0.3m/year, with a central estimate of €0.2m/year. In
addition, these operators would also experience substantive compliance costs arising from losses
from closing their operations. These costs would depend upon the type of installation affected
and this is uncertain. However, given that it is expected that only a few installations would be
303
affected by this measure, the EU-level effects on the conduct of business or compliance costs are
unlikely to be significant.
This measure is also likely to establish a more level playing field between different Member
States, although this is also unlikely to be a significant impact.
The majority of respondents (95 out of 112) to the TSS from industry expected no to slight
improvement to the implementation of the IED as the result of allowing competent authorities to
suspend operation of non-compliant plants. On the other hand, the majority of respondents from
the Environmental NGOs (7 out of 7), Local/Regional (6 out of 9) and National (9 out of 17)
MSCAs and other (8 out of 8) contributors to the survey expected that the suspension of the
operation of non-compliant plants could result in moderate to significant improvement in the
IED implementation.
Environmental impacts
The measure aimed at enhancing enforcement of the IED, which could result indirectly in
improved compliance with the Directive. Therefore, a limited positive impacts on climate, air
quality, water quality and resources, soil quality or resources, waste production, generation and
recycling as well as efficient use of resources could be expected as the result of implementation
of this measure. There is limited evidence available, however, which does not allow for a more
thorough evaluation of the extent to which these impacts could affect the environment.
Social impacts
The measure’s social impacts are likely to be negligible, although it could lead to some limited
increases in unemployment.
Measure 7: Introduce common rules for assessing compliance with emission limit
values under Chapter II of the IED.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would introduce common rules for assessing compliance with emission limit
values under Chapter II of the IED.
The evaluation of the IED concluded there was variation in compliance assessment approaches
for Chapter II installations, (as well as variation in interpretation of the compliance assessment
elements of IED Annexes V and VI for Chapter III and Chapter IV plants respectively). These
elements are important to redress due to the continued need to achieve a high level of protection
of the environment as a whole (i.e. avoiding cases where interpretation of the legislation is not
achieving the intended environmental benefits) as well as to continue to level the playing field
for commercial entities operating across the EU27 bloc.
Special provisions for Large Combustion Plants and Waste Incinerators are included in Chapters
III and IV, respectively, and Annex V/Annex VI for the calculation of validated limit values for
304
compliance assessment by the subtraction of measurement uncertainty. While mandatory for
LCP and WI sectors, this topic is also relevant to Chapter II installations in other IED sectors. In
work previously undertaken (Ricardo, 2018), Member States provided examples of other
flexibilities implemented for compliance assessment of Chapter II installations. This has
demonstrated the variation across Member States and the potential for benefit in levelling the
playing field. Some areas where a common approach to the assessment rules would be beneficial
have been identified in previous studies13
. These include further clarifications on the role of
measurement uncertainties in determining compliance with ELVs and also a more structured
approach towards compliance with ELVs for combined waste water streams from different
processes or installations.
Different application of measurement uncertainty in compliance assessment leads to an
inconsistent assessment of environmental performance, and in some cases the underestimation of
actual emissions at an installation.
A separate study requested by the European Commission that is currently underway (as at
August 2021) will provide more information and/or evidence to support the assessment of this
measure.
Objective(s):
The measure will improve legal certainty and eliminates varied interpretation of enforcement and
insufficient guidance. It will aim to help level the playing field and lead to emission reductions in
those cases where currently less stringent compliance assessment practices are deployed.
Implementation need(s):
 EU to develop and publish (e.g. as a Commission Decision) the compliance assessment
rules based on the to the relevant consultations with Member States
 EU to develop additional guidance and supporting mechanisms to aid implementation of
the measure across Member States
 Member States to enact on the proposed new approaches to be considered in their
national laws
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
The overall economic impacts of this measure are uncertain. There are some weakly negative
impacts on administrative burdens on operators and authorities, and some weakly positive
impacts on improvement of the level playing field.
This measure is likely to limited impacts on operating costs and conduct of business, on
SMEs, and on innovation and research.
13
Ricardo. (2020). Assessment of compliance with Emission Limit Values under the Industrial Emission DirEUtive.
305
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to have, overall, negative impacts on business administrative burden.
This measure would be expected to lead to, in the short term, for one or two years, additional
monitoring and reporting costs for businesses. Based on the assumption that there are around
48 000 installations which are not subject to LCP or WI compliance assessment rules (as there
are approximately 4 000 LCPs and WI plants), and that 50% of the installations would need to
change their currently adopted compliance assessment approach, and assuming that for the two
years after implementation this measure would lead to an additional 20% administrative burden
for operators in their monitoring and reporting obligations, this measure is estimated to have
weakly negative impacts from €0.1m/year to €5.8m/year with a central estimate of €3.8m/year
for the EU27.
For those operators with installations in different Member States that are currently needing to
deploy multiple approaches to compliance assessment, this measure would be expected to
provide weakly positive benefits, as centralisation of compliance assessment following a
standard approach would be possible. The possible effect on this has been approximately
quantified based on limited evidence as part of measure #16 and is not reproduced here to avoid
double counting.
Competitiveness and level playing field.
This measure is expected to have a weakly positive impact on creating a more level playing
field for the businesses. The overall impact of the measure is expected to be weakly positive.
Given there has been evidence provided by Member States that varying approaches to
compliance assessment are used across Member States, having a single harmonised approach for
assessing the compliance of Chapter II installations would be expected to help level the playing
field across the EU, with particular positive impacts on the transnational operators.
Industry stakeholders who contributed to the TSS provided a mixed response to the question as
to what extent would introduction of common rules for ELVs compliance assessment under
Chapter II of the IED contribute to a level playing field in terms of inspection and enforcement
of environmental permits for their sector across the EU Member States. The most popular
response was that there would be a slight improvement (33% of those who provided a response),
with the remaining responses fairly evenly spread between the other options available.
Public authority impacts
This measure is expected to have a negative impact on public authority burdens.
In terms of Economic impacts on public authorities, there will be additional costs for the
development of the harmonised methodology. The costs could be assumed to be equivalent to
those for developing one-off guidelines for introducing common rules for assessing compliance.
The one-off cost of developing such common rules could be estimated to be between €0.3m and
€0.4m and, therefore, not likely to be significant. This estimate is based on a similar case where
306
the EU is commissioning a project for “Developing of a Guidance Document on the Impact of
Water Treatment Processes” in 2021 with a proposed budget of around €0.2m, on top of which
the costs for the EU and other public authority stakeholder input would be sought, which is
estimated to add 50%-100% costs.
This measure would also be expected to lead to, in the short term for one or two years, additional
inspection costs for authorities. Based on the assumption that there are around 48 000
installations which are not subject to LCP or WI compliance assessment rules (as there are
approximately 4 000 LCPs and WI plants), and that 50% of the installations would need to
change their currently adopted compliance assessment approach, and assuming that for the two
years after implementation this measure would lead to an additional 20% administrative burden
for authorities in their inspection obligations, this measure is estimated to have negative impacts
from €0.2m/year to €5.8m/year with a central estimate of €4.6m/year for the EU27.
Environmental impacts
Although the measure itself is aimed at more homogenised approach towards enhancing
enforcement of the IED, this could also result in minor benefits for environmental impacts for
those Member States where the new standardised compliance assessment methodology would in
effect provide a more stringent interpretation of complying with ELVs in permits, and hence lead
to small environmental benefits in the cases where operators need to reduce their emissions to
comply with slightly more stringent rules. Therefore, a weakly positive impact on
environmental impacts that typically have ELVs set in permits (air quality, water quality)
could be expected as the result of implementation of this measure.
The measure would likely have only limited impacts on remaining environmental impacts
(climate, soil quality or resources, waste production, generation and recycling as well as efficient
use of resources).
There is limited evidence available to date on the extent of variation in compliance assessment
methodologies among Member States which limits any further detailed assessment of
environmental impacts. This evidence gap may be filled by a separate study underway for the
Commission.
The majority of respondents (80 out of 105) to the TSS from Industry expected no to slight
improvement to the implementation of the IED as the result of introducing common assessment
rules with emission limit values under Chapter II of the IED. This was against the expectations
of the majority of respondent from the Environmental NGOs (6 out of 6), Local/Regional (4 out
of 7) and National (17 out of 18) MSCAs and other (6 out of 7) contributors to the survey
expecting the introduction of such common compliance assessment rules to result in moderate to
significant improvement in the IED implementation.
307
Measure 8: Require Member States, in determining the penalties under Article 79,
to give due regard to the nature, gravity, extent and duration of the
infringement as well as the impact of the infringement on achieving a high
level of protection of the environment.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure will require Member States authorities to take into account the nature, gravity,
extent and duration of infringements of the IED, as well as the impact of the infringement on
achieving a high level of protection of the environment, for determining the penalties that they
lay out in their national transposition of the IED.
The current text of Article 79 is as follows:
“Member States shall determine penalties applicable to infringements of the national
provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive. The penalties thus provided for shall be
effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify those provisions to the
Commission by 7 January 2013 and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent
amendment affecting them.”
As can be seen from the existing text of the IED, Article 79 requires MS to notify provisions to
the Commission related to penalties. No centralised register of the penalties has been assembled.
The IED evaluation indicated significant variation across Member States on the type and scale of
penalties that may be imposed under IED Article 79.
There have been arguments stated by some of the respondents to the TSS, that the current
penalties for non-compliance with the IED’s provisions are regulated in a broad and generic
manner under Article 79. While Member States are under the obligation to ensure the effective,
proportionate and dissuasive implementation of penalties under national law, the lack of detail
may result in a lack of compliance with this obligation in certain Member States. This is then
argued to lead to arbitrary and contradictory results among different Member States.
For this measure, given the purpose is to ensure that Member States, when setting penalties, give
due regard to the nature, gravity, extent and duration of the infringement as well as the impact of
the infringement on achieving a high level of protection of the environment, it could be expected
that some guidance from the Commission may be sought by Member States for implementing
this measure.
Objectives:
The measure will limit varied interpretation of enforcement across Member States. The aim is to
ensure that penalties sufficiently account for the environmental impacts, and hence that, where
the penalties form a deterrent against infringement of requirements, higher compliance rates will
ensue, leading to a higher level of protection of the environment.
Implementation need(s):
308
 EU to develop guidance to Member States on how to account for ensuring the penalties
reflect the impact on achieving a high level of protection for the environment
 Member States to re-assess their existing penalties for whether the penalties give due
regard to the nature, gravity, extent and duration of infringements and whether they
account for the impacts of infringements on achieving a high level of protection of the
environment, and adjust the penalties if needed.
 There is currently no monitoring/central register of penalties imposed on non-compliant
installations. Therefore, a system for monitoring the penalties/new requirements would
need to be set up by the EU as part of implementing this measure.
 The monitoring and enforcement responsibilities would also be on the EU.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
This measure is likely to have limited negative Economic impacts.
This measure will likely have limited impact on administrative burden on businesses. More
stringent penalties may result in greater administrative burden on businesses, although this is
uncertain and depend on current practices across Member States. On the other hand, this measure
will have no direct impacts on the costs of doing business as it does not introduce additional
requirements for operators.
Under the proposed measure, public authorities would be responsible for reviewing and
potentially updating the relevant penalties being imposed on non-compliant installations (and
communicating the outcomes to the Commission). This measure is, therefore, likely to lead to
very limited negative impacts on public authorities. The implementation of the measure
would require setting up an online platform for monitoring/central register of penalties imposed
on non-compliant plants. Therefore, the European Commission would also be affected by a very
small additional burden associated with design, deployment and maintenance of the online
platform as well as training of staff and authorities for using the platform.
Member State authorities would need to harmonise their approaches for determining penalties
that result in effective, proportional and dissuasive outcomes. This could be achieved by sharing
the relevant evidence and the outcome of such decisions with the EU through a central register.
A register would require retrieving information from the permit documentation and other
relevant evidence and summarising it effectively into a new uniform template. Based on
evidence from the 2007 IED IA14
and expert input, it is assumed that this might require 8-60
hours of labour at €29/hour per non-compliant installation. The available information suggests
that there might annually be court cases affecting less than a few tenths of a percent of all IED
14
EU (2007); Summary of the Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for a DirEUtive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions; 2007 impact assessment (IA) reports - Impact Assessment -
European Commission (europa.eu)
309
installations15
. Additional average annual costs over a 20-year period could, therefore, range
between €0.01m to €0.09m per annum, with a best estimate of €0.05m/year.
The measure is expected to have a weakly positive impact on establishing a more level
playing field between different Member States, although these are not likely to be significant.
Environmental impacts
The measure is aimed at enhancing enforcement of the IED, which could indirectly result in
improved compliance with the Directive. Limited positive impacts could be expected on
climate, air quality, water quality and resources, soil quality or resources, waste production,
generation and recycling as well as efficient use of resources could be expected as the result of
implementation of this measure, with the most significant of these being air and water quality.
Measure 9: Add a new provision in or linked to Article 26 for requiring effective
multidisciplinary cooperation among competent national administrative, law
enforcement and judicial authorities in cases of transboundary pollution,
and for Member States receiving a request for cooperation to respond within
three months of receipt.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would introduce an obligation in Article 26, for the Member States receiving a
request, to respond within three months of receipt. To complement this, the European
Commission will produce guidance for horizon scanning for potential issues and the
development of a Watch List for pollutants of potential concern for transboundary emissions
through the BREF and other IED processes.
The IED evaluation highlighted that the monitoring and control of emissions had been
implemented in a variable way, and such potential cumulative impacts from facilities emitting to
environment in neighbouring States could cause build-ups of materials within the same
environmental sinks.
IED Article 26 relies on the receiving state to identify a problem and source in order to
investigate. There are variable resources and regulatory zeal to carry out such identifications.
Furthermore, bilateral co-operation between MS on transboundary issues tend to be more
limited. Best examples relate to water and some of the larger water systems (i.e. Rivers Danube
and Rhine) where co-operation is necessary.
Objective(s):
The measure is aimed at increasing the cooperation between the relevant competent authorities in
order to further limit the impact of transboundary emissions.
15
Ricardo, Support to the evaluation of the Industrial Emissions DirEUtive (DirEUtive 2010/75/EU), 2020
310
Implementation need(s):
 Further harmonisation in the implementation of the IED in different Member States (e.g.
as the result of implementing measures 6 and 7) is expected to enhance the effectiveness
of this measure.
 EU to develop guidance for horizon scanning of potential transboundary pollution issues
and development of a watch list for pollutants of concern.
 Member States to enhance capabilities to allow for timely and effective cooperation with
neighbouring Member State authorities with regards to tackling transboundary pollution.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
This measure is likely to have limited negative economic impacts, which would depend on the
number of IED installations that would require such transboundary cooperation between
authorities. This is uncertain and the evidence is limited.
Competent authorities would, however, be required to respond to the reported cases within 6
months of the receipt of the complaint. Assuming that the respond from Member States would
require additional effort, assumed at 10% over the baseline, in checking compliance, maintaining
systems to make information available and engaging with permit reconsiderations and updates.
It is also assumed, based on expert input, that around 520 installations or 1% of the existing IED
installations (52 000) may be affected over a period of 20 years. Thus, additional burden to
public authorities could range, on average, between €0.02 to €0.5 million each year over a 20-
year period, with a central estimate of €0.4 million per annum.
The respective costs for the operators include providing monitoring reports, accommodating site
visits by inspectors and reporting changes in their operation. Additional burden to businesses
could range, on average, between €0.01 to €1 million each year over a 20-year period, with a
central estimate of €0.6 million per annum.
Environmental impacts
This measure is likely to have limited positive impacts on the environment by improving
cooperation across countries.
Climate related pollution is a transboundary issue in itself and, therefore, any environmental
performance related improvement as the result of more effective implementation of the IED can
have a positive impact on climate. Therefore, the impacts of the measure on climate is
expected to be weakly positive.
The measure is expected to have weakly positive impact on air, water and soil quality. It is
unlikely that the measure impacts the waste production, generation and recycling and efficient
use of resources.
311
The relevant stakeholders, including Environmental NGOs, Industry, MACAs and others were
asked to contribute to the TSS to express their views on the extent to which improved
cooperation between neighbouring Member States would impact on transboundary
environmental pollution from (agro-) industrial plants. The Environmental NGOs were shown to
be split (3 votes for each side of the argument) on the matter, whilst the majority of the rest of
the participants believed improved cooperation to have slight to no impact on transboundary
pollution. The split for Industry was 56 out of 92 for slight to moderate improvement. The
local/regional MSCAs voted for 6 out of 9 in favour of slight to moderate improvements. The
national MSCAs share was 10 out of 14 in favour of slight to moderate improvements. This
figure was 7 out of 9 for slight to moderate improvement.
Measure 10: Require that information from Member States’ monitoring of the
impact of Article15(4) derogations is made publicly available
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
Article 15(4) permits derogations where the costs of employing BAT are greater than the
potential environmental benefits. The regulation includes the following subparagraph:
“The competent authority shall document in an annex to the permit conditions the reasons for the
application of the first subparagraph including the result of the assessment and the justification
for the conditions imposed.”
However, the regulation does not contain any reference to whether public authorities should
make the environmental impacts of derogations available in the public domain. According to:
 Article 24(2f), authorities must publish the rationale for granting derogations, and
 Article 24(3), authorities must make public the results of emission monitoring as required
under the permit conditions held by the competent authority.
Nevertheless, the IED does not require public authorities to publish the environmental impact of
granted derogations.
Therefore, this measure requires that this information is made available and thus provides
interested individuals, researchers, and NGOs with access to new information relating to the
impact that Article 15(4) has on the IED’s ability to protect the environment.
In 2018, 133 Article 15(4) derogations are reported for 98 installations across 15 Member States
(Ricardo, 2021).. Furthermore, there are cases where derogations have been granted for
installations where the information reported to the EU Registry indicates BAT conclusions are
not yet adopted (Ricardo, 2021).
Objectives:
312
This measure will aim to improve public access to information relating to the IED and increase
the public’s ability to scrutinise the practices of competent authorities and the effectiveness of
the IED.
This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of empowering private
individuals and civil society organisations to exercise their rights with regard to scrutinising the
impacts of industrial emissions, and more specifically, ensure access of private individuals and
civil society organisations concerned to environmental information, participation in
environmental decision making and access to justice, in relation to permitting, operation and
control of large industrial and agro-industrial plants.
Implementation needs:
 EU to add a paragraph to legislation establishing new requirements to make information
available e.g. Article 15 (4) or Article 24 (2).
 EU to share guidance or best practice with public authorities on making information open
access and provide some oversight to ensure MS implement the requirement consistently.
 MS authorities and operators to pull together any additional information that may be
required and make this public.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
This measure is likely to have limited negative Economic impacts by adding burden onto
public authorities, primarily.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure will have limited to no impacts on the administrative burden on businesses. IED
installation operators already report emissions monitoring data; however, this need not
necessarily be at the depth required to make this information publicly available. Even if so, there
is only a small number of operators with derogations and emissions monitoring data are likely
readily available. The additional direct costs to businesses would, therefore, be marginal at most.
Indirectly, this measure could lead to further scrutiny that may put the derogation in question.
This could have higher costs to the operators affected. This is, however, uncertain and cannot be
estimated with the evidence available.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure will have no direct impacts on the costs of doing business as it does not introduce
additional significant requirements for operators. In the case that making data open access
reveals that derogations are causing significant environmental harm, it is possible that these
operators will come under increased public pressure to improve their environmental practices.
Consequently, operators would need to take action that may results in additional capital and
operating expenditures. This would only affect a small number of operators overall and,
313
therefore, it would be marginal at most. Further, these costs are uncertain and cannot be
estimated with the available evidence.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure will have no impacts on competitiveness or the level playing field. The measure is
unlikely to affect the costs of doing businesses in any significant way and, therefore, the
operators’ capacity to innovate or the comparative advantage of industry in an international
context would not be affected either. There is no evidence to suggest that this measure would
affect the level playing field.
Position of SMEs
This measure will have no additional impacts on the position of SMEs.
Innovation and research
This measure will have no impact on innovation and research.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to lead to limited to weakly negative impacts on public authorities.
These authorities will be responsible for retrieving the information submitted by operators,
pulling together and making it public. According to the recent study by Ricardo (Ricardo, 2021),
nine Member States have functioning URLs to all the installations where derogations have been
approved16
, and seven do not have a set of functioning URLs to derogations17
.
In addition, where information is provided by Member States, the information made publicly
available via the URLs and its relevance is often limited. The use of central permit repositories to
publish site-visit reports facilitates access to the reports at installation level (Austria, Bulgaria,
Czech Republic and Denmark), as does the use of a common report template (Austria, Czech
Republic, Romania, and some regions in Spain).
This suggests that this measure will require at least seven Member States and likely more to
update and continue to service their URLs on existing derogations. This is unlikely to have a
significant administrative burden on public authorities across the EU.
Based on the evidence available, we assume that there are around 130 15(4) derogations, of
which around 50% have information available to the public in an open-access format. Competent
authorities would need to retrieve information submitted by operators and pull it together before
making it public. This would primarily have labour costs as well as some marginal IT costs.
Building on evidence from the 2007 IED IA (EC, 2007), adjusted for inflation and based on
expert input, it is assumed that this may require around 8-60 hours of labour (or around 20% of
the worker input required to manage the derogation process) at a labour cost of €29/hour or a
total one-off cost of €230 - €2 700. In total, therefore, the measure would have additional one-off
16
Belgium, CzEUhia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden
17 Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Slovakia, and Spain
314
costs of €15 000 - €110 000 in the shorter to medium term, that is, negligible average annual
costs over a 20-year period.
Environmental impacts
This measure is likely to have indirect and limited positive environmental impacts. This
measure would ensure that public authorities make the derogations’ emissions monitoring data
open access. As a result, the public will have improved information on the impacts of
derogations on the environmental performance of IED installations and would be empowered to
make a more evidenced case for change as required. This could indirectly influence the level of
investment and environmental performance for those installations with derogations.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to have no impacts on employment. The measure will, however, have
other social impacts by improving transparency on permitting and emissions monitoring. For
example, this would allow researchers and concerned organisations and citizens to make
informed criticisms and requests relating to the state of industrial emissions.
Measure 11: Widen public participation in permitting as requested by the Aarhus
Convention Committee and facilitate access to justice and redress in case
of damages relates to non-compliance.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure seeks to widen the scope of public participation under the permitting procedures
based on the findings and recommendations by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee
(ACCC), made under case ACCC/C/2014/121, and facilitate access to justice and redress in case
of damages related to non-compliance.
The ACCC recommended that:
“The Party concerned [European Union] put in a place a legally binding framework to
ensure that, when a public authority in a Member State of the Party concerned
reconsiders or updates permit conditions pursuant to national laws implementing article
21 (3), (4) and (5) (b) and (c) of the Industrial Emissions Directive, or the corresponding
provisions of any legislation that supersedes that Directive, the provisions of article 6
(2)–(9) [of the Convention] will be applied, mutatis mutandis and where appropriate,
bearing in mind the objectives of the Convention.”
Article 21(3),(4) of the IED concerns the reconsideration or update of permits in
accordance with BAT conclusions, typically according to a 4-year timeframe.
Article 21 (5)(b) and (c) refers to other conditions where permit reconsideration or update
may be necessary, such as the need to comply with an environmental quality standard
introduced under Article 18.
315
Article 6 (2)-(9) references the text of the Aarhus Convention, which in turn lays out
provisions to ensure the public participate in the governance of environmental
information. These provisions are similar to the provisions of Article 24, which lay out
the IED’s means of public participation.
These provisions, especially those set out in Article 24, would need to be amended to
include the processes laid out under Article 21 (3), (4) and (5) (b) and (c), which will
require competent authorities to facilitate further public participation than in the baseline.
Such widening of public participation inreases the possibilities to accessjustice. Furthermore,
jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU18
requires making clear that, based on the
objective of ensuring ‘wide access to justice’, standing shall not be made conditional on the role
the public concerned may or may not have played during a possible participatory phase of the
decision-making procedures under this the IED. In addition, acces to justice should provide
adequate and effective remedies, including injunctive relief as appropriate, and be fair, equitable,
timely and not prohibitively expensive.
Objectives:
This measure will aim to widen public participation and access to justice and redress
mechanisms in IED permitting and other procedures. This measure will, therefore, contribute to
the general objective of empowering private individuals and civil society organisations to
exercise their rights with regard to scrutinising the impacts of industrial emissions, and more
specifically, ensure access of private individuals and civil society organisations concerned to
environmental information, participation in environmental decision making and access to justice
and redress, in relation to permitting, operation and control of large industrial and agro-industrial
plants.
Implementation needs:
 EU to adjust IED provisions, e.g. Articles 24 and 25, and provide implementation
guidance/ advice; and introduce a new provision on redress.
 MS authorities to adjust their processes to increase the capacity and accommodate wider
public participation and provide adequate and effective remedies, including injunctive
relief as appropriate, and be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.
 The public to participate in permitting and other relevant IED procedures and seek access
to justice and redress, as appropriate.
18
Judgment of 15 October 2009, Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening, C–263/08; and Judgment of the
Court (First Chamber) of 14 January, LB and Others, 2021C–826/18. See also Commission Notice on access to
justice in environmental matters (2017/C 275/01).
316
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
This measure is likely to have limited to weakly negative Economic impacts by adding burden
onto public authorities, primarily.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure will have no direct impacts on the costs of doing business as it does not introduce
additional requirements for operators. This is because under current IED provisions:
 Public authorities are responsible to facilitate public participation and acces to justice.
 Operators are already required to submit to public authorities all the information that is
needed.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure will have no direct impacts on the costs of doing business as it does not introduce
additional significant requirements for operators. However, enhancing public participation and
access to justice could increase the environmental ambition exercised under the IED permitting
and other processes. Consequently, operators may need to take further action that may results in
additional capital and operating expenditures. These costs are uncertain and cannot be estimated
with the available evidence. Furthermore, effective redress may require financial compensation
from individual operators.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure will have no impacts on competitiveness. The measure is unlikely to affect the
costs of doing businesses in any significant way and, therefore, the operators’ capacity to
innovate or the comparative advantage of industry in an international context would not be
affected either. There is no evidence to suggest that this measure would affect in a direct manner
the level playing field, although better compliance with IED requirements would reinforce the
general contribution of the IED to establishing a more level playing field.
Position of SMEs
This measure will have no additional impacts on the position of SMEs.
Innovation and research
This measure will have no impact on innovation and research.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to lead to negative impacts on public authorities. These authorities will be
responsible for facilitating a wider public participation and acces to justice for requirements
and/or processes detailed in Article 24(1) and Article 25 and, as a result, will incur costs. Most
costs incurred would relate to wider public participation that concerns a large number of
317
procedures, compared to only occasional judicial procedures. The scale of these costs is
uncertain.
It is assumed that public participation activities during the permitting processes account for no
more than 25% of the current administrative costs incurred by public authorities. This measure
envisages doubling the criteria for public participation, although this may not result in a doubling
of participation activities or associated costs. it is, therefore, assumed that this could lead to a
30% increase in the public participation activity and associated costs based on expert input.
Based on the data available and expert input, 500 new permits are issued and around 5 200
permit reviews and/or updates are carried out every year. In this the case, annual costs to public
authorities from additional public participation in IED permitting and other processes could
range from €0.8 to €8 million each year, on average, over a period of 20 years and across sectors
and countries in the EU, with a central estimate of around €5.5 million per year on average.
Environmental impacts
This measure is likely to have indirect and weakly positive environmental impacts. With
public participation and acces to justice extended to new provisions in the IED, there are more
and better opportunities to challenge the ‘substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or
omissions subject to Article 24’ under Article 25, which is the legal review procedure available
to the public concerned and notably NGOs. These challenges would likely influence and/or
ensure that higher environmental standards would be maintained than otherwise, for example, in
the case of compliance with BAT conclusions via permit conditions.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to have no impacts on employment.
Measure 12: Introduce a requirement for a uniform permit summary to be made
public.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would introduce a requirement for a uniform permit summary to be made public by
public authorities across the EU.
The ‘uniform permit summary’ shall include an overview of the ELVs regulated and monitoring
frequency and the timings for permit reconsideration or reviews. This would serve to summarise
the information within the permit, aiding accessibility for the purposes of public engagement
activities under Article 24(2) of the IED.
A reference to a template of the uniform permit summary could be added to IED provisions,
notably Article 14, so that at least the format and content requirements of the permit summary
are uniform across the EU. Certain considerations will need to be given to the availability of the
permit in a given language.
318
The uniform permit summary must be available in a common IT format to enable database
searching via meta-crawling etc initially by the European Commission, the EEA, ESTAT and
other EU bodies, and then rolled out to enable access to all interested party entities, according to
Aarhus access rules (see below).
Objectives:
This measure will aim to ease the access to information for the public concerned, including
NGOs, therefore enhancing public engagement towards permits, and in turn support the
objectives of the Aarhus Convention, to which the EU is a party.
This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of empowering private
individuals and civil society organisations to exercise their rights with regard to scrutinising the
impacts of industrial emissions, and more specifically, ensure access of private individuals and
civil society organisations concerned to environmental information, participation in
environmental decision making and access to justice, in relation to permitting, operation and
control of large industrial and agro-industrial plants.
Implementation needs:
 EU to develop a permit summary template that is compatible amongst Member States.
This may require engagement with Member State competent authorities as well as
representatives of the public concerned, such as NGOs.
 MS authorities to make the permit summary templates publicly available.
 MS to introduce a process through which permit summaries are reviewed and updated as
required. This could be, for example, via the periodic review of the permit URLs
submitted to the EU Registry on Industrial Sites, if the permit summary is connected or
within the same document as the detailed permit, or more sophisticated searching and
cross-comparisons.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
This measure is likely to have limited to weakly negative Economic impacts by adding burden
onto public authorities, primarily.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure will have no direct impacts on the administrative burden for operators. This is
because under the proposed measure public authorities would be responsible for maintaining and
publishing the uniform permit summary. This process may, nevertheless, require some
engagement between public authorities and operators. Such costs are likely to be marginal.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure will have no direct impacts on the costs of doing business as it does not introduce
additional significant requirements for operators.
319
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure will have no impacts on competitiveness and limited to weakly positive impacts
on the level playing field. The measure is unlikely to affect the costs of doing businesses in any
significant way and, therefore, the operators’ capacity to innovate or the comparative advantage
of industry in an international context would not be affected either.
The measure will, however, contribute to levelling the playing field by ensuring that all permits
are summarised and accessible regardless of the complexity of the installation regulated, and that
such information is presented in a relatively consistent manner.
Position of SMEs
This measure will have no additional impacts on the position of SMEs.
Innovation and research
This measure will have no impact on innovation and research.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on public authorities. EU and MS
authorities would need to develop, populate and make public a uniform permit summary. The
bulk of this work would be additional and it would require retrieving information from the
permit documentation and summarising it effectively into the new uniform template. Based on
data collected for the IED IA 2007 (EC, 2007), this work may require between 8-60 hours of
work by public authority officials and some minor checks or engagement with operators. If the
hourly labour costs are around €29 (Eurostat, 2020), each summary could cost around €225 - €1
700.
In the shorter to medium term, permit summaries should be produced for around 52 000
installations at least once and updated during permit reconsiderations, although requirements for
ongoing updates are uncertain at this stage. Further, 500 new permits are expected to be issued
each year in the EU, and these would also need to be accompanied by the production of these
summaries. In total, this may imply a total cost to authorities of €12 million to €90 million.
Public authorities may be given time to produce and publish these permit summaries. Average
annual costs over a period of 20 years could range from €1 to €10 million each year, with a
central estimate of €2.0 million per annum.
Total administrative costs are likely to be closer to the lower bound estimate as public
authorities, working with operators, will find efficiencies in producing these permit summary
over time.
Environmental impacts
The environmental impacts of this measure will be indirect and likely marginal across these
categories. Where currently, ease of access to permit information is weakened by permit
presentation, this measure would seek to make such information more accessible. This in turn
320
would facilitate a more active public participation within IED processes. Where there is
sufficient concern or interest, such ease of access may aid the legal review procedure described
in Article 25 of the IED, which in turn may result in high environmental standards than
otherwise expected. However, these effects are likely to be marginal.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to have no impacts on employment.
Measure 13: Amend legislation to state that ‘the competent authority shall make
available to the public by publishing open-access on the internet’ the
information requirements listed in Article 24 (2) free of charge and without
restricting access to registered users
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
IED’s Article 24 states that:
“The competent authority shall also make available to the public, including via the Internet at
least in relation to point:
a) the results of emission monitoring as required under the permit conditions and held by
the competent authority relevant information on the measures taken by the operator upon
definitive cessation of activities in accordance with Article 22
b) the results of emission monitoring as required under the permit conditions and held by
the competent authority.”
The existing regulation requires competent authorities to publish information. However, the
existing regulation does not specify how the public should be able to access the information.
Public access to information across Member States is, therefore, inconsistent at present.
This measure will seek to clarify that information should be open access, for example, removing
the possibility that competent authorities require some form of payment to access the data. This
could be done by amending Article 24 to state that ‘the competent authority shall make available
to the public by publishing open-access on the internet’ (i.e. free of charge and without restricted
access to registered users).
Objectives:
This measure will aim to improve access to information for all, especially the public,
stakeholders and NGOs. These adjustments would support the objectives of Directive 2003/4/EU
on access to environmental information, in addition to the Aarhus Convention, of which the EU
is a party.
This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of empowering private
individuals and civil society organisations to exercise their rights with regard to scrutinising the
321
impacts of industrial emissions, and more specifically, ensure access of private individuals and
civil society organisations concerned to environmental information, participation in
environmental decision making and access to justice, in relation to permitting, operation and
control of large industrial and agro-industrial plants.
Implementation needs:
 EU to develop and issue guidance in publishing open access data, using experience from
other sectors to reduce any inefficiencies and support MS competent authorities.
 EU to monitor compliance across Member States.
 MS authorities to make information publicly available and open access on the internet.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
This measure is likely to have limited to weakly negative economic impacts by adding burden
onto public authorities, primarily.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure will have no direct impacts on the costs of doing business as it does not introduce
additional requirements for operators. This is because:
 Public authorities would be responsible to pulling together and publishing the
information.
 Operators are already required to submit to public authorities all the information that is
needed.
Indirectly, however, in the case that making data open access reveals inaccuracies and gaps and
reported data, it is possible that operators will come under increased public pressure to improve
their environmental monitoring and reporting practices. This could result in additional albeit
likely marginal increases in total compliance costs for industry.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure will have no direct impacts on the costs of doing business as competent
authorities will be responsible for pulling together and sharing these data. Indirectly, however, in
the case that making data open access reveals inaccuracies and gaps and reported data, it is
possible that operators will come under increased public pressure to improve their environmental
monitoring and reporting practices. This could result in additional albeit likely marginal
increases in total compliance costs for industry.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure will have no impacts on competitiveness and limited to weakly positive impacts
on the level playing field. The measure is unlikely to affect the costs of doing businesses in any
significant way and, therefore, the operators’ capacity to innovate or the comparative advantage
of industry in an international context would not be affected either.
322
The measure will, however, contribute to levelling the playing field by ensuring that all
competent authorities are required to publish open access data. This will also imply that
industries across the EU may be subject to similar levels of scrutiny by concerned citizens and
NGOs for their compliance and environmental footprint.
Position of SMEs
This measure will have no additional impacts on the position of SMEs.
Innovation and research
This measure will have no impact on innovation and research.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to lead to limited to weakly negative impacts on public authorities.
Ricardo carried out a horizontal assessment of Member State reporting recently (Ricardo, 2021),
including on public access to information.
 For access to permit documentation, central permit repositories are available and fully
updated at the national level in 20 Member States19
. There are also regional permit
repositories in five Member States20
. However, repositories do not exist for all regions in
the Member States that use this approach.
 Emissions monitoring data is available in 13 Member States21
(Ricardo, 2021), although
the data made available has some limitations. In a few cases22
, databases have been
established, providing access to the data, while in most cases, the information is available
via annual reports (often published in PDF format and in national languages). No valid
URLs / relevant information was reported by 13 Member States 23
.
 There are seven Member States which have incomplete or partially functioning
databases24
.
In addition, challenges with reporting to the EU Registry have been flagged by Member States.
Where URLs have been reported for individual installations, Member States have raised
concerns about URLs becoming outdated between reporting years (in such cases, there is a risk
that the reported URLs may appear as a broken link in subsequent years).
19
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia (some uncertainty relating to the veracity of the
database), and Sweden
20
Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, and Spain
21
Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania and
Sweden
22
Austria and Czechia
23
Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia
and Spain
24
Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania and, Spain
323
Therefore, all competent authorities may require some additional work to address gaps in the
information they currently share publicly, and at least seven or a quarter of competent authorities
would be expected to incur additional administrative burden to update and publish the relevant
documentation.
It is assumed that data for around 13 500 IED installations has not been made public yet (over a
quarter of a 52 000 baseline). Pulling together the information and publishing would primarily
have labour costs as well as some marginal IT costs. Building on the 2007 IED IA (EC, 2007),
adjusted for inflation and based on expert input, this may require around 8-60 hours of labour at
€29/hour per installation or a total one-off cost of €225 - €1 700. In total, therefore, the measure
would have additional costs over the period of €3 to €23 million, or an average of €0.2 to €1
million each year over a period of 20 years, with a central estimate of €0.2 million. These costs
are likely to be incurred over a period of time agreed for MS to complete this task of publishing
information open access.
Issuing any guidance on publishing this information open access is likely to marginal costs,
especially if this is something that has already been done before.
Environmental impacts
This measure is likely to have indirect and marginal environmental impacts across these
categories. Where public authorities do not currently make environmental data open access, this
measure would improve public access to information. The public, with improved information
and understanding of shortcomings in environmental reporting could be empowered to make
evidenced cases for and spur improved environmental standards, or increased enforcement of
existing standards or permits.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to have no impacts on employment. The measure will, however, have
other social impacts by improving transparency on permitting and emissions monitoring. For
example, this would allow researchers and concerned organisations and citizens to make
informed criticisms and requests relating to the state of industrial emissions.
Measure 14: Amend the legislation to clarify the scope of coverage of the IED
pertaining to gasification, liquefaction, and pyrolysis plants as well as to
biogas plants.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure is being considered in parallel via a contract on the “Impact of the biogas plants
and of gasification, liquefaction and pyrolysis of wastes on the environment”. An initial
assessment is outlined in this section, primarily of qualitative nature.
324
The current implementation of the IED with regards to gasification, liquefaction and pyrolysis
plants as well was with biogas plants has challenges.
 Firstly, some aspects of the IED are tailored to pyrolysis to produce syngas to be used for
the production of energy, and not more modern uses that produce syngas as an intermediate for
production of chemicals. The IED’s Article 42 defines that two conditions must be met: (1) if the
process delivers end of waste, and (2) if its emissions are lower than combustion of natural gas.
There is currently a shift in the industry, where sites are burning syngas to generate power on site
less frequently, and instead they are converting their products (i.e. Syngas or Syn-oil) into
chemicals/fertilisers that do not generate direct emissions compared to natural gas post-
combustion exhausts. Therefore, the Article 42 clause on emissions lower than natural gas may
become irrelevant in the near term, or of difficult application.
 Secondly, there is a lack of clarity around the IED’s current coverage of gasification,
liquefaction and pyrolysis. Descriptions of several activities in Annex I are worded in a way that
may exclude these processes. For example, the definition of Activity 4 specifies “the production
on an industrial scale by chemical or biological processing of substances or groups of substances
listed in points 4.1 to 4.6.” This, as written, excludes thermal treatments, including liquefaction
and pyrolysis. There is a need to revise those descriptions. Further, the IED’s Annex I does not
make reference to pyrolysis as a process. Although not all common processes are described in
this annex, it would be beneficial to amend to include pyrolysis to provide clarity to operators
and competent authorities that they are within the scope.
Concerning the production of biogas, this activity may be covered by point 5.3 or point 6.5 of
Annex I of the IED.
Article 3.1 of Regulation 1069/2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and
derived products not intended for human consumption8 defines animal by-products (ABP) as
follows: entire bodies or parts of animals, products of animal origin or other products obtained
from animals, which are not intended for human consumption, including oocytes, embryos and
semen. The concept of ‘animal by-products’ has replaced the former terminology of ‘animal
waste’, however the latter is still used e.g. in point 6.5 of Annex I IED.
In addition, Member states may interpret the provisions of Annex I of the IED in various ways,
i.e. that plants processing manure and slurry can fall under either point 5.3 or 6.5 of this Annex.
The above mentioned activities are associated with different capacity thresholds as well as with
different BAT Conclusions. The following approaches would address these issues:
 Develop syngas quality criteria to support end of waste principle for syngas
 Develop alternative quality criteria for Article 42 instead of the natural gas emissions
clause, to capture those that generate products or feedstocks, and which are aligned with
EU climate targets
 Revision of Annex I activities to include a reference to pyrolysis.
 Clarification of points 5.3 and 6.5 of Annex I of the IED as to the production of biogas.
325
An initial research exercise found some data that suggests there is a general absence of reliable
information for the gasification, liquefaction and pyrolysis sector, on the technology adopted,
application and any relevant parameter related to emissions, plant thermal input and output
products. The lack of a clear definition for the processes, fuel characterisation and cataloguing
and details on the production sites and overall common metric to measure plant capacity creates
overall uncertainty. Most importantly, it is not possible to identify plants, which have
gasification, liquefaction and pyrolysis units as secondary or auxiliary activity (i.e.
Manufacturing waste minimisation or energy recovery). Other issues include:
a) Plants may have been identified as Incineration or Co-incineration activities
b) Plants are part of a larger manufacturing site, therefore their emissions are catalogued
under a different manufacturing activity.
Objectives:
The measure will amend Annex I to clarify the scope of coverage of the IED pertaining to
gasification, liquefaction, and pyrolysis plants as well as to biogas plants.
This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general and specific objectives of ensuring
proportionately of EU law and keeping the burden on businesses and public authorities at the
lowest possible level.
Implementation needs:
 The EU would amend the IED
 Participants of the BREF review process to gather more data on these processes and their
current usage, environmental performance and applied techniques/BAT.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
 There are potentially impacts on operators and Member State authorities relating to
administrative burden. Clarifications to Article 42 for non-incineration activities as well as
clarity on what to categorise activities as under the IED may lead to limited positive impacts
through reducing administrative burden by creating clarity and removing confusion.
Environmental impacts
 An update to Article 42, which captures non-incineration applications of gasification and
pyrolysis can ensure that these plants are regulated effectively, and a revision of the wording in
Annex I can also create certainty around which activities are regulated, potentially also
improving the effectiveness of existing environmental regulation. There are, therefore, limited
positive impacts on the environment that could be expected from this measure.
Social impacts
This measure is expected to have no impact on employment.
326
Measure 15: Delete Annex II of the IED “List of polluting substances”.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
The list of polluting substances in Annex II can potentially be limiting and become outdated in
the consideration of KEI addressed in the BREF review process. The BREF review process can
consider a list of environmental issues and pollutants that is wider than that in IED Annex II,
including but not only new and emerging environmental issues and pollutants.
Objectives:
The measure will delete Annex II in order to ensure that the BREF KEIs considers all
environmental issues including new and emerging issues and pollutants.
This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general and specific objectives of ensuring
proportionately of EU law and keeping the burden on businesses and public authorities at the
lowest possible level.
Implementation needs:
 The EU would amend the IED
 Participants of the BREF review and permitting processes to disregard Annex II’s list of
polluting substances
Assessing impacts
The scale of impact from implementing this measure depends on the extent to which permit
writers currently refer to the Annex II list of pollutants when reviewing and setting permit
conditions. The evidence on this is limited.
In the TSS for this study, the majority (66%) of industry stakeholders indicated that they
primarily refer to the BAT conclusions when reviewing and setting permit conditions, while 33%
indicated that they refer to the BAT conclusions and Annex II equally (Figure A8-11). In
summary, 42% of respondents have indicated that they refer equally to Annex II and the BAT
Conclusions when setting permits OR mainly to Annex II when reviewing and setting permit
conditions. Almost no stakeholders (1 out of 167 industry stakeholders) indicated that they refer
only to the Annex II pollutants.
327
Figure A8-11: TSS responses related to the use of IED Annex II
Economic impacts
There are expected to be weakly positive impacts on administrative burden caused by the
deletion of Annex II. This is because permit writers would not need to refer to both the BAT
Conclusion and Annex II, leading to very small improvements in administrative efficiency. This
administrative efficiency has been assumed to affect around 40% of the existing installations
covered by the IED (or over 22 000) and pertinent public authorities, and benefit these with a
reduction of 0%-5% of their permit reconsideration and/or update costs, with a central estimate
of around 2% reduction.
These administrative savings to operators would range from €0 to €3 million per annum, on
average, over a period of 20 years, with a central estimate of €0.6 million. Similar savings may
also accrue to public authorities, and these have been estimated at €0 to €2 million per year, on
average, over the period, with a central estimate of €0.5 million.
Environmental impacts
The main environmental impacts are as described above, in the future BREF revisions, ensuring
that reference is not made to the outdated Annex II, and includes new and emerging
environmental issues. Therefore, there are expected to be limited impacts on the environment
from ensuring an optimal BREF review process.
Social impacts
This measure specifically is expected to have no impact on employment.
328
Measure 16: Introduce a provision in Chapter II of the IED that sets out that the
compliance assessment rules for Chapter II installations take precedent
over other compliance assessment provisions for those installations.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
There are currently issues caused by discrepancies in emission limit values set out for
combustion plants in the IED under Annex V and VI, and requirements set out in the Large
Combustion Plant (LCP) and Waste Incineration (WI) BAT Conclusions . This includes
differences in averaging periods, leading to operators and Member State authorities needing to
assess compliance for the same pollutants and processes multiple times, which causes
unnecessary administrative burden.
Measure #7 proposes the introduction of a new set of Chapter II compliance rules. This measure
proposes that these Chapter II rules take precedence over existing Annex V and VI provisions,
i.e. leading to increased efficiency from the harmonisation of compliance assessment rules for
Chapter II installations. ELVs contained in Annex V and VI can still be an important
environmental backstop for combustion plants that have received an Article 15(4) derogation, as
such plants would not be required to comply with BAT-AELs. The measure would, therefore,
instil a provision that gives the new Chapter II rules a clear precedent for compliance assessment,
whilst retaining the “safety net” of ELVs from Annex V and VI, to ensure that there is no
development of gaps in coverage.
Stakeholders were asked how helpful the harmonising of averaging periods for LCPs in Annex V
would be (Figure A8-12), with the majority responding that this would be very or slightly
helpful.
Figure A8-12: TSS responses to the question asking how helpful the harmonising of averaging
periods for LCPs in Annex V would be
329
Objectives:
The measure will aim to clarify compliance assessment by introducing wording that ensures
Chapter II compliance assessment rules take precedent over Annex V provisions retaining the
Annex V provisions as safety net ELVs.
This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general and specific objectives of ensuring
proportionate implementation of EU law and keeping the burden on businesses and public
authorities to the lowest optimal level.
Implementation needs:
 EU to introduce new text that sets out the precedent of Chapter II provisions
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to have weakly positive impacts on administrative burden on businesses.
A positive impact is expected as a result of the harmonised averaging periods for LCPs, which
could reduce administrative burden. This is uncertain, and the evidence to identify the potential
savings that could accrue as a result of this measure is limited.
It is assumed that operators reconsider and/or update the permits once every ten years (in line
with the baseline BREF cycle), in general, or 2 times in a period of 20 years. Further expert input
suggests that around 10% or 5 000 installations may be affected by the proposed amendment to
the IED, by benefitting from lower administrative burden when compared to the baseline. The
extent to which baseline costs for operators would be reduced is uncertain. Drawing primarily on
the outputs of the TSS, an assumption has been made that savings could range from 0% to 5%,
with a central estimate for this reduction of 2%. This would mean that on average over 20 years,
savings to operators would range between €0 to €0.8 million each year, with a central estimate of
€0.1 million per year.
Stakeholder input via the TSS suggests that the reduction in administrative burden from these
amendments to the IED could range between 0%-15% of the permit review costs when compared
to the baseline, whilst the vast majority of stakeholders have indicated little (+/- 5%) or no
impact is expected. The central estimate for this reduction is, therefore, around 2% when
compared to the baseline.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on the costs of doing business, as no
substantial changes in the operation and or investment decisions of operators or other businesses
would be expected as a result of this measure.
330
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on competitiveness, and a weakly
positive impact on levelling the playing field. A harmonised approach to compliance assessment
for LCPs and WI from the introduction of Chapter II compliance assessment rules can lead to an
improved level playing field by ensuring approaches and associated administrative costs for
operators are similar.
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to lead to no impacts on the position of SMEs. This measure focusses on
large combustion plants and, therefore, will not affect SMEs.
Innovation and research
There is no impact expected on innovation and research.
Public authority impacts
This measure is expected to have weakly positive impacts on public authorities. A positive
impact is expected as a result of the harmonised averaging periods for LCPs and WI, which
could reduce administrative burden. This is uncertain and the evidence to identify the potential
savings that could accrue as a result of this measure is limited.
It is assumed that operators reconsider and/or update the permits once every ten years (in line
with the baseline BREF cycle), in general, or 2 times in a period of 20 years. Further expert input
suggests that around 10% or 5 000 installations may be affected by the proposed amendment to
the IED. The extent to which baseline costs for public authorities would be reduced is uncertain.
Drawing on the outputs of the TSS, an assumption has been made that savings could range from
0% to 15%, with a central estimate for this reduction of 5%. This would mean that on average
over 20 years, savings to public authorities would range between €0 to €1 million each year, with
a central estimate of €0.3 million per year.
A third of national authorities and a quarter of local authorities responding to the TSS indicated
that a 5%-15% decrease in administrative costs could result from the harmonised averaging
periods for Chapter II. For public authorities, stakeholder input via the TSS suggests, therefore,
that the reduction in administrative burden from these amendments to the IED could range
between 0%-15% of the permit review costs when compared to the baseline, whilst the majority
of stakeholders have indicated little (+/- 5%) or no impact is expected. The central estimate for
this reduction is, therefore, around 5% when compared to the baseline.
Environmental impacts
The environmental impacts of the measure are likely to be limited, although they remain
uncertain. The primary aim of this measure is to improve the efficiency of the compliance
assessment processes, whilst the ambition of these processes will remain as is. Unifying
331
averaging periods may have some impacts on air quality due to longer averaging periods being
more tolerant of periods of elevated emissions.
Should the use of the Annex V ELVs as a safety net be retained solely for those installations that
have secured derogation(s) from the Chapter II requirements (i.e. Annex V ELVs would not
apply to installations that have not received a derogation) it should be noted that this does
potentially increase the risk of elevated air quality impacts over shorter duration averaging
periods.
[For example, one could consider the hypothetical case of a 250 MWth coal-fired power station,
operating with hourly averaged NOx emissions of 450 mg/Nm3
for 5% of the year, and hourly
averaged emissions of 170 mg/Nm3
for the remaining 95% of the time. In this case, the annual
average level of emission (184 mg/Nm3
) would be compliant with the Chapter II annual average
BAT-AEL (200 mg/Nm3
) but would exceed the Annex V hourly average ELV (400 mg/Nm3
).
However, since both averaging periods are required for compliance assessment currently, it is
not expected that changes will lead to a change in environmental performance.]
Note that, as show in Figure A8-13, the majority of stakeholders that participated in the TSS
indicated that there would be little or no impacts on the environment from the harmonisation of
averaging periods (measure #7) that would take precedence as a result of the proposed measure
(#16). Nearly all (97%) of industry stakeholders who responded to this question indicated that
there would be +/-5%, i.e. little or no impact, via harmonising averaging periods.
Figure A8-13: TSS responses on the perceived environmental impacts of harmonising or allowing
conversion between averaging periods for LCPs
Social impacts
This measure specifically is likely to result in a limited to no impacts on employment.
332
Summary of problem area 1 measures
For the measures presented in problem area 1, Table 12 summarises the Economic,
environmental and social impacts of the measures using the qualitative ratings. Overall, these
policy measures would yield weakly negative Economic impacts in the shorter to medium term,
positive environmental impacts and limited social impacts. These impacts have been assessed
using a qualitative scoring approach. The measures that are likely to have most significant
impacts within this problem area are measures #3 and #5, although all of them expected to be
effective in addressing issues identified with the IED during the recent evaluation.
Table A8-12: Summary of Economic, environmental and social impacts for measures in problem
area 1
Policy measure Economic impacts Environmental impacts Social impacts
(employment focus)
#1   O
#2 O  O
#3   O
#4 O  O
#5   O
#6   
#7   O
#8 O  O
#9   O
#10  O O
#11   O
#12 O O O
#13 O O O
#14   O
333
Policy measure Economic impacts Environmental impacts Social impacts
(employment focus)
#15  O O
#16  O O
Table A8-13 similarly uses qualitative ratings to summarise costs and benefits for measures in problem
area 1, with central estimates of administrative costs for businesses and public authorities also shown.
Overall, expected costs and benefits associated with the measures retained to improve the effectiveness of
the IED, improve transparency and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. The benefits are often
uncertain, however, these appear to be generally likely to outweigh costs.
334
Table A8-13: Summary of costs and benefits for measures in problem area 1, with central estimates
of administrative costs for businesses and public authorities shown
Policy measure
Administrative costs
– businesses (€m/yr)
Administrative costs
– public authorities
(€m/yr)
Overall costs Overall benefits
#1 0.6 0.09  
#2 0.2 0.4  
#3 0.6 0.4  
#4 No/limited No/limited O 
#5 8.0 6.7  
#6 0.2 No/limited  
#7 3.8 4.6  
#8 No/limited 0.05  
#9 0.06 0.4  
#10 No/limited No/limited  O
#11 No/limited 5.5  
#12 No/limited 2.0  
#13 No/limited 0.2  
#14 No/limited No/limited O 
#15
-0.6
(benefit)
-0.5
(benefit)
O 
#16
-0.1
(benefit)
-0.3
(benefit)
O 
335
Problem area 2: The IED is not dynamic enough and does not support the rapid
deployment of innovative technologies
There are six policy measures shortlisted to address the problems, drivers and consequences
associated with this problem area. For example, the static character and backwards-looking
nature of the BREF process restricts innovation and, as a result, the IED has not been dynamic
enough to support the rapid deployment of innovative technologies.
We have structured these measures based on the specific problems they are trying to tackle and
provide a description, outline the requirements for implementation and a rapid assessment of
their impacts. Following this, we provide an overview of the Economic, environmental, and
social impacts supported by evidence.
Measure 17: Introduce legislative amendments to facilitate the development and
testing of emerging techniques over a longer period.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would introduce a period during which IED installation operators are exempt from
meeting BAT-AELs for pertinent sources of emissions whilst testing and/or developing
Emerging Techniques. This period could be introduced by amending IED provisions such as
Article 15(5).
This exemption period is yet to be defined. We have considered extending the period to 24-36
months. Evidence collected during the recent IED evaluation showed that this exemption has
been used by very few IED installations.
During a focus group for this study, France confirmed that this is also the case in their
installations. Austria explained that they offer exemptions for up to 36 months subject to explicit
boundary conditions.
Further, a technology provider (Accessa) stated that “granting more time is unlikely to be a
sufficient incentive for operators to take the risk (e.g. of meeting lower AELs). A more direct
support and reward system would be more effective”.
Objectives:
The measure will aim to to promote the testing and/or development of Emerging Techniques that
could deliver higher environmental protection (or similar protection levels at lower operating
costs). This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of stimulating a deep
industrial and agro-industrial transformation through deployment of breakthrough technologies
and, more specifically, ensure that the IED is fit for permitting and reviewing of permits of large
industrial and agro-industrial installations for the upcoming transformation.
Implementation needs:
336
 EU to clarify and establish a proposal for the exemption period, including the required
justification. The period of exemption may only be for the commissioning or start-up
period or longer, as required. During consultation activities for this study, public
authorities suggested that a more tailored approach could be used where justification is
provided to ensure the exemption period was effective in encouraging testing and
development of emerging techniques.
 Competent authority to introduce and manage applications for temporary derogations.
 Operators to engage with the derogation process and use this to test and develop
emerging techniques.
 EU to issue rules covering legal redress and the default position if the longer period with
a temporary exemption does not produce positive results, to avoid the measure being
subject to abuse by operators, causing excess pollution.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited economic impacts when compared to the
baseline, although this will depend upon the take up of this exemption by operators.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to have limited to weakly negative impacts on the administrative burden
on businesses, depending on the number of sites engaged in this process.
Evidence on derogations currently possible for IED installations in the glass and the iron and
steel sectors, outlined in the recent evaluation, shows that over 10% of installations may have
been granted an exemption (on article 15.4 derogations) but only three cases on innovation
(article 15.5) derogations. Given this, and evidence gathered, it is to be expected hat only a
limited set of installations may decide to ask for this temporary derogation over a period of 20
years. This is assumed at 5%-10% of all existing installations (i.e., of a total of around 52 000),
as they may be interested in seeking this new exemption when reviewing their permits and/or
otherwise, and a similar percentage of installations seeking new permits (assumed at around 500
each year). This will generate some additional administrative costs for operators associated with
developing the request for derogation and engaging with public authorities.
There is limited direct evidence available on the costs to businesses of developing an application
for this type of derogation. The evidence available and summarised earlier in this Annex
suggests that applications for exemptions may require between 40 to 300 hours for IED operators
to complete, submit and iterate with public authorities. That is, an operator that seeks an
extension from meeting BAT-AELs whilst testing and/or developing emerging technique may
spend between €1 100 and €8 550 in administrative costs, assuming an hourly labour cost of
around €29 (Eurostat, 2020).
Over a 20-year period, therefore, it is assumed that between 155 and 310 installations may seek
this exemption each year, on average, over and above the baseline. This would imply an average
337
of €0.2 to €3 million in additional costs each year spread across the EU, with a central estimate
of around €0.4 million each year. These costs are, therefore, unlikely to be significant, although
it will depend on the number of installation operators that finally decide to seek a derogation.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on the costs of doing business at the EU
level. The measure does not require investments to comply with regulations. Further, this
measure may lead to investments on Emerging Techniques, which in some cases may have
higher overall costs. However, these are only likely for a very small number of installations,
based on the evidence collected so far. For example, in a focus group for this study, Eurofer
stated the proposed exemption period remains relatively short to lead to widespread changes in
the way operators make investment decisions. Actual capital and operating costs incurred as a
result of these exemptions would depend upon the emerging techniques that are being tested, and
there is uncertainty as to what operators across sectors may take forward.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on competitiveness or the levelling the
playing field. This measure provides a possible exemption to implement BAT Conclusions. In
this regard, businesses may take decisions to invest in techniques that could lead to
improvements in their competitiveness. This measure should also have limited to no impacts on
the level playing field, although it could lead to differential outcomes across countries and
sectors depending on how they may be incentivised to take up this derogation.
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on the position of SMEs. There is a very
large list of candidate emerging techniques that are applicable to small and large plants in any
sector. This measure is not generating a different or disproportionate impact on smaller
installation operators.
Innovation and research
This measure is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on innovation and research.
The measure would likely encourage a smaller number of industrial operators to invest in
research and development and testing of novel techniques in lieu of implementing BAT
Conclusions for a period of time. It is possible, however, that this measure would encourage the
adoption of existing knowhow (IP) from a supplier based in the EU or other industrial regions
(USA or China). This would also generate opportunities for revenue generation for the industrial
research and development sector. These uncertainties limit our ability to estimate the potential
impacts on innovation and research.
Respondents of the TSS for this study have suggested that it is likely that these measures may
lead to significant to moderate contributions towards research and development (Figure A8-14).
338
This conclusion supports the likelihood that this measure leads to weakly positive impacts;
although, again, these are unlikely to be widespread and thus limited at the EU-level.
Figure A8-14: TSS responses
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to have limited to weakly negative impacts on public authorities. As
outlined earlier for administrative burden on businesses, evidence available suggests that only a
limited set of installations may apply for this temporary derogation. This will generate some
additional administrative costs for public authorities, primarily associated with reviewing any
requests for derogation and considering the validity of the proposed justification.
The burden of proof during this administrative process is on IED operators. However, public
authorities also need to engage with the ‘applications for the exemption’ from IED operators.
Based on the evidence available, a broad assumption was developed that public authorities would
incur up to 50% of the time spent by operators in considering these applications and engaging in
the process, that is, between 20 to 150 worker hours at an hourly labour cost of €29 (Eurostat,
2020).
As noted earlier (see administrative burden on businesses), it is assumed that over a 20-year
period between 155 and 310 installations may seek this exemption each year, additional to the
baseline. This would imply an average of €0.1 million to €1 million in additional costs each year
spread across public authorities in the EU, with a central estimate of around €0.2 million each
year. These costs are, therefore, unlikely to be significant, although it will depend on the number
of IED operators that finally decide to seek this exemption.
Further, public authorities may also establish a procedure and template for these specific
derogations. They may build on existing infrastructure and resources linked to current derogation
procedures; however, this may result in some additional one-off costs. These costs are also
unlikely to be significant.
339
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on the environment
when compared to the baseline, although these will depend upon the take up of this exemption
by operators and the technologies or techniques deployed, potentially earlier than otherwise
expected in the baseline.
Climate
This measure is likely to have limited to no impacts on the climate, especially in the shorter
term. This is because emerging techniques are likely to have a focus on reducing pollution in
scope of the current IED (such as NOX) and, therefore, unlikely to focus on GHG emissions.
Novel techniques do not often include improvements in GHG emission performance, although
this may change in the medium to longer term if measures are introduced to adjust the scope of
the IED.
Air quality and other environmental impacts
This measure is likely to lead to limited to weakly positive impacts on air quality; water quality
and resources; soil quality or resources; waste production, generation and recycling; and, the
efficient use of resources.
The overall environmental impact across these categories will be mainly driven by the number of
installation operators that finally decide to seek a derogation. The specific scale of impact per
installation with a successful derogation will depend upon the selected emerging techniques,
although any of these techniques would be expected to result in additional contributions to
reducing industrial polluting emissions.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to result in limited to no impacts on employment across the EU. The
measure may create jobs in research and development and engineering and constructions sectors.
However, the expected low take-up of this measure would lead to a very small knock-on effect
across these sectors, and overall employment impacts across the EU are not likely to be
significant.
Measure 18: Amend requirements to allow more time (6 to 8 years) for operators
to implement emerging techniques with Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
8-9 or stricter long-term Emerging Techniques Associated Emission Levels
(ET-AELs) reflecting the expected environmental performance of emerging
techniques. Applicable to Key Environmental Issues only.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would allow more time (6 to 8 years) for operators to implement emerging
techniques with Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 8-9 or stricter long-term Emerging
340
Techniques Associated Emission Levels (ET-AELs) reflecting the expected environmental
performance of these techniques. The measure would be applicable to Key Environmental Issues
only could be introduced by amending IED provisions such as Article 21(3).
The industrial installation permit will be updated reflecting an ELV that is equal or lower to the
ET-AELs after the operator has finalised the construction and commissioning of the emerging
technique. This will lead to lower environmental impacts than using an article 15.5 derogation
(where operator permit would go back to BAT-AEL reference after testing period).Operators
have concerns related to data (e.g. on emissions) underlying emerging techniques, as there might
be high uncertainty. This could result in challenges associated with deriving legally binding
indicators such as ET-AELs. Past experience from BREF reviews shows that when these
techniques are likely to have been used only in a few sites, then the adoption in BREF may be
done with a long list of caveats (numerous applicability restrictions such as “this might not be
applicable in plants of type X”). The EEB suggests that the data to derive a regulatory value/
performance standard should be more flexible (e.g. check the US MACT standard)25.
Along these lines, in an interview with ESWET, they have shared concerns that “performance
should be proven, not expected. The promise of extraordinary performance can be a source of
[risk] if made mandatory by authorities. [For example,] in the case of waste management…there
is no one-size-fits-all technology and the “best” option for a specific waste stream is not
necessarily the best for another waste stream. In the case of non-recyclable waste treatment,
several technologies actually rely on pre-sorted feedstock (e.g. gasification) while others do not
(e.g. incineration) and they play different roles. Thus, the recognition of emerging techniques
and resulting processes should not lead to imposing a restricted number of options which would
disrupt the proper functioning of waste management systems”. This feedback will be considered
to mitigate any unintended consequences and retain the technology neutral principles whilst
acknowledging advances with research and innovation.
Objectives:
The measure will aim to promote disruptive or significant achievements on environmental
protection (rather than marginal improvements). This measure will, therefore, contribute to the
general objective of stimulating a deep industrial and agro-industrial transformation through
deployment of breakthrough technologies and, more specifically, ensure that the IED is fit for
permitting and reviewing of permits of large industrial and agro-industrial installations for the
upcoming transformation.
Implementation needs:
 Public authorities to establish a clear process for considering requests to have more time
to implement emerging techniques. Public authorities will also need to consider other
implementation challenges e.g. by definition, emerging techniques can deliver the same
25 The Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard in the USA is a level of control that was
introduced by Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
341
performance at lower costs and/or enhanced performance. Therefore, these ET-AELs
might be expressed using ranges to cope with uncertainty, which may lead to overlaps
with baseline BAT-AEL ranges.
 Operators to provide a full justification report for requiring more time to implement
emerging techniques.
 Public authorities and/or INCITE to contribute to reviewing these requests and reaching a
decision. Member States (France and Spain) noted as part of a focus group that they
would be keen for INCITE to support with reviewing these requests.
Assessing impacts
The economic, environmental and social impacts will depend on whether the measure leads to an
increase in the uptake of emerging and innovative techniques by IED operators that may improve
their enviornmental performance. This is uncertain.
The majority of stakeholders responding to the TSS perceived that at least moderate impacts on
technology uptake by installations covered by the IED should be expected (Figure A8-15).
Figure A8-15: TSS responses.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts when compared to
the baseline, although this will depend upon the uptake of emerging techniques by IED
342
operators, and whether this would require earlier or higher capital investments and operating
costs when compared to the baseline.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the administrative burden on
businesses, especially because businesses will need to provide a full justification for requiring
more time to implement emerging techniques and update their permits accordingly. Details
associated with implementing this measure are to be defined; however, we assume that IED
operators will have to engage with some application process, similar with a permit review and/or
a derogation application.
The evidence available and summarised earlier in this Annex suggests that applications for
exemptions may require between 40 to 300 hours for IED operators to complete, submit and
iterate with public authorities. That is, an operator that seeks an extension from meeting BAT-
AELs whilst testing and/or developing emerging technique may spend between €1 100 and
€8 550 in administrative costs, assuming an hourly labour cost of around €29 (Eurostat, 2020).
Although uncertain, based on the project team’s expert opinion and consultation with
stakeholders, it has been assumed that 5% - 10% of the installations may seek time allowance to
implement emerging techniques, or between 2 600 - 5 200 IED installations every eight years
(around a similar timetable of the BREF review process). This would include new and/or
existing installations.
Over a 20-year period, therefore, between 260 and 520 installations may seek this derogation or
time allowance each year, over and above the baseline. This would imply an average of €0.3 to
€4 million in additional costs each year spread across the EU, with a central estimate of around
€0.6 million each year.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to limited to weakly negative impacts on the costs of doing
business. The measure would not have a direct impact (requirement) on companies to invest
more or less to comply with requirements. Rather, operators would seek an allowance to have
more time to implement emerging techniques that best suit their installations whilst improving
their environmental performance. We would expect that many of these techniques may have at
least higher capital requirements although this is uncertain and would depend on a case-by-case
basis.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on competitiveness or the levelling the
playing field. This measure provides flexibility to operators to take more time to invest on the
relevant emerging technologies that are best suited to improve environmental protection at
lowest cost for a given installation. Further, the carbon border adjustment mechanism may
343
mitigate any impacts on competitiveness resulting from carbon costs. In addition, this measure is
unlikely to have any significant impacts on the level playing field in the EU.
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on the position of SMEs. Sectors with
larger sites (and larger companies) such as chemicals or combustions units (power) might be
more likely to seek more time to invest in emerging techniques.
Innovation and research
This measure is likely to lead to weakly positive impacts on innovation and research. The
measure would likely encourage a smaller number of industrial operators to invest in research
and development and testing of novel techniques in lieu of implementing BAT Conclusions for a
period of time. It is possible, however, that this measure would encourage the adoption of
existing knowhow (IP) from a supplier based in the EU or other industrial regions (USA or
China). This would also generate opportunities for revenue generation for the industrial research
and development sector.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on public authorities, especially for
engaging in the review of requests from operators for time to implement emerging techniques.
Detail associated with implementing this measure are to be defined; however, we assume that
public authorities (MS competent authorities and/or INCITE) will have to engage with some
process, similar with a permit review and/or a derogation application.
The burden of proof during this administrative process is on IED operators. However, public
authorities also need to engage with the ‘applications for the exemption’ from IED operators.
Based on the evidence available, a broad assumption was developed that public authorities would
incur up to 50% of the time spent by operators in considering these applications and engaging in
the process, that is, between 20 to 150 worker hours at an hourly labour cost of €29 (Eurostat,
2020).
As noted earlier (see administrative burden on businesses), it is assumed that over a 20-year
period between 260 and 520 installations may seek this exemption each year, additional to the
baseline. This would imply an average of €0.1 to €2 million in additional costs each year spread
across public authorities in the EU, with a central estimate of around €0.3 million each year.
These costs are, therefore, unlikely to be significant, although it will depend on the number of
IED operators that finally decide to seek this exemption.
Other, potentially lower costs may be incurred earlier on to develop and establish a clear and
consistent process for considering these requests across the EU.
344
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive impacts on the environment when
compared to the baseline, although these will depend upon the take up of this derogation by
operators and the emerging techniques deployed, potentially earlier than otherwise expected in
the baseline.
Climate
This measure is likely to lead to limited positive impacts on the climate, especially if GHG are
included in the scope of the IED and BREFs. The scale of these impacts will depend upon the
number of operators that seek these time allowance to implement emerging techniques and
research and development trends.
Air quality and water quality
This measure is likely to lead to weakly positive impacts on air quality. The scale of these
impacts will depend upon the number of operators that seek these time allowance to implement
emerging techniques and research and development trends. However, the selected emerging
techniques as part of these BREFs are likely to have higher environmental performance
standards especially for emissions to air and water, than those identified in the baseline at any
one point in time, thus leading to some reduction in polluting industrial emissions upon the
implementation of BAT Conclusions.
Other environmental impacts
This measure is likely to lead to weakly positive impacts on soil quality or resources; waste
production, generation and recycling; and the efficient use of resources. The scale of
environmental impact across these categories will depend upon the number of operators that seek
these time allowance to implement emerging techniques and research and development trends.
Having said this, the selected emerging techniques as part of these BREFs are likely to have
higher environmental performance standards than those identified in the baseline at any one
point in time, thus leading to some reduction in polluting industrial emissions upon the
implementation of BAT Conclusions.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to result in a limited to weakly positive impact on employment. The
measure might create jobs in research and development, the engineering and constructions
sectors, and regulatory affairs -to engage with any process seeking time allowances to implement
emerging techniques-. However, expected increases in costs of doing business may put pressure
on operators to identify efficiencies including but not only by reducing employment.
345
Measure 19: Establish shorter, up to 5-year BREF cycles focussed on defining
stricter BAT-AELs based on recent innovations.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would design an agile BREF review process based on the same principles as the
existing process, whilst incorporating changes to tools (e.g. digital, remote) and formats that
facilitate faster and targeted revisions that are complementary to the baseline BREF process. This
shorter process might be triggered by significant innovation and/or technological progress in a
given sector and may be focused on a specific scope, e.g., only covering the most relevant KEIs.
This measure would establish shorter, up to 5-year BREF cycles, especially to target new
installations and/or any major refurbishments or retrofits. Otherwise, that is, for the majority of
baseline installations, the measure would not trigger a mandatory permit review.
Evidence suggests that there are not many greenfield or new sites. Therefore, the proposed
measure is likely to have limited scope and/or potential impact, mostly linked to installation
operators that may be considering significant transformation plans. A precise definition of
‘significant’ will need to be derived, potentially based on the fact that installation changes
primary techniques (manufacturing paths/processes).
During a focus group for this study, Member States (Austria) and NGO representatives
mentioned that this measure would be most effective if quicker BREF updates were to focus on
Key Environmental issues.
Objectives:
The measure will aim to promote quicker adjustments to BAT-AEL based on recent ongoing
innovation (by avoiding long periods with same standards) for new installations. This measure
will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of stimulating a deep industrial and agro-
industrial transformation through deployment of breakthrough technologies and, more
specifically, ensure that the IED is fit for permitting and reviewing of permits of large industrial
and agro-industrial installations for the upcoming transformation.
Implementation needs:
 EU (and MS authorities) to clarify, coordinate and establish an adjusted and quicker
BREF process; the focus on key environmental issues or otherwise; and whether the
process would trigger permit reviews and how.
 Operators to engage with BAT Conclusions only if they are considering major
refurbishments and retrofits and/or investing in new installations.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts when compared to
the baseline, although this will depend on how the more rapid BREF review process
346
complements the existing BREF cycle and the number of installations that may be affected -e.g.
new permits as well as major refurbishments only-.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the administrative burden on
businesses as a result of being involved in more frequent BREF reviews and more frequent
permit reviews and updates when compared to the baseline.
A BREF review process for one sector may cost a total of between €3.5 and €21 million based
on the data provided in the recent IED evaluation, and around 30% of these costs would be
incurred by operators. Marginal and additional costs would be expected from increased
frequency of BREFs; however, focusing on key environmental issues would reduce the cost of a
single review and it is likely that operators would be less involved and more focussed.
If a complementary and more frequent BREF process were to be introduced, this could mean that
there would be an additional BREF cycle for each sector in a period of 20 years, or 50% more
BREF reviews at any point in time (e.g., if we assume that 60 BREF reviews are carried out in
20 years, we would expect this adjustment to lead to an additional 30 BREFs in this period).
Total costs for operators would increase, therefore, by a maximum of 50% across the EU on
average, although this is likely to be an upper bound, especially if synergies are identified.
Alternatively, these rapid BREF reviews do not completely substitute the existing BREF
schedule, but rather complement it when technological progress across sectors may warrant an
update. In this case, these reviews may be very focussed or targeted and require lower input from
stakeholders and thus, may be lower cost. There are uncertainties around the administrative
implications of this measure. Given these options considered, it has been assumed that the BREF
review costs that would be additional to the baseline over this period would range from 10% -
50%, with a central estimate of around 25% additional administrative burden.
This measure is targeting new installations and/or major refurbishments. It is unlikely that this
measure would lead to any additional administrative costs associated with issuing new permits.
However, this measure may require additional and/or more detailed permit reviews for those
major refurbishments, assumed at a 40% of the baseline costs. The number of installations that
will require major refurbishments, and thus may be affected by this measure is uncertain. In this
context and based on the information available, it is assumed that around 10% of the baseline
installations or 5 200 may be affected by this measure over 20 years, i.e., an average of 260 each
year.
In total, this would mean around €0.4 to €13 million in additional costs each year, spread across
IED installation operators in the EU, and a central estimate of around €3.2 million. These
estimates depend on how the more rapid BREF review process complements the existing BREF
cycle and the number of installations that may be affected.
347
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to negligible impacts on the costs of doing business, especially
given that it is expected that only new installation operators or operators considering major refit/
retrofitting actions may require to review their permits as a result of updated BAT Conclusions
through the proposed, quicker BREF process. For these relatively few installations, however,
higher capital and operating costs would be expected when compared to the baseline, especially
if quick BREF reviews lead to stricter or lower BAT-AELs. These are uncertain and would
depend on the outcome of the BREF reviews and the number of installations that may be in
scope.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure is likely to lead to negligible impacts on competitiveness and no impact on the
levelling the playing field. This measure might slightly reduce the competitiveness of new
industrial operators as it may result in marginally higher cost for environmental protection. These
are unlikely to be significant in a global context and would likely be mitigated to some extent by
the carbon border adjustment mechanism. This measure has no impact on level-playing field
across EU.
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to have no impacts on the position of SMEs. In fact, if anything, some
sectors with larger installations (and larger operators) such as chemicals or combustions units
may be affected relatively more by this measure than others with smaller installations (and
smaller operators).
Innovation and research
This measure is likely to lead to limited to weakly positive impacts on innovation and research.
The measure would likely encourage a smaller number of industrial operators to invest in
research and development and testing of novel techniques in lieu of implementing BAT
Conclusions for a period of time. It is possible, however, that this measure would encourage the
adoption of existing knowhow (IP) from a supplier based in the EU or other industrial regions
(USA or China). This would also generate opportunities for revenue generation for the industrial
research and development sector.
Non-industry respondents to the TSS for this study expect significant to moderate contributions
towards innovation and research from the implementation of this measure (Figure A8-16).
However, the majority of industrial stakeholders expect no impacts on innovation and research
from this measure.
348
Figure A8-16: TSS responses
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on public authorities as a result of
being involved in more frequent or more demanding BREF processes when compared to the
baseline.
A BREF review process for one sector may cost a total of between €3.5 and €21 million based
on the data provided in the recent IED evaluation, and around 70% of these costs would be
incurred by public authorities across the EU. Marginal and additional costs would be expected
from increased frequency of BREFs; however, it is likely that they would be less involved and
more focused. There is limited evidence to consider these synergies at this stage. Given these
options considered (see administrative burden on businesses), it has been assumed that the BREF
review costs that would be additional to the baseline over this period would range from 10% -
50%, with a central estimate of around 25% additional administrative burden.
This measure is targeting new installations and/or major refurbishments. It is unlikely that this
measure would lead to any additional administrative costs associated with issuing new permits.
However, this measure may require additional and/or more detailed permit reviews for those
major refurbishments, assumed at a 40% of the baseline costs. The number of installations that
will require major refurbishments, and thus may be affected by this measure is uncertain. In this
context and based on the information available, it is assumed that around 10% of the baseline
installations or 5 200 may be affected by this measure over 20 years, i.e., an average of 260 each
year.
In total, this would mean around €1 to €22 million in additional costs each year, spread across
public authorities in the EU, and a central estimate of around €5.3 million. These estimates
349
depend on how the more rapid BREF review process complements the existing BREF cycle and
the number of installations that may be affected.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive impacts on the environment when
compared to the baseline, although these will depend upon outcomes of the more rapid BREF
review process and the number of installations that are affected by the resulting, likely stricter
environmental requirements over time.
Climate
This measure is likely to lead to limited to weakly positive impacts on the climate, especially if
GHGs are included in the scope of the IED and BREFs. The scale of these impacts will depend
upon the BREF outcomes and research and development. This scale would also be limited by the
triggers associated with the shorter BREF cycles, likely to focus primarily on new installations or
those after major transformation.
Air quality and other environmental impacts
This measure is likely to lead to limited to weakly positive impacts on air quality; water quality
and resources; soil quality or resources; waste production, generation and recycling; and the
efficient use of resources.
The scale of environmental impact across these categories will depend upon the BREF outcomes
and research and development. This scale would also be limited by the triggers associated with
the shorter BREF cycles, likely to focus primarily on new installations or major refurbishments.
Having said this, the selected emerging techniques as part of these BREFs are likely to have
higher environmental performance standards than those identified in the baseline at any one
point in time, thus leading to some reduction in polluting industrial emissions upon the
implementation of BAT Conclusions.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to result in limited impacts on employment. The measure might create
jobs in research and development and engineering and constructions sectors. However, the
expected low take-up of this measure would lead to a very small knock-on effect across these
sectors, and overall employment impacts across the EU are not likely to be significant.
350
Measure 20: Establish the INnovation Centre for Industrial Transformation &
Emissions (INCITE) to monitor the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and
environmental performance (BAT-AEPLs) of emerging and breakthrough
techniques. Recognition by INCITE of advanced techniques with TRL 8-9 (or
improved environmental protection) would suggest an update of BAT
conclusions.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would establish the INnovation Centre for Industrial Transformation & Emissions
(INCITE) to monitor the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and environmental performance of
emerging and breakthrough techniques.
INCITE would identify candidate novel techniques and gather evidence on degree of maturity
for advanced techniques with TRL 8-9 (or improved environmental protection). INCITE would
suggest, where pertinent, an update of BAT conclusions upon approval from the relevant
Technical Working Group.
This measure would also target all installations, new and existing. INCITE would be expected to
have some powers to trigger a BREF review or update of BAT conclusions where pertinent.
Nevertheless, these more frequent BREF reviews or BAT conclusion updates would likely affect
a minority of installations at least in the shorter term.
Most stakeholders believe that the final design and resources assigned to INCITE will have an
impact on its performance. The pilot project (innovation observatory) revealed that technology
suppliers had no incentives or drivers to devote time, people or resources to its activities. Further,
respondents to the TSS for this study also suggested that a wide range of stakeholders should be
involved.
Eurofer stated that they would like to participate in INCITE, although industry participants
shared concerns on the potential loss of technology neutrality. INCITE, however, should be
expected to respond to ongoing innovation rather than focus on specific technologies and,
therefore, it is expected that the principle of technology neutrality would be retained.
Participants of a focus group for this study (Eurofer and FuelsEurope) suggested that INCITE
should not derive legally binding documents. The current measure proposed would provide
INCITE with some powers to trigger a BREF review or update of BAT conclusions where
pertinent. To this effect, FuelsEurope suggested that mid-term reviews should be justified by
substantial evidence, and that identifying a small number of novel techniques may not be
sufficient to warrant said reviews.
Objectives:
The measure will aim to accelerate the adoption, by operators, of lower emission standards
(lower BAT-AELs) or lower cost for similar emission standards in a faster way (sooner than the
next BREF review) by converting novel or emerging techniques into candidate BATs. This
351
measure will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of stimulating a deep industrial and
agro-industrial transformation through deployment of breakthrough technologies and, more
specifically, ensure that the IED is fit for permitting and reviewing of permits of large industrial
and agro-industrial installations for the upcoming transformation.
Implementation needs:
 EU to establish INCITE and clarify membership, resources, focus (including sectoral
and/or whether this would only apply to key environmental issues) and the process for
validation of environmental performance of emerging techniques and triggering permit
reviews.
o Member states (Austria) and NGOs mentioned at a focus group the need to focus
these additional reviews solely on Key Environmental impacts.
o Member States (Spain) suggested at a focus group that ETV system could provide
support on validating environmental performance.
o FuelsEurope suggested that mid-term reviews should be justified by substantial
evidence and identifying a small number of novel techniques may not be
sufficient to warrant said reviews.
 EU and MS authorities to clarify definitions of novel and emerging techniques as well as
TRL status.
 Operators, technology providers and other stakeholders to participate in INCITE.
 Operators to take appropriate action as a result of changes to BAT conclusions.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative Economic impacts when compared to
the baseline, although this will depend on how the number of BREF reviews triggered by
INCITE and/or BAT Conclusion updates, as well as the number of installations that may be
affected; e.g. new permits as well as major refurbishments only.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the administrative burden on
businesses, especially from:
 More frequent and/or adjusted BREF reviews.
 More frequent permit reviews and updates to comply with new legally binding
requirements.
 Annual administrative costs associated with operators’ support to INCITE.
A BREF review process for one sector may cost a total of between €3.5 and €21 million based
on the data provided in the recent IED evaluation, and around 30% of these costs would be
incurred by operators. Marginal and additional costs would be expected from increased
352
frequency of BREFs; however, focusing on key environmental issues would reduce the cost of a
single review and it is likely that the role of operators would be more focussed.
If a complementary and more frequent BREF process is triggered based on the outputs of the
work carried out by INCITE, this could mean that additional BREF cycles for the pertinent
sectors may be taken forward. In comparison to measure #19, a BREF review and/or update of
BAT Conclusions would not take place periodically, but only when INCITE identifies a
significant opportunity. That is, INCITE would provide a mechanism through which additional,
more rapid and/or adjusted BREF reviews would only really take place if significant
opportunities are identified. In this case, the project team experts considered that the additional
workload resulting from this may range from 10% to 20% of the baseline, with a central estimate
of around 15%. This is because only a few sectors are likely to have relevant ETs to trigger
quicker, targeted and complementary BREF reviews. The measure would not have a narrow
scope as it would target all installations; nevertheless, it is expected that the majority of sectors
and associated installations are likely to continue to work within the baseline framework.
It is unlikely that this measure would lead to any additional administrative costs associated with
issuing new permits. However, this measure may require more involved and/or detailed permit
reviews for installations working in sectors targeted by INCITE, which is expected to cover
around 15% of the existing installations or around 7 800 over a period of 20 years. This is
uncertain. Permit reconsiderations and updates for these installations are assumed to be around
40% of the baseline costs, as these are expected to be significantly more targeted.
In total, this would mean around €0.5 to €9 million in additional costs each year, spread across
IED installation operators in the EU, and a central estimate of around €3.2 million. These
estimates depend on the outcomes of INCITE’s work, how any BREF reviews that are triggered
complement the existing BREF cycle and the number of installations that may be affected.
Additional annual costs to contribute to INCITE are expected to be significantly lower than this.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative to negative impacts on the costs of doing
business. The measure is likely to require earlier and higher investment by operators to comply
with new candidate BATs and potentially lower BAT-AELs. Specifics would be dependent upon
INCITE’s work, updates of BAT, the number of operators affected, and subsequent action by
operators. Therefore, it is challenging to estimate the additional capital and operating costs that
may be incurred by IED installation operators.
Any estimation would require an understanding of the number of installations that would be
required to invest earlier, more frequently and at higher cost in these new BAT (or BAT-AELs).
This measure will likely impact ‘heavy’ industry (Iron & steel, organic chemicals or oil and gas
refineries). Food and agricultural (e.g. IRPP) sectors do not often develop technologies so fast
and thus is rather unlikely that INCITE would promote faster BREF cycles on those sectors.
353
Additional capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX) will depend upon
the selected novel technologies. Heavy industry affected by this measure is likely to require
retrofits to existing installations (green field sites are not probable). Investments in these
industrial installations are likely to be relatively higher than in other sectors (such as IRPP) can
range from €0.5 to €200 million euro per site, based on expert opinion.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure is likely to lead to unclear impacts on competitiveness and limited to no impacts
on levelling the playing field. On the one hand, this measure may reduce the competitiveness of
EU industrial/ manufacturing companies by leading to substantial increases in the cost of doing
business relative to competitors in the global context. The carbon border adjustment mechanism
may mitigate impacts that are related with higher CO2 emission abatement. In addition, other
evidence would suggest that these changes could put the EU’s industry in the front-foot of
transformation, potentially gaining first-mover advantage.
These latter positive impacts may have been considered by stakeholders when responding to the
TSS for this study (Figure A8-17). There is consensus amongst the Environmental NGOs and
‘Other’ stakeholders that strong contributions towards competitiveness should be expected from
the implementation of this measure. In contrast, there are mixed views from industry.
Figure A8-17: TSS responses on EU competitiveness impacts of this measure
This measure is not expected to affect the EU’s level playing field. There might be a few
exemptions such as use of biobased fuels in EU as ETs since those have different prices and
availabilities across European regions.
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on the position of SMEs. In fact, if
anything, some sectors with larger installations (and larger operators) such as chemicals or
combustions units may be affected relatively more by this measure than others with smaller
installations (and smaller operators) such as food or slaughterhouses, where technology might
develop at slower pace.
354
Innovation and research
This measure is likely to lead to weakly positive impacts on innovation and research. The
measure would likely encourage a smaller number of industrial operators to invest in research
and development and testing of novel techniques in lieu of implementing BAT Conclusions for a
period of time. It is possible, however, that this measure would encourage the adoption of
existing knowhow (IP) from a supplier based in the EU or other industrial regions (USA or
China). This would also generate opportunities for revenue generation for the industrial research
and development sector.
Stakeholders responding to the TSS for this study agree that a moderate contribution to
innovation and research from establishing INCITE should be expected. Environmental NGOs
believe that it will have a strong impact on innovation (Figure A8-18). A minority in the other
stakeholder groups agree with this statement while the majority of stakeholders expect to see a
moderate contribution to research and development across the EU. Only a very small number of
industry stakeholders responded with no impact from this measure.
Figure A8-18: TSS responses
In addition, the majority of responses to the TSS (over 80%) support the measures considered
herein are likely to lead to weakly positive impacts on research and innovation (Figure A8-19).
Figure A8-19: TSS responses
355
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on public authorities, especially from:
 More frequent and/or adjusted BREF reviews.
 More frequent permit reviews to comply with new legally binding requirements.
 One-off and annual administrative costs associated with the set up and management of
INCITE
A BREF review process for one sector may cost a total of between €3.5 and €21 million based
on the data provided in the recent IED evaluation, and around 70% of these costs would be
incurred by public authorities across the EU. Marginal and additional costs would be expected
from increased frequency of BREFs; however, focusing on key sectors and environmental issues
would reduce the cost of a single review and it is likely that the roles of public authorities would
be more focussed.
If a complementary and more frequent BREF process is triggered based on the outputs of the
work carried out by INCITE, this could mean that additional BREF cycles for the pertinent
sectors may be taken forward. In comparison to measure #19, a BREF review and/or update of
BAT Conclusions would not take place periodically, but only when INCITE identifies a
significant opportunity. That is, INCITE would provide a mechanism through which additional,
more rapid and/or adjusted BREF reviews would only really take place if significant
opportunities are identified. In this case, the project team experts considered that the additional
workload resulting from this may range from 10% to 20% of the baseline, with a central estimate
of around 15%. This is because only a few sectors are likely to have relevant ETs to trigger
quicker, targeted and complementary BREF reviews. The measure would not have a narrow
scope as it would target all installations; nevertheless, it is expected that the majority of sectors
and associated installations are likely to continue to work within the baseline framework.
It is unlikely that this measure would lead to any additional administrative costs associated with
issuing new permits. However, this measure may require more involved and/or detailed permit
reviews for installations working in the sectors targeted by INCITE, which is expected to cover
around 15% of the existing installations or around 7 800 over a period of 20 years. This is
uncertain. Permit reconsiderations and updates for these installations are assumed to be around
40% of the baseline costs, as these are expected to be significantly more targeted.
Costs for the Commission to set up INCITE
Additional costs to set up and manage INCITE are expected to be notable albeit lower than these.
Set up costs would depend on the approach to establishing INCITE. Costs could range from €0.5
million to €10 million (from setting up a virtual team within an existing organisation, to
establishing an independent organisation with an address).
Operation costs would also vary.
356
Experience with the pilot project (innovation observatory)26
shows that 75 person-days are
required over two years to monitor innovation progress for one BREF (IED sector) and publish
the relevant information.
The envisaged up-scaled INCITE will cover all current as well as new IED sectors rather than
focus only on sectors for which the BREF is under review. Considering that there is a total of
about 30 BREFs/IED activities and given economies of scale, this suggests a need for up to 1125
person-days per year (including overheads). This translates into five full-time equivalents.
Costs of the external contractor to run the pilot observatory were €160 000. We estimate a mark-
up of 25%-50%, or €40 000 - €80 000, to capture additional costs incurred by public authorities
as they contributed to the work carried out the contractors. This would imply total costs of €200
000 - €240 000 over three years and covering two sectors. These costs would increase more or
less proportionately to the number of sectors that INCITE would be expected to monitor/ cover
each year or over the 10 year period.
As a result, in total, this would mean around €1 to €11 million in additional costs each year,
spread across public authorities in the EU, and a central estimate of around €4.5 million. These
estimates depend on the outcomes of INCITE’s work, how any BREF reviews that are triggered
complement the existing BREF cycle and the number of installations that may be affected.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive to positive impacts on the environment
when compared to the baseline, although these will depend on how the number of BREF reviews
triggered by and/or BAT Conclusion updates, as well as the number of installations that may be
affected -e.g. new permits as well as major refurbishments only.
Climate
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on the climate unless it is combined with
other policy measures that enlarge/focus IED activity and BREF reviews on decarbonisation
processes. Emerging techniques in the shorter term will target environmental performance
associated with core IED pollutants (NOX, dust, etc.). Co-benefits in the form of GHG emissions
reduction are possible, but not every/many techniques to reduce IED pollutants do also reduce
GHG. In addition, the scale of these impacts will depend upon the outcomes of the work by
INCITE and any more frequent BREF reviews or actions triggered otherwise, as well as research
and development.
Air quality and other environmental impacts
This measure is likely to lead to positive impacts on air quality, water quality and resources and
soil quality or resources; and weakly positive impacts on waste production, generation and
recycling; and the efficient use of resources.
26
Assessment of the functionality and effectiveness of a novel techniques ‘Innovation Observatory’ to support
concrete BREF review processes; Ricardo et al. (2020)
357
The scale of environmental impact across these categories will depend upon the outcomes of the
work by INCITE and any more frequent BREF reviews or actions triggered otherwise, as well as
research and development. Having said this, the selected emerging techniques as part of these
BREFs are likely to have higher environmental performance standards than those identified in
the baseline at any one point in time, thus leading to some reduction in polluting industrial
emissions upon the implementation of BAT Conclusions.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to result in a limited to weakly positive impacts on employment. The
measure might create jobs in research and development, the engineering and constructions
sectors, and regulatory affairs -to engage effectively with permit reviews-. However, expected
increases in costs of doing business may put pressure on operators to identify efficiencies
including but not only by reducing employment.
Measure 21: Amend requirements to allow operators to have more time to
implement BAT conclusions where deep transformation of industrial sectors
is required. “Deep transformation” would refer to the adoption of completely
different process routes and/or primary process techniques that facilitate a
significant reduction in the emissions of pollutants and/or the use of energy,
raw materials (i.e. secondary, or ‘end-of-pipe’ techniques would not qualify
as ‘deep transformation’).
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would provide more time (e.g. up to six years) to implement BAT conclusions,
where deep transformation of industrial sectors is required, which could be introduced by
amending IED provisions such as Article 21(3).
“Deep ,transformation” would refer to the adoption of completely different process routes and/or
primary process techniques that facilitate a significant reduction in the emissions of pollutants
and/or the use of energy, raw materials (i.e. secondary or ‘end-of-pipe’ techniques would not
qualify as “deep transformation”).
Industrial federations (e.g. Eurofer) that represent businesses that require deep transformation
over the next 10 or more years find this policy measure attractive. In particular, they find that the
transformation needs need to be considered and supported rather than hampered by the IED, and
this measure could go some way in ensuring this. They also note that this measure could
materialise in e.g. “the time extension of the current permit and/or continue with the existing
BAT-AEL requirements for a certain period (in consistency with the timing indicated in the
transition roadmap for the sector)”.
Objectives:
358
The measure will aim to promote faster BAT-AEL reductions (and avoid having long periods
with the same standards) for installations seeking a deep transformation, without imposing the
need for widespread permit updates. This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general
objective of stimulating a deep industrial and agro-industrial transformation through deployment
of breakthrough technologies and, more specifically, ensure that the IED is fit for permitting and
reviewing of permits of large industrial and agro-industrial installations for the upcoming
transformation.
Implementation needs:
 EU (and MS authorities) to clarify, coordinate and establish a process to consider time
allowances where deep transformation may be required. This may include the EU
providing guidance as to how to approve/ justify these requests, especially given that
permit writers may already be unclear as to when they need to update each permit. This
guidance could provide ETS views on which processes can deliver significant GHG
reductions.
 Operators to engage in a process with public authorities to provide proof that deep
transformation may be required, thus warranting more time to implement BAT
conclusions.
 Operators to take forward deep transformation plans.
 European Commission to establish rules to avoid abuse of this system by operators,
including legal redress measures and the process requiring a “default to lower range of
BAT-AEL” in any case, within a set period.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts when compared to
the baseline, although this will depend upon the number of successful applications for derogation
from IED operators, and whether these derogations would facilitate the deep transformation of
their industrial processes, which may require earlier or higher capital investments and operating
costs when compared to the baseline.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the administrative burden on
businesses, especially associated with the process of seeking more time to implement BAT
conclusions when a deep transformation is required by a given operator. The process would have
to be defined more concretely; we would expect that a justification report supported by evidence
would have to be developed by operators, similar in some ways to a permit review/ update.
The evidence available and summarised earlier in this Annex suggests that applications for
exemptions may require between 40 to 300 hours for IED operators to complete, submit and
359
iterate with public authorities. That is, an operator that seeks an extension from meeting BAT-
AELs where deep transformation is required may spend between €1 100 and €8 550 in
administrative costs, assuming a hourly labour cost of around €29 (Eurostat, 2020).
Although uncertain, based on the project team’s expert opinion and consultation with
stakeholders, it has been assumed that 5% - 10% of the installations may seek time allowance to
implement transformation change within their operations, or between 2 600 - 5 200 IED
installations every eight years (around a similar timetable of the BREF review process). This
would include new and/or existing installations.
Over a 20-year period, therefore, between 260 and 520 installations may seek this derogation
each year, over and above the baseline. This would imply an average of €0.3 to €4 million in
additional costs each year spread across the EU, with a central estimate of around €0.6 million
each year.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on the costs of doing business. Minor,
new plants would need to invest on environmental protection (regardless of this regulatory
change).
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on competitiveness and no impacts
on levelling the playing field. This measure provides flexibility to operators to take more time to
adopt BAT conclusions whilst they implement deep transformative actions that seek to address
longer term climate and environmental challenges and align with EU general objectives. Further,
the carbon border adjustment mechanism may mitigate any impacts on competitiveness resulting
from carbon costs. In addition, this measure is unlikely to have any significant impacts on the
level playing field in the EU.
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on the position of SMEs. Sectors with
larger sites (and larger companies) such as chemicals or combustions units (power) might be
more likely to seek more time to invest in emerging techniques.
Innovation and research
This measure is likely to lead to weakly positive impacts on innovation and research. The
measure would likely encourage a smaller number of industrial operators to invest in research
and development and testing of novel techniques in lieu of implementing BAT Conclusions for a
period of time. It is possible, however, that this measure would encourage the adoption of
existing knowhow (IP) from a supplier based in the EU or other industrial regions (USA or
China). This would also generate opportunities for revenue generation for the industrial research
and development sector.
360
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to lead to limited to weakly negative impacts on public authorities,
especially associated with the process of reviewing and assessing applications from operators
that seek more time to implement BAT conclusions when a deep transformation is required. The
process would have to be defined more concretely; we would expect that a justification report
supported by evidence would have to be developed by operators and reviewed and assessed by
public authorities.
The burden of proof during this administrative process is on IED operators. However, public
authorities also need to engage with the ‘applications for the exemption or derogation’ from IED
operators. Based on the evidence available, a broad assumption was developed that public
authorities would incur up to 50% of the time spent by operators to consider these applications
and engaging in the process, that is, between 20 to 150 worker hours at an hourly labour cost of
€29 (Eurostat, 2020).
As noted earlier (see administrative burden on businesses), it is assumed that over a 20-year
period between 260 and 520 installations may seek this exemption each year, additional to the
baseline. This would imply an average of €0.1 to €2 million in additional costs each year spread
across public authorities in the EU, with a central estimate of around €0.3 million each year.
These costs are, therefore, unlikely to be significant, although it will depend on the number of
IED operators that require deep transformation and finally decide to seek this exemption.
Other, potentially lower costs may be incurred earlier on to develop and establish a clear and
consistent process for considering these requests across the EU.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive impacts on the environment when
compared to the baseline, although these will depend upon the take up of this derogation by
operators and the type and depth of the transformation of their industrial processes, potentially
earlier than otherwise expected in the baseline.
Climate
This measure is likely to lead to weakly positive impacts on the climate. The scale of these
impacts will depend upon the number of operators that seek to delay their implementation of
BAT consultations whilst they focus on deep transformation.
Air quality and other environmental impacts
This measure is likely to lead to limited to weakly positive impacts on air quality; water quality
and resources; soil quality or resources; waste production, generation and recycling; and the
efficient use of resources.
The scale of environmental impact across these categories will depend upon how whether deep
transformation yields co-benefits across these environmental dimensions and the extent to which
361
the delay in implementing BAT conclusions is used to identify even more cost-effective
industrial techniques.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to result in a limited to weakly positive impact on employment. The
measure might create jobs engineering and constructions sectors, and regulatory affairs -to
engage with any process seeking more time or derogation to implement BAT conclusions to
focus on deep transformation-. However, expected increases in costs of doing business may put
pressure on operators to identify efficiencies including but not only by reducing employment.
Measure 22: Establish a permit review obligation by 2030 that focusses on the
capacity of the installations to operate in accordance with the EU’s general
zero pollution, circular economy and climate objectives.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would require operators of IED installations to produce Transformation Plans for
consideration as part of this permit review process. The outputs of this review would be written
into the updated permit. As an alternative, Transformation Plans could be integrated in the
Environmental Management System (without the permit review), which would be audited
without the engagement of public authorities.
The ambition is for this measure to encourage sharing information and planning actions that
would contribute towards achieving the EU’s general objectives, especially for climate. As part
of the permit review process expected by 2030, some or all of the transformation plan will be
entered into the permit.
For example, an operator of an IED installation proposes as part of its transformation plan to
move from using gas-fired to renewable electricity by 2040. This would, therefore, be entered
into the updated permit. This updated permit would provide a legal anchor and allow competent
authorities to hold businesses accountable through monitoring, reporting and enforcement
activities, increasing therefore the likelihood of implementation of the proposed measures.
The nature of the transformation plans is expected to change significantly by sector and
installation. Therefore, there is no ambition to provide a detailed, one-size fits all template or
even requirements. Rather, the intention is to promote the development of tailored plans that can
increase the likelihood of operators taking actions that would contribute towards 2050 targets
and avoiding a cliff-edge scenario in the late 2040’s.
Some sectors, such as livestock production/ pigs and poultry, may be exempt from this measure
as their contribution to direct decarbonisation are expected to be limited in comparison to other
sectors.
362
Objectives:
The measure will encourage IED installations to align further with EU’s general objectives,
especially in relation with zero-pollution and decarbonisation. This measure will, therefore,
contribute to the general objective of achieving carbon neutrality in the EU, and more
specifically, support the decarbonisation of the (agro-)industrial sectors covered by the IED.
Implementation needs:
 The EU to clarify the requirements and process for setting and considering transformation
plans e.g. via a Commission Decision addressing aims, objectives and expected contents
possibly around 2030.
 Operators to develop, within a five-year timeframe, a transformation plan, seeking to
align with and contribute to achieving EU general objectives.
 Competent Authorities and Operators to engage with the permit review process or
Operators integrate Transformation Plans in EMS – without engaging public authorities.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have negative economic impacts when compared to the
baseline, although this will depend upon the number of permit reviews that are additional to the
baseline, the extent to which operators and public authorities bring forward their efforts to
transform IED operations, both in terms of planning and implementation, and any additional
monitoring, reporting and enforcement requirements.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to negative impacts on administrative burden on businesses.
Annual administrative costs for operators of IED installations are associated with:
 Engaging with the permit review.
 Producing the transformation plans (by most if not all operators). Whilst it is expected
that a large number of sites will produce plans as a matter of business as usual, the timing
of those plans is unclear and, to date, there is progress in developing sectoral roadmaps
but there are a limited number of plans at installation level.
 Carrying out additional monitoring, reporting and enforcement activities.
This measure is focussed on existing installations, with the exception of the IRPP farming sites
(which numbered approximately 20 000 [2015 figures], but is anticipated to grow if IED
Measures 31-33 are adopted). Thus, around 32 000 IED installations (non-IRPP) of the present
total 52 000 installations would require to review their permits and produce transformation plans
by 2030. There is an uncertainty as to how many of these installations would already engage in a
permit review during this period and, therefore, these costs would not be additional to the
baseline in every case. It is, therefore, assumed that between 40%-100% of these costs could be
additional to the baseline, although these may represent an upper bound.
363
Transformation Plans are likely to yield one-off administrative costs. These costs would depend
upon the level of preparation by IED operators in the baseline. It is likely that some operators
already have developed plans and/or have started considering how they might need to transform
to adhere to the EU’s environmental objectives. It has been assumed that producing a plan could
require between 40 to 300 worker hours, in line with other activities that require effort from
operators to produce and present evidence to public authorities. That is, operators may spend
between €1 100 and €8 550 in administrative costs to produce these plans, assuming an hourly
labour cost of around €29 (Eurostat, 2020). These additional costs would affect 32 000
installations and could, therefore, range between €3 million to €22 million each year, on average,
over the period of 20 years, with a central estimate of €4 million.
Further, these plans would bring additional effort required for operators in activities such as
monitoring and reporting and hosting inspections. The scale of this additional effort is uncertain,
however, an additional 5% over the baseline is assumed.
As a result of this additional burden from the additional permit reviews and updates, producing
the transformation plans, increasing effort on monitoring and reporting and inspections, this
measure could imply an additional cost of €5 million to €140 million each year, on average, over
the 20-year period, and a central estimate of around €50 million. These estimates are highly
dependent on the extent to which these administrative activities are partially or completely to the
baseline, especially for producing transformation plans and carrying out the permit reviews.
The alternative, i.e. integration of the Transformation Plans with the EMS would result in
significant reduction in administrative costs – while costs of preparing the plans will remain
stable (€4 million/year), operators will not need to face the permit review process. Monitoring,
data management and inspection costs will be integrated with the EMS obligations, leaving the
total admin costs for the operators at the €20 million/year.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the costs of doing business.
Operators of IED installations are already committed to transforming their business under the
climate neutrality plan. However, these plans may encourage more ambition and/or the earlier
introduction of transformative measures, which could require bringing forward higher levels of
capital and operating expenditure. This is, however, uncertain and dependent upon technological
progress and other exogenous factors.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure will likely lead to limited to no impacts on competitiveness, and weakly positive
impacts on levelling the playing field. This measure alone is unlikely to lead to such significant
costs that would impair the competitiveness of businesses in a global context, although it would
depend to a large extent on the ambition of the transformation plans. The measure will result in a
more consistent approach across the EU when compared to the baseline, although a tailored (and
thus differential) approach in developing and implementing these plans is expected.
364
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the position of SMEs.
Transformation plans are expected to be tailored to the installations’ circumstances; however,
producing these plans will have fixed costs that may be disproportionately affect SMEs when
compared to larger businesses (i.e., costs per employee may be significantly higher for SMEs
than larger businesses). This remains uncertain.
Innovation and research
This measure is likely to have limited direct impacts on research and development, even though
developing transformation plans may encourage businesses to consider new and innovative
techniques for deployment.
Public authority impacts
This measure will likely lead to negative impacts on public authorities. Competent Authorities
would engage with the permit reviews, which would include the review and consideration of the
transformation plans developed by IED operators, and potentially more resources may be
devoted to inspection and other compliance activities that would check that the transformation
plans are being implemented by operators in line with the established plans.
As noted earlier (see administrative burden on businesses), this measure is focussed on existing
installations, assumed at 52 000, all of which would require to review their permits and produce
Transformation Plans by 2030. There is an uncertainty as to how many of these installations
would already engage in a permit review during this period and, therefore, these costs would not
be additional to the baseline in every case. It is, therefore, assumed that between 40%-100% of
these costs could be additional to the baseline, although these may represent an upper bound.
Operators would be required to produce transformation plans and increase their monitoring and
reporting efforts. Public authorities would need to engage with this increase in information
exchange and compliance requirements. The impact on costs is uncertain, but it is assumed that
an additional 10% over baseline costs is likely, especially for managing the information received,
maintaining systems and leading inspections.
As a result of this additional burden from the additional permit reviews and updates, reviewing
transformation plans and managing the additional information received from operators and
leading more complex inspections, this measure could imply an additional cost of €4 million to
€90 million each year, on average, over the 20-year period, and a central estimate of around €50
million. These estimates are highly dependent on the extent to which these administrative
activities are partially or completely to the baseline, especially for producing transformation
plans and carrying out the permit reviews.
The alternative, i.e. integration of the Transformation Plans with the EMS would leave public
authorities with no costs as they will be relieved from the permit review task. Verification and
compliance with the Transformation Plans will be left to the EMS auditors.
365
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have positive impacts on the environment when compared to
the baseline, although these will depend on the ambition of the transformation plans and how
rapid these lead to positive changes in the way businesses operate and their environmental
performance.
Climate
This measure will likely lead to weakly positive to positive impacts on climate. Assessing the
scale of impact is, however, complex given the uncertainty inherent to tailored transformation
plans.
The E-PRTR data provides a starting point for GHG emissions so far. Further, the fit for 55
programmes developed by DG CLIMA27
provide a projection for how emissions may evolve
into the future. Figure A8-20 illustrates how transformation plans may contribute towards
achieving the EU’s climate objectives.
Figure A8-20: Emissions reductions via Transformation Plans
The level of emissions is set on the y-axis, while the years are represented on the x-axis. The
graph thus shows how the level of greenhouse gas emissions is expected to change over the
years, considering the EU climate obligations to be delivered through the ‘EU Fit for 55’
package of proposals28
. The emissions’ reduction target of 55% by 2030 with respect to 1990
27
The fit for 55 programmes
28
https://EU.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/chapeau_communication.pdf
366
levels considered in the EU ETS inception IA29
is ‘known’, and the 2050 climate neutrality target
is added. The remainder 45% of emissions (‘unknown’) are to be addressed ahead of 2050 and,
therefore, transformation plans could play a part in contributing to emissions reductions in the
(agro-)industry. The yellow square would, therefore, represent the upper bound of greenhouse
gas emissions that would not be abated if industry were not to comply with the transformation
plans.
Evidence from previous policy targets suggests that without multiple actions that would
contribute to achieving them, including in this case the requirement to produce and implement
transformation plans by IED installation operators, it is possible that Member States are unable
to reach the established targets.
This measure would, therefore, contribute to increasing the likelihood that the EU’s climate
objectives are indeed achieved. The measure is not expected, however, to reduce emissions
against a Fit For 55 baseline, but rather reduce the risk of not reaching the targets.
For example, seven MS failed to comply with air quality pollution legislation30
(roughly ¼ of
EU). The project team is considering how this evidence may be used to forecast emissions that
may not abated in the absence of transformation plans – the yellow section in the figure above.
Further indirect benefits may be expected from the information exchange and process of
developing the content of the plan, such as identifying trends and gaps in different sectors. For
example, this information could be used to urge countries lagging behind to take further action.
Air quality
This measure is likely to result in a weakly positive to positive impacts on air quality, by
complementing existing (EU ETS) market incentives thus contributing to further reductions in
GHG emissions from the (agro-) industrial activities. The extent to which further GHG emission
reductions would accrue will depend on the transformation plans and associated ELVs.
Other environmental impacts
This measure will likely have a weakly positive to positive impacts on water quality and
resources; soil quality and resources; waste production, generation and recycling; and the
efficient use of resources, as transformation plans will be produced in accordance with the EU’s
general zero pollution, circular economy and climate objectives.
Social impacts
This measure specifically is likely to result in a limited to weakly positive impacts on
employment. Even though Member State Competent Authorities would face additional review
obligations, this is not expected to require significant changes to employment when compared to
the baseline.
29
https://EU.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12660-Climate-change-updating-the-
EU-emissions-trading-system-ETS-_en
30
https://eeb.org/half-of-eu-governments-fail-to-deliver-a-plan-to-cut-air-pollution/
367
Summary of Problem Area 2 measures
For the measures presented in problem area 2, Table A8-14 summarises the Economic,
environmental and social impacts of the measures using the qualitative ratings. Overall, these
policy measures would yield limited to negative economic impacts in the shorter to medium
term, positive environmental impacts and limited social impacts. These impacts have been
assessed using a qualitative scoring approach and a summary is provided below. This suggests
that, as a response to these policies, IED operators may incur some direct economic costs to
improve their environmental performance through the development, testing and implementation
of more innovative techniques and technologies and/or transformative measures.
Table A8-15 similarly uses qualitative ratings to summarise costs and benefits for measures in
problem area 2. Overall, it appears that expected costs and benefits associated with the six
measures retained to encourage the adoption of innovative techniques appear are balanced. The
benefits are largely uncertain as they depend on the outcomes of technical processes and
investment decisions by operators. In this case, the analysis primarily qualitative.
Table A8-14: Summary of economic, environmental and social impacts-measures in Problem Area2
Policy measures Economic impacts Environmental impacts Social impacts
(employment focus)
#17   O
#18   O
#19   O
#20   
#21   O
#22
#22 alternative






Finally, measure #20 is likely to be more balanced than measure #19, especially as it could be
more efficient in delivering additional environmental protection. Measure #22 is considered an
alternative to measure #21, and it is not only likely to be more favourably balanced but also the
scale of the potential positive impacts that this measure could have are likely to be significantly
higher than for measure #21.
368
Table A8-15: Summary of costs and benefits for measures in problem area 2, with central estimates
of administrative costs for businesses and public authorities shown
Policy measure
Administrative costs
– businesses (€m/yr)
Administrative costs
– public authorities
(€m/yr)
Overall costs Overall benefits
#17 0.4 0.2  
#18 0.6 0.3  
#19 3.2 5.3  
#20 3.2 4.5  
#21 0.6 0.3  
#22 50 50  
#22 alternative 20 0  
369
Problem Area 3: The IED has not been effective at addressing the use of hazardous
chemicals, resource efficiency or the circular Economy
There are four measures shortlisted to address the problems, drivers and consequences associated
with this problem area. For example, the IED’s design and implementation to date have not
prioritised resource efficiency and, as a result, the IED has not been effective in contributing to
improving resource efficiency and the circular Economy.
We have structured these measures based on the specific problems they are trying to tackle and
provide a description, outline the requirements for implementation and a rapid assessment of
their impacts. Following this, we provide an overview of the economic, environmental, and
social impacts supported by evidence.
Measure 23: Introduce an option for Technical Working Group (TWG) to set either
binding resource efficiency and circular economy BAT-AEPLs or indicative
performance levels.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
The binding nature of BAT-AELs is specified in IED Article 15(3):
The competent authority shall set emission limit values that ensure that, under normal
operating conditions, emissions do not exceed the emission levels associated with the best
available techniques as laid down in the decisions on BAT conclusions referred to in
Article 13(5) through either of the following:
(a) setting emission limit values that do not exceed the emission levels associated with the
best available techniques. Those emission limit values shall be expressed for the same
or shorter periods of time and under the same reference conditions as those emission
levels associated with the best available techniques; or
(b)(b) setting different emission limit values than those referred to under point (a) in
terms of values, periods of time and reference conditions.
Where point (b) is applied, the competent authority shall, at least annually, assess the
results of emission monitoring to ensure that emissions under normal operating
conditions have not exceeded the emission levels associated with the best available
techniques.
This is complemented by a possibility for derogation in cases of disproportionately higher costs
compared to the environmental benefits due to the geographical location or the local
environmental conditions of the installation concerned; or the technical characteristics of the
installation concerned, in Article 15(4).
370
The measure proposed here intends to bring the status of the BAT-AEPLs (other than BAT-
AELs)31
in line with this of BAT-AELs, i.e. to set the same requirements for associated
consumption, reuse/recovery/recycling, level of substitution of primary materials and fuels by
secondary sources/renewables, and other environmental performance levels. It would be made
possible for the BREF TWG to determine binding BAT-AEPLs, to be transposed into
respectively consumption limit values, reuse/recovery/recycling limit values, substitution limit
values or environmental performance limit values in the permits or in the general binding rules.
This could be done, e.g. by amending article 15(3) to include (all) environmental performance
levels associated with BAT.
However, similar to emission KEIs covered by BREFs, there is a possibility to set indicative
resource efficiency and circular Economy levels, e.g. when there is large variability in the data
due to important differences in products manufactured, or when one KEI is much more important
than another (like in the case for NOX and CO emissions in many processes). That is, it is a
decision of the BREF TWG, case by case per individual KEI, to either determine a BAT-AEPL
that is binding, or determine a non-binding indicative/target level.
The inclusion of BAT-AEPLs in Article 15(3) would raise the question whether BAT-AEPLs
would be subject to a derogation procedure such as contained in Article 15(4) also apply to BAT-
AEPLs.
Concerning the existing BAT-AEPLs derived under the IED (or under the IPPCD), there are two
main options to consider, the first one being preferred:
1. Similar to the BAT-AELs derived under the IPPCD, when this directive was replaced by
the IED, the existing IED BAT-AEPLs would not be given this explicitly binding status
(in the same manner as BAT-AELs). Only a review of a BREF and its BAT conclusions
would render the BAT-AEPLs binding.
2. Existing BAT-AEPLs would become binding in the same manner as BAT-AELs via the
update of the IED, immediately (4 years after publication of the BAT conclusions), or
after a certain transition period.
Objectives:
 More circular resources (i.e. renewables and secondary raw materials).
 More level playing field, more consistent/homogeneous implementation.
 Increased importance of BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs.
This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of transforming the EU into a
circular Economy and, more specifically, contributing towards the transition to a more circular
Economic model for the EU in the short-to-medium term.
Implementation needs:
31
From here on, when discussing the consideration if binding BAT-AEPLs, it is implied that this concerns those
other than BAT-AELs, except where otherwise mentioned.
371
 EU to introduce changes, e;g. to article 15(3) of the IED legislation, to include similar
requirements for BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs, see description above. This will
require monitoring and reporting of other environmental performance levels in the same
manner as for the emission levels.
 EU to produce guidance for competent authorities and installation operators on how to
interpret and implement BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs, where necessary.
 All stakeholders to continue, and potentially increase attention, for data collection and
analysis on consumption, reuse/recycling, and other environmental performance levels
during the information exchange.
 There may also be a prerequisite to expand the IED operator obligations in article 11
−currently referring to pollution, waste and energy efficiency−, with water and materials
efficiency. Furthermore, requirements for resource efficiency and environmental
performance limit values could be added to the current permit conditions in article 14(1).
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts when compared to
the baseline, although this will depend upon the take up of binding BAT-AEPLs.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on administrative burden on
businesses. IED operators are likely to be affected by increased administrative burden from more
elaborate data monitoring and reporting, collection and validation within the BREF process, in
preparation of permit reconsiderations and/or updates and engaging with inspection activities.
For example, this may include more compliance monitoring to prove that the installation
operates within quantitative boundaries of the permit (environmental performance limit values
such as resource consumption limit values or substitution levels of primary raw materials and
non-renewables) and more reporting to feed into the BREF information exchange and/or national
and EU databases on industrial resource consumption.
These increases in burden will be marginal. This is because the BAT-AEPLs set in BAT
conclusions are already the reference for setting the permit conditions according to article 14(3),
and because, generally, recent BAT conclusions already include specific plans to monitor and
manage resource efficiency of water, energy and certain materials (including chemicals) that are
relevant for the sector.
Other measures or initiatives that aim to lighten the administrative burden through more
harmonized and user-friendly reporting requirements and tools (e.g. more coherence between E-
PRTR and BREF information exchange) could also limit the increase in administrative burden.
372
No significant changes in long term (2050 vs. 2025) to be expected: once introduced, monitoring
and reporting obligations will remain similar.
These additional administrative activities would generally make existing processes more
resource intensive, thus increasing their unit costs. It is challenging to make a quantitative
estimate of this additional burden. This depends on:
 The burden per binding BAT-AEPL set, but also on the number of BAT-AEPLs for an
activity/sector, which can vary between sectors. The mere introduction of binding BAT-
AEPLs itself could also change the number of BAT-AEPLs set, due to increased
importance of, and thus interest in, resource efficiency data and quantitative information
on the use of renewable and secondary resources.
 The baseline of installations located in a country/region where BAT-AEPLs are already
implemented as binding is unclear. Responses to the TSS indicate that in many MSs they
are used as (non-binding) benchmark values. Even in the latter case, here will be little to
no additional administrative burden because the information collection and sharing with
the competent authority is already part of the permitting process.
 The baseline of installations that have resource efficiency and circular Economy
performance that is within the range of already set BAT-AEPLs. The ‘Assessment of
BAT conclusions implementation in IED Permits’ study commissioned by DG ENV
might provide better insight in this.
 The administrative burden associated with any derogation procedure will presumably be
at least as significant than that of the permitting itself.
Expert-based assumptions, developed through engaging with stakeholders, suggests that in the
baseline:
 40% of operators are already subject to a binding implementation of BAT-AEPLs by
competent authorities, or there is no BAT-AEPLs for their activities, meaning there is no
increase in administrative burden for these businesses;
 40% of operators are currently subject to permit conditions for which the BAT-AEPLs
were used as benchmark/target values, meaning there would be only a minor increase in
administrative costs due to increased permit application, compliance reporting and
inspection;
 20% of operators are currently either not subject to any permit conditions based on the
BAT-AEPLs, or would need to apply for an article 15(4)-like derogation, meaning the
increase in administrative costs could be significant.
Based on this evidence, it is assumed that at least 25% of the IED operators or around 13 000
operators may consider setting BAT-AEPLs as part of their baseline permit reviews, that is, no
additional permit reviews would be expected. Nevertheless, these permit reviews and associated
373
sectoral BREF reviews may require more effort from operators as a result of this measure.
Further, when permit conditions are set based on BAT-AEPLs, effort from operators on
monitoring, reporting and compliance-related activities may also increase.
It is assumed that when these 13 000 operators engage in permit reviews, they would be doing so
in an environment where the status of the BAT-AEPLs (other than BAT-AELs) is more aligned
with this of BAT-AELs and the additional effort required would be 5% more than in the
baseline. Similarly, the contribution of operators to the BREF process may also increase around
5%, and an additional 5% of administrative costs may also be incurred due to more demands on
monitoring, reporting and supporting public authority-led inspections.
As a result, additional administrative costs could reach between €0.3 million and €11 million
each year, on average, with a central estimate of around €7 million each year over a period of 20
years. These costs are estimated to be an upper bound and highly uncertain, as they generally
depend on the final number of IED installations affected by binding BAT-AEPLs over the
baseline.
Industry responses to the TSS suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be welcome
and point to the complexity of implementation and compliance, increasing administrative costs.
Respondents also pointed to the IED Article 9 exemptions, to a court ruling that inhibits energy
efficiency requirements to be set in permits to avoid double regulation, and to voluntary energy
efficiency agreements at national level.
Finally, in the TSS, industry was also asked about the impact of binding BAT-AEPLs on
employment, consumer prices, EU competitiveness, EU market share and trade with third
countries. More than 75% of industry indicated a significant reduction or reduction for these
parameters (and increase for consumer prices). This could be due to increased administrative
costs or, rather, to additional operating costs. The latter seems more probable.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the costs of doing business. For
those cases where BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs are, at this time, not implemented as
binding in the same way as BAT-AELs, often additional investments would be needed to ensure
complete compliance (i.e. without any exception, apart from OTNOC) to these BAT-AEPLs.
Because these investments are mainly aimed at resource efficiency, they might sometimes lead to
reductions in operational costs. It can be expected that some of the techniques used/installed to
meet the BAT-AEPLs will pay back over time, within their Economic lifetime. However, this
might not be the case for the substitution of fossil and primary resources by renewable and
secondary ones.
The long-term trend is hard to anticipate. This will depend in large part on whether the
investment costs decline due to technological advances, and the evolution of resource costs. This
may be relevant for long-term comparison, e.g. if the cost of water were to double by 2050,
374
techniques saving water would pay back much quicker. For example, the total cost of the energy
system per unit of final consumption is expected to increase 2,0% per year between 2010 and
2030, and 0,8% per year between 2030 and 2050. On the other hand, if costs of primary
resources and materials typically used in infrastructure (steel, cement, polymers, etc.) go up, the
investment cost would rise more than the potential operational savings.
A quantitative assessment would require a clear understanding of the share of installations that
exceed BAT-AEPLs, and what number of BAT-AEPLs they exceed. Combined with information
on average investment costs and operational costs or gains. These can vary widely, and there is
no reliable data on the specific costs related to binding BAT-AEPLs, as compared to non-binding
BAT-AEPLs. It would not be accurate to extrapolate costs associated with the historic change of
the BAT-AEL status, because much more than emissions, resources already come at a cost to
operators, which causes them to already limit their consumption to a certain extent.
Industry was asked in the TSS about the impact of binding BAT-AEPLs on employment,
consumer prices, EU competitiveness, EU market share and trade with third countries. More than
75% of industry indicated a significant reduction or reduction for these parameters (increase for
consumer prices). This could be due to increased administrative costs or, rather, to additional
operating costs. The latter seems to be more probable.
Competitiveness and level playing field
The implementation of this measure is likely to have limited to no impacts on competitiveness.
The cost of doing business might, in some cases, go up (see ‘operating costs and conduct of
businesses (industry)’ above). However, there is no strong indication this would have a
significant effect on competitiveness. On the contrary, if one compares with the (absent) effect of
the binding BAT-AELs under the IED on competitiveness, it could be expected that there will be
no or only a limited impact from the updated BAT-AEPL status. What distinguishes BAT-
AEPLs on resource consumption is that they limit resource consumption, and therefore
operational costs for these resources. This might, however, probably not be the case for the
substitution of fossil and primary resources by renewable and secondary ones,
This measure is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on levelling the playing field.
The measure is primarily aimed at promoting a more level playing field in the EU, so there will
be a positive impact for this aspect. This is further emphasized by the many responses from all
stakeholder groups that point to the oft-occurring cross-media effects between emission control
and resource consumption. One could argue that there is currently a risk that a level playing field
is not respected, when only emission levels are binding, and thus implemented similarly, while
resource efficiency levels are not.
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the position of SMEs. Although
the increased administrative burden for industry will be larger for large and complex installations
in absolute terms, relative to the number of employees or turnover, the increased burden will be
375
larger for SMEs. This is because the additional administrative and operational impacts, including
but not only associated with monitoring and reporting, demonstrating compliance, and achieving
permit limit values include a significant shared of fixed effort.
Innovation and research
This measure may have a weakly positive impact on research and development. The IED
evaluation concluded that the IED, BREFs and BAT conclusions have stimulated innovation, the
BAT conclusion being indicated as the most important driver (more so than requirement to hold
permit, monitoring and reporting requirements, enforcement, and the emerging techniques
chapters of BREFs). Similar to the effect caused by the strictly binding BAT-AELs set under the
IED, an updated strictly binding status of BAT-AEPLs would further drive innovation efforts.
However, the magnitude of this impact is uncertain, not only because BAT-AEPLs are already
implemented in this way in some Member States.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to have a weakly negative impact on public authorities. There are some
cases where BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs are presently not implemented as binding in the
same way as BAT-AELs. Thus, for these cases, additional administrative efforts by public
authorities would be needed for setting environmental performance levels in general binding
rules or in individual permits that do not exceed the BAT-AEPLs, enforcing them, collecting and
checking data during the BREF process.
If the possibility of derogations is included in the legislation, this could also lead to additional
derogations, meaning more administrative efforts from public authorities as well. The
administrative costs associated with derogations are assumed to be at least as significant as that
of the permitting itself.
As set out earlier (see administrative burden on businesses), it is assumed that at least 25% of the
IED operators or around 13 000 operators may consider implement measures for operators to
achieve the required BAT-AEPLs as part of their baseline permit reviews, that is, no additional
permit reviews would be expected. Nevertheless, these permit reviews and associated sectoral
BREF reviews may require more effort from operators as a result of this measure. Further, when
permit conditions are set based on BAT-AEPLs, effort from operators on monitoring, reporting
and compliance-related activities may also increase.
Based on this evidence, it is assumed that when these 13 000 operators engage in permit reviews,
they would be doing so in an environment where the status of the BAT-AEPLs (other than BAT-
AELs) is more aligned with this of BAT-AELs and the additional effort required from public
authorities would be 5% more than in the baseline. Similarly, the contribution of public
authorities to the BREF process may require around 5% more effort, and an additional 5% of
administrative costs may also be incurred due to more demands on maintaining information and
systems, and leading and managing inspections.
376
As a result, additional administrative costs could reach between €0.7 million and €8 million each
year, on average, with a central estimate of around €6 million each year over a period of 20
years. These costs are estimated to be an upper bound and highly uncertain, as they generally
depend on the final number of IED installations affected by binding BAT-AEPLs over the
baseline.
The responses to the TSS also indicate that competent authorities expect an increase in
administrative costs from clarifying the status of BAT-AEPLs. On a scale of -1 to 1 (reflecting
answers ranging from >15% decrease to >15% increase), the score for compliance, enforcement
and inspection are between 0.4 and 0.5 for national authorities, while between 0 and 0.2 for
local/regional authorities. The score for permitting is between 0.2 and 0.3 for both national and
local/regional authorities.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on the environment
when compared to the baseline, although these will depend upon the additional take up of
binding BAT-AEPLs and the associated ambitions.
Climate
This measure may result in a weakly positive impact on climate. For those cases where BAT-
AEPLs other than BAT-AELs are at this time not implemented as binding in the same way as
BAT-AELs, tightening the provisions in the IED will cause that a larger part of installations stay
within the BAT-AEPL ranges.
Only derogations that meet the criteria of Article 15(4) or 15(5) will potentially lead to lower
environmental performances. Mainly BAT-AEPLs on energy consumption and on consumption
of materials with inherently large ecological footprint will have an indirect impact on emissions
of GHGs. This is true especially in longer term if energy and materials consumption AEPLs are
derived for more sectors.
Air quality
This measure is likely to result in a limited to no impact on air quality. The implementation of
this measure will have no significant impact on air quality. There may be indirect benefits from
reduced consumption of energy or materials.
Water quality and resources
This measure is likely to result in a limited to no impact on water quality. A significant impact
on water quantity is expected. The report ‘Summary on IED contribution to water policy’
(Ricardo, 2018) describes a number of water consumption or effluent AEPLs derived under the
IPPCD or IED. Making the AEPLs binding in future revisions will impact water consumption.
This is true especially in longer term if water consumption AEPLs are derived for more sectors.
However, this is not taken into account for the effect and robustness below, because this aspect is
already covered by the area ‘Efficient use of resources’ below
377
Soil quality or resources
There is no significant impact on releases to soil from the implementation of this measure.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure may lead to weakly positive impacts on waste production, generation, and
recycling. For those cases where BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs are at this time not
implemented as binding in the same way as BAT-AELs, tightening the provisions in the IED will
cause that a larger part of installations stay within the BAT-AEPL ranges. Only derogations that
meet the criteria of Article 15(4) or 15(5) will potentially lead to lower environmental
performances.
Mainly BAT-AEPLs on waste generation or material reuse/recycling will have an impact. This is
true especially in longer term if waste generation or recycling/reuse AEPLs are derived for more
sectors. Furthermore, at the Economy level, impacts on waste production, generation and
recycling is closely linked to impacts on efficient use of resources. Reducing, recycling or reuse
of waste or by-products in the own installation or sector, or in another installation or sector,
improves material resource efficiency at the Economy level. Impacts for individual installations
or even sectors can however vary significantly.
Efficient use of resources
This measure is likely to have weakly positive to positive impacts on the efficient use of
resources. For those cases where BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs are at this time not
implemented as binding in the same way as BAT-AELs, tightening the provisions in the IED will
cause that a larger part of installations stay within the BAT-AEPL ranges. Only derogations that
meet the criteria of Article 15(4) or 15(5) will potentially lead to lower environmental
performances (e.g. higher resource consumption, lower level of substitution of primary materials
and fossil energy sources).
As highlighted previously (see administrative burden on businesses), resource efficiency
measures are likely to have been implemented by operators for Economic reasons. This was also
stated by many industry respondents in the TSS. On the contrary, specifically for water
consumption, evidence provided by an NGO stakeholder suggested that there is potential for
improvement, highlighting that cooling in energy generation using around 18% of total water
consumed in Europe. Furthermore, industry consumes large amounts of electricity (35%-40%),
which puts additional pressure on water resources both directly and indirectly (Use of freshwater
resources in Europe — European Environment Agency (europa.eu)). The NGO stakeholder also
reported a lack of water fees for the coal industry in a number of Member States, thereby lacking
incentives for the efficient water use.
In addition, this measure may have an impact on the substitution of fossil and primary resources
by renewable and secondary ones, which does not appear as advanced in the baseline. An
important restriction for setting (ambitious) binding BAT-AEPLs or resource substitution is that
378
availability of secondary resources, i.e. by-products or (former) waste, changes over time. If
BAT-AEPL ranges are too high or too narrow, compliance would become an issue if insufficient
alternative recovered, recycled or renewable materials are available on the market. For example,
in the cement focus group, it was highlighted that it is expected that availability of by-products
both from iron and steel blast furnaces and from coal-fired power plants will sharply decrease
due to decarbonisation trends.
The BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs are in the BREF process already derived in the same
manner as the BAT-AELs, although not all of the resources consumed were considered KEI in
all BREFs, and fewer BAT-AEPLs have been derived per BREF/sector, compared to BAT-
AELs. In longer term, it can be expected that improved monitoring and reporting and data
collection efforts will lead to more BAT-AEPLs on specific resource consumption or substitution
of primary or fossil resources.
The evidence available to quantify these impacts is limited. In fact, there is no reliable data on
the share of primary, natural resources used by (heavy) industry covered by BAT-AEPLs.
However, it is expected that in most/all sectors there are either no BAT-AEPLs, or only one or a
few BAT-AEPLs which are typically restricted to specific processes and materials or types of
residues/waste, or to water or energy efficiency, as described in the reports ‘IED Contribution to
the circular Economy’ and ‘Summary on IED contribution to water policy’. It is, therefore,
assumed that this share is low, and a high-level estimate based on expert judgment would suggest
that binding BAT-AEPLs could reduce energy consumption levels on average by up to 20% for
those processes/resources covered by BAT-AEPLs. This would mean that the BAT-AEPLs could
reduce energy consumption by heavy industry by up to 10%.
Similarly for water, consumption levels would decrease on average by up to 20% for those
processes/resources covered by BAT-AEPLs, and thus by up to 4% overall for IED industry. For
material consumption and waste generation, this is too difficult to estimate based on available
data, but it could be assumed that the improvements are smaller compared to energy and water
because of a higher diversity. These impacts can vary significantly per sector, depending on the
share of resource consumption covered by BAT-AEPLs, and on the untapped potential for
lowering the specific resource consumption or increasing substitution or primary or fossil input.
As mentioned above, the long term impact may be larger, due to a possible increase in BAT-
AEPLs and benchmark levels derived because of better data monitoring and reporting.
In the TSS, depending on the type of natural resource, 75%-80% of industry responded that
binding BAT-AEPLs would not impact resource management, while 80%-100% of
Environmental NGOs responded that they would lead to a significant improvement. Public
authorities’ responses were in between, about half of them expecting a moderate to significant
improvement. Respondents from all stakeholder groups refer to the non-binding implementation
in many cases, some pointing absence from article 15(3) requirements, the article 9 exemptions,
to a court ruling that inhibits energy efficiency requirements to be set in the permit to avoid
double regulation, and to voluntary energy efficiency agreements at national level.
379
Social impacts
This measure is likely to result in a limited to no impact on employment. In general,
progression towards a more circular Economy causes sectors that produce and process raw
materials to decline in size, while the recycling and repair sectors will experience additional
growth. The overall effect on employment across all sectors is unclear/ambiguous, but the effect
for IED installations, which typically belong to sectors that produce and process raw materials
will be negative.
Measure 24: Introduce an option for Technical Working Group (TWG) to set
resource efficiency and circular economy benchmark levels, in addition to
binding BAT-AEPLs and indicative levels.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure expands on measure #23, an alternative, with the inclusion of a definition of
‘benchmark levels’ in the IED. An IED article will require that the operators’ EMS shall address
(at least) those KEIs for which benchmark levels have been derived. This includes monitoring of
the installation’s performance, comparing to and checking against the benchmark levels, and
setting up actions for continuous improvement of the performance. The requirements for such
EMS, and more specifically for its provisions on a RE & CE plan and a CMS, are described in
measure (25).
Compared to measure #23, this provides a BREF TWG more options, to derive either:
 BAT-AEPLs, which would be binding through permit conditions or general binding
rules;
 Benchmark levels (associated with BAT), for which the inclusion in the EMS is
obligatory. These can be chosen e.g. when there is large variability in the data due to
important differences in products manufactured, or when one KEI is much more
important than another;
 ‘indicative’ resource efficiency and circular Economy levels, which should be the least
preferred option for a TWG because their legal status would not be set in the IED or the
BREF guidance.
The introduction of benchmark levels creates an opportunity to improve implementation of past
BAT-AEPLs derived under the IED, or possibly even under the IPPCD. They can, retroactively,
be assigned the status of benchmark levels, meaning it would become obligatory to address them
in the EMS, which would incentivise operators to investigate further improvement potential. Any
review of a BREF and its BAT conclusions could then either reconsider and update the
benchmark levels, or convert them into binding BAT-AEPLs if this is deemed preferable by the
TWG.
Objectives:
380
 More circular resources (i.e. renewables and secondary raw materials).
 More level playing field, more consistent/homogeneous implementation.
 Increased importance of BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs and of benchmark levels.
This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of transforming the EU into a
circular Economy and, more specifically, contributing towards the transition to a more circular
Economic model for the EU in the short-to-medium term.
Implementation needs:
 EU to introduce changes to article 15(3) of the IED legislation to include similar
requirements for BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs, see description above. This will
require monitoring and reporting of other environmental performance levels in the same
manner as for the emission levels.
 EU to produce guidance for competent authorities and installation operators on how to
interpret and implement BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs, where necessary.
 EU to introduce an article in the IED setting the legal status of benchmark levels
(associated with BAT), and their obligatory inclusion in the operator EMS.
 EU to update the BREF guidance to include benchmark levels (associated with BAT).
 All stakeholders to continue, and potentially increase attention, for data collection and
analysis on consumption, reuse/recycling, and other environmental performance levels
during the information exchange.
 There may also be a prerequisite to expand the IED operator obligations in article 11
−currently referring to pollution, waste and energy efficiency−, with water and materials
efficiency. Furthermore, requirements for resource efficiency and environmental
performance limit values could be added to the current permit conditions in article 14(1).
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts when compared to
the baseline, although this will depend upon the take up of binding BAT-AEPLs and the
additional number of operators that would now have benchmark levels (associated with BAT)
included in their EMS.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on administrative burden on
businesses. Similar to measure #23, IED operators are likely to be affected by increased
administrative burden from more elaborate data monitoring and reporting, collection and
381
validation within the BREF process, in preparation of permit reconsiderations and/or updates and
engaging with inspection activities.
The additional administrative activities would generally make existing processes more resource
intensive, thus increasing the burden. A similar magnitude of administrative costs for operators
would be expected when compared to measure #23, although there might be differences in terms
of how the operators would be affected. Compared to measure #23:
 There would be no or only a negligible difference in permit review costs, because both
BAT-AEPLs and benchmark levels would be part of a permit review following a new or
reviewed BREF. The introduction of benchmark levels would not significantly increase
or decrease the unit administrative cost compared to BAT-AEPLs.
 There would be a minor increase in the costs of reviewing BREFs or developing a new
BREF. The degree of information collection will approximately be the same for BAT-
AEPLs and benchmark levels, but there will be an increase in TWG exchanges to discuss
whether a BAT-AEPL or a benchmark level is the most appropriate.
 Inspection costs would remain similar, or there might be a minor increase.
Demonstrating compliance with benchmark levels is similar to BAT-AEPLs, but a larger
effort may be required to demonstrate continuous improvement (e.g. when a benchmark
level is not achieved).
 Costs for managing information and reporting would remain similar, or there might be a
minor increase. It is expected that the level of CBI issues and requirements will be
similar for BAT-AEPLs and benchmark levels.
 It can, however, be expected that this option of benchmark levels (measure #24) will lead
to a larger share of natural resources being covered by either benchmark levels or BAT-
AEPLs, compared to the option of only having BAT-AEPLs (measure #23). This will
require additional effort and, thus, result in higher costs.
These differences translate into a relatively higher unit burden, when compared to measure #23.
In particular, additional costs incurred by operators during permit reconsiderations and updates,
BREF reviews, monitoring and reporting, and engaging with inspections could add 7% to the
baseline. In addition, a higher number of installations are likely to be affected as a result of
having introduced a more flexible approach to addressing resource efficiency, instead of the all
or nothing approach of measure #23. It is assumed that around 40% of the existing installations,
or 20 800, may be affected over a period of 20 years.
As a result, additional administrative costs when compared to the baseline could reach between
€0.6 million and €25 million each year over the 20-year period, on average, with a central
estimate of around €16 million each year. These costs are estimated to be an upper bound and
highly uncertain, as they generally depend on the final number of operators affected by this
measure.
382
Finally, other measures or initiatives that aim to lighten the administrative burden through more
harmonized and user-friendly reporting requirements and tools (e.g. more coherence between E-
PRTR and BREF information exchange) could also limit the increase in administrative burden.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the costs of doing business. For
those cases where BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs are, at this time, not implemented as
binding in the same way as BAT-AELs, often additional investments would be needed to ensure
complete compliance (i.e. without any exception, apart from OTNOC) to these BAT-AEPLs.
Because these investments are mainly aimed at resource efficiency, they might sometimes lead to
reductions in operational costs. It can be expected that some of the techniques used/installed to
meet the BAT-AEPLs will pay back over time, within their Economic lifetime. However, this
might not be the case for the substitution of fossil and primary resources by renewable and
secondary ones. Benchmark levels would also trigger additional investments in many cases,
though these might be smaller and more balanced compared to those for binding BAT-AEPLs.
The long-term trend is hard to anticipate. This will depend in large part on whether the
investment costs decline due to technological advances, and the evolution of resource costs. This
may be relevant for long term comparison, e.g. if the cost of water had doubled in 2050,
techniques saving water would pay back much quicker. For example, the total cost of the energy
system per unit of final consumption is expected to increase 2.0% per year between 2010 and
2030, and 0.8% per year between 2030 and 2050. On the other hand, if costs of primary
resources and materials typically used in infrastructure (steel, cement, polymers, etc.) go up, the
investment cost would rise more than the potential operational savings.
A quantitative assessment would require a clear understanding of the share of installations that
exceed existing and future BAT-AEPLs and future benchmark levels, and what number of BAT-
AEPLs or benchmark levels they exceed; Combined with information on average investment
costs and operational costs or gains. These can vary widely, and there is no reliable data on the
specific costs related to binding BAT-AEPLs and benchmark levels, as compared to non-binding
BAT-AEPLs. It would not be accurate to extrapolate costs associated with the historic change of
the BAT-AEL status, because much more than emissions, resources already come at a cost to
operators, which causes them to already limit their consumption to a certain extent.
Industry was asked in the TSS about the impact of binding BAT-AEPLs on employment,
consumer prices, EU competitiveness, EU market share and trade with third countries. More than
75% of industry indicated a significant reduction or reduction for these parameters (increase for
consumer prices). This could be due to increased administrative costs or, rather, to additional
operating costs. The latter seems to be more probable.
Competitiveness and level playing field
The implementation of this measure is likely to have limited to no impacts on competitiveness.
The cost of doing business might, in some cases, go up (see ‘operating costs and conduct of
383
businesses (industry)’ above). However, there is no strong indication this would have a
significant effect on competitiveness. On the contrary, if one compares with the (absent) effect of
the binding BAT-AELs under the IED on competitiveness, it could be expected that there will be
no or only a limited impact from the updated BAT-AEPL status, nor from the benchmark levels.
What distinguishes BAT-AEPLs and benchmark levels on resource consumption is that they
limit resource consumption, and therefore operational costs for these resources. This might
however probably not be the case for the substitution of fossil and primary resources by
renewable and secondary ones.
This measure is likely to have a limited to weakly positive impact on levelling the playing
field. The measure is primarily aimed at promoting a more level playing field in the EU, so there
will be a positive impact for this aspect. This is further emphasized by the many responses from
all stakeholder groups that point to the often occurring cross-media effects between emission
control and resource consumption. One could argue that there is currently a risk that a level
playing field is not respected, when only emission levels are binding, and thus implemented
similarly, while resource efficiency levels are not. However, compared to the measure with only
the option of binding BAT-AEPLs (measure #23), the positive impact on the level playing field
might be smaller or less certain in case the TWG chooses more often for benchmark levels
instead of binding BAT-AEPLs.
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the position of SMEs. Although
the increased admin burden for industry will be larger for large, complex installations in absolute
terms, in terms relative to the number of employees or turnover, the increased burden will be
larger for SMEs. The reason is that there monitoring and reporting, to support the permit limit
values or inclusion in the EMS and to demonstrate compliance, includes a certain fixed amount
of effort.
Innovation and research
This measure may have a weakly positive impact on research and development. The IED
evaluation TSS showed that a majority of stakeholders (>75%) somewhat or strongly agree that
the IED, BREFs and BAT conclusions have stimulated innovation, the BAT conclusion being
indicated as the most important driver (more so than requirement to hold permit, monitoring and
reporting requirements, enforcement, and the emerging techniques chapters of BREFs). Similar
to the effect caused by the strictly binding BAT-AELs set under the IED, an updated strictly
binding status of BAT-AEPLs would further drive innovation efforts, as would inclusion of
benchmark levels in the EMS. However, it has to be kept in mind that in certain Member States,
the BAT-AEPLs are already implemented as binding.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to have a weakly negative impact on public authorities. For those cases
where BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs are at this time not implemented as binding in the
384
same way as BAT-AELs, additional administrative efforts by public authorities would be needed
for either i) setting environmental performance levels in general binding rules or in individual
permits that do not exceed the BAT-AEPLs, enforcing them, collecting and checking data during
the BREF process; or ii) enforcing the inclusion of benchmark levels in the EMS and collecting
and checking data during the BREF process.
If the possibility of derogations is included in the provision, it is expected that this would lead to
additional derogations, however less than would be the case when there would only be an option
for binding BAT-AEPLs (measure 23), meaning more administrative efforts from public
authorities as well. Indeed, where it is not possible to derive BAT-AEPLs that could be
implemented in the permits without frequent derogations, the TWG would be expected to opt for
setting benchmarks. Similar to the administrative burden for businesses, the administrative costs
per derogation will presumably be at least as significant as that of the permitting itself.
These additional administrative activities would generally make existing processes more
resource intensive, thus increasing the burden. A similar magnitude of administrative costs for
public authorities would be expected when compared to measure #23, although there might be
differences in terms of how the public authorities may be affected (see administrative burden on
businesses, as these differences would be analogous).
At a high-level, these differences translate into a relatively higher unit burden, when compared to
measure #23. In particular, additional costs incurred by public authorities during permit
reconsiderations and updates, BREF reviews, monitoring and reporting, and engaging with
inspections could add up to 7% to the baseline. In addition, a higher number of installations are
likely to be affected as a result of having introduced a more flexible approach to addressing
resource efficiency, instead of the all or nothing approach of measure #23. It is assumed that
around 40% of the existing installations, or 20 800, may be affected over a period of 20 years.
As a result, additional administrative costs for public authorities when compared to the baseline
could reach between €1 million and €17 million each year over the 20-year period, on average,
with a central estimate of around €12 million each year. These costs are estimated to be an upper
bound and highly uncertain, as they generally depend on the final number of operators affected
by this measure.
The TSS indicates that competent authorities expect a significant increase in administrative costs
from binding BAT-AEPLs. On a scale of -1 to 1 (reflecting answers ranging from >15%
decrease to >15% increase), the score for compliance, enforcement and inspection are between
0.4 and 0.5 for national authorities, while between 0 and 0.2 for local/regional authorities. The
score for permitting is between 0.2 and 0.3 for both national and local/regional authorities.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on the environment
when compared to the baseline, although these will depend upon the additional take up of
385
binding BAT-AEPLs and the inclusion of benchmark levels in the EMS, as well as their
environmental ambitions.
Climate
This measure may result in a weakly positive impacts on climate. For those cases where BAT-
AEPLs other than BAT-AELs are at this time not implemented as binding in the same way as
BAT-AELs, tightening the provisions in the IED will cause that a larger part of installations stay
within the BAT-AEPL ranges, or work on continuous improvement in case of benchmark levels.
Only derogations that meet the criteria of Article 15(4) or 15(5) will potentially lead to lower
environmental performances. Mainly BAT-AEPLs and benchmark levels on energy consumption
and on consumption of materials with inherently large ecological footprint will have an indirect
impact on emissions of GHGs. This is true especially in longer term if energy and materials
consumption BAT-AEPLs and benchmark levels are derived for more sectors.
Air quality
This measure is likely to result in a limited impacts on air quality. The implementation of this
measure may have indirect benefits on air quality resulting from reduced consumption of energy
or materials.
Water quality and resources
This measure is likely have limited to weakly positive impacts on water quality and resources.
The report ‘Summary on IED contribution to water policy’ (Ricardo, 2018) describes a number
of water consumption or effluent BAT-AEPLs derived under the IPPCD or IED. Making the
BAT-AEPLs benchmark levels or making these binding in future revisions will impact water
consumption. This is true especially in longer term if water consumption BAT-AEPLs are
derived for more sectors.
Soil quality or resources
There is no significant impact on releases to soil from the implementation of this measure.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure may lead to weakly positive to positive impacts on waste production, generation,
and recycling. For those cases where BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs are at this time not
implemented as binding in the same way as BAT-AELs, tightening the provisions in the IED will
cause that a larger part of installations stay within the BAT-AEPL ranges, or work on continuous
improvement in case of benchmark levels. Only derogations that meet the criteria of Article
15(4) or 15(5) will potentially lead to lower environmental performances.
Mainly BAT-AEPLs and benchmark levels on waste generation or material reuse/recycling will
have an impact. This is true especially in longer term if waste generation or recycling/reuse
BAT-AEPLs and benchmark levels are derived for more sectors. Furthermore, at the economy
level, impacts on waste production, generation and recycling is closely linked to impacts on
386
efficient use of resources. Reducing, recycling or reuse of waste or by-products in the own
installation or sector, or in another installation or sector, improves material resource efficiency at
the economy level. Impacts for individual installations or even sectors can however vary
significantly.
Efficient use of resources
This measure is likely to have a weakly positive to positive impact on the efficient use of
resources. For those cases where BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs are at this time not
implemented as binding in the same way as BAT-AELs, tightening the provisions in the IED will
cause that a larger part of installations stay within the BAT-AEPL ranges. Only derogations that
meet the criteria of Article 15(4) or 15(5) will potentially lead to lower environmental
performances (e.g. higher resource consumption, lower level of substitution of primary materials
and fossil energy sources).
As highlighted previously (see administrative burden on businesses), resource efficiency
measures are likely to have been implemented by operators for Economic reasons. This was also
stated by many industry respondents in the TSS. On the contrary, specifically for water
consumption, evidence provided by an NGO stakeholder suggested that there is potential for
improvement, highlighting that cooling in energy generation using around 18% of total water
consumed in Europe. Furthermore, industry consumes large amounts of electricity (35-40%),
which puts additional pressure on water resources both directly and indirectly32
. The NGO
stakeholder also reported a lack of water fees for the coal industry in a number of Member
States, thereby lacking incentives for the efficient water use.
In addition, this measure may have an impact on the substitution of fossil and primary resources
by renewable and secondary ones, which does not appear as advanced in the baseline. An
important restriction for setting (ambitious) binding BAT-AEPLs or resource substitution is that
availability of secondary resources, i.e. by-products or (former) waste, changes over time. If
BAT-AEPL ranges are too high or too narrow, compliance would become an issue if insufficient
alternative recovered, recycled or renewable materials are available on the market. For example,
in the cement focus group, it was highlighted that it is expected that availability of by-products
both from iron and steel blast furnaces and from coal-fired power plants will sharply decrease
due to decarbonisation trends.
The BAT-AEPLs other than BAT-AELs are in the BREF process already derived in the same
manner as the BAT-AELs, although not all of the resources consumed were considered KEI in
all BREFs, and fewer BAT-AEPLs have been derived per BREF/sector, compared to BAT-
AELs. In longer term, it can be expected that improved monitoring and reporting and data
collection efforts will lead to more BAT-AEPLs on specific resource consumption or substitution
of primary or fossil resources.
32
Use of freshwater resources in Europe — European Environment Agency (europa.eu
387
The evidence available to estimate these impacts in a quantitative manner is limited. In fact,
there is no reliable data on the share of primary, natural resources used by (heavy) industry
covered by BAT-AEPLs. However, it is expected that in most/all sectors there are either no
BAT-AEPLs, or only one or a few BAT-AEPLs which are typically restricted to specific
processes and materials or types of residues/waste, or to water or energy efficiency, as described
in the reports ‘IED Contribution to the circular Economy’ and ‘Summary on IED contribution to
water policy’. It is therefore assumed that this share is low, and a high-level estimate based on
expert judgment would suggest that binding BAT-AEPLs could reduce energy consumption
levels on average by up to 20% for those processes/resources covered by BAT-AEPLs. This
would mean that the BAT-AEPLs could reduce energy consumption by heavy industry by up to
10%.
Similarly for water, consumption levels would decrease on average by up to 20% for those
processes/resources covered by BAT-AEPLs, and thus by up to 4% overall for IED industry. For
material consumption and waste generation, this is too difficult to estimate based on available
data, but it could be assumed that the improvements are smaller compared to energy and water
because of a higher diversity. These impacts can vary significantly per sector, depending on the
share of resource consumption covered by BAT-AEPLs, and on the untapped potential for
lowering the specific resource consumption or increasing substitution or primary or fossil input.
As mentioned above, the long term impact may be larger, due to a possible increase in BAT-
AEPLs and benchmark levels derived because of better data monitoring and reporting.
In the TSS, depending on the type of natural resource, 75%-80% of industry responded that
binding BAT-AEPLs would not impact resource management, while 80%-100% of
Environmental NGOs responded that they would lead to a significant improvement. Public
authorities’ responses were in between, about half of them expecting a moderate to significant
improvement. Respondents from all stakeholder groups refer to the non-binding implementation
in many cases, some pointing absence from article 15(3) requirements, the article 9 exemptions,
to a court ruling that inhibits energy efficiency requirements to be set in the permit to avoid
double regulation, and to voluntary energy efficiency agreements at national level.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to result in a limited to no impact on employment. In general,
progression towards a more circular economy causes sectors that produce and process raw
materials to decline in size, while the recycling and repair sectors will experience additional
growth. The overall effect on employment across all sectors is unclear/ambiguous, but the effect
for IED installations, which typically belong to sectors that produce and process raw materials
will be negative.
388
Measure 25: Require operators to incorporate a Resource Efficiency and Circular
Economy Plan and Chemical Management System at the installation level as
separate sections of their Environmental Management System. Expand the
scope of monitoring and reporting to cover resource efficiency techniques,
indicators and performance levels, as well as the use of hazardous
chemicals and the level of substitution for safer alternatives.
i. Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Plan
Description of these components of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measures proposed that a Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy plan is developed by
installation operators to manage and continuously improve their installation’s performance. The
plan would be a section/chapter of the (through IED or BAT conclusions) imposed EMS. It
would consider:
(i) Operator’s measures that improve in-house resource efficiency (water, materials and
energy consumption and use); this would include monitoring of specific consumption
levels, recovery/re-use rates, and other relevant indicators/parameters.
(ii) Choices made by the operator of an IED installation that demonstrably affect
environmental performance:
 upstream, reducing the environmental footprint associated to the plant’s feedstock
and resources, and/or
 downstream, reducing the environmental impacts associated with the treatment of
the plant’s waste and the use of by-products of the production process, in the
same or in other sectors.
In the BAT conclusions, a number of BATs (in particular, but not necessarily limited to, those
without binding quantitative levels) could be earmarked as being implementable through the
RE/CE plan (or the EMS in general), making these BATs operational and ensuring the
continuous improvement for the KEIs that the BAT addresses. Not being able to meet an
indicative benchmark could be a trigger to consider the KEI in the plan, explaining why the
benchmark cannot be met, and a range of actions with quantitative targets for continuous
improvement.
To support the monitoring and reporting of the in-house resource efficiency, article 14(1) would
be amended to include monitoring and reporting to the competent authority on (primary,
renewable and secondary) resource consumption.
Objectives:
The measure will aim to improve the effectiveness of the IED in contributing to resource
efficiency and the circular economy and incentivising operators to reflect on their supply chain
environmental impacts. This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of
389
transforming the EU into a circular economy and, more specifically, contributing towards the
transition to a more circular economic model for the EU in the short-to-medium term.
Implementation needs:
The EMS is already a standard requirement (BAT 1) in all BAT conclusions and is tailored to
each industrial sector. The requirement for an installation operator’s RE & CE plan can be part
of such EMS.
Reporting on measures for improving internal resource efficiency in relation to their expected
environmental benefits, and on environmentally sound choices on plant's feedstock and wastes or
by-products, is not as straightforward as reporting emissions (concentrations or loads).
Therefore, generic, horizontal provisions could be laid down in the Directive itself to include
EMS targets and ambitions as part of the permit conditions and, therefore, become legally
binding for operators for all IED activities (or for a selection, when ‘light’ tailored permitting
procedures would be introduced for certain activities such as livestock farming). Moving the
EMS requirement to the IED itself would make it more prescriptive, compared to BAT
conclusions (for individual sectors), as the BAT conclusions are a reference for setting permit
conditions and leave some flexibility in implementation. Such provisions could include, for
instance, previously identified harmonised indicators on resource efficiency and specific
consumption, which would serve as a basis of comparison between installations from a same
sector. These generic provisions could then further be specified in the BATCs for each sector of
activity.
The measure’s practical and formal implementation could be approached in a way that allows for
flexibility in terms of promoting the inclusion of operator’s measures proposed to realise both
voluntary pledges and mandatory commitments with respect to resource efficiency and the
substitution of primary and non-renewable resources. The plan could start from a basis of a series
of voluntary measures and strategies to improve an installation’s resource efficiency
performance. These measures should cover previously agreed domains that were identified as
being key for increasing a sector’s performance with respect to resource efficiency and the use of
secondary and renewable resources, for which harmonized indicators have been identified,
proportionality of costs has been verified, and potential environmental gains have been
demonstrated to be significant. Operators could be allowed to propose relevant parameters to be
monitored and reported, or to select such parameters from a sector-specific list. After approval of
the proposed or selected parameters by the permitting authorities, their monitoring and reporting
on progress and outcomes could become mandatory, as under IED Art. 14 (1)(d). The parameters
that operators may be able to report to competent authorities should be clarified, taking into
account potential concerns over CBI.
390
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative Economic impacts when compared to
the baseline, although this will depend upon the number of operators that would introduce the
proposed chapters into their EMS and the extent to which this is additional to the baseline.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to negative impacts on administrative burden on businesses. The
introduction of an operator RE/CE Plan under the EMS requires efforts to elaborate and submit
such plan, implement the corresponding mandatory and/or voluntary reporting and monitoring
requirements, and to obtain more specific insights in, and knowledge of the complete production
chain of which the installation's activities form part.
The scale of these costs would vary according to the installation’s context and sectoral priorities
with respect to resource efficiency, and the extent to which this is already being considered. In
fact, recent BAT conclusions already include specific plans to monitor and manage in-house
resource efficiency of water, energy and certain materials (including chemicals) that are relevant
for the sector.
Based on the evidence available expert input, it is assumed that between 40 to 200 hours may be
required to develop an RE/CE plan, maintain it and monitor and report on it once every two
years. This is broadly equivalent to up to 10% of an FTE or spending between €1 150 and €5 700
every two years.
It is assumed that around 20% of the IED installations or 10 400 could be targeted by this
measure. As a result, this would imply that the additional administrative costs would range from
€6 million to €30 million each year, on average, over a 20-year period, with a central estimate of
€9 million. This is uncertain and depends upon the number of installations affected and their
level of preparedness in the baseline.
In the TSS, 75% of industry responded that establishing a RE/CE plan would increase
administrative costs by more than 5%, about 35% even see an increase of more than 15%, around
20% expects no impact, and a few % of industry respondents even expect a decrease. While in
the TSS around 75% of industry were against a mandatory monitoring and reporting on measures
and choices that improve resource-efficiency (75% of public authorities and 85% of NGOs were
in favour), some industry respondents (particularly in the chemicals sector) mentioned that
resource management in-house, whether or not through certified EMS schemes, is already
common practice in industry/their sector. Some mention that their EMS also includes operator
choices that have an upstream or downstream impact. Reporting of this information to public
authorities seems much less common. Some respondents express their concerns of leaking CBI
because of the proposed reporting requirements, and state that reporting should be only towards
public authorities, and not in the public domain. Requiring a more formal RE/CE plan would
391
thus in some sectors likely not lead to a significant increase in administrative burden (varying by
sector). Reporting to public authorities on the other hand, could increase the administrative
burden.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the costs of doing business. The
measure of extending the scope of monitoring and reporting to cover resource efficiency
improvements is meant to lead to the voluntary and/or mandatory implementation of initiatives
that allow decreasing the consumption of resources per unit of production output, both in-house
and upstream or downstream of the production chain. Even in case the measure is conceived as a
merely indirect incentive to improve resource efficiency, all available resource efficiency
optimization strategies are likely to increase operating costs (at least in short term due to required
investments) and change conduct of business at plant level. In the TSS responses, there were no
clear links made between an RE/CE plan and increase of operating costs.
The substantive compliance costs are expected to vary greatly according to the installation’s
specific context and the proposed sectoral priorities with respect to resource efficiency.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure would likely lead to unclear impacts on competitiveness of businesses. On the
one hand, operating costs and conduct of business are affected negatively, that is, it becomes
more costly to conduct business in the EU-27. On the other hand, increased transparency on
resource efficiency performance generates confidence, facilitates cross-sectoral and cross-value
chain collaboration, and might lead to efficiency-based cost reductions. There are concerns in
certain sectors that sharing of data that is considered to be CBI (e.g. amounts and types of
products, specificities of production processes) can negatively impact competitiveness. These
concerns were also echoed in the TSS responses. If procedures and practices to monitor and
report on RE/CE, while protecting legitimate CBI claims, are further developed and strictly
maintained and controlled, the overall direction of the impact might be(come) more positive.
This measure would likely lead to weakly positive impacts on levelling the playing field.
Increased transparency on resource efficiency performance generates confidence, facilitates
cross-sectoral and cross-value chain collaboration, and might lead to efficiency-based cost
reductions. Sectors mainly consisting of SMEs (e.g. IRPP, SF, galvanizing sector of FMP),
might be disproportionally affected by resource efficiency strategies and requirements that are
cost and/or capital intensive.
If CBI issues can be solved satisfactorily and all industrial sectors in the EU that are part of
global, resource-intensive production chains have been included into the expanded scope of the
IED, a more level playing field with respect to industrial resource efficiency strategies can be
secured, increasing opportunities for best players
392
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the position of SMEs. Sectors
mainly consisting of SMEs (e.g. IRPP, SF, galvanizing sector of FMP), might be
disproportionally affected by resource efficiency strategies and requirements that are costly
and/or capital intensive. The introduction of an operator RE/CE Plan under the EMS requires
effort to elaborate and submit such plan, to implement the corresponding mandatory and/or
voluntary reporting and monitoring requirements, etc. The undertaking of such efforts might
have a substantial fixed component thus becoming disproportionally challenging for SME’s. In
fact, 78% of SMEs cite complex administrative procedures as the biggest obstacle to operating in
the Single Market. That said, 25% of EU SMEs work on green products or services, and might
particularly benefit from increased resource efficiency and circular Economy measures by
(potential) industrial clients.
Innovation and research
This measure may have a positive impact on research and development. Strategies for
increasing resource efficiency that consider process technologies, ecodesign and cross-sectoral
collaboration (e.g. industrial symbiosis) strongly rely on innovation and research.
Public authority impacts
This measure will likely have negative impacts on public authority. The management of CBI
issues and the evaluation and control of RE/CE plans of EU industrial installations will impact
administrative, compliance and enforcement activities. The public authority impacts could be
limited somewhat by private auditing companies contracted by the operators which perform the
evaluation of the RE/CE plans, similar to existing practices in IED installations which currently
have a ‘BAT 1’ EMS or a more elaborate certified EMS. This would be checked by public
authorities.
The scale of these costs would vary according to the installation’s context and sectoral priorities
with respect to resource efficiency, and the extent to which this is already being considered. In
fact, recent BAT conclusions already include specific plans to monitor and manage in-house
resource efficiency of water, energy and certain materials (including chemicals) that are relevant
for the sector.
Based on the evidence available expert input, it is assumed that between 40 to 200 hours may be
required to develop an RE/CE plan, maintain it and monitor and report on it once every two
years. This is broadly equivalent to up to 10% of an FTE or spending between €1 150 and €5 700
every two years.
It is assumed that around 20% of the IED installations or 10 400 could be targeted by this
measure. As a result, this would imply that the additional administrative costs would range from
€6 million to €30 million each year, on average, over a 20-year period, with a central estimate of
393
€9 million. This is uncertain and depends upon the number of installations affected and their
level of preparedness in the baseline.
In addition, authorities might be required to define and identify priority domains and key
parameters that determine a sector’s performance with respect to resource efficiency, and to
analyse the significance of the potential, corresponding environmental gains.
The responses are similar to administrative costs for industry, but even more outspoken, although
only a small number of public authority responses actually answered this question, 5 out of 12
for local/regional authorities, and 16 out of 37 for national authorities. More than 75% see an
increase of more than 5% administrative costs, 20% (local/regional) – 45% (national) even see
an increase above 15%. No respondents expect a decrease of 5% or more.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive to positive environmental impacts when
compared to the baseline, although this will depend upon the number of operators that would
introduce the proposed chapters into their EMS and the extent to which this is additional to the
baseline.
Climate
This measure will likely have positive impacts on climate. The RE & CE plans aim to decrease
the consumption of resources per unit of production output, both in-house and upstream or
downstream of the production chain. These resources include fossil energy carriers that give rise
to GHG emissions. Whilst the IED does not have an explicit focus on emissions of GHGs (owing
to provisions made in Article 9 of the IED), it is likely that adopting resource efficiency-oriented
measures will have knock-on impacts towards GHG emissions. This will affect particularly
industrial installations of which the GHG emissions represent a significant share of total
emissions from the most energy-intensive production chains. On the other hand, even assuming
that no improvements are achieved regarding to the levels of resource consumption, the
substitution of primary, fossil and other non-renewable resources by secondary raw materials or
renewables can potentially bring considerable environmental benefits, including on climate
change. However, proposals for substitution should consider the risks and cross-media effects
associated to the use of renewables and of secondary raw materials, waste or by-products.
Air quality
This measure is likely to result in a limited to no impact on air quality. The RE & CE plans
mainly target the consumption of primary resources per unit of production output, rather than
end-of-pipe emissions. Reduced resource consumption will only indirectly affect air quality.
Initiatives of substitution of primary, fossil and non-renewable resources can affect other
environmental aspects such as air quality both positively and negatively, and should be
accompanied by solid evidence on the effects on air quality.
394
As an example, in the focus group on the cement sector, it was mentioned that there are cases
with increased heavy metals emissions to air which could be linked with waste feedstock quality
in some cases, even with unchanged quantities/shares of waste as feedstock, while in other cases
further investigation to show such link would be needed. During the focus group, it was
mentioned that a RE/CE plan could improve air emissions because it can address the trade-off
between resource efficiency or use of secondary raw materials and emissions or energy
efficiency.
Further information was retrieved from the report ‘Abfallströme Zur Verbrennung’ by the
Austrian UBA (2021) which identifies, based on analysis of emissions from 2009 to 2018, that
waste incineration plants, which incinerate the largest proportion of waste (around 70 %),
contribute least to the pollutant loads emitted, compared to co-incineration and cement plants. A
possible explanation given in the report for the low emissions from waste incineration plants is
that the emissions from these plants are effectively reduced due to efficient flue gas treatment
systems. In the cement plants, relevant pollutant emissions may also result from the raw
materials used, but no information on their pollutant content was available at the time of the
evaluation. Emissions of cadmium and thallium were found to be higher in co-incineration plants
where relevant amounts of sewage sludge and paper fibre residues are burned. Increased mercury
levels have been observed in some cement plants where large quantities of substitute fuels are
used. However, based on the available data, it was not possible to determine whether there was a
causal link. The composition of waste streams under the same code numbers can sometimes vary
a great deal.
Water quality and resources
This measure is likely to result in a limited to no impact on water quality and resources. The RE
& CE plans mainly target the consumption of resources per unit of production output, including
water. However, this is not taken into account here, because this aspect is already covered by the
area ‘Efficient use of resources’ below. Reduced water consumption will positively impact the
availability of water resources but is not likely to affect water quality.
Soil quality or resources
This measure is likely to result in a weakly positive impact on soil quality and resources. The
RE & CE plans mainly target the consumption of resources per unit of production output, rather
than end-of-pipe emissions to soil. Reduced resource consumption will only indirectly affect soil
quality or resources.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure may lead to positive impacts on waste production, generation, and recycling. The
introduction of RE & CE plans aims to decrease the consumption of resources per unit of
production output, both in-house and upstream or downstream in the production chain. This
includes material resources. The use of materials can be:
395
(i) minimized, by producing less waste per unit of production output
(ii) eliminated, referring particularly to the use of toxic and hazardous substances, which might
reduce the hazardousness and increase the recyclability of the installation’s production
residues
(iii)substituted, e.g. by recycled, waste-based, or less resource intensive materials, or
(iv)better managed, by implementing measures that reduce material losses over the production
process.
These strategies will particularly affect industrial installations where material use represents a
significant share of total raw material footprint of the most material-intensive production chains.
Efficient use of resources
The implementation of this measure will likely result in positive impacts on the efficient use of
resources. The measures of introducing RE & CE plans specifically targets resource efficiency,
both in-house and upstream or downstream of the production chain. During the cement focus
group, it was also mentioned that RE & CE plans should address trade-offs between material
resource efficiency or use of secondary raw materials and energy efficiency. The impact on
efficient use of resources was not directly addressed in the TSS. Some products manufactured by
IED installations are strictly regulated by product regulations, limiting the potential for actions
that improve downstream impact. The example of fertilising products was mentioned in a TSS
position paper.
It is difficult to quantitatively assess the impact, certainly on a global level. Fragmented and
anecdotal evidence exists on impacts of specific case studies of industrial symbiosis, use of
waste as a feedstock and resource efficiency improvements, for example in the ‘IED
Contribution to the circular Economy report’ and in industrial symbioses case study databases.
The former also describes the untapped potential. It is however difficult to extrapolate the
information from case studies to the overall industry potential and estimate to what degree
obligatory RE/CE plans (in addition to already existing EMS schemes) and related reporting to
competent authorities would contribute to this potential. Initiatives of substitution of primary,
fossil and non-renewable resources can affect the efficient use of resources both positively and
negatively and should be accompanied by solid evidence on the environmental effects.
In certain sectors, a significant share of energy or material input is currently already provided by
secondary resources. An example is the cement sector, where the share of energy and material
input is generally high, but according to the focus group and literature, varies strongly dependent
upon local availability of secondary resources, restrictions in permits on types of wastes or
secondary resources allowed, process characteristics and end product requirements. At the EU
level, substitution rate by alternative fuels is 48% of thermal energy needed for clinker
production.
396
Social impacts
The potential impacts of introducing RE and CE plans on employment are likely to be mixed or
unclear. Sectors that produce and process primary raw materials are at risk to decline in size
under circular Economy strategies, while the recycling and repair sectors might find
opportunities to experience additional growth.
ii. Chemical Management Systems
Description of this component of the measure and requirements for implementation
The obligation would require the development of a chemical management system (CMS) as part
of BAT conclusions. This obligation could be introduced as an addition to the existing
requirements under BAT 1 for an environmental management system (EMS). Developing a CMS
would mean that IED regulated operators would need to use available tools for chemical risk
assessment made available by ECHA and report regularly on progress and outcomes, e.g. under
IED Art. 14 (1)(d).
There would be basic and advanced components of the CMS, for consideration:
 Basic components would include: an up to date inventory of substances33
, risk
assessments and periodic reporting and auditing; and
 Advanced components would include: Routine assessment of alternatives for hazardous
substances, commitment to substitute as soon as practical, and the justification of
continued use where the review of substitutes identifies viable alternatives.
This measure may also include the introduction of a web-based database populated by operators
for improved reporting and transparency. This could be aligned with pre-existing databases /
reporting requirements as part of permit requirements.
The database could include a list of chemicals for consideration as part of the development of the
CMS that are subject to related legislation such as the Annex I and III substances of the POP
Regulation, substances classified as SVHC, including the listings under Annex XIV and XVII of
REACH or as priority substances under the Water Framework Directive. Additionally, the CMS
should follow the PDCA-cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act) approach.
Finally, an industry respondent at a focus group for this study highlighted their concern that this
CMS-type measure may be considered an attempt to fix the lack of proper implementation under
REACH, and efforts could be spent instead on ensuring that there is an effective implementation
of existing obligations for operators. One NGO respondent agreed with the position that the
elements of the CMS (both the basic components and advanced components) are broadly in line
with the existing obligations under REACH. On this basis, there are elements of the CMS that do
not represent an increase in scope, but rather a way to strengthen the coherence between REACH
33
E.g., covering hazardous chemicals, REACH registration data, SVHCs, priority substances, thresholds stipulated in
environmental permits as well as reference to monitoring data
397
and IED, and to provide data regarding processes for REACH, which would enhance
implementation.
It is also noted that industrial accidents do not only take place in establishments falling under the
Directive 2012/18 on major industrial accident prevention (Seveso Directive) and therefore such
risks have to be given adequate attention. For example a dramatic accident occurred during this
impact assessment in the Czech Republic in an IED installation, not falling under the Seveso
Directive, where 3 people were killed because of a toxic leak. Appropriate management of risks
of use of chemicals through a Chemical Management System would better address safety issues
in installations and contribute in preventing that accidents with important consequences occur.
Objectives:
The measure will aim to improve the understanding, management and substitution of chemicals
of concern by the IED-regulated industry and to enhance transparency for citizens. This measure
will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of achieving a non-toxic environment in the
EU, and more specifically, prevent or, when impracticable, minimise emission of hazardous
chemicals by large industrial and agro-industrial plants.
Implementation needs:
 The CMS could be added to the EMS requirements stipulated under BAT 1 for each
industry sector or the CMS requirements could be included in the IED permit conditions
(Art. 14) directly.
 The CMS will have flexibility so that it can be adjusted for each industrial sector.
o In an interview, the EIPPCB commented that flexibility is required as there are
industry sector-specific issues. This was especially based on discussions around
implementation of CMS during the update of the textiles BREF document.
o The Hazbref report34
also provides further examples related to paper pulp, ferrous
metals, and food, drink and milk industries where sector-specific issues would
affect how a CMS was implemented, particularly around material flows, numbers
of chemicals in use, and de novo chemicals.
 Creating synergies/avoiding duplication with regard to already existing reporting systems
such as E-PRTR.
o Multiple reporting requirements under different but closely related legislation,
should a centralised database be needed for reporting, due care is needed to
harmonise as far as possible to avoid duplication and undue burden.
o There are also data confidentiality issues, this is already an issue for EMS, with
key feedback from the focus group on EMS/CMS providing conflicting
34
Interreg, 2021, ‘Method to include information on hazardous and other substances of concern more
systematically into BREFs’, Hazbref report under Work Package 3, Activity 3.2.
398
arguments around quality and availability of data (including public availability of
data), how it is reported and who has access to it.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative to negative economic impacts when
compared to the baseline, although this will depend upon the number of operators that would
introduce the proposed chapters into their EMS and the extent to which this is additional to the
baseline.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to negative impacts on administrative burden on businesses. The
responses regarding adoption of a CMS are mixed. This is in part because a form of CMS has
been a concept for some time, with different types of CMS already implemented to a greater or
lesser degree by different Member States.
Table 16 summarises the responses by industry and competent authorities that participated in the
TSS and a further mini-survey sent to the members of the competent authority working group for
IED, to a query whether a CMS was in use and mandatory as part of the environmental permit.
13 MSs (plus Norway) stated that a form of CMS was in use, and 70 (out of 167) industry
respondents commented that they already make use of a CMS (for inventory and reporting
purposes), while only 20 (out of 167) said they do not use a CMS.
Table A8-16: Overview of the TSS responses for CMS and feedback from MSCAs*
Country
Form of CMS
in place
CMS covers a
form of
inventory
CMS covers
data on
hazards and
risks
CMS is used
for tracking
regulatory
evolution
CMS reporting
is part of IED
permit
requirements
Austria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Belgium Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A
Bulgaria N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Croatia N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Cyprus Yes N/A N/A N/A No
Czech Republic Yes N/A Yes N/A No
Denmark No N/A N/A N/A No
Estonia Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Finland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
France Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Germany Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Greece No N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hungary No N/A N/A N/A No
Ireland No N/A N/A N/A No
399
Country
Form of CMS
in place
CMS covers a
form of
inventory
CMS covers
data on
hazards and
risks
CMS is used
for tracking
regulatory
evolution
CMS reporting
is part of IED
permit
requirements
Italy Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Latvia N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Lithuania Yes Yes Yes No No
Luxembourg No N/A N/A N/A No
Malta N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Netherlands Yes* Yes* Yes* No No
Poland No N/A N/A N/A No
Portugal No* N/A N/A N/A No
Romania N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Slovakia Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A
Slovenia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Spain No N/A N/A N/A No
Sweden Yes* Yes Yes Yes No
* The MSCAs highlighted that “CMS” is not a defined term under IED, and therefore the full scope of the CMS as set-out within
the measure may not be included, but components of it are. Particularly the basic components for inventories of substances and
risk assessments, although implementation varies. Responses from the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden highlighted that the
basic components of the CMS are likely to be implemented on a case by case basis, with certain sectors more likely than others to
require such components.
Alongside the TSS, the second mini-survey to the MSCAs for IED sought to seek further clarity
on the role and function of a CMS within environmental permitting. Responses from 11 MS were
received (Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Spain and Sweden). The main feedback from the MSCA responses was that the term
‘CMS’ is not yet defined within IED and therefore the scope of the requirements can vary. A
number of MS implement other national legislation which requires the development of
inventories of hazardous chemicals and risk assessment, not directly under the umbrella of IED
or environmental permits, but closely related. While others highlighted that the requirements
may be managed on a case-by-case basis, with certain sectors more likely to be required to have
a chemicals inventory.
In addition, the Hazbref report (2021) illustrates that discussions around CMS, mass-flow of
substances and control of chemical hazards has been a talking point across multiple BREF
updates with calls for a more systematic harmonised approach across all operators. The report
does, however, recognise that sector specific issues may affect how the CMS is implemented.
A rapid literature review has been completed, alongside expert judgement to support an
understanding of the potential costs of a CMS. One caveat is that the nature and scale of the
CMS required will be sector specific (as indicated) as well as varying depending on the size and
complexity of the facility and number of substances used in a given process. On that basis, no
400
attempt has been made to estimate EU-wide costs to industry, but rather indicative costs for a
single facility.
In terms of the basic components covering an inventory of chemicals in use. A range of software
packages are available ranging for the most basic €85 to more comprehensive software
(including mass balance) €5 00035
. There are also examples of bespoke systems for more
complex situations which cost €100 000+ to develop36
. This covers the cost of the software only.
Populating and maintaining the inventory will require chemical audits and assessment of the
processes in use. For sectors / facilities which use far fewer chemicals (e.g., less than five) the
audit could be expected to take only a few hours. At the other end of the scale, the example
provided by the University of Hampshire, the audit and initial set-up of the inventory required
0.5 FTE for an experienced hazardous materials supervisor, plus 1.5 FTEs in other supporting
staff. Once established the annual maintenance and update of the system required 0.25 FTE for
management staff plus IT support to maintain the audit system.
In practice most operators are likely to fall somewhere between these two extremes. These are
described in the Table below.
Table 17: Overview of basic components of a CMS (inventory of hazardous chemicals, uses, risk
assessments, reporting and auditing)
Costs associated with setting up and maintaining the
basic components of a CMS
Benefits of having a CMS37
 Cost of CMS software (varies from €85 to
€5 000. Bespoke systems could cost €100 000+)
 Audit of hazardous chemical substances to
populate CMS (varies from a few hours in
simple cases with few substances to 0.5FTE
senior staff + 1.5 FTE supporting staff)
 Maintaining CMS – update of substances (varies
from a few hours per annum to 0.25FTE per
annum + IT support of up to 1 FTE)
 Risk assessments (already part of standard
processes under REACH)
 Training of staff for H&S (already part of
standard processes under REACH)
 Reporting of CMS outputs (should be automated
would expect a few hours per annum <0.1 FTE)
 Greater control and visibility of chemicals in
use, which would lead to the following benefits:
 Better management of storage of chemicals
(frees up floor space)
 More effective use of chemicals leading to less
waste and potentially lower usage of hazardous
chemicals.
 Better evidence base, to support innovation and
identification of safer alternatives.
 Greater control of risks to manage chemical
safety.
 Greater control and visibility over the chemicals
in use leading to less risk of compliance issues
with related legislation.
 Level playing field given CMS is already in use
for many MS.
Based on the evidence available expert input, it is assumed that between 40 to 400 hours may be
required to populate and maintain the CMS every two years. This is broadly equivalent to up to
0.25 FTE or spending between €1 150 and €11 400 every two years.
35 https://labcollEUtor.com/lims-flexible-hosting-pricing/?_ga=2.65404782.1594292501.1626773919-
89232714.1626773917&_gl=1*1x7nvqg*_ga*ODkyMzI3MTQuMTYyNjc3MzkxNw..*_ga_S4X1ENVXBF*MTYyNjc3MzkxNS4xLjEuMTYyNjc3MzkzN
S4w
36 University of new Hampshire, 2003, ’Chemical Environmental Management System (CEMs), publication from the chemical strategies
partnership.
37 https://cen.acs.org/sponsored-content/taking-stock.html
401
It is assumed that around 50% of the IED installations or 26 000 could be targeted by this
measure. As a result, this would imply that the additional administrative costs would range from
€15 million to €150 million each year, on average, over a 20-year period, with a central estimate
of €37 million. This is uncertain and depends upon the number of installations affected and their
level of preparedness in the baseline.
The advanced components of the CMS require periodic assessment for safer alternatives to the
hazardous chemicals identified, a commitment to transition to safer alternatives as soon as
practical, and justification of continued use where the review of substitutes identifies viable
alternatives. As with the above section these issues are highly substance specific, and would vary
in complexity depending on the specific situation. More-over the assessing of alternatives can
require a specialist skillsets not necessarily present within the operators' personnel. Use of
consultants to carry out such assessments is fairly common. Based on experience of such
assessments under REACH Authorisation and Restriction assessment of alternatives could cost
between €20-50K per substance in consultancy fees, this is equivalent to between 25-60 days of
staff, if completed internally.
Updates to the original audit would likely be less costly than the original study, but could still be
time consuming depending on developments. The substitution to safer alternatives, could incur
significant costs depending on whether the alternative was a drop-in replacement, or required a
change in process wanting new equipment and training. Even with drop-in replacements
significant amount of research and development costs could be expected to amend and perfect
existing processes. This could also include costs associated with reduced production output
depending on how changes are implemented.
In terms of the existing situation and level playing field the baseline appears to be mixed, with at
least some implementation of the basic requirements considered for the CMS (directly or
indirectly) to date across 13 Member States and possibly more. Standardising requirements for
the basic components as a minimum may lead to some weakly negative increases in
administrative burden on businesses during harmonisation (see table above), although noting that
for those operators that have not used a CMS so far, the development and first population of the
requirements may have more considerable impacts.
A CMS with more advanced requirements would look to address substitution more
comprehensively. Some TSS respondents suggest that this is already addressed as part of
REACH. At a focus group for this Study, one NGO highlighted that the advanced parts of the
CMS are broadly in line with the requirements under REACH and, therefore, would not be an
expansion of scope, but rather strengthen the implementation and coherence between REACH
and the IED. Stakeholders from industry, however, were more concerned about the potential
additional burden that could be created by the CMS, particularly for SMEs and certain Economic
sectors with less capacity to absorb any additional costs within their operating margins.
At a focus group for this Study, NGO respondents also commented that, for an operator to run an
IED regulated facility successfully, they would need to have a strong and clear understanding of
402
which chemicals are used, for what purposes and what quantities within specific parts of the
installation or facility. However, feedback from one competent authority respondent highlighted
that they had visited many IED regulated facilities where this was not the case. In particular,
participants in this focus group suggested that it was not uncommon for SME operators to have
less visibility on the full and complete audit trail chemicals used in their operations. Other
respondents commented that the CMS would need to extend beyond simply intentional chemical
substances, as impurities and substances formed de novo as by-products present serious
challenges for wastewater and waste sectors. A complete material flow including consideration
of these other elements was reported as being necessary.
The competent authority respondents also commented that in order to complete the basic
components of a CMS it will be necessary to develop and provide tools and guidance to help
operators in developing an audit trail of all chemicals used or created as part of industrial
processes. Currently, those tools are not in place or freely available at EU-level.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the costs of doing business. This is
uncertain and varies greatly across operators.
Stakeholders that responded to the TSS for this study suggest that there might be some increases
in both operating (i.e. staff time, etc.) and capital costs (i.e. equipment costs, etc.).
 For operating costs, the majority (>70%) of respondents expect an increase in costs as a
result of the proposed measure. In more detail, 43% (36 of 82 responses) commented that
there would be significant impact >15% increase in costs; 29% of responses (24 out of
82) expect a 5-15% increase in costs; limited impacts (+/- 5%) from 26% of respondents
(21 out of 82 responses); and a <15% decline in costs from one respondent.
 For capital costs, the majority (>70%) of respondents also expect an increase in capital
expenditure. In particular, 44% (35 out of 79) stated there would be a >15% increase in
their annual capex costs; 27% (22 out of 79) of respondents indicated a 5-15% increase in
costs; 27% (21 out of 79), only limited impact of +/- 5%; and one respondent indicated
that a 5-15% decrease in costs could be expected.
Further responses from the TSS highlighted that integrated management systems (which include
CMS) are commonplace within chemical industry sectors, but possibly less so in other IED-
regulated industry sectors. The primary concern raised by industry responses was the level of
effort required to assess hazardous substances and possible substitution, with some highlighting a
risk of overlaps with REACH.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on competitiveness and positive impacts
on levelling the playing field. Although the costs of business could increase marginally, there is
already a widespread implementation of some form of CMS (particularly for the basic
403
components) and, therefore, we would not expect that standardisation of the requirements would
lead to a significant impact on the competitiveness of EU businesses in the global context.
However, the results of the TSS and discussions with ECHA, EIPPCB and a focus group
highlighted an opportunity to level the playing field. A form of CMS (covering the basic
components) is already in use across many Member States, with variations in how the CMS is
implemented, what it covers, and how it is managed. This in itself represents an uneven playing
field. All but one participant of the focus group run for this study conceded that there was a need
for greater harmonisation in how the existing situation works, and that a clear CMS with details
of what is expected and what it includes would be beneficial. The scope of the CMS and far it
should go towards promoting or actively channelling transition to safer alternatives, was a more
datable point, with less clear agree. However, the analysis makes clear that the potential benefits
of a harmonised approach would have strong benefits for a level playing field.
Position of SMEs
Overall, this measure is likely to lead to mixed or unclear impacts on the position of SMEs.
There are both positives and negatives with how a CMS could help SME operators and/or result
in a disproportionate increase in administrative costs for them.
A focus group undertaken for this Impact Assessment, together with results from the TSS,
highlighted that forms of CMS are already in use, but with patchy distribution, both in terms of
industry sector and between larger and SME-sized companies. The TSS results, in particular,
suggested that companies that have to meet obligations under REACH and SEVESO are more
likely to make use of integrated management systems, which would include a CMS (at least for
the audit trails of substances and reporting).
One competent authority delegate at the focus group commented that they had visited many IED
regulated facilities which entirely lacked a CMS, with SMEs being more likely to fall into this
category. This may mean that a greater proportion of SMEs would be faced with both the set-up
costs and maintenance of the CMS. Although the argument can also be made that SMEs may be
likely to have fewer hazardous substances and so a simpler CMS may be needed. The positive
impacts here would relate to the right-hand column of the table on the previous example.
Effectively greater knowledge and control of the processes in place, leading to less waste, less
use of hazardous chemicals, less likely to have chemical compliance issues because of improved
knowledge base, and better potential for innovation from a more informed position.
The issue of sector-specific sensitives was also raised by the focus group on EMS and CMS,
Some delegates at the focus group highlighted that different industry sectors make more or less
use of chemicals, and therefore may be less likely to encounter hazardous chemicals, meaning a
more simplified version of CMS might be warranted.
Data on the proportion of IED regulated SME operators with / without CMS systems has not
been identified. It is therefore assumed as a worst case scenario that this category may be
significantly more likely not to have a CMS or technical/Economic capacity to meet the full
404
(basic and advanced) requirements of the CMS measure and care may be needed to implement
such an approach in a tailored fashion as part of BAT conclusions.
Innovation and research
This measure is likely to lead to weakly positive impacts on innovation and research. The
justification of the use and the substitution check could improve the innovation process in the
longer-term.
In an interview with the EIPPCB, representatives highlighted their experience with the most
recent BREF document update for ceramics (which commenced in February 2021). In particular,
the EIPPCB stated that based on previous BREF exercises, it can sometimes be challenging for
industry to fully respond as it is not always known which chemicals are in use, and furthermore
any by-products. A CMS would, therefore, support in addressing these gaps and allow industry
stakeholders to have a more informed discussion around substitution and safer alternatives,
including consideration of where negative BAT could be applied. Therefore, requiring a CMS
could facilitate knowledge-sharing and indirectly encourage innovation and research.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to lead to negative impacts on public authority. The CMS would improve
the compliance check for competent authorities on the permit installations’ obligations and
would streamline information on hazardous chemical substances from different legislations such
as REACH, the WFD and the POPs Regulation. This would create synergies in the shorter term.
It is unclear, however, whether local competent authorities would require additional technical
resources to assess the CMS data that operators would provide. The CMS would indeed provide
valuable information on substances that are currently not considered during the BREF process
such as SVHC although this would lead to an expansion in the scope of the BREF process and,
therefore, could lead to increasing public authority burden, at least in the shorter term.
Based on the evidence available expert input, it is assumed that these efforts would require
between 20 to 200 hours from public authorities every two years (50% of the costs incurred by
operators). This is broadly equivalent to up to 10% of an FTE or spending between €550 and €5
700 every two years.
It is also assumed that around 50% of the IED installations or 26 000 could be targeted by this
measure. As a result, this would imply that the additional administrative costs would range from
€7 million to €74 million each year, on average, over a 20-year period, with a central estimate of
€19 million. This is uncertain and depends upon the number of installations affected and their
level of preparedness in the baseline.
Responses from the TSS by competent authorities suggest that negative impacts should be
expected, although these are likely to be relatively small. The majority or 63% (12 out of 19) of
respondents expect only limited negative impacts (+/-5% of cost impact). Other responses
included a 5-15% increase in costs (3 out of 19 responses) and >15% increase in costs (4 out of
405
19 responses). As a further means of comparison, the IED impact assessment from 200738
provides details of administrative costs for permitting, including reviewing data for granting
environmental permitting and audits for compliance. Under Annex 8 of the impact assessment an
estimate of 3-10 days of staff time per permit at a cost of €8 700 - €14 500 was estimated.
Depending on the complexity of the CMS and whether it included only the inventory of
hazardous substances or further information on alternatives, could broadly fit within similar
levels of staff effort.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts when compared
to the baseline, which will depend upon the number of operators that would introduce a CMS
into their EMS and the extent to which this is additional to the baseline.
Climate
This measure is likely to have weakly positive impacts on climate. The CMS would provide
greater clarity over uses of chemicals, and therefore it is assumed would provide a more
informed basis for selection of safer alternatives. However, note that ‘safer’ would be a broad
term covering all environmental aspects. This can mean a chemical with a lower human health
hazard profile has other less desirable environmental impacts (e.g., a higher GWP or water and
resource demand). These issues are highly substance and site-specific meaning it is challenging
to comment on the overall impacts. This said, this measure is intended to form a component part
of the EMS and it is, therefore, expected that any actions under CMS will be considered with
other activities and objectives, such as reducing the greenhouse gas emissions footprint of the
industrial sectors.
Air quality
This measure is likely to result in a weakly positive impact on air quality. The CMS could fill
the gap of tracking and reporting pollutants that are currently not covered by the E-PRTR such as
SVHCs, substances listed in Annex I and III of the POPs Regulation and pollutants from industry
sectors that do not report under the E-PRTR. The focus group on EMS and CMS also highlighted
that an inventory of hazardous chemicals should go beyond those commercially purchased and
include hazardous chemicals formed de novo during the process and any by-products. This
would be of high importance for waste management, but could also help identify air emissions of
chemicals of concern. The absolute environmental impact (% emission reduction) cannot be
quantified as the impacts of the CMS such as increased awareness and potential reduction and/or
substitution of hazardous chemicals would vary among the installations. The CMS would have
more of an impact in the medium to longer term as new BATC have to be transposed into
national legislation within four years.
38
European Commission, 2007, ’Staff working document for impact assessment of the industrial emissions dirEUtive’, COM(2007)844
406
Water quality and resources
This measure is likely to result in a positive impact on water quality and resources. The
discussions with the focus group on EMS/CMS highlighted that the CMS would place
harmonised obligations on operators to document and quantify chemical substances produced de
novo during production processes as well as commercially acquired chemicals used and,
therefore, would enable a proportionate and robust response to manage pollution, especially of
water bodies through industrial releases and waste. It is expected that the CMS could have a
significant positive impact on water quality, although similar to the expected impacts on air
quality, the absolute environmental impact (% emission reduction) cannot be quantified as the
impacts would vary among installations.
Soil quality or resources
This measure is likely to result in a weakly positive impact on soil quality and resources.
Similar to air and water emissions, tracking and reporting priority substances, particularly those
formed de novo at the facility. The absolute environmental impact (% emission reduction) cannot
be quantified as the impacts would vary among the installations.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure may lead to weakly positive impacts on waste production, generation, and
recycling. In a similar aspect to the water component, generation of chemical substances (as by-
products) can have implications for waste, and recycling. Greater understanding of the mass-
balance and flow of material would help identify options to minimise the creation of harmful
wastes and make existing waste flows easier to recycle. However, as with the other
environmental categories quantifying specific benefits is challenging as it would industry sector
and potential facility specific.
Efficient use of resources
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impact on the efficient use of resources. There
will be possible indirect benefits from greater visibility and understanding of the regulatory
acquis.
Social impacts
This measure specifically is likely to result in some impacts on employment, although the
direction is unclear. The preceding sections have highlighted that a form of CMS is already in
use across many EU MS, with the specific details varying both by country and industry sector.
However, a harmonised approach with clearly set-out expectations would help strengthen a level
playing field and provide additional information that could support further innovation. It would
also have the positive impact of raising confidence in the EU to tackle specific pollution issues,
and strengthening the overall coherence between IED and its most closely related chemicals and
environmental legislation.
407
The improved level playing field would have positive impacts in terms of business and
employment. It would also further help identify where a transition to safer alternatives is needed,
to both protect human health and the environment. However, the counter-factual to this position
is illustrated by the TSS results and concerns raised by industry in the TSS and at the focus group
for the EMS/CMS. Development of an inventory of hazardous chemicals is still not undertaken
by many operators, particularly SMEs, and tools to help complete such an inventory are not in
place and freely available at EU-level. This could represent significant additional costs, which
may have an impact on employment.
The greater point of concern relates to the advanced components of the CMS, in particular work
to undertake analysis of alternatives for hazardous substances, and where substitution might be
possible. Many industry respondents indicated that this may represent significant effort and cost
which could have consequences for employment. This being case, however, the NGO
respondents at the focus group meeting also highlighted that such requirements are broadly in
line with what is already expected and obligated under REACH, and that the full CMS
requirements do not represent an expansion of scope, but rather additional support to the
coherence between REACH and IED, including proper implementation of the Regulation and
Directive respectively.
Measure 26: Require Member States’ national authorities (or delegated competent
authorities) to establish a national plan to promote industrial symbiosis.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure entails the introduction of a requirement in the IED for Member States’ national
authorities (or delegated competent authorities) to establish a national plan to promote industrial
symbiosis. Because this is a cross-cutting, cross-sectoral topic, the IED itself is a more suitable
instrument than the individual BREFs. An IED article (or an Annex) would list a number of
obligatory elements (e.g. financial support, regulatory facilitation, facilitation of information
exchange, capacity building…), criteria or minimum quality standards for each of these national
plans. To date, no specific information is available on which criteria would be fit for this
purpose.
Inclusion of information in the BREFs and locally available information on types of IED (or
non-IED) activities and their location, would support and feed information to these national
industrial symbiosis plans.
On a second level, this could be complemented with an obligation for Member States to report
on the progress/results of their national industrial symbiosis plans. For this, a harmonized set of
indicators needs to be developed on the EU level.
An obligation to establish national plans to promote industrial symbiosis could be considered
within the IED itself, as is proposed in this measure, but it could also be considered to be
408
included in other policy domains or instruments (e.g. related to CE or other policies within the
EU Industrial Strategy). Indeed, there will be many instances were a (potential) industrial
symbiosis relation will involve no (or not only) IED installations. Next to that, it is important to
note that a main facilitating factor for industrial symbiosis is geographical proximity (which
cannot be legally enforced), and that local rather than sectoral conditions and issues are
important drivers. This might make the IED not the most suited instrument for promoting
industrial symbiosis implementation. As an alternative to national plans, an EU coordinated plan
or strategy could also be considered.
Objectives:
The measure will aim to increase the emphasis on industrial symbiosis and the circular
management of resources in IED industrial sectors, whilst levelling the playing field. This
measure will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of transforming the EU into a circular
Economy and, more specifically, contributing towards the transition to a more circular Economic
model for the EU in the short-to-medium term.
Implementation needs:
 On EU level, modification of IED legislation (if IED is chosen as the instrument)
 On Member State level:
o regulation transposing the IED requirements
o nomination of responsible body, human resources
o policy documents and instruments
 Exchange of implementation practices/issues (e.g. through IMPEL network)
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited direct Economic impacts when compared to the
baseline, as these will largely depend on how national plans are established by public authorities
and their ambitions.
Administrative burden on businesses
There are no direct impacts on businesses expected following the implementation of this
measure. Indirect impacts are highly dependent on how national plans are established by public
authorities.
Around half of the respondents to the TSS answered that there are existing national measures
promoting industrial symbiosis. Evidence suggests that this may be an overestimate. Where these
are plans already in place, there will likely be no or only a weakly negative impact on indirect
costs.
409
Only a quarter of industry respondents (22) to the TSS were aware of national initiatives
specifically for their sector. Around 40% of the respondents also confirmed that they refer to the
sector’s feedstock or wastes or by-products (15 and 14 respectively). However, the sample
responding to these questions was very limited.
Operating costs and conduct of business
There are no direct impacts on businesses expected following the implementation of this
measure. The scale and direction of indirect impacts are highly uncertain and dependent on how
national plans are established by public authorities. However, it is unlikely that national plans
will have a command and control nature, given the large diversity in industrial processes and in
possible industrial symbiosis matches.
Competitiveness and level playing field
There are no direct impacts on competitiveness expected following the implementation of this
measure. There are potential limited indirect (positive) impacts on level playing field due to
EU level harmonized criteria/quality requirements for a national plan to promote industrial
symbiosis.
Position of SMEs
There are no direct impacts on businesses expected following the implementation of this
measure.
Innovation and research
This measure may have a limited to no impact on research and development. The national plans
themselves may drive further innovation in (technologies for) matching residues from one
activity with feedstock from another activity. Strategies for increasing resource efficiency that
consider process technologies, ecodesign and cross-sectoral collaboration (e.g. industrial
symbiosis) strongly rely on innovation and research.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to result in weakly negative impacts on public authorities. This
obligation to develop national plans will require additional administrative efforts from public
authority administrations, except for those cases (if any) were there is already an established
national plan that meets the envisaged criteria/standards. In order for the measure to have a
substantial environmental effect, public authorities would have to secure the development and
putting in place of policies, mechanisms and measures, as well as their aligning with identified
sector-specific roles of industrial installations in cross-sectoral collaboration
Costs of plans and initiatives to promote industrial symbiosis vary widely, given that there is no
single standard for such initiatives, and they are therefore very different in the components they
include, and the level of depth on each component. Some examples of development costs for IS
410
initiatives, often collaborations between multiple companies and national or local authorities,
are:
 Life M3P project. Project budget of 1.5 M€, of which 60% was co-funded by the EU,
“will study and implement an on-line platform to promote exchanging of industrial waste
among the companies of manufacturing districts”
 H2020 Scaler project. Project budget of ca. 1 M€, funded by EU; “the project will
develop a set of best practices, tools and guidelines, helping businesses and industrial
sites work together to ensure sustainable resource use”.
 H2020 Sharebox project. Project budget 5.9 M€, of which EU contribution 5.4 M€, “will
develop a secure ICT platform (SHAREBOX) for the flexible management of shared
process resources that will provide plant operations and production managers with the
robust and reliable information that they need in real-time in order to effectively and
confidently share resources (plant, energy, water, residues, and recycled materials) with
other companies in a symbiotic ecosystem. A suite of new analysis and optimisation tools
for flexible energy use and material flow integration will be developed for optimising
symbiosis among companies. These tools will be based on input- output (IO) modelling
for resource (waste and energy) supply-demand matching and process efficiency analysis
(to understand physical and technological conditions), game theoretical (GT) approach
for integrating company behaviour in cost-, benefit-, and resource-sharing (to understand
Economic conditions), and agent-based modelling (ABM) for designing the (Economic,
environmental, and social) optimal symbiotic network (to have the holistic optimum)”
There are also commercially available (international) IS-facilitating platforms and services
provided by private for-profit enterprises, for which clients pay regular or service-based fees, as
well as ad hoc/local collaborations/clusters, sometimes governed by a coordinating body.
About half of the respondents to the TSS for this study answered that there are existing national
measures promoting industrial symbiosis. This is likely to be an overestimate. Nevertheless,
where these plans are already in place, there will likely be no or only a weakly negative impact
on public authority costs.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited direct environmental impacts when compared to
the baseline, as these will largely depend on how national plans are established by public
authorities and their ambitions.
Climate
This measure will likely result in a limited positive impacts on climate. Although there is little
evidence, and although the potential for industrial symbiosis is very much dependant on local
conditions, such as proximity of potential matches, it should be expected that, in general,
national plans increase the uptake/implementation of industrial symbiosis, which will benefit
emissions of GHGs compared to the separately conducted, individual industrial activities. It is
411
important to demonstrate that potentially negative (cross-media) effects of an increased use of
renewables, waste, by-products or secondary resources (either in absolute volume or as relative
share), will not outweigh the, mostly direct, positive environmental effects. On the potential CO2
savings, see also ‘Efficient use of resources’ below.
Air quality
This measure is likely to result in a limited positive impacts on air quality. It is unclear if the
increased uptake of industrial symbiosis will overall lead to lower or higher emissions of air
pollutants (if any change at all). However, a national plan could focus on/promote those matches
that have a beneficial effect on pollutant air emissions (or a relatively low negative effect
compared to the amount of resources saved). It is important to demonstrate that potentially
negative (cross-media) effects of an increased use of renewables, waste, by-products or
secondary resources (either in absolute volume or as relative share), will not outweigh the,
mostly direct, positive environmental effects.
Water quality and resources
This measure is likely to result in a limited positive impacts on water quality and resources. It is
unclear if the increased uptake of industrial symbiosis will overall lead to lower or higher
emissions of water pollutants (if any change at all). However, a national plan could focus
on/promote those matches that have a beneficial effect on pollutant water emissions (or a
relatively low negative effect compared to the amount of resources saved). It is important to
demonstrate that potentially negative (cross-media) effects of an increased use of renewables,
waste, by-products or secondary resources (either in absolute volume or as relative share), will
not outweigh the, mostly direct, positive environmental effects.
Soil quality or resources
This measure is likely to result in a limited to no impact on soil quality and resources. It is
unclear if the increased uptake of industrial symbiosis will overall lead to lower or higher
emissions of soil pollutants (if any change at all). A national plan could focus on/promote those
matches that have a beneficial effect on pollutant soil emissions (or a relatively low negative
effect compared to the amount of resources saved), but it is unlikely that any industrial by-
product matchmaking will impact these emissions to soil.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure may lead to weakly positive impacts on waste production, generation, and
recycling. While there is little evidence (see also ‘Efficient use of resources’ below) and
although the potential for industrial symbiosis is very much dependant on local conditions – such
as proximity of potential matches – it should be expected that in general national plans increase
the uptake/implementation of industrial symbiosis. This will avoid waste generation compared to
the separately conducted, individual industrial activities.
412
Efficient use of resources
This measure may lead to weakly positive impacts on the efficient use of resources. There is
little evidence of impact of industrial symbiosis on efficient use of resources at the Economy
level. The COWI report ‘Economic analysis of resource efficiency policies’ (2011) estimates,
based on an extrapolation of the NISP results to Europe, that an investment of €250 million (as
operating costs of the programme) would generate environmental benefits of 52 million tonnes
of landfill diversion and 46 million tonnes of CO2 reduction. The report ‘Cooperation fostering
industrial symbiosis: market potential, good practice and policy actions’ by University College
London, Technopolis Group and Trinomics (2018) estimates cost avoidance linked to waste
prevention and landfill diversion of €73 billion, and value generated by secondary materials in a
range of €7 billion to €13 billion.
Although the potential for industrial symbiosis is very much dependant on local conditions, such
as proximity of potential matches, it is expected that, in general, national plans may lead to an
increase in the uptake/implementation of industrial symbiosis, which will decrease consumption
of resources compared to the separately conducted, individual industrial activities.
The report further refers to a particularity of the Basque country’s approach, in which they use
the knowledge of IPPC activities to promote regional synergies. According to the publication on
this approach ‘36 Circular Economy demonstration projects in the Basque country. Results from
business initiatives39
. The report ‘IED contribution to the circular Economy’ (Ricardo and
VITO, 2019), contains a number of case studies with their resource savings and other
environmental and financial benefits, and several other reports and databases are available.
However, with the information available at this stage, it is not possible to estimate the potential
that could be realised by requiring national authorities to establish national plans. The reports
and studies identified suggest that evidence available is limited and fragmented, and that IS
activity may be unreported.
Stakeholders participating in the TSS were asked about the untapped potential of IED actions for
the following categories: Water use efficiency & water reuse; Choice of primary/ secondary
feedstock and fuels; Waste reduction and recycling; Energy use; and Improved environmental
performance over the supply chain. One of these IED actions was ‘Promotion of industrial
symbiosis by Member States/regions/intra-sector and inter-sector local systems’. Overall,
industry stakeholders and national authorities expected the lowest and similar levels of untapped
potential across categories (mostly around -0.4 on a scale from -1 to 1), whilst they had higher
expectations for the potential across waste reduction and recycling. Local and regional
authorities (mostly +0.4, but +0.2 for water) and Environmental NGO (mostly +1.0, but +0.25
for energy) expected higher levels of potential across all categories.
39
(Ihobe, 2016) “In a successful outcome, the projEUts estimate potential savings of 276,000 tonnes of materials
per year, a turnover of 38.7 million euros annually and the creation of 156 new jobs”
413
Social impacts
This measure has unclear impacts on employment.
Summary of problem area 3 measures
For the measures presented in problem area 3, Table 18 summarises the Economic,
environmental and social impacts of the measures using the qualitative ratings. Overall, these
policy measures would generate limited to negative Economic impacts, positive environmental
impacts and limited social impacts at least in the shorter to medium term. This suggests that, as a
response to these policies, IED operators may incur some Economic costs to improve their
energy, water and materials efficiency through implementation of measures that would facilitate
such efficiency improvements. The analysis primarily qualitative, and the benefits are especially
uncertain as they depend on the outcomes of technological advances and investment decisions by
operators.
Table A8-18: Summary of Economic, environmental and social impacts for measures in problem
area 3
Policy measures Economic impacts Environmental impacts
Social impacts
(employment focus)
#23   O
#24   O
#25   O
#26   U/O
Table A8-19 similarly uses qualitative ratings to summarise costs and benefits for measures in problem
area 3. Overall, expected benefits associated with measures 23, 24 and 25 to increase energy, water and
materials efficiency through implementation of measures that would facilitate such improvements are
likely to outweigh costs. There is uncertainty, however, associated with the cost and benefit balance of
introducing national symbiosis requirements (#26).
414
Table A8-19: Summary of costs and benefits for measures in problem area 3, with central estimates
of administrative costs for businesses and public authorities shown
Policy measure
Administrative costs
– businesses (€m/yr)
Administrative costs
– public authorities
(€m/yr)
Overall costs Overall benefits
#23 7 6  
#24 16 12  
#25 46 23  
#26 No/limited Not estimated  


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Strasbourg, 5.4.2022
SWD(2022) 111 final
PART 4/5
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the documents
Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November
2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council
Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste
and
Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on reporting of environmental data from industrial installations and establishing an
Industrial Emissions Portal
{COM(2022) 156 final} - {SEC(2022) 169 final} - {SWD(2022) 110 final} -
{SWD(2022) 112 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0156 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
415
Annex 8: Impact of Shortlisted Measures – Industrial
Emissions Directive
Problem area 4: The IED’s contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions has been
limited
There are four measures shortlisted to address the problems, drivers and consequences
associated with this problem area. For example, the IED’s design and implementation to date
have not prioritised greenhouse gas emissions and, as a result, the IED has not been as
effective as it could be in contributing to reducing GHG (Ricardo et al, 2020).
We have structured these measures based on the specific problems they are trying to tackle
and provide a description, outline the requirements for implementation and a rapid
assessment of their impacts. Following this, we provide an overview of the Economic,
environmental, and social impacts supported by evidence.
Measure 27: Delete Article 9(2) that exempts (agro-) industrial installations
from setting requirements relating to energy efficiency in respect of
combustion units or other units emitting carbon dioxide on the site.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure would ask operators of IED installations to develop a plan that would comply
with energy efficiency requirements, where energy efficiency concerns the carbon emitting
technical units rather than energy efficiency per ton of product.
The definition of energy efficiency is key for this measure from the outset, especially given
the different ways in which energy efficiency is defined and considered in other EU legal
instruments. If it were defined per ton of product, there could be barriers to implementation
associated with confidential business information. Similarly, setting a range of energy
efficiencies may get pushed back from industry.
Having considered this, energy efficiency in this proposed measure has been defined in terms
of carbon emitting units.
Objectives:
The measure seeks to enhance the energy efficiency of IED installations. This measure will,
therefore, contribute to the general objective of achieving carbon neutrality in the EU, and
more specifically, support the decarbonisation of the (agro-)industrial sectors covered by the
IED.
Implementation needs:
 EU to define energy efficiency for the purposes of this proposed measure and scope
for carbon emitting technical units
416
 Authorities and operators to establish a monitoring and reporting / enforcement
approach that is proportionate and effective, building e.g. on the approach used for
EMS BAT conclusions
 Operators to follow through with the plan’s implementation and engage in periodic
discussions (during inspections or otherwise) with the competent authorities to review
the conditions of the permits
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts when compared
to the baseline, depending on the number and ambition of additional energy efficiency plans
developed as a result of this measure.
Operating costs and the conduct of businesses: PO4-a-energy efficiency will also lead to
an increase in CAPEX and OPEX for IED operators, who would be required to increase
decarbonisation and energy efficiency efforts. This, however, could lead to more carbon
allowances becoming available for trading in the ETS, which could impact the carbon price
and affect incentives for emissions reductions in other ETS sectors. The scale of impact will
depend on whether are measures are taken to address potential impacts on the carbon price,
e.g. through the Market Stability Reserve, the timing of measures, derogations allowed, speed
of technological advancement, technology cost curves, and energy efficiency gains achieved.
Subsequent to the initial investment, operators’ life cycle costs would diminish. Given the
evidence available and significant uncertainties, it has not been possible to quantify these
impacts.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to negative impacts on administrative burden on businesses,
primarily from the development of additional energy efficiency plans. The measure will
require adjustments to the BREF and permitting processes, which are likely to increase the
frequency and duration of administrative activities for businesses and public authorities.
A review of the evidence suggests that a marginal cost could be expected, since energy
efficiency is already encouraged in certain BAT conclusions and around half of the
installations may already have energy efficiency plans in place. This marginal administrative
cost would, therefore, be incurred by approximately 26 000 IED installations, each of which
may require time and resources to develop and implement these plans.
To estimate core planning costs for these installations, the Ecodesign Directive could be a
starting point. The Ecodesign Directive provides rules for improving the environmental
performance of products, setting increasing minimum mandatory requirements for the energy
efficiency of these products. An energy efficiency plan under the IED could ensure that the
Ecodesign requirements are better implemented and, therefore, allow more efficient forms of
combustion when compared to the baseline. To estimate the impacts of energy efficiency
requirements, two different industries can be taken as representative examples, that is the
417
industry for electronic displays1
and the one for welding equipment2
. In the first case, because
of commercial interest, no administrative burden for the industry is expected. In the second
example, the administrative costs associated with reporting and communication of energy and
material efficiency data in the supply chain is very low with respect to expected revenues
from the measure.
In the baseline, the costs to operators from engaging in these activities are estimated based on
multiple sources outlined earlier in this Annex:
 One-off costs associated with permit reviews (once every 10 years)
 Costs associated with BREF reviews (once every 10 years per sector)
 Annual monitoring and reporting costs (once every year)
 Costs associated with supporting inspections (once every two years)
Upon the adoption of this measure and over a 20-year period, the additional effort required is
uncertain although, based on expert judgement, it is assumed that it would lead to an addition
of 10% over the baseline. As a result, over this period, additional administrative costs could
range between €1 million and €44 million each year for operators, on average, with a central
estimate of around €29 million each year.
Additional administrative costs would be incurred if this measure is implemented in isolation,
especially as there would be a need for operators to expand their efforts with review permits,
the BREF review process, receive and maintain more reported data, and support inspections
and other enforcement-related activities.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to have weakly negative impacts on the costs of doing business. For
those installations without an energy efficiency plan especially, this measure would be
expected to require capital investments earlier than planned, bringing therefore costs forward.
Further, operating cost impacts would depend on the measures implemented. Lower energy
costs would be expected although further evidence could be sourced from the IA of
Ecodesign Directive, considering the two industry examples mentioned above.
In particular, energy efficiency measures are estimated to create €66 billion in extra revenue
for European companies per year3
.
For those industries for which no correlation is expected between the retail prices and the
energy efficiency (such as for electronic displays), business revenues and jobs will not differ
from the BAU scenario4
. In addition, market competitiveness requires dynamic industries to
invest in production, redesign, and test more efficient products, whose costs will be absorbed
by the industry.
Differently, investments for energy and material savings are possible for welding equipment.
However, initial investments by the industry and retail sector are compensated by the higher
1
SWD/2019/0354 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52019SC0354
2
SWD/2019/0340 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52019SC0340
3
https://EU.europa.eu/info/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-
labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-EUodesign/about_en
4
SWD/2019/0354 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52019SC0354
418
revenues generated5
. As for the previous example, compliance and redesign costs are not
expected to increase because they are a common practice in the industry.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure would likely lead to limited to no impacts on competitiveness and weakly
positive impacts on levelling the playing field. The costs of the measure are unlikely to be
significant to affect the competitiveness of EU businesses in a global context. The measure
would require all installations across the EU to introduce energy efficiency plans and,
therefore, would lead to a more level playing field when compared to the baseline.
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to lead to limited to no impacts on the position of SMEs. The measure
is not expected to affect small and large businesses differently.
In particular, considering the Ecodesign directive example, for some industries (e.g.
electronic displays), SMEs do not work in the production chain and no impact is expected on
SMEs retailers6
.
Innovation and research
This measure may have a limited to no impact on research and development, as it is not
focussed on pushing the innovation frontier but rather implementing available techniques/
equipment. This said, this measure will likely encourage more investment in developing and
testing innovative techniques and technologies, to help operators comply in a cost-efficient
manner with potentially more stringent energy efficiency and GHG requirements,.
Setting ambitious mandatory minimum Ecodesign-style requirements would boost
innovation in terms of energy efficiency, as currently there is no relevant Research and
Development in the field of display-technology in the EU7
.
For welding equipment-like industries, the Ecodesign regulation with energy efficiency
measures is not expected to lead to any significant structural increase in R&D budgets.
Energy-efficient products are already commercially available on the market. However, SMEs
may undertake investments to adapt the supply chain routes to the required power source
technology change8
.
Public authority impacts
This measure will likely lead to negative impacts on public authorities.
A review of the evidence suggests that a marginal cost could be expected, since energy
efficiency is already encouraged in certain BAT conclusions and around half of the
installations may already have energy efficiency plans in place. This marginal administrative
cost would, therefore, be incurred by approximately 26 000 IED installations, each of which
may require time and resources to develop and implement these plans.
5
SWD/2019/0340 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52019SC0340
6
SWD/2019/0354 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52019SC0354
7
SWD/2019/0354 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52019SC0354
8
SWD/2019/0340 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52019SC0340
419
In the baseline, the costs to operators from engaging in these activities are estimated based on
multiple sources outlined earlier in this Annex:
 One-off costs associated with permit reviews (once every 10 years)
 Costs associated with BREF reviews (once every 10 years per sector)
 Annual costs from engaging with information received from operators and
maintaining systems (once every year)
 Costs associated with leading and managing inspections (once every two years)
Upon the adoption of this measure and over a 20-year period, the additional effort required is
uncertain although, based on expert judgement, it is assumed that it would lead to an addition
of 10% over the baseline. As a result, over this period, additional administrative costs could
range between €2 million and €29 million each year for operators, on average, with a central
estimate of around €21 million each year.
Additional administrative costs would be incurred if this measure is implemented in isolation,
especially as there would be a need for public authorities to expand their efforts with review
permits, the BREF review process, receive and maintain more reported data, and manage
expanded inspections and other enforcement-related activities.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts when
compared to the baseline, depending on the number and ambition of additional energy
efficiency plans developed as a result of this measure.
Climate
This measure will likely lead to weakly positive to positive impacts on climate. This
measure is expected to improve the energy efficiency of IED installations across the EU
when compared to the baseline, and, as a result contribute to achieving EU Green Deal
objectives9
. The scale of this impact will likely vary by sector, with those operating bespoke
energy systems such as iron and steel installations likely to see less savings than those sectors
using a more standard energy boiler/ generator system, although the evidence is limited. This
option should also have positive knock-on effects on air quality and other environmental
categories via reduced fuel use and combustion.
Illustratively, the environmental impacts derived from energy efficiency measures can be
estimated using the Ecodesign and the Energy labelling directives as a comparative example.
Such pieces of legislation are estimated to bring energy savings of approximately 230 Mtoe
by 203010
.
More specifically, energy efficiency measures for electronic display-like industries under the
Ecodesign directive are estimated to produce a cumulative decrease in GHG emissions with
respect to baseline, from 22 to 98 Mt CO2 eq/a in the period 2021-2030. Similarly, EU
9
https://carbonmarketwatch.org/publications/a-new-industry-framework-for-achieving-the-eu-green-deal-
zero-pollution-goal/
10
https://EU.europa.eu/info/energy-climate-change-environment/standards-tools-and-labels/products-
labelling-rules-and-requirements/energy-label-and-EUodesign/about_en
420
electricity consumption would decrease between 64 and 277 TWh/yr with respect to baseline
in the same period11
.
Energy efficiency measures for welding equipment-like industries under the Ecodesign
directive are estimated to produce a cumulative decrease in GHG emissions with respect to
baseline, from 1.73 to 3.03 Mt CO2 eq/a in the period 2019-2030. Similarly, EU electricity
consumption would decrease between 6.18 and 10.3 TWh/yr with respect to baseline in the
same period12
.
Air quality
This measure is likely to result in a weakly positive impact on air quality. Energy efficiency
measures are expected to have a direct impact on reducing the emission of pollutants to air
when compared to the baseline.
Other environmental impacts
This measure will likely have limited to no impacts on water quality and resources; soil
quality and resources; waste production, generation and recycling; and the efficient use of
resources.
Social impacts
This measure specifically is likely to result in a limited to no impact on employment,
although some employment opportunities may arise from the development and
implementation of the energy efficiency plans. No impact on EU employment is expected for
products for which no correlation is expected between energy efficiency and retail price13
.
However, it should be noted that environmental impacts, especially the reduction on
emissions to air, are likely to have positive impacts on public health in the EU, by reducing
the risk of disease, especially respiratory disease, and leading to reductions in health and
social care costs across the EU. Any reductions in GHG emissions would contribute to
climate change mitigation.
Measure 28: Introduce a review clause of the interface between the IED and the
ETS
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
Article 9(1) of the IED prevents the setting of emission limit values in permits for GHG
where those emissions are addressed under the EU ETS. This measure introduces an
opportunity to review the coherence of the two directives and identify how to maximise
synergies between them in achieving the EU’s climate objectives.
Objectives:
11
SWD/2019/0354 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52019SC0354
12
SWD/2019/0340 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52019SC0340
13
SWD/2019/0354 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52019SC0354
421
The measure will aim to consider ways in which to maximise the synergies between the IED
and climate policy, in particular the ETS. This measure could, therefore, contribute to the
general objective of achieving carbon neutrality in the EU, and more specifically, support the
decarbonisation of the (agro-)industrial sectors covered by the IED.
Implementation needs:
 Competent Authorities to engage with stakeholders and consider whether the IED
could better contribute to EU climate objectives more directly and in a way that
maximise synergies with the EU ETS.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
This measure is likely to have limited to no direct economic impacts. The measure would
have very limited administrative burden impacts, primarily on public authorities, although
operators may be consulted, since a review would be carried out in the EU policy context.
Environmental impacts
This measure is likely to have limited to no direct environmental impacts. However,
reviewing what steps may be most effective with regards to synergies between IED and ETS
could help ensure that any potential conflicts with the ETS mechanism are avoided and, as
result, maximise the potential positive benefits.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to result in limited to no direct impacts on employment across the
EU.
Measure 29: Introduce a limit of 2035 (‘sunset date’) beyond which the
exemption for (agro-) industrial plants from setting GHG ELVs
requirements in permit conditions if they are regulated by the EU ETS will
not apply.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
Article 9(1) of the IED prevents the setting of emission limit values in permits for GHG
where those emissions are addressed under the EU ETS. This measure would seek to
introduce ELVs for GHG into permit conditions for IED installations from 2035, as an
alternative to the immediate deletion of Article 9(1) considered in the following section. 2035
was chosen as a point between the 2030’s target of 55% emissions reduction and 2050’s
carbon neutrality goal. This would provide the industry with time to review and adjust their
course of action so they can contribute to the EU’s journey towards climate neutrality.
Further, deferring the deletion of Article 9(1) would also provide time to consider further the
interaction between the IED and the EU ETS to ensure coherence and effective
implementation.
Objectives:
422
The measure will aim to address GHG emissions more directly as part of the IED permitting
process. This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of achieving carbon
neutrality in the EU, and more specifically, support the decarbonisation of the (agro-
)industrial sectors covered by the IED.
Implementation needs:
 Competent Authorities to consider actions to ensure coherence between the IED and
EU ETS.
 All stakeholders involved in the BREF process would consider BAT-AELs for GHG
emissions from 2035, although industry’s implementation of any substantive actions
may take an additional 5-10 years.
 Operators and Competent Authorities would consider these BAT conclusions in any
new or updated permits.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
This measure is likely to have limited to weakly economic impacts in the period. The
measure would have similar albeit delayed impacts associated with measure 30, which is an
alternative.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on administrative burden on
businesses. Additional administrative costs would be incurred, especially as there would be a
need to include GHG emissions as part of permit reviews, the BREF review process, monitor
and report more data, and engage with inspections and other enforcement-related activities.
In the baseline, the costs to operators from engaging in these activities are estimated based on
multiple sources, as outlined earlier in this Annex:
 One-off costs associated with permit reviews (once every 10 years)
 Costs associated with BREF reviews (once every 10 years per sector)
 Annual monitoring and reporting costs (once every year)
 Costs associated with supporting inspections (once every two years)
These additional costs would only affect IED installations from 2035 or thereafter. It is
assumed that there would be a period longer than 5 years over which operators can adjust to
the new requirements; and that around 13 000 installations may be affected by this measure
within the period. Each of these operators will require time and resources to implement this
measure. The additional effort required is uncertain although, based on expert judgement, it is
assumed to be an additional 10% over the baseline for each of the activities outlined.
As a result, additional administrative costs for operators could reach between €0.7 million
and €23 million each year over a 20-year period, on average, with a central estimate of
around €15 million each year. These costs are averaged over the period for comparison in a
context where implementation timings are generally uncertain and undefined, even though in
this case they would be backloaded from 2035.
423
Having said this, Article 8 of the EU ETS states that Member States shall take the necessary
measures to ensure that, where installations carry out activities that are included in Annex I to
IED, the conditions and procedure for the issue of a GHG emissions permit are coordinated
with those for the issue of a permit provided for in that Directive. This can reduce the
administrative burden on IED installation operators for obtaining and managing permits
where both Directives apply, although the magnitude of this impact is likely to be small albeit
uncertain given the evidence available.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the costs of doing business.
Compliance costs could differ significantly by sector and would be incurred from 2035 and
more likely within 5-10 years. However, stricter GHG requirements would likely result in
changes to capital and operating expenditure. This may be explored further through the use of
case studies.
This measure may also free up allowances and, as a result, business may invest in research
and development to identify and introduce technologies and/or techniques that comply with a
plausible EU’s carbon neutrality pathway. The iron and steel roadmap developed by Eurofer
can be used to identify an example of a potential pathway.
It is not feasible to estimate these costs without further evidence on how installations may
expect to transform over the coming decades and associated costs when compared to the
baseline.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure will likely lead to limited to no impact on competitiveness, and a weakly
positive impact on levelling the playing field. Costs for businesses would increase albeit not
significantly and, therefore, the position of EU businesses in the global context would not
necessarily worsen as a result of this measure. It is also unlikely to benefit businesses, unless
decarbonising relatively early could lead to a first-mover advantage and/or acquiring
competitive advantage against businesses operating outside of the EU.
The measure will, however, likely lead to an increase in CAPEX and OPEX for IED
operators, who would be required to increase decarbonisation and energy efficiency efforts.
This, however, could lead to more carbon allowances becoming available for trading in the
ETS, which could impact the carbon price and affect incentives for emissions reductions in
other ETS sectors. The scale of impact will depend on whether are measures are taken to
address potential impacts on the carbon price, e.g. through the Market Stability Reserve, the
timing of measures, derogations allowed, speed of technological advancement, technology
cost curves, and energy efficiency gains achieved. Subsequent to the initial investment,
operators’ life cycle costs would diminish. Given the evidence available and significant
uncertainties, it has not been possible to quantify these impacts. It is notable that the measure
would likely result in a more consistent approach across the EU (in terms of defining GHG
ELVs in permit conditions).
424
Position of SMEs
The measure is not expected to affect businesses disproportionately depending on their size.
Innovation and research
This measure may have a weakly positive impact on research and development. A recent
study on the wider environmental impacts of industry decarbonisation14
by Wood reviewed
new technologies that can address GHG emissions and considered their level readiness of
readiness. One of the conclusions was that needing to comply with GHG ELVs was one of
the drivers for why these technologies were being researched and developed. It is, therefore,
expected that the (agro-)industry may seek to invest in research and development to identify,
test and introduce technologies and/or techniques that would allow them to comply with new
ELVs in a manner that is as cost-efficient as possible.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to have a weakly negative impact on public authorities. Additional
administrative costs would be incurred, especially as there would be a need to include GHG
emissions as part of permit reviews, the BREF review process, manage and maintain more
complex information systems, and manage with inspections and other enforcement-related
activities.
In the baseline, the costs to public authorities from engaging in these activities are estimated
based on multiple sources outlined earlier in this Annex:
 One-off costs associated with permit reviews (once every 10 years)
 Costs associated with BREF reviews (once every 10 years per sector)
 Annual costs from engaging with information received from operators and
maintaining systems (once every year)
 Costs associated with leading and managing inspections (once every two years)
These additional costs would only affect IED installations from 2035 or thereafter. It is
assumed that there would be a period longer than 5 years over which operators can adjust to
the new requirements; and that around 13 000 installations may be affected by this measure
within the period. Public authorities will require time and resources to d implement this
measure. The additional effort required is uncertain although, based on expert judgement, it is
assumed to be an additional 10% over the baseline for each of the activities outlined.
As a result, additional administrative costs for public authorities could range between €1
million and €17 million each year over a 20-year period, on average, with a central estimate
of around €11 million each year. These costs are averaged over the period for comparison in
a context where implementation timings are generally uncertain and undefined, even though
in this case they would be backloaded from 2035.
14
Wood, Deloitte, IEEP (2021). Wider environmental impacts of industry decarbonisation.
425
Environmental impacts
This measure is likely to have limited to weakly positive environmental impacts, as these
will primarily depend upon how this measure would affect the policy outcomes of the EU
ETS.
Climate
IED#29 may result in GHG emission reductions at the specific installations, depending on the
stringency of GHG emission limits derived under IED. Overall, the impacts on climate are
unclear. The measure may also have other positive environmental impacts, such as on air
quality and resource use, as decarbonisation techniques may have also positive impacts on
overall depollution, and hence environmental protection. The IED #29 sunset clause
regarding Article 9(1) may, however, delay potential positive impacts, compared to the
immediate deletion of Article 9(1).
Coherence between potential changes to the IED and the EU ETS should be considered
further to ensure that these potential negative impacts are mitigated (e.g. aligning these
impacts with a reduction in carbon allowances). Any of these potential impacts would be
deferred to 2035-2045.
Air quality
This measure is likely to result in limited to weakly positive impacts on air quality. This
measure would encourage a more holistic approach towards all core polluting emissions,
including GHG, which is likely to lead to actions that are more closely aligned with the EU’s
general objectives. However, considering the market interference with the EU ETS, the
overall effects of deleting Article 9(1) are not clear. Any of these potential impacts would be
deferred to 2035-2045. There are significant uncertainties that limit our ability to quantify
these impacts reasonably.
Other environmental impacts
This measure will likely have a limited to no impact on water quality and resources; soil
quality and resources; waste production, generation and recycling; and the efficient use of
resources.
Social impacts
This measure specifically is likely to result in limited to weakly positive impact on
employment. Additional employment might be required to comply with new obligations and
produce and use additional information in the BREF process.
426
Measure 30: Delete Article 9(1) that exempts (agro-) industrial plants from
setting GHG ELVs requirements in permit conditions if they are regulated
by the EU ETS.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
Article 9(1) of the IED prevents the setting of emission limit values in permits for GHG
where those emissions are addressed under the EU ETS. The legislation that transposes the
IED in the majority of MS (21 out of 27) does not include emission or concentration limits
for CO2
15
. This measure would change this by deleting this provision, thereby allowing IED
permits to contain GHG ELVs. Consequently, BREFs would set BAT-AELs for GHG
emissions.
This provision was included in the IED to avoid unintended consequences or interference
with the market mechanism employed under the EU ETS16
. This potential interaction should
be considered prior to implementation of this measure to limit any negative impact on the EU
ETS mechanism.
It is proposed that this measure is implemented with an initial focus on sectors emitting
relatively more GHG emissions. This may include gas refineries, combustion plants,
production of cement, and iron and steel production.
This measure would be expected to lead to implementing some actions by operators from
2030, especially given the expected timings for updated/ revisions of pertinent BREFs by
2026, and the follow-on implementation of permits requirements by IED installation
operators.
Objectives:
The measure will aim to address GHG emissions more directly as part of the IED permitting
process. This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of achieving carbon
neutrality in the EU, and more specifically, support the decarbonisation of the (agro-
)industrial sectors covered by the IED.
Implementation needs:
 Competent Authorities to consider actions to ensure coherence between the IED and
EU ETS.
 All stakeholders involved in the BREF process would consider BAT-AELs for GHG
emissions immediately, although industry’s implementation of any substantive actions
may take an additional 5-10 years.
 Operators and Competent Authorities would consider these BAT conclusions in any
new or updated permits.
15
https://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/application-of-the-european-union
16
https://eeb.org/library/eeb-comments-to-the-european-commission-study-preliminary-determination-of-
key-environmental-issues-kei-for-industrial-sEUtors-in-bref-reviews-under-the-ied/ argues that no double
regulation would exist as a result of the different mechanisms by which emissions are addressed under the IED
and EU ETS.
427
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative Economic impacts when compared
to the baseline.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to negative impacts on administrative burden on businesses.
Additional administrative costs would be incurred, especially as there would be a need to
include GHG emissions as part of permit reviews, the BREF review process, monitor and
report more data, and engage with inspections and other enforcement-related activities.
In the baseline, the costs to operators from engaging in these activities are estimated based on
multiple sources outlined earlier in this Annex:
 One-off costs associated with permit reviews (once every 10 years)
 Costs associated with BREF reviews (once every 10 years per sector)
 Annual monitoring and reporting costs (once every year)
 Costs associated with supporting inspections (once every two years)
This measure would affect all of the existing 52 000 IED installations (and new ones) over
the 20-year period. Each of these operators will require time and resources to implement this
measure. The additional effort required is uncertain although, based on expert judgement, it is
assumed to be an additional 10% over the baseline for each of the activities outlined. As a
result, additional administrative costs for operators could reach between €2 million and €86
million each year over a 20-year period, on average, with a central estimate of around €56
million each year.
Having said this, Article 8 of the EU ETS states that Member States shall take the necessary
measures to ensure that, where installations carry out activities that are included in Annex I to
IED, the conditions and procedure for the issue of a GHG emissions permit are coordinated
with those for the issue of a permit provided for in that Directive. This can reduce the
administrative burden on IED installation operators for obtaining and managing permits
where both Directives apply, although the magnitude of this impact is likely to be small albeit
uncertain given the evidence available.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on the costs of doing business.
Substantive compliance costs could differ significantly by sector. However, stricter GHG
requirements would likely result in an increase in CAPEX and OPEX for IED operators, who
would be required to increase decarbonisation and energy efficiency efforts. This, however,
could lead to more carbon allowances becoming available for trading in the ETS, which
could impact the carbon price and affect incentives for emissions reductions in other ETS
sectors. The scale of impact will depend on whether are measures are taken to address
potential impacts on the carbon price, e.g. through the Market Stability Reserve, the timing of
measures, derogations allowed, speed of technological advancement, technology cost curves,
and energy efficiency gains achieved. Subsequent to the initial investment, operators’ life
428
cycle costs would diminish. Given the evidence available and significant uncertainties, it has
not been possible to quantify these impacts.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure will likely lead to limited to no impact on competitiveness, and a weakly
positive impact on levelling the playing field. Costs for businesses would increase albeit not
significantly and, therefore, the position of EU businesses in the global context would not
necessarily worsen as a result of this measure. It is also unlikely to benefit businesses unless
decarbonising relatively early could lead to a first-mover advantage and/or acquiring
competitive advantage against businesses operating outside of the EU.
The measure would likely result in a more consistent approach across the EU (in terms of
defining GHG ELVs in permit conditions). However, issues could arise from market
interference with the EU ETS. The carbon price would be impacted by imposing more
ambitious objectives to reduce (agro-)industrial emissions, an environmental performance
approach that contrasts with the EU ETS mechanism which allows the market to determine
the appropriate price for carbon. More specifically, carbon allowances granted under the EU
ETS to an IED-regulated sector could become available for trading i.e. increasing supply of
allowances, thus deflating the CO2 price.
Position of SMEs
The measure is not expected to affect smaller businesses disproportionately.
Innovation and research
This measure may have a weakly positive impact on research and development. A study on
the wider environmental impacts of industry decarbonisation17
by Wood reviewed new
technologies that can address GHG emissions and considered their level of readiness.
One of the conclusions was that needing to comply with GHG ELVs was one of the drivers
for why these technologies were being researched and developed. It is, therefore, expected
that the (agro-)industry may seek to invest in research and development to identify and
introduce technologies and/or techniques that would allow them to comply with new ELVs as
efficiently as possible.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to have a negative impact on public authorities. Additional
administrative costs would be incurred, especially as there would be a need to include GHG
emissions as part of permit reviews, the BREF review process, manage and maintain more
complex information systems, and manage with inspections and other enforcement-related
activities.
In the baseline, the costs to operators from engaging in these activities are estimated based on
multiple sources outlined earlier in this Annex:
 One-off costs associated with permit reviews (once every 10 years)
17
Wood, Deloitte, IEEP (2021). Wider environmental impacts of industry decarbonisation.
429
 Costs associated with BREF reviews (once every 10 years per sector)
 Annual monitoring and reporting costs (once every year)
 Costs associated with supporting inspections (once every two years)
This measure would affect all of the existing 52 000 IED installations (and new ones) over
the 20-year period. Public authorities will require time and resources to implement this
measure. The additional effort required is uncertain although, based on expert judgement, it is
assumed to be an additional 10% over the baseline for each of the activities outlined. As a
result, additional administrative costs for public authorities could reach between €3 million
and €55 million each year over a 20-year period, on average, with a central estimate of
around €40 million each year.
Environmental impacts
This measure is likely to have limited to weakly positive environmental impacts, as these
will primarily depend upon how this measure would affect the policy outcomes the EU ETS.
Climate
This measure will likely have unclear impacts on climate. Immediate deletion would likely
result in GHG emission reductions at the specific installations, depending on the stringency
of GHG emission limits derived under IED. This may also have other positive environmental
impacts, such as on air quality and resource use, as decarbonisation techniques may have also
positive impacts on overall depollution, and hence environmental protection.
There are significant uncertainties that limit our ability to quantify these impacts reasonably.
For example, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies can capture CO2 emissions
produced and/or associated with industrial processes18
. CCS in industrial applications is
projected to facilitate a reduction of CO2 emissions by up to 4.0 Gt a year by 205019
,
approximately 9% of the global reductions needed to halve energy-related CO2 emissions in
2050. Such an outcome would require the installation of CCS equipment in 20%-40% of
industrial and fuel transformation plants by 205020
. These actions could be encouraged by
introducing GHG ELVs.
According to Carbon Market Watch, this measure would enable a combined approach to
GHG emissions21
. “The prohibition in Art. 9(1) of the IED on including limits on GHG
emissions in IED operating permits is unhelpful, and it unnecessarily restricts the options
available to Member States with respect to undertaking measures that promote GHG emission
reductions of industrial installations”.22
Forcing stricter performance-based standards for
18
http://www.ccsassociation.org/what-is-ccs/
19
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/TEUhnologyRoadmapCarbonCaptureandStorage.p
df
20
The Role of Industrial Emissions Within the EU: Trends and Policy | Climate Policy Info Hub
21
https://carbonmarketwatch.org/publications/a-new-industry-framework-for-achieving-the-eu-green-deal-
zero-pollution-goal/
22
https://carbonmarketwatch.org/publications/carbon-market-watchs-response-to-the-inception-impact-
assessment-on-industrial-emissions-dirEUtive-revision/
430
GHG pollution and energy efficiency not only leads to incremental improvements for wider
air pollution but also benefits resource consumption aspects as well as climate protection.
Air quality
This measure is likely to result in limited to weakly positive impacts on air quality. This
measure would encourage a more holistic approach towards all core polluting emissions,
including GHG, which is likely to lead to actions that are more closely aligned with the EU’s
general objectives. However, considering the market interference with the EU ETS, the
overall effects of deleting Article 9(1) are not clear. There are significant uncertainties that
limit our ability to quantify these impacts reasonably.
Other environmental impacts
This measure will likely have a limited to no impact on water quality and resources; soil
quality and resources; waste production, generation and recycling; and the efficient use of
resources.
Social impacts
The measure is likely to have a weak or insignificant impact on employment in the EU.
Additional employment might be required to comply with new obligations (particularly with
regard to new techniques to reduce GHG emissions); however, additional CAPEX/ OPEX
expenditure by operators might result in some (possibly temporary) loss of jobs.
A clearer benefits is that the aforementioned associated positive environmental impacts,
especially the reduction on emissions to air, are likely to have positive impacts on public
health in the EU, by reducing the risk of disease, especially respiratory disease, and leading to
reductions in health and social care costs across the EU. Any reductions in GHG emissions
would also contribute to climate change mitigation.
Summary of problem area 4 measures
For the measures presented in problem area 4, Table 20 summarises the Economic,
environmental and social impacts of the measures using the qualitative ratings. Overall, these
policy measures would generate weakly negative Economic impacts, weakly positive
environmental impacts and limited social impacts at least in the shorter to medium term. This
suggests that, as a response to these policies, IED operators may incur some Economic costs
to improve their energy efficiency and/or carbon footprint, with associated by-product
environmental benefits on air quality and others. The analysis primarily qualitative, and the
benefits are especially uncertain as they depend on technological progress and investment
decisions by operators.
Table A8-20: Summary of Economic, environmental and social impacts for measures in
problem area 4
Policy measures Economic impacts Environmental impacts
Social impacts
(employment focus)
431
Policy measures Economic impacts Environmental impacts
Social impacts
(employment focus)
#27   O
#28 O/ O/ O
#29   
#30   
Table A8-21 similarly uses qualitative ratings to summarise costs and benefits for measures
in problem area 4. Overall, expected benefits associated with measures 27 and 28 are likely to
outweigh the costs. These measures would address some of the IED’s limitations in
contributing to the EU’s climate objectives. There is uncertainty, however, associated with
the cost and benefit balance of deleting Article 9(1) prior to an in-depth review that can
ensure coherence with the EU ETS, especially for measure #30, which presents an
unbalanced position due to the uncertainty around the potential benefits to GHG emissions in
the EU-27.
Table A8-21: Summary of costs and benefits for measures in problem area 4, with central
estimates of administrative costs for businesses and public authorities shown
Policy measure
Administrative
costs –
businesses
(€m/yr)
Administrative
costs – public
authorities
(€m/yr)
Overall costs Overall benefits
#27 29 21  
#28 No/limited No/limited O O
#29 15 15  
#30 56 40  
432
Problem area 5: The IED does not regulate some highly polluting (agro-)
industrial sectors
Introduction to Measures 31 to 33:
The first three measures considered in this section are inter-related. They are:
 ( 31 ) Include cattle farming within the scope of the IED. This measure needs to
define a threshold for farm size above which the cattle farms would be considered
within the IED. The capacity threshold could be set based on number of places or on
the basis of livestock units (LSUs), a reference unit that facilitates the aggregation of
livestock from various species and age. A threshold within the range of 50-150
Livestock Units (LSU) could mean that an additional 84 000-330 000 cattle farms
could be regulated under the IED.
 ( 32 ) Amend the capacity thresholds of the rearing of pigs and poultry (IRPP)
considered under activity 6.6 of Annex I. This measure seeks to consider lowering
the current capacity thresholds to include the environmental impacts of slightly
smaller farms. The thresholds could be set using number of places or based on LSUs.
A threshold within the range of 50-150 LSU could mean that additional 77 000-187
000 poultry and pig farms could be regulated under the IED.
 ( 33 ) Introduce a tailored regulatory framework for installations carrying out
rearing of animals. Around 40% of the existing IED installations are related to
rearing of animals. The IED’s scope expansion would include cattle farming and more
poultry and pig farms, leading to around four to eleven times more installations that
would be regulated by IED. This would translate into significant additional
administrative and operational burden for businesses and public authorities and,
therefore, a lighter administrative process is proposed for all installations rearing
animals with this tailored regulatory framework.
The tailored regulatory approach as introduced above, would need to be introduced hand-in-
hand with the measures to introduce cattle farms and to reduce the existing IRPP threshold, in
order to avoid an overly burdensome regulatory cost to business and authorities. It is also
important to note upfront that for both the cattle farms and the smaller IRPP farms, some
Member States already regulate these activities (but from varying capacity thresholds) and so
existing permitting approaches in these MS will be allowed to stay “as is” for MS who wish
to apply it to IED installations covered by IRPP requirements or to cattle farms that are
already regulated. The collective arrangements among these three measures will also likely
need a revised BREF, in which the interactions and possibilities of the three measures
described here will be examined in totality.
Measure 31: Include cattle farming within the scope of the IED
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
Include cattle farming within the scope of the IED. A potential approach would be to include
a capacity threshold expressed in animal places that is comparable to thresholds for similar
environmental impacts for the IRPP sector. This similarity can be achieved by calculating the
new threshold on the basis of the equivalent livestock units (LSUs), a reference unit which
433
facilitates the aggregation of livestock from various species and age. This means, for
example, that thresholds expressed in animal places between cattle farming and the IRPP
sector are similar in terms of livestock units, but are expressed as animal places in the
Directive. Livestock units are derived from the definition used by Eurostat, which is
considered applicable across all EU Member States. Using Livestock Units directly as a
threshold is complex and not advised, as it may be too different from existing implementation
of the IRPP BREF and national systems, causing additional administrative burden. However,
it can be used as a guide in assessing the measure to ensure that the environmental protection
between cattle, pig and poultry sectors is similar in ambition.
Applying the IED to cattle farming activities would require a new set of agricultural
installations to comply with the general regulatory framework set out by the IED, such as the
provisions regarding permits or inspections, detailed in Chapter II of the IED. This would
also require a revised BREF document, which will describe the interactions and possibilities
of measures 31, 32 and 33 together. Therefore, this measure should be read and considered in
conjunction with the measure for introducing a tailored approach for regulating agricultural
installations, and attempts are made to ensure alignment with changes in measure 32 on
changes to the existing IRPP sector.
There will need to be a decision by the EU on how to introduce this activity into the scope of
the IED. This will need to be considered in conjunction with the proposed measure for a
tailored approach, as the choices for including this new activity will be affected by whether a
tailored approach is used. The options could include:
 Inclusion of an additional activity under IED Annex I (e.g. 6.6(d))
 Inclusion as an activity under a new Annex of the IED, not under Annex I
The measure will need to be further defined with regards to the proposed wording and
capacity threshold to be used for cattle rearing. A proposed capacity threshold within range of
50-150 LSU for cattle as well as for pigs and poultry. The cost-benefit analysis is favourable
for all thresholds in the range of 50-150 LSU considered (further information on benefit/cost
ratios are included in the section on Air Quality impacts below and presented in the analysis
conducted by Ricardo in May 202123
). The analysis considered a range of possible
thresholds, from 50 LSU, to 750 and above. The equivalent number of cattle to the LSU
thresholds considered are included in the table below.
Total number of cattle farms within EU is 2 797 050. This covers farms including subsistence
with the LSU below 10 (1 927 650) and farms above 10 LSU (869 400), based on Eurostat
data.
23
Ricardo Energy & Environment (2021) Updating of available information for undertaking the assessment of
impacts for a possible modification of the IED with regard to aspects of intensive agriculture, available at:
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/c863480b-5fd5-41e9-93ee-
9c68669d6511/Intensive%20Agriculture%20and%20IED%20Final%20Report%202021.pdf
434
Table A8-22: Cattle thresholds considered, expressed in LSU and with the equivalent average
number of animals in heads or places, depending on the structure of the farm, and expected
farm numbers. (source: Ricardo, 2021 and Eurostat)
Threshold (LSU) Threshold (number of heads of cattle) Approximate number of farms in the EU
above this threshold
50 69 330 000
100 138 163 000
125 173 123 000
150 207 84 000
300 415 19 600
450 622 8 000
600 829 4 200
Objectives:
 Reducing the environmental impact of agro-industry across the EU-27, via the
amendment/expansion of coverage of the IED.
 Levelling the playing field for installations across the EU.
Implementing needs:
 EU to make legislative change to the IED text
 EU to develop BAT conclusions for cattle
 Member States to transpose changes into national law
 Member States to regulate the cattle farms according to the new requirements, to the
extent this requires changes from their existing regulatory approaches for cattle farms.
This will require upfront and ongoing implementation actions.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have strongly negative economic impacts when compared
to the baseline, though this will vary heavily by Member State. Some states may have very
little to no required compliance costs and low administrative costs as a result of existing
policy. These impacts are likely concentrated in a small number of Member States who have
a majority of EU cattle farms, in particular those who would not be able to benefit as much
from the tailored approach as EU Member States with more advanced existing regulation on
cattle farming.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure will have negative impacts on the administrative burden on businesses. This
will be due to the farm operators being regulated when they were not previously regulated.
For cattle, the administrative costs associated with the granting and enforcement of permits
were estimated to be €102-401 m per year on the assumption of full IED chapter II
requirements from 50 and 150 LSU, respectively (Ricardo, 2021; and further assessment).
The adoption of a tailored approach for implementing cattle farming in the IED (Measure 18)
could see these costs drop to €63 - €70m per year for 150 LSU, and to €249 – €281m per year
for 50 LSU, which represents a reduction of 30 - 38%. The upper level of the ranges (€70 and
435
€281m/year) is based on a generic 20% reduction from reduced administrative requirements,
plus information on known information from Member States from the stakeholder
consultation on existing policy that would (partially) already take care of IED compliance.
The lower level of the ranges (€63 and €249m/year) is based on making assumptions about
existing policies already regulating the sector in Member States (assumptions made due to
lack of information gained from consultation), assuming the Member States are likely to
require some level of BAT already.
The calculation method for this reduction is explained under Measure 33. How these numbers
could be expected to change based on higher thresholds are included in the table below. For
higher thresholds, the tailored approach has slightly larger benefits (e.g. 33% at 300 LSU vs
30% at 150 LSU, for the upper level of the range for the Tailored Approach) because at
higher levels a relatively higher proportion of animals would already be under some form of
regulation, which the Tailored Approach would take into account.
The total expected administrative costs are shown in the table below24
. Of the total expected
cost of permitting, 50% of this cost is expected to be borne by the operator and 50% by the
permitting authority. This is different from the original estimate in the 2007 IED IA, whereby
the split was 1/3 for the operator and 2/3 for the authority. However, evidence from the focus
group held on this topic with Member State authorities in 2021 confirmed that authorities are
likely to pass on some of the cost to the farmer as part of the cost of applying for a permit.
For example, one Member State stakeholder indicated to have a strict policy of charging the
farmer for 50% of the personnel cost borne by the permitting authority, in exchange for use
of an automated online application system that streamlines the application process for the
operator. We do not expect this to be the case in all Member States, but from expert
knowledge we do expect that costs for farmers are likely to be higher than 1/3 of the total
permitting costs.
24
These costs are lower than reported in Ricardo (2021). They are based on more recent data provided by
Member States.
436
Table A8-23: Estimated total additional administrative costs for full chapter II requirements
and under a tailored approach.
LSU Administrative costs for business (€m/year)
(full chapter II requirements)
Administrative costs for business (€m/year)
(Tailored Approach)
50 401 249 - 281
100 198 123 - 139
125 150 93 - 105
150 102 63 - 70
300 25 14 - 16
450 11 4 - 7
600 6 3 - 4
It should be noted that the estimate for the costs under the tailored approach could be reduced
further, as no comprehensive information on existing policies was provided by all Member
States under consultation on the extension of the IED towards livestock. An important
omission for example is detail on the impact of existing regulation of cattle farms in Spain,
because it is estimated that about €14.5m of the €198 million of the full permitting
administrative costs (for a threshold of 100 LSU) would accrue to farms in Spain, and it is not
clear what the scope of the reduction could be in the tailored approach.
There will also be costs to industry for the development of BAT based requirements. The
estimates in the IED evaluation for this one-off cost of a BREF development were €7.9m
(range €3.6m to €20.7m). After apportioning the fraction of this cost for businesses, and
annualising over a period of 20 years assuming two BREFs in this period, the annualised cost
of the BREF process for businesses would be expected to range from €0.1m/year to
€0.7m/year, with a central estimate of €0.2m/year. It could be expected that the costs of BAT
based requirements would be on the lower end of this range due to the possibility to build on
the existing IRPP BREF and having a simpler process.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure will have negative impacts on the operating costs and conduct of business. This
will be due to farm operators needing to implement techniques to mitigate the environmental
impacts as will be identified in a BAT conclusions document for the sector. Note that in some
Member States, techniques are already applied as a result of national policy or their
implementation of other EU Directives. For example, the Nitrates Directive may place limits
on the amount of slurry that can be spread on land, which indirectly reduces NH3 emissions
to air as well. Further, the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive may place requirements on
certain Member States or regions, based on observed concentrations of pollutants in
environments near farms. The National Emissions reduction Commitments Directive may
lead certain Member State to implement additional measures targeting the reduction of
certain pollutants, including at farms. These farms may then be required to implement BAT
in order to reduce observed concentrations and depositions of NH3 to vulnerable natural
areas.
437
When existing policy is driven by other EU legislation, “target driven” regulation (where the
target is measured as environmental improvement, not direct emission reduction) can lead to
implementation of BAT, which is implemented already in, for example, Member States such
as Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium (this is a non-exhaustive list). The
addition of this sector to the Industrial Emissions Directive could lead to similar
improvements and better ability of other regulations to reach higher levels of environmental
protection, by mandating directly (command and control) what actions need to be taken at
installation level to address the pollution at source. Through this policy implementation, the
IED could be a shorter route towards the actions that need to be taken for environmental
improvement. This is possibly in contrast to the route via the Nitrates and/or Habitat
directives, which may be more complex since the implementation of BAT in those directives
has to be linked to measurement and modelling of complex environmental variables; an
example is that of estimating additional deposition of NH3 in nearby natural habitats as a
result of new projects, which is currently taking place in some Member States. This
alternative example application of “BAT” (s.lato) may lead to increased administrative
burdens in the permitting process compared to that of the IED.
Cattle farming is not presently included within Annex I of the IED, and is not currently
considered by the IRPP BREF. In order to estimate the possible emission reductions
introducing cattle within Annex I of the IED, assumptions have had to be deployed. In
practice, the inclusion of an activity under the IED Annex I would lead to the need for a
BREF, and consequent generating of BAT Conclusions relevant for the sector. It is difficult
to anticipate the techniques that would be considered and the level of ambition the BREF
would have (and hence also its potential, in terms of emission reductions, is also uncertain).
Ricardo (2021) identified two key environmental issues for the sector that could be
quantified: the reduction of emissions to air of NH3 and CH4. That work estimated the
techniques that could be necessary to be deployed across each Member State to reach an
assumed level of ambition deemed to be BAT (without prejudice to possible determination of
BAT through the BREF process). Based on Ricardo (2021) and further analysis. the total
EU27 compliance costs estimated for introducing the cattle sector into the IED, from a
threshold within the range of 69-207 heads (equivalent to 50-150 LSU) were estimated to be
up to €112 - €441 million per year for applying abatement techniques tackling NH3 and CH4
emissions. How these numbers could be expected to change based on different specific
thresholds are included in the table below. (For benefits vs. costs, please see the table in the
air quality section).
438
Table A8-24: Estimated compliance costs for business for implementing techniques addressing
NH3 and CH4 emissions at cattle farms
Threshold (LSU) Compliance costs for business (€m/year)
50 441
100 217
125 165
150 112
300 50
450 30
600 21
The above costs are based upon the techniques already deployed at the farms, and what
possible additional techniques could or would be necessary if additional farms and sectors
were brought within the scope of the IED. The key source used has been GAINS 425, with the
accompanying pollution control technologies included in the model’s baseline scenario. The
selection of which techniques to apply for Member States is based on the initial selection
made by GAINS on what is used, supplemented by the information provided in the
consultation. This estimate, therefore, does not attempt to replicate or suggest BAT, but
serves as a guide of the potential level of cost to benefit.
These costs, when combined with administrative costs to form a total cost, remain favourable
in terms of a benefit-cost ratio, when compared to the monetised benefits of NH3 and CH4
emissions reductions. The benefit-cost ratios are presented in the subsection on air quality.
25 See: https://iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/air/GAINS.html
439
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure will have a positive impact on levelling the playing field. Introducing cattle
farming within Annex I of the IED imposes a singular set of requirements towards these
Note that the process for estimating the total business compliance costs has some uncertainties,
reflected in the range of values presented in Table 25. The estimation process uses the GAINS model
where all existing compliance is already assumed to be in the model baseline. The remaining
uncertainty is due to unknown information about uptake rates of techniques at farms of smaller and
larger sizes in some Member States. The GAINS model only provides the total number of animals and
the share of those which are under different emission reduction regimes, not the distribution of farm
sizes in which these animals are held. It is however more likely that larger farms employ more
advanced emission reduction techniques, in particular as large point sources of NH3 emissions create
localised air pollution problems, for which authorities have more incentive to take action. If this is the
case, then higher share of uncontrolled emissions from those Member States would be concentrated in
smaller farms.
To explain why this is, the measure does not propose to regulate farms below 50 LSU (“small
farms”). If in reality a country has a higher relative share of emissions per animal from small farms
(because larger farms are already regulated to a degree), then overall potential emission reductions
from the IED (and associated compliance costs) would be lower, compared to the case where there are
similar emission reduction techniques applied to all farms, irrespective of size. An example of this is
Germany, where it is known from stakeholder consultation that the country already requires farms
above 450 LSU to use the “state of the art” in emission reductions technology (and it is therefore
assumed the IED would not have an impact above 450 LSU). Therefore, the existing emissions
reductions that the GAINS model baseline defines for Germany will be more concentrated in the farm
size class above 450 LSU, where animals will have lower emissions than the average for Germany.
Conversely, animals in farms of size class below 450 LSU will have a higher average emissions. As
the proposed IED threshold is within the range of 50-150 LSU and the majority of animals is
concentrated below 50 LSU, the net effect of this is that the potential for emission reductions when
applying policy above 50 LSU is smaller than when the GAINS model data is not modified with this
specific information on compliance by farm size.
This becomes an uncertainty because there is no complete information available at this time for all
countries with significant cattle sectors, on how the cattle sector is currently regulated and at what
farm size classes this applies to. For most countries, information was gathered on their existing policy
thresholds and the modelling was modified accordingly. Notably though, there is an uncertainty on
the policies in Spain and Italy, which have significant cattle sectors. In the scenario where Italy and
Spain also behave like Germany, this could reduce the emission reduction benefits and associated
compliance costs by up to 10%. It is not expected to impact the cost – benefit ratio as this uncertainty
applies proportionally to both benefits and costs. This uncertainty is significant only to the smaller
classes of regulated farms, from 100 to 450 LSU, given that most existing regulation applies to larger
farms above 300 LSU, and ~ 80% of the animals that would be brought under regulation are in the
class of 100 to 450 LSU.
Box 1: Notes on the impact of existing emission reductions policy on the modelling performed
440
newly introduced farms and operators. It therefore offers the potential to level the playing
field by providing minimum criteria for all Member States, notably towards the use of
emission limit values in permits standardised to BAT-AELs. This has largely been supported
within the IED evaluation, where, for industry stakeholder surveyed, 69% agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement ‘the IED has contributed to achieving a level playing field in the
EU for IED sectors by aligning environmental performance requirements for industrial
installations’. This would be likely to also be the case for the farms newly regulated under
this measure. Farms that employ specific unconventional techniques, such as a focus on
Ecological farming, may still need a specific approach. The focus group held with selected
Member State authorities within the context of the revision to the IED in June 2021 identified
support from Member States to regulate cattle farming due to, among other things, the
benefits to be gained from levelling the playing field.
This measure will have mixed impacts on competitiveness. For those cattle farms that are
already regulated and for which no or little additional cost impacts would be seen, the relative
competitiveness of these farms would be expected to increase. For those cattle farms that are
not already regulated and which will see additional cost impacts, the relative competitiveness
of these farms would be expected to decrease. The total costs of doing business, that is the
costs of administrative burden and compliance combined, are thought to negatively impact
upon cattle farms. The exact level, however, as noted in the above, is to be determined by the
BREF process. If these costs cannot be passed on in the price of produce, these costs will be
incurred by businesses, impacting upon profitability. As noted, however, the cost to benefit
ratio remains favourable when environmental benefits are considered and monetised.
Position of SMEs
The measure will likely bring additional impacts on SMEs. No specific statistics on whether
the cattle farms will be defined as SMEs or not were identified. No means to identify the
costs per employee or businesses have been identified. The impact of this measure towards
SMEs, therefore, remains unclear.
Innovation and research
This measure may have a limited impact on research and development. Provisions within the
IED, such as Article 27 on emerging techniques, allow for research and development within
the context of BAT. Each BREF includes a chapter on emerging techniques, which acts as an
indication of future techniques that could in the future (i.e. ‘if commercially developed’) be
considered as BAT. This pathway encourages the continual focus on further reducing the
environmental impacts of industrial activities or innovating in ways to save costs when
compared to existing BAT.
Public authority impacts
This measure will have negative impacts on public authority costs. The largest impact will
be on permitting and inspecting authorities, due to a significant number of farms that would
require an environmental permit where they either may not have one, or would not have one
that is of the same level of requirements as under the IED, with requirements on BAT use and
adherence to emission limit values.
441
Public authority impacts are calculated from evidence obtained from authorities on the total
cost of permitting a farm over a 20 year permit, including:
 Permit application and granting
 Permit reconsiderations in response to BREF updates
 Inspections and enforcement activities
The costs of this are estimated to be between 1 000 to 2 000 EUR on average per year,
recognising that most of the costs of an farming project occur at the beginning, at permit
application and granting. It depends on the size of the project what the cost will be, as public
authorities have indicated that larger projects generally have more costs to obtain a project
permit. The average administrative costs is closer to the low bound of 1 000, as the vast
majority of farms introduced through measure 31 and 32 are in the smaller LSU categories of
50 to 150 LSU and 150 to 300 LSU.
The 2007 IED IA estimated that of the total costs, 2/3 would be for public authorities and 1/3
would be for the operator, on average across all IED sectors. Stakeholder engagement has
shown that this is not a correct assumption for the livestock sector, with evidence that the
operator may incur more costs than the authority. There are a few reasons for this:
 Firstly, as the IED has been implemented already on pig and poultry farms, there is
scope and opportunity for efficiency gains at the public authority level, who regularly
process permits on a continued basis. This type of efficiency gains have been
observed in some Member States that were part of the focus group and interviews,
and have shown that this can reduce costs by 50% or more. Conversely, operators do
not have as much opportunity to gain efficiency, as they usually only engage in the
permitting process at granting or permit reconsideration.
 As mentioned earlier, the scope extension for the IED means the average installation
size in the renewed scope is much smaller, with the majority of installations having
less than 300 LSU. This means that the average project size is much smaller
compared to other IED sectors, and this is reflected in lower complexity and lower
expected costs for permitting and enforcement.
To reflect new evidence, the assumption was made that the total costs of permitting are
shared equally between operator and public authority. From some Member States, there is
evidence that the operator incurs a majority of the costs, due to large efficiency gains on the
authority side and an increased need for external advisory services by farmers to handle the
complexity of emission reduction measures. However, there is not enough evidence to
assume this is the average situation across the EU, so the assumption of a 50 – 50 split is seen
as a reasonable middle ground.
Table A8-25: Administrative costs for measure 31 with or without measure 33
Threshold
(LSU)
Administrative costs for public authorities
(€m/year)
(Full IED Chapter II requirements)
Administrative costs for public
authorities (€m/year)
(Tailored Approach)
50 401 249 - 281
100 198 123 - 139
442
125 150 93 - 105
150 102 63 - 70
300 25 14 - 16
450 11 4 - 7
600 6 3 - 4
There will be the costs to the Commission for the development of a BREF (Livestock BREF).
The estimates in the IED evaluation for this one-off cost of a BREF development were €7.9m
(range €3.6m to €20.7m). After apportioning the fraction of this cost for public authorities,
and annualising over a period of 20 years assuming two BREFs in this period, the annualised
cost of the BREF process for public authorities would be expected to range from €0.3m/year
to €1.4m/year, with a central estimate of €0.5m/year. It could be expected that the costs of an
BAT based requirements would be on the lower end of this range due to the possibility to
build on the existing IRPP BREF and having a simpler process.
There will be one-off costs to the Member States for transposition of new requirements, as
well as ongoing regulatory costs. Further evidence gathered during the focus group with
selected Member State authorities identified how several Member States are already
regulating cattle farms to some degree, with variation between them on (1) the threshold from
which they are regulating the farms, and (2) the approach taken to regulating them (i.e.
whether permitting, or simpler registration / notification systems). No information has been
identified however on the possible costs to Member States for transposing and implementing
the requirements. The envisaged common IT format could lead to additional indirect benefits
through facilitating reporting under the CAP, Nitrates Directive, and National Emission
Ceilings Directive (NECD).
Environmental impacts
Climate
This measure will have strongly positive impacts on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Estimates in Ricardo (2021) and based on further analysis suggest that with a threshold at the
equivalent of between 50-150 LSU, approximately 185-360 kt of CH4 could be mitigated per
year, with c. 55% of these reductions estimated to accrue in France, Germany and Spain.
These estimates are based on input from the model GAINS 4, and the accompanying
pollution control technologies included in the model’s baseline scenario.
Put more broadly in context, agriculture emissions of 463 Mt CO2eq26
represent 13 %27
of the
total EU-27 GHG emissions. This range of 185-360 kt of CH4 represents in CO2 equivalent
terms 5.2-10.1 Mt CO2eq, i.e. between around 1.1-2.2% of the EU27 agricultural sector GHG
emissions. The achievement of these reductions depends on whether technologies to reduce
emissions from enteric fermentation can successfully be implemented. If so, then the
potential for CH4 emission reductions is very large, as methane from enteric fermentation is ~
26
EEA greenhouse gases data viewer https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-
viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer
27
European Court of Auditors Special Report Common Agricultural Policy and climate
443
30% of EU agricultural GHG emissions28
. This study has assumed a technique (nutrition
based) can be applied that reduces emissions from enteric fermentation by up to 10%, which
is a current accepted value and which is in line with academic research on various feed
modifications that can be done. However, it is acknowledged that it is a conservative estimate
as there are publications demonstrating a potentially higher methane emission reduction
potential (36-50%)29
.
Further reductions beyond those estimated could be possible and would depend on the level
of ambition of a BATC for cattle, as well as if N2O emissions are accounted for.
These reductions would contribute to the EU Methane Strategy and would help to address the
concerns flagged in the recent European Court of Auditors Special report ‘Common
Agricultural Policy and climate’ which indicates that despite the Common Agricultural
Policy funds injected to the agriculture sector, GHG emissions from the sector have not
decreased since 2010, partly due to the process of concentration and intensification of the EU
farmed animals in specific areas.
Air quality
This measure will have strongly positive impacts on reducing air pollutant emissions.
Estimates in Ricardo (2021) and further analysis suggest that with a threshold at the
equivalent of between 50-150 LSU, approximately 60-115 kt of NH3 emissions could be
mitigated per year, with c. 55% of this estimated to accrue in France and Spain. These
estimates are based on input from the model GAINS 4, and the accompanying pollution
control technologies included in the model’s baseline scenario.
EU27 total NH3 emissions were 3.6 Mt in 2018, of which 2.4 Mt/year were from livestock.30
This reduction of 60-115 kt therefore represents around 2.5-4.8% of livestock sector
emissions, or around 1.6-3.2% of total EU NH3 emissions.
Using the latest work on damage cost functions by the EEA31
, the monetised benefits of these
emission reductions are estimated to be around €6 633 million per year for a threshold of 50
LSU, and €3 399 million per year for a threshold of 150 LSU. Across the different considered
farm size thresholds, the ranges of benefit-cost ratios, of all costs combined (administrative
28
Eurostat (2010), Agri-environmental indicator – greenhouse gas emissions
https://EU.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Agri-environmental_indicator_-
_greenhouse_gas_emissions&oldid=110348
29
Publications concerning CH4 emission reduction potential:
 How to reduce on-farm enteric methane production (Josef van Wyngaard, Robin Meeske, Lourens
Erasmus) - How to reduce on-farm enteric methane production (journals.co.za)
 Can enteric methane emissions from ruminants be lowered without lowering their production? (C.
Grainger, K.A. Beauchemin) - Can enteric methane emissions from ruminants be lowered without
lowering their production? | Request PDF (researchgate.net)
 Bark-dwelling methanotrophic bacteria decrease methane emissions from trees (multiple authors) -
Bark-dwelling methanotrophic bacteria decrease methane emissions from trees | Nature
Communications
30
EEA air pollutant emissions data viewer https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/air-
pollutant-emissions-data-viewer-3
31
Unpublished draft EEA (December 2020) “Costs of air pollution from European industrial facilities 2008–
2017”
444
and compliance costs), remains positive and favourable. The benefit-cost ratio decreases with
a lowering of the IED farm size threshold down to 50 LSU (equivalent to around 69 heads of
cattle), as administrative costs become a larger relative burden at these lower thresholds.
The variation in these values by LSU threshold is shown in the following table.
Table A8-26: Monetised benefits of climate and air quality impacts, and benefit-cost ratio
(based on total costs summing administrative and compliance costs)
LSU Monetised benefits (€m/year)
(NH3)
Monetised benefits (€m/year)
(CH4)
Ratio of total benefits divided
by costs
50 3 980 2 653 7
100 3 096 1 980 11
125 2 628 1 610 12
150 2 100 1 299 14
300 1 064 607 25
450 710 378 30
600 540 269 32
Reductions in other air pollutants would also be expected, both directly (e.g. PM) and
indirectly (e.g. PM, ozone) leading to further benefits which have not been quantified.
Water quality and resources
This measure should provide weakly positive impacts on water quality and resources. The
integrated approach of the IED and the range of environmental issues that could be covered
by a cattle sector BREF and BAT Conclusions would be expected to lead to tighter controls
on a range of environmental issues from cattle. The analysis conducted by Ricardo in May
2021 did not cover releases to water. Other data sources, such as the E-PRTR, similarly to the
IED, do not consider cattle farming within its scope and therefore do not hold data on the
activity. The extent of the activities impact, or the potential for the reduction of this
environmental impact is uncertain.
Soil quality
This measure should provide weakly positive impacts on soil quality. The integrated
approach of the IED and the range of environmental issues that could be covered by a cattle
sector BREF and BAT Conclusions would be expected to lead to tighter controls on a range
of environmental issues from cattle. The analysis conducted by Ricardo in May 2021 did not
cover releases to land. Other data sources, such as the E-PRTR, similarly to the IED, do not
consider cattle farming within its scope and therefore do not hold data on the activity. The
extent of the activities impact, or the potential for the reduction of this environmental impact
is uncertain.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure should provide positive impacts on waste production. The integrated approach
of the IED and the range of environmental issues that could be covered by a cattle sector
445
BREF and BAT Conclusions would be expected to lead to tighter controls on a range of
environmental issues from cattle. Measures that limit manure spreading are common among
Member States, and it is likely that a BREF for the cattle sector would include requirements
on ammonia application to land, but it is unclear what the influence of the IED can be on this
factor, as these concern emissions that transcend the farm gate boundary (i.e. IED installation
boundary), even if they do originate from the farm.
No means of assessing the volume or type of waste has been identified. However, regulation
of the sector through the IED may further benefit the management of waste, through
provisions such as Article 11, which requires installations are operated within the principles
of the waste hierarchy, as laid out in the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EU).
Efficient use of resources
Unclear impacts. No means of assessing the efficient use of energy or water have been
identified, however regulation of the sector through the IED may further benefit resource
efficiency, with resource efficiency featuring within the Sevilla Process.
Social impacts
This measure has unclear social impacts. This measure will incur costs towards business and
operators. If these costs cannot be passed on within the price of produce, these costs will
impact upon profitability and could therefore impact upon employment. No formal
assessment has been carried out, but the impacts are thought to be negative.
Measure 32: Amend the capacity thresholds of the rearing of pigs and poultry
considered under activity 6.6 of Annex I.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
Revise the capacity thresholds for the rearing of pigs and poultry considered under activity
6.6 of Annex I of the IED. Currently, activity 6.6 is split into three activities, with definitions
reflecting different capacity thresholds for different livestock types, in turn reflecting
different levels of environmental impact.
The measure will need to be further defined with regards to the proposed wording and
capacity threshold to be included in Annex I, and whether a tailored approach is taken
forward (see measure 33). A proposed revised capacity threshold is within the range of 50-
150 livestock units (LSU), or the equivalent in places/heads for each livestock type32
.
The cost-benefit analysis is favourable for all thresholds in the range of 50-150 LSU as per
the analysis conducted by Ricardo in May 202133
and further analysis. Note that the analysis
32
LSU is a reference unit which facilitates the aggregation of livestock from various species and age. Using this
unit would invoke the need for a framework for calculation of LSUs from poultry and pigs of different varieties.
This may, in turn, require a new set of agricultural installations to comply with the general regulatory
framework set out by the IED, such as the provisions regarding permits or inspections, detailed in Chapter II of
the IED.
33 Ricardo (2021) Updating of available information for undertaking the assessment of impacts for a possible
modification of the IED with regard to aspects of intensive agriculture, available at:
446
by Ricardo (2021) has since been updated, in particular with respect to the administrative
costs, which the analysis of May 2021 may have overestimated based on outdated
information from the 2007 IED IA on permitting administrative burdens. Further analysis
was also conducted and a range of possible thresholds, from 50 LSU, to 750 and above, is
presented.
The equivalent number of additional pigs and poultry included under the LSU thresholds
considered are included in the table below. The IED farm size threshold of 50 LSU is
equivalent to approximately either 65 sows or 170 production pigs, whilst the size of a
threshold of 150 LSU equates to approximately 195 sows or 500 production pigs. To
reiterate, the number of farms and animals below covers only those that are not yet covered
by the existing IRPP thresholds.
If all pig farms are mixed pig farms following a farrow-to-finish model, then the real IED
threshold is the sum of the grey and red bars in Figure A8-21, at a maximum. The average of
this for the EU-27 is 893 LSU (which has been approximated to 900 LSU). If all farms are
specialised, then the average LSU is 588 (which has been approximated to 600 to align with
the groupings available). The differences between Member States are governed by the ratio of
the number of sows to the number of production pigs. Generally, the more sows there are, the
more a country is able to use mixed “farrow to finish” farms, which results in a larger number
of animals on farms not subject to IED regulation.
Evidence from the focus group of the IED Impact Assessment has noted that it is unlikely for
large to medium sized farms to adopt a farrow-to-finish model. This is because Specialisation
is generally seen as more profitable. Therefore, it is most likely that most Member States are
closest to the specialised farm threshold and not to the mixed farm threshold.
Total number of pig farms within EU is 2 230 850. This covers farms including subsistence
with the LSU below 10 (1 955 640) and farms above 10 LSU (275 210), based on Eurostat
data. Under current IED threshold there are 11 100 pig farms covered (EU registry).
Total number of poultry farms within EU is 4 291 490. This covers farms including
subsistence with the LSU below 10 (3 972 880) and farms above 10 LSU (318 610), based on
Eurostat data. Under current IED threshold there are 12 000 poultry farms covered (EU
registry).
Table A8-27: IRPP thresholds considered, expressed in LSU and with the equivalent average
number of animals in heads or places, depending on the structure of the farm, and expected
farm numbers. (source: Ricardo, 2021 and further analysis)
Threshold
(LSU)
Threshold (number of
pigs)
Approximate number
of pig farms in the EU
above this threshold
and below current
IRPP thresholds
Threshold
(number
of poultry)
Approximate number of
poultry farms in the EU
above this threshold and
below current IRPP
thresholds
50 170 p.p., 65 sow 91 000 2 400 95 800
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/c863480b-5fd5-41e9-93ee-
9c68669d6511/Intensive%20Agriculture%20and%20IED%20Final%20Report%202021.pdf
447
100 330 p.p., 130 sow 58 500 4 800 59 700
125 420 p.p., 160 sow 48 000 6 000 49 700
150 500 p.p., 195 sow 37 400 7 200 39 700
300 1 000 p.p. 390 sow 18 700 14 400 20 800
450 1 500 p.p. 585 sow 9 700 21 600 11 400
600 2 000 p.p.** 780 sow 3 700 28 800 5 300
750 - - 36 000 2 200
* Pig farms between 600 and 900 LSU may or may not be installations already covered by the IED. This
coverage depends on the level of Specialisation of the farm, as follows:
 Specialised farms that only keep production pigs, or only keep sows raising piglets are simpler to
identify as being within or outside IED scope. Such Specialised farms are included in the IED above
about 600 LSU (as 600 LSU corresponds to 2 000 production pigs, or ~780 sows).
 ‘Farrow to finish’ farms that raise sows and production pigs together are subject to the IED only if
either the number of sows or the number of production pigs exceeds the IED thresholds (750 sows or
2 000 production pigs). These ‘mixed farms’ will have LSU higher than about 600. The following text
justifies our suggestion that this upper threshold may be around 900 LSU.
In relation to the regulation of mixed livestock farms hosting both pigs and poultry in the
same installation, there is a potential need to also consider whether an additional activity of
‘mixed livestock farm’ should also be included in Annex I activity 6.6. This could be defined
either using the summation of various thresholds that are all based on LSU units, or could be
defined using a percentage of other thresholds basis as compared to a total of 100%.
Figure A8-21: Maximum additional LSU that pig farms can have by adopting a mixed “farrow-
to-finish” model, as opposed to only specialisation, per Member State.
Objectives of the measure:
448
 Reducing the environmental impact of industry across the EU-27, via the amendment/
expansion of coverage of the IED in Annex I.
 Levelling the playing field for installations across the EU.
Implementation needs:
 EU to make legislative change to the IED text
 EU to extend IRPP BAT conclusions
 Member States to transpose changes into national law
 Member States to regulate the smaller IRPP farms according to the new requirements,
to the extent this requires changes from their existing regulatory approaches for
smaller pig and poultry farms. This will require upfront and ongoing implementation
actions.
 (EU to consider the possibility for applying a tailored approach (measure 33) for IRPP
installations)
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure will have negative impacts on the administrative burden on businesses. This
will be due to the farm operators being regulated when they were not previously regulated.
For pigs and poultry, the associated administrative costs associated with the granting and
enforcement of permits were estimated to be €94.6 m and €99.6 m respectively per year from
50 LSU; and €38.9 m and €41.3 m per year from 150 LSU on the assumption of full IED
permitting (Ricardo, 2021 and further analysis). The adoption of a tailored approach for IRPP
in the IED (measure 33) could see these permitting costs drop by c. 40%, i.e. to €55.1 m and
€57.9 m per year respectively from 50 LSU; and to €22.6 m and €24.0 m per year
respectively from 150 LSU. How these numbers could be expected to decline based on higher
thresholds are included in Table 28 below. This table shows the total costs for including
farms above this threshold at each level. The values in the columns should not be added
together, as they are already a cumulative total of all farms that would be included at the
threshold.
The methodology for deriving the costs for the tailored approach is described in Measure 33.
The cost reduction is slightly higher at higher farm thresholds, because more Member States
already regulate some of the larger classes of farms compared to smaller farms. That means
that for example for poultry farms above 600 LSU, the reduction in the tailored approach is
37%. For farms above 750 LSU, as the sample of farms is so small, individual differences
among Member States again reduces the benefit, as it appears that a considerable number of
these farms close to the existing IED threshold, are located in countries where less significant
emission reduction policies were identified.
Table A8-28: Administrative costs for businesses, pigs and poultry, at different LSU thresholds
Threshold (LSU) Administrative costs for pig business Administrative costs for poultry
449
(€m/year) business (€m/year)
Full IED Ch.2
requirement
(€m/year)
Tailored approach
(€m/year)
Full IED Ch.2
requirement
(€m/year)
Tailored
approach
(€m/year)
50 94.6 55.1 99.6 57.9
100 60.9 35.4 62.1 36.1
125 49.9 29.0 51.6 30.1
150 38.9 22.6 41.3 24.0
300 19.4 11.3 21.6 12.6
450 10.1 5.9 11.9 6.9
600 3.8 2.2 7.8 4.5
750 - - 3.3 2.2
There will be costs to industry of the further development of the BREF (Livestock BREF).
The estimates in the IED evaluation for this one-off cost of a BREF development were €7.9m
(range €3.6m to €20.7m). After apportioning the fraction of this cost for businesses and
annualising over a period of 20 years assuming two BREFs in this period, the annualised cost
of the BREF process for businesses would be expected to range from €0.1m/year to
€0.7m/year, with a central estimate of €0.2m/year. It could be expected that the costs of an
BAT based requirements would be on the lower end of this range because it would be
building on the existing IRPP BREF by way of expanding its scope to smaller farms and a
simpler process could be used.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure will have negative impacts on the operating costs and conduct of business.
This will be due to farm operators needing to implement techniques to mitigate the
environmental impacts as will be identified in an extended BAT conclusions document for
the sector.
Pig and poultry farms smaller than the existing IED threshold and down to sizes as small as
50 LSU are not currently considered by the IRPP BREF. In order to estimate the possible
emission reductions from introducing these smaller farms into the IED, assumptions have had
to be deployed in the absence of identified BAT for the part of the sector. It is difficult to
anticipate the techniques that would be considered and the level of ambition the BREF would
have (and hence also its potential, in terms of emission reductions, is also uncertain).
Ricardo (2021) identified two key environmental issues for the sector: the reduction of
emissions to air of NH3 (for pigs and poultry) and CH4 (for pigs). That work estimated the
techniques that could be necessary to be deployed across each Member State to reach an
assumed level of ambition deemed to be BAT (without prejudice to possible determination of
BAT through the BREF process). The total EU27 compliance costs for reducing the IED
IRPP thresholds to 50 LSU were estimated to be €222 m/year and €150 m/year for pig and
poultry farms respectively for applying abatement techniques tackling NH3 and CH4
emissions. In the case of a threshold at 150 LSU, these compliance costs were estimated to be
€91 m/year and €62 m/year. How these numbers could be expected to decline based on
higher thresholds are included in the table below.
450
451
Table A8-29: Estimated compliance costs for business for implementing techniques addressing
NH3 and CH4 emissions at pig and poultry farms.
Threshold (LSU) Compliance costs for pig farm business
(€m/year) for applying techniques
tackling NH3 and CH4
Compliance costs for poultry farm
business (€m/year) for applying
techniques tackling NH3
50 222 150
100 143 93
125 117 78
150 91 62
300 64 41
450 41 25
600 16 11
750 - 5
Note that CH4 techniques were not considered for poultry, as the EU-wide source data from
the GAINS model v4 (2020) did not yet contain the baseline information required to perform
this assessment. In the GAINS model, CH4 abatement techniques are limited to anaerobic
digestion which is assumed to have a net zero abatement cost (whereby the investment is paid
back to a zero NPV over time due to benefits from energy recovery). This means that the cost
data in Table 29 are entirely from NH3 reduction measures. For pigs and poultry, there is no
CH4 element from enteric fermentation, which is an emissions source with associated
reduction techniques that can lead to compliance costs for cattle in measure 31.
These costs, when combined with administrative costs to form a total cost, remain favourable
(positive) in terms of a benefit-cost ratio, when compared to the monetised benefits of NH3
and CH4 emissions reductions. The benefit-cost ratios are included in the air quality
assessment section.
The above costs are based upon the techniques already deployed at the farms, and what
possible additional techniques could or would be necessary if additional farms and sectors
were brought within the scope of the IED. The key source used has been GAINS 4, with the
accompanying pollution control technologies included in the model’s baseline scenario. The
selection of which techniques to apply for Member States is based on the initial selection
made by GAINS on what is used, supplemented by information provided in the consultation.
This estimate, therefore, does not attempt to replicate or suggest BAT, but serves as a guide
of the potential level of cost to benefit.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure will have a positive impact on levelling the playing field. Introducing smaller
pig and poultry farms into the IED imposes a singular set of requirements towards these
newly introduced farms and operators. It therefore offers the potential to level the playing
452
field by providing minimum criteria for all Member States, notably towards the use of
emission limit values in permits standardised to BAT-AELs (measure 31 already reminded
the finding of the IED evaluation that inclusion of an activity in the IED leads to a levelling
of the playing field). This would be likely to also be the case for the farms newly regulated
under this measure. Specific care will need to be given to farms that employ specific
unconventional techniques, such as a focus on Ecological farming. The focus group held with
selected Member State authorities on Livestock rearing (17th
June 2021) within the context
of the revision to the IED in June 2021 identified support from Member States to regulate
smaller pig and poultry farming due to, among other things, the benefits to be gained from
levelling the playing field.
This measure will have mixed impacts on competitiveness. For those smaller pig and poultry
farms that are already regulated and for which no or little additional cost impacts would be
seen, the relative competitiveness of these farms would be expected to increase. For those
farms that are not already regulated and which will see additional cost impacts, the relative
competitiveness of these farms would be expected to decrease. The total costs of doing
business, that is the costs of administrative burden and compliance combined, are thought to
negatively impact upon farms. The exact level, however, as noted in the above, is to be
determined by the BREF process. If these costs cannot be passed on in the price of produce,
these costs will be incurred by businesses, impacting upon profitability. As noted, however,
the cost to benefit ratio remains favourable when environmental benefits are considered and
monetised.
Position of SMEs
The measure will likely bring additional impacts on SMEs. No specific statistics on whether
the farms will be defined as SMEs or not were identified. No means to identify the costs per
employee or businesses have been identified. The impact of this measure towards SMEs,
therefore, remains unclear.
Innovation and research
This measure may have a limited impact on research and development. Provisions within the
IED, such as Article 27 on emerging techniques, allow for research and development within
the context of BAT. Each BREF includes a chapter on emerging techniques, which acts as an
indication of future techniques that could in the future (i.e. ‘if commercially developed’) be
considered as BAT. This pathway encourages the continual focus on further reducing the
environmental impacts of industrial activities or innovating in ways to save costs when
compared to existing BAT. If this measure was adopted, such activities would be subject to
the Sevilla Process, with emerging techniques considered within the eventual BREF.
Public authority impacts
This measure will have negative impacts on public authority costs.
Similarly to measure 31 for cattle, the administrative cost for authorities is expected to be the
same as for operators, whereby total administrative costs for granting and enforcement of
permits is split 50-50 between farmer and permitting authority. The reasoning for this split is
453
explained in the public authority impacts for Measure 31, as the same processes and logic
applies. The data is shown in the following table.
Table A8-30: Administrative costs for public authorities in the expanded scope for pig and
poultry farms, in the baseline situation of full IED Chapter 2 requirements, and under the
tailored approach.
Threshold
(LSU)
Administrative costs for public
authorities from permitting pig farms
Administrative costs for public authorities
from permitting poultry farms
Full IED Ch.2
requirement
(€m/year)
Tailored approach
(€m/year)
Full IED Ch.2
requirement
(€m/year)
Tailored approach
(€m/year)
50 94.6 55.1 99.6 57.9
100 60.9 35.4 62.1 36.1
125 49.9 29.0 51.6 30.1
150 38.9 22.6 41.3 24.0
300 19.4 11.3 21.6 12.6
450 10.1 5.9 11.9 6.9
600 3.8 2.2 7.8 4.5
750 - - 3.3 2.2
There will be the costs to the Commission/ EU overall in developing BAT based
requirements. The estimates in the IED evaluation for this one-off cost of a BREF
development were €7.9m (range €3.6m to €20.7m). After apportioning the fraction of this
cost for public authorities, and annualising over a period of 20 years assuming two BREFs in
this period, the annualised cost of the BREF process for public authorities would be expected
to range from €0.3m/year to €1.4m/year, with a central estimate of €0.5m/year. It could be
expected that the costs of developing BAT based requirements would be on the lower end of
this range because of the limited scope to extending the scope of the existing IRPP BREF to
smaller farms, and the possibility of having a simple process.
There will be one-off costs to the Member States for transposition of new requirements, as
well as ongoing regulatory costs. Further evidence gathered during the focus group with
selected Member State authorities identified how several Member States are already
regulating smaller pig and poultry farms to some degree, with variation between them on (1)
the threshold from which they are regulating the farms, and (2) the approach taken to
regulating them (i.e. whether permitting, or simpler registration / notification systems, i.e.,
the Tailored Approach [see Measure 33) – next section]. No information has been identified
however on the possible costs to Member States for transposing and implementing the
requirements.
Environmental impacts
Climate
This measure will have strongly positive impacts on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Estimates in Ricardo (2021) and further analysis suggest that with a threshold at the
equivalent of 50-150 LSU, approximately 77-101 kt of CH4 could be mitigated per year, with
454
c. 40% of this estimated to accrue in Spain. These estimates are based on input from the
model GAINS 4, and the accompanying pollution control technologies included in the
model’s baseline scenario. To place this value in context, CH4 emissions reported from
activities relating to pigs reported to the E-PRTR (activities 7a(ii) and 7a(iii)), average around
570 kt between 2017 and 2019. These emissions are approximately 0.04% to 0.06% of GHG
emissions relative to the baseline scope of the IED.
However, more broadly in context, agriculture emissions of 463 Mt CO2eq 34
represent 13
%35
of the total EU-27 GHG emissions. This 77-101 kt of CH4 represents in CO2 equivalent
terms 2.1-2.8 Mt CO2eq, i.e. around 0.4-0.6% of the EU27 agricultural sector emissions.
Further reductions beyond those estimated could be possible, and would depend on the level
of ambition of a BATC for smaller pig farms, as well as if N2O emissions are accounted for.
These reductions would contribute to the EU Methane Strategy, and would help to address
the concerns flagged in the recent European Court of Auditors Special report ‘Common
Agricultural Policy and climate’ which indicates that despite the Common Agricultural
Policy funds injected to the agriculture sector, GHG emissions from the sector have not
decreased since 2010.
Air quality
This measure would have strongly positive impacts on reducing air pollutant emissions.
Estimates in Ricardo (2021) and further analysis suggest that with a threshold at the
equivalent of 50 LSU, approximately 25 kt and 45 kt of NH3 emissions could be mitigated
per year for pigs and poultry respectively; and approximately 19 kt (pigs) and 37 kt (poultry)
at a threshold of 150 LSU. These estimates are based on input from the model GAINS 4, and
the accompanying pollution control technologies included in the model’s baseline scenario.
To place these values within context, both poultry and pigs are large sources of NH3
emissions. The NH3 emissions from pigs represent approximately 45% of NH3 emissions
relative to the scope of the IED, and the corresponding value for poultry is 28%. Combined
they represent approximately 72% of all NH3 emissions reported by IED activities in E-
PRTR. EU27 total NH3 emissions were 3.6 Mt in 2018, of which 2.4 Mt/year are from
livestock.36
This combined pigs and poultry reduction of 70 kt/year (50 LSU) therefore
represents around 2.9% of livestock sector emissions, or around 1.9% of total EU NH3
emissions. At the threshold of 150 LSU, the combined reduction of 56 kt/year represents
around 2.3% of livestock sector emissions, or around 1.6% of total EU NH3 emissions.
As was already mentioned in the discussion on measure 31, for some Member States the very
large number of animals concentrated in a small geographical area, has led to Member States
enacting policies to address these emissions sources, in order to meet objectives under other
EU rules, such as the Nitrates Directive, Habitats Directive and Birds Directive.
34
EEA greenhouse gases data viewer https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-
viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer
35
European Court of Auditors Special Report Common Agricultural Policy and climate
36
EEA air pollutant emissions data viewer https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/air-
pollutant-emissions-data-viewer-3
455
Using the latest work on damage cost functions by the EEA37
, the monetised benefits of these
emission reductions (NH3 and CH4) for the range of 50-150LSU are estimated to be around
€1 075-1 409m/year for pigs and €974-1 195m per year for poultry. Across the different
considered farm size thresholds, the ranges of benefit-cost ratios, of all costs combined
(administrative and compliance costs), remains positive and favourable, ranging from 4.3 to
9.3 for pigs, and from 4.5 to 11.8 for poultry. The benefit-cost ratio decreases with a lowering
of the IED farm size threshold down to 50 LSU, as administrative costs become a larger
relative burden at these lower thresholds.
The variation in these values by threshold is shown in the table below. There are considerable
CH4 emission reductions estimated here for the pig sector, which come from a strong
application of anaerobic digestion at manure processing facilities. It is recognised that this
technique may have significant investment costs and long payback periods. In the long term,
this technique is expected to be cost positive by the GAINS model. It was considered to be
too optimistic an assumption, and we have reduced the net Economic cost to 0 for pig and
poultry manure, also because anaerobic digestion often requires a co-substrate to function and
can therefore not always be applied to every situation of high manure supply. If the IED is
not the appropriate instrument to incentivise investment in anaerobic digestion, then many of
these CH4 benefits may not be realised. However, the benefit cost ratios will remain positive
even at 0 CH4 benefits, relying entirely on NH3 reduction measures.
For the poultry sector, due to lack of baseline data on the application and practice of
anaerobic digestion on poultry manure, this assumption was not made and no data is shown
on the potential impact of this CH4 measure for the poultry sector at this time.
Table A8-31: Monetised benefits and associated benefit-cost ratios
Threshold (LSU) Monetised benefits
(€m/year) (NH3)
Monetised benefits
(€m/year) (CH4)
Benefit-cost ratio
Pigs 50 690 719 4.3
100 628 654 6.0
125 578 601 6.7
150 524 551 7.9
300 344 376 8.2
450 220 241 8.6
600 98 106 9.3
Poultry 50 1 195 - 4.5
100 1 125 - 6.8
125 1 050 - 7.6
150 974 - 8.9
300 657 - 9.7
450 419 - 10.4
600 222 - 11.5
750 96 - 11.8
37
Unpublished draft EEA (December 2020) “Costs of air pollution from European industrial facilities 2008–
2017”
456
Reductions in other air pollutants would also be expected, both directly (e.g. PM) and
indirectly (e.g. PM, ozone) leading to further benefits which have not been quantified. These
will also be included when updating the BREF and BAT conclusions, but no accurate
baseline of this information from recent years was obtained as the main modelling system for
the baseline (IIASA GAINS 4) did not yet contain full information about other pollutants
outside of ammonia and methane.
The estimated costs are much smaller than the total monetised benefits of NH3 and CH4
emissions reductions estimated. Across the different considered farm size thresholds, the
ranges of benefit-cost ratios, of all costs combined (administrative and compliance costs),
therefore, remains positive and favourable, ranging for pigs from 4.3 to 9.3 for pig farms.
This is showing that the relative benefits to costs are lowest for pig farms. This is in line with
the expectations, as pig farms already have the lowest farm size threshold included within the
IED scope, at an estimated 750 LSU, but near 600 LSU for Specialised farms. This means
that already a large proportion of very large farms are captured, and those are the farms with
the highest potential benefit-cost ratio, and there is more limited potential for economies of
scale.
The benefit-cost ratio decreases linearly with a lowering of the IED farm size threshold to 50
LSU (which is equivalent to either 65 sows or 170 production pigs) due to increased total
administrative costs.
For poultry, the estimated costs are also much smaller than the monetised benefits of NH3
emissions reductions. Across the different considered farm size thresholds, the benefit-cost
ratio of all costs combined (administrative and compliance costs) ranges from 4.5 to 11.8 for
poultry farms. The benefit-cost ratios for the poultry sector therefore are lower than those for
cattle, but higher than those for pigs. This is in line with the expectations as the current IED
farm size threshold for poultry is relatively higher than for pigs, when expressed in LSU
(approximately equivalent to 900 vs 750), but lower than for cattle, which has no current
regulation under the IED at all. Similar to the analysis for pigs, the benefit-cost ratio
decreases linearly with a lowering of the IED farm size threshold to 50 LSU (2 400 poultry
places) due to the increased weight of administrative costs. Lastly, a very important factor
that significantly increases benefit-cost ratios for cattle is the potential for CH4 emission
reductions from enteric fermentation.
Water quality and resources
This measure should provide weakly positive impacts on water quality and resources. The
integrated approach of the IED and the range of environmental issues that could be covered
by an integrated Livestock sector BREF and BAT Conclusions would be expected to lead to
tighter controls on a range of environmental issues from pigs and poultry. The analysis
conducted by Ricardo in May 2021 did not cover releases to water.
However, according to E-PRTR data, nitrogen releases reported between 2017 and 2019,
from IRPP totalled between 0.5 – 0.9%, relative to the baseline scope of the IED. Phosphorus
releases reported for 2018 and 2019 from IRPP totalled between 3.3 – 5.1%, relative to the
457
baseline scope of the IED.38
Similarly, with the above statistics, these are often based on a
single site reporting, indicating that the majority of farms are below the Annex II reporting
thresholds within the E-PRTR Regulation for these pollutants. This makes assessing the
potential impact of the measure, towards water quality, problematic using this data source.
The extent of the activities’ impacts, or the potential for the reduction of this environmental
impact is uncertain.
Soil quality or resources
This measure should provide weakly positive impacts on soil quality. The integrated
approach of the IED and the range of environmental issues that could be covered by an
Livestock sector BREF and BAT Conclusions would be expected to lead to tighter controls
on a range of environmental issues from pigs and poultry. The analysis conducted by Ricardo
in May 2021 did not cover releases to land. However, according to E-PRTR data, phosphorus
releases reported between 2017 and 2018 from IRPP totalled between 63 – 100%, relative to
the baseline scope of the IED. No 2019 releases of phosphorus were reported. These figures
are often based on a single site reporting, indicating that the majority of farms are below the
Annex II thresholds within the E-PRTR Regulation for these pollutants. This makes assessing
the potential impact of the measure, towards soil quality, problematic.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure should provide weakly positive impacts on waste production. The integrated
approach of the IED and the range of environmental issues that could be covered by an
Livestock BREF and BAT Conclusions would be expected to lead to tighter controls on a
range of environmental issues from pigs and poultry. No means of assessing the volume or
type of waste has identified, however regulation of the sector through the IED may further
benefit the management of waste, through provisions such as Article 11, which requires
installations are operated within the principles of the waste hierarchy, as laid out in the Waste
Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EU).
Efficient use of resources
Unclear impacts. No means of assessing the efficient use of energy or water have been
identified, however, regulation of the sector through the IED may further benefit resource
efficiency, with resource efficiency featuring within the Sevilla Process.
Social impacts
This measure has unclear social impacts. This measure will incur costs towards business and
operators. If these costs cannot be passed on within the price of produce, these costs will
impact upon profitability and could therefore impact upon employment. No formal
assessment has been carried out, but the impacts are thought to be negative.
38
2017 releases of phosphorus from IRPP reported in E-PRTR appear to be spurious, owing to the reporting of
one site.
458
Measure 33: Introduce a tailored regulatory framework for installations
carrying out rearing of animals.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
The possible widening of the IED scope for IRPP (measure 32), and inclusion of the cattle
sector (measure 31), may cause significant increase of workload for the competent authorities
and farmers considering the number of installations possibly concerned. With this in mind,
and due to the fact that the concerned processes and emissions patterns are relatively simple
in comparison with other IED activities, agro-industrial activities may not require the full
extent of the IED regime as laid out in 2010/75/EU. Therefore, for such activities it is
appropriate to consider a specific tailored approach (TA).
The assumption is that the tailored approach is needed for the IED to better address the
specificities of livestock rearing. This would apply both to IRPP installations already covered
by the IED and additional IRPP and cattle installations. No other IED activities are being
considered for this measure.
The tailored approach would seek to minimise impact on the already established MS
permitting systems. This would be done by defining the tailored approach as minimum
requirements that MS could implement within their national permitting / registration systems.
MS may then opt for keeping current IRPP installations under the full IED regime (i.e.
without change) or could choose to change the way existing IRPP installations are regulated
by switching to the tailored approach. It is noted that many MS have found ways to modify
(simplify) permitting within the IED for IRPP (e.g. linked to certification systems that exist
for other agricultural obligations, and/or using general binding rules) which is already
achieving flexibility, so it will be important to understand the extent of existing practices
here.
The tailored approach and its expected effect on public authorities and businesses is
comprised of two pillars:
1. Measure design
2. Alignment with existing permitting systems and application of BAT
Pillar 1: Tailored Approach measure design: reducing overall IED requirements
The first pillar on measure design aims to reduce the general administrative burden on all
farms within the revised scope of the IED by reducing the requirements for operators. The
possible reduction in requirements would include:
 Review the applicability and monitoring requirements for ELVs on air and water.
Feedback was received from Member State authorities that direct monitoring
requirements of air and water ELVs may not be suitable for this type of installation, as
in the majority of cases, monitoring is done by estimation of emission factor based on
the techniques that are applied. Further, emissions to air and water are often very
indirect, via animals that are grazing, or via the choices made by the farmer on
application of manure, which is already regulated via the Nitrates Regulation and
related water regulations. The inclusion of minimum ELVs, required resource
management techniques and other provisions (e.g., monitoring requirements and
459
compliance rules) will be determined in a subsequent dedicated Commission
implementing decision, that will adopt a proportionate approach regarding the
pollution risks, and the requirements of farms to demonstrate that BAT has been
applied, and that required results have been achieved.
 Simplification of the Environmental Management System, where feasible, whilst still
retaining a high degree of environmental protection. Similar to the above, an
Environmental Management System is a measure designed for large industrial
installations and may not need to be as comprehensive for especially smaller livestock
farms. Often in permitting, the relevant environmental emissions are already
controlled for via the permitting conditions and the conditions on the farm, day by
day, do not change to the point where intensive environmental management may be
necessary throughout the year. The following elements of the IRPP EMS could
therefore be removed:
o Independent internal or external auditing to determine if the EMS conforms to
planned arrangements. (this is because farming EMS implementation and
monitoring thereof is often not to a complexity that an external auditor would
be required)
o Consideration for the environmental impacts from the eventual
decommissioning of the installation at the stage of designing a new plant
(environmental impact from decommissioning are negligible compared to use-
phase impacts)
o Application of sectoral benchmarking on a regular basis (Farming systems do
not change or evolve as rapidly as other, more technology-intensive industries,
and farming systems are often heterogeneous across a Member State.
Therefore, this action is more appropriate as a sector-wide effort than on the
individual farms).
 The IRPP BREF also contains techniques whereby the operator can make a choice for
one or more to select. However, this may not be as relevant to all types of techniques.
In particular, nutrition research is rapidly evolving and locking in certain techniques
to be used on this front introduces inflexibility. A simplification would be to
determine that farms may use one of the techniques described (in for example BAT
3), or may use a different technique provided it has been demonstrated (and evidenced
by the permitting authority to the EU) that this technique achieves the same level of
impact reduction, in terms of reaching the BAT-associated excrement levels. This can
be done because many Member State authorities maintain their own BAT documents
that are often more detailed than what is in the IRPP BREF, and those documents
could be validated by an EU entity as “compliant” with the IED, at which point it can
be used in combination with local regulation as evidence of compliance to a BAT
requirement and the associated ELV. This means no additional burden would be
introduced above existing regulations based on these other techniques. This may have
some administrative burden at the start of the implementation of the BAT based
460
requirements, but this would only happen once, and not every time per farm permit
process.
 Removal of the need for baseline reports under Article 22, as the environmental
impacts of a farm are not often felt on the site of the farm itself but relate more to soil
in the surrounding environment, not the soil on the site of the farm.
 Reduction in the frequency of inspections to e.g. every 5 years as a default, or being
triggered by complaints or compliance. Farms are already subject to monitoring and
reporting to other regulations, and operating conditions do not change very rapidly.
 Registration rather than permitting for smaller farms (threshold of what denotes
“smaller” to be determined)
 Inclusion of minimum ELVs, resource management techniques and monitoring/
compliance requirements in a Commission decision.
Pillar 2: Tailored approach permitting: Alignment with permitting systems
In addition to the core tailored approach provisions to be integrated in the IED, the
Commission may issue guidelines for MS, recommending minimum requirements that MS
registration/permitting systems should include, and providing an application template (for
operators) and a permit template (for authorities). An ideal implementation of this would
allow Member States to evidence compliance with the IED via existing policy
implementations. This could substantially reduce the impacts on the measure for Member
States who have already implemented (some level of) environmental permitting with (some
level of) BAT.
To support pillar 2 of the tailored approach, ‘tailored BATC’ may be needed to support this
approach through which a specific Implementing Act (IA) /Delegated Act (DA) could be
used to lay down minimum environmental requirements for installations under a permitting
regime. As national implementation of such conclusions would most likely not comprise a
through site-by-site revision of permits, the act would have to be either directly applicable
(EU regulation) or subject to translation by Member States in general binding rules or
permits, where applicable. The Livestock BREF/ ‘tailored BATC’:
1. would cover current IRPP and additional installations from the cattle sector and
poultry and pigs below current IED thresholds
2. would be started as a priority as soon as consensus emerges on the overall IED
revision, associated scope change(s) and the tailored approach
3. should include technical requirements (ELVs, requirements for environmental
management, monitoring provisions, and BAT requirements) whose implementation
does not necessarily need to be verified directly via full permitting. Instead, it should
allow Member States to gather and present evidence of existing regulations that would
(partially) fulfil the requirements.
Point 3 of the above is where the tailored approach to permitting differs from the classic
approach of the IED. Instead of ensuring compliance via direct control requirements on
environmental permits, the EU would set up an evidence gathering system that allows
Member States to submit evidence that IED requirements are already (partially) met via
implementation of national legislation. This national legislation may in turn be in response to
461
other EU legislation, but the initial driver for regulation on livestock farms is not
consequential.
It is generally not considered feasible to use compliance evidence of other EU Directives or
Regulations as evidence for being below IED ELVs. This, because other relevant EU
Directives are controlling the destination of pollutants (e.g. concentrations in air, water and
soil, or pollutant deposition fluxes), not the emissions source. Therefore, Member States may
have already controlled emissions from farms in order to reduce concentrations of pollutants
in the air, water or soil. However this is not evidence that the farms causing this pollution are
using BAT and/or are operating below ELVs, as the final concentrations of pollutants also
heavily depend on the number of farms and animals in any local area as well as other
pollution sources.
Therefore, it is only relevant for the Commission to understand whether or not farms are
already regulated by restricting emissions per farm (expressed as emissions per animal place)
and if the implementation of national legislation has ensured application of (partial) BAT to
do so, not what the original driver was for that existing regulation.
To enable this, for the tailored approach, there needs to be a method for Member States to
submit evidence that existing permitting regimes/general binding rules ensure compliance
with the IED, by providing evidence that their existing permitting regimes/general binding
rules can only be complied with by farms that are below the suggested IED BAT based
ELVs, and/or can only be complied with by farms that use BAT. To gather this evidence, a
suggestion is for each Member State to implement a national online register for farm
operators and authorities, which can be used to gather the relevant evidence that would be
required by the Commission to ensure compliance with the IED:
 The online register would use the Livestock BREF and relevant EU secondary
legislation (via an IA/DA mechanism) for environmental aspects;
 The Commission would support Member States, by issuing guidelines, to facilitate
creation and usage of online registers;
 Member States could decide whether authorities would need to check all of the
applications put into the online register, or if random checks could be performed;
 Member States could decide if the online register would be applicable for installations
that require a permit and/or those requiring notification only.
Objectives:
The aim of such a tailored approach would be to facilitate effective implementation of the
IED in Member States in terms of achieving a high level of protection of the environment as
a whole, while minimising administrative burden. Given the variation across Member States
for regulating smaller farms - below current IED thresholds - which are being considered for
potential inclusion in the IED, this provision of an EU-wide tailored approach would also
help in levelling the playing field for farms across the EU.
Implementation needs:
 EU to specify which requirements to include in a tailored approach, which will need
to be determined with the input of competent authorities, from the perspective of
462
implementation. It would also require inputs from the sector itself, from a technical
point of view.
 EU to make amendment to the IED to bring agriculture activities outside the scope of
Chapter II and Annex I and to provide a separate Article and associated Annex with
the requirements for Member States to regulate these activities using the tailored
approach.
 EU to develop BAT based requirements
 Member States to implement the tailored approach to the extent needed to provide its
minimum requirements, depending on the extent of the legislation and approaches
already implemented in the Member State.
 Development of a common reporting system facilitated by a common IT format, that
would enable data between Member States on implementation to be utilised for
reporting on the IED, via channels such as the EEA EU Registry and other
agricultural-related databases (such as Eurostat agricultural indicators).
Economic impacts
Six specific categories of Economic impacts were selected for an in-depth assessment of the
policy options for the revision of the IED. These include administrative burden on businesses,
operating costs and conduct of businesses, competitiveness of businesses and levelling the
playing field, the position of SMEs, innovation and research and public authority impacts.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to strongly positive impacts on administrative burden on
businesses. The possible administrative costs of permitting agriculture installations under the
IED have been based on those in the study from Amec (2012), and adjusted to 2020 EUR
prices, as well as additional information received through consultation as part of the IED
revision. These costs are shown in Table 12; they represent a full permitting regime, and
apply to all additional farms brought under IED control with a lowered threshold, or a new
threshold in the case of cattle. Note that these are average costs, and reflect the current
average size of IED installations. The “Central” estimate uses data from Amec (2012),
divided by two to show only the share that is a cost to businesses. The 2007 IED IA
originally estimated that 2/3 of the total administrative burden would be for public authorities
and 1/3 for farmers. We have revised this to ½ for authorities and ½ for farmers. This is based
on stakeholder inputs and knowledge of permitting implementation, which has shown that:
 Farmers make additional costs that are not accounted for in the IED IA, to acquire the
required information needed for a permit for which external advisors may need to be
hired.
 Public authorities often charge farmers a share of their permitting costs, and this
charge can be dependent on the time spent by desk officers on the permit.
The “Central” estimate here reflects the original central estimate from Amec (2012). The
“Higher” estimate reflects a more inefficient permitting regime, whereby more time is spent
on the permitting process (duration: > 1 year) and the farmer has to engage with multiple
public institutions. The “Lower” estimate reflects a very efficient permitting regime, that is
enabled by central IT systems which some Member States have already developed in a
463
response to implementing the IED for their many pig and poultry farms above the thresholds,
which results in shorter durations (< 1 year) elapsing for permit applications and more clarity
for the farmers on the exact information requirements for them.
Table A8-32: Administrative costs (sources: Amec 2012, Stakeholder evidence from focus
groups, and Ricardo estimation for costs for Tailored Approach)
Range Administrative costs per
installation (2012) – full
permitting – previous IED
IA scope
Administrative cost for newly
covered installations (2020 prices)
– full permitting – evidence from
focus group and stakeholder
interviews
Administrative cost for
newly covered installations -
Tailored Approach (2020
prices)
Lower 2 450 EUR/ year 1 000 EUR/year 700 EUR/year
Central 4 250 EUR/ year 1 500 EUR/year 1 150 EUR/year
Higher 15 000 EUR/ year 2 000 EUR/year 1 450 EUR/year
It should be noted that the administrative cost is an average expected increase across all
installations that would be newly subject to IED requirements where they were not before.
The lowest cost are envisioned for farms already under a permitting regime driven by
existing (national) regulation, as the tailored approach would represent the most savings
there.
A tailored approach would lead to a reduced administrative cost for businesses (farms) as
compared to implementing full IED chapter II requirements. The amount this would be
reduced will depend on which requirements are placed on installations in the tailored
approach. It is expected that the tailored approach via Pillar 1 (reducing requirements) could
reduce cost up to 20%. Second, it is further expected that for Member States who already
implement environmental permitting with some level of BAT, the tailored approach could
reduce administrative burdens by an up to an additional 40%. These reductions are applied to
Member States dependent on information that has been received through the various
consultations (including focus group). Various levels of existing permitting approaches exist:
 Registration and/or notification systems. These are not permits but may enable the
competent authority to have the information required to intervene should they choose
to do so. No additional burden reduction is estimated from having this in place, as it
does in no way replace an IED permitting requirement.
 Evidence of a permitting system in place, but no knowledge about its requirements on
environmental protection, and no evidence of a requirement to apply BAT. This
would reduce the burdens by an additional 5% for these Member States, as some
synergy can be expected, for example via the IED allowing the existing permitting
authorities at municipal level to remain and reduce disruption to existing IT systems /
processes within a Member State.
 Evidence of a permitting system in place with some requirements on environmental
protection via either BAT or requirements on farming practices. This would reduce
burdens by up to 20%, as this means the permitting system in place is already similar
with the main pathways through which compliance with the IED should be
464
implemented, and these existing systems / processes could be used. This would reduce
the potential additional administrative cost by 20%.
 Finally, if there is evidence of a permitting system with full requirements on farmers
to use BAT for a wide range of environmental issues, then it is expected that these
farms will already be compliant or near-compliant. Efforts taken by the Commission
to align and seek evidence from Member States who have implemented this should
allow for a further 20% reduction in administrative burdens.
Table 33 below sets out how these different scenarios could play out for Member States with
different baselines in terms of environmental permitting. The maximum assumed reduction
from the tailored approach is 60% compared to the baseline. This is a conservative approach,
as there is not enough knowledge available yet on how the Commission would ensure that
national permitting systems are not disrupted, and how the Commission would gather
evidence from Member States to validate their compliance.
Table A8-33: Approach to estimating the reduction in administrative burdens from
implementing a tailored approach.
Base reduction in
tailored approach from
Pillar 1: Reduction in
requirements
Additional reduction
based on existing
environmental
permitting system
Second additional
reduction based on
existing environmental
permitting system with
full implementation of
BAT
Cumulative level of
reduction in
administrative burdens
achieved for different
baseline situations.
20% for all operators
and permitting
authorities
0% (no evidence of a
permitting system.
Registration systems are
not considered valid)
N/A 20%
5% (evidence of a
permitting system but no
evidence of BAT)
N/A 25%
20% (evidence of a
permitting system with
some level of BAT, but
with confirmation from
the MS that BAT
requirements are more
limited than likely
required under the BAT
based requirements)
20% (evidence of a
permitting system with
full implementation of
BAT)
40% - 60%
The administrative burden for farms already regulated under the IED under activity 6.6 could
also potentially be reduced. If Member State competent authorities chose to implement a
tailored approach for those already regulated, then costs for existing IRPP operators would be
465
lowered for these farms in the EU27 by € 19m/year (with a reduction of 20% from pillar 1 of
the Tailored Approach, which is €2 300/year per installation, with ~20 500 installations). If
the MS authorities chose to remain with the existing regulatory approach for the current IRPP
farms then no saving would occur. So, the cost saving (benefit) would be within the range of
€0 to €19m/year.
For the impact of this measure on the administrative costs of the additional farms being
considered for inclusion (measures 31 and 32), the counterfactual scenario would not have
these farms regulated. The administrative costs of including these additional farms is only to
be considered using the tailored approach. The potential administrative costs of this are
considered within measures 31 and 32.
Operating costs and conduct of business
The tailored approach is intended to reduce administrative burdens without compromising the
application of BAT to reduce emissions. It does so by taking advantage of existing policy
already in place (Pillar 2), as well as by not requiring some Chapter II requirements that may
not add to emission reductions for the vast majority of livestock farms (Pillar I). Therefore,
this is not expected to change compliance costs already incurred by businesses, except in
cases where the tailored approach helps avoid overlapping regulations with similar goals, but
conflicting requirements.
Competitiveness and level playing field
Introducing a tailored approach would impose a singular set of minimum requirements
towards agricultural installations and operators. It offers, however, an opportunity to alter
these requirements to reflect the specificity of animal husbandry, in a manner which may not
be needed for other activities found within Annex I of the IED. It therefore continues to level
the playing field by providing minimum criteria for all Member States. This has largely been
supported within the IED evaluation, where, for industry stakeholder surveyed, 69% agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement ‘the IED has contributed to achieving a level playing
field in the EU for IED sectors by aligning environmental performance requirements for
industrial installations’. Participants from Member States in the focus group consulted on this
matter continued to support the need for ensuring a level playing field, since livestock
farming was considered to be a global industry.
Position of SMEs
Farm operators that are SMEs would stand to benefit from the reductions in administrative
burden discussed above. There are no means to identify how this measure may impact on
SMEs, but it is evident that any reduction in administrative burden would serve to aid the
costs faced by these businesses. The impact of this measure towards SMEs, therefore, is
positive but unclear.
Innovation and research
This measure will not impact innovation and research.
466
Public authority impacts
There will be one-off adoption costs for the authorities to implement a new tailored approach.
These administrative costs for public authorities will vary by Member State, depending on the
extent to which the existing practices in the Member State already have adopted a tailored
permitting approach for livestock farms. The measure as described will allow Member States
to utilise their existing approaches already implemented, as long as they meet the minimum
requirements. The IED evaluation suggested that IED implementation costs for one Member
State were ~€250 000/year. This would be on a scenario of having no policy in place and full
implementation of IED requirements. There would be some complexity involved at the
Member State side, to set up a process which enables the Member State to provide evidence
of compliance with the IED via implementation of existing regulations. At this point in time,
it is not feasible to speculate as to the exact costs of this process.
There will also be ongoing costs of implementation of the tailored approach, including the
means to assess public authority impacts have been identified, and the predicted number of
new installations that may be introduced within the scope of the IED, requiring regulation via
the lowering of the capacity threshold within Annex I of the IED, cannot be readily
determined from available data sources.
Environmental impacts
No environmental impacts are expected by this measure, which is aimed to reduce
administrative burden.
Social impacts
The introduction of a tailored approach to an optimised “permitting” system will likely
reduce administrative burden, reducing costs faced by operators. This reduction in costs may
positively impact upon profitability and upon employment. No formal assessment has been
carried out, but the impacts are thought to be positive.
Measure 34: Extend the current sectoral coverage to also include battery
production within the scope of the IED
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
The measure is to include battery production (lithium-ion and related technologies) within the
scope of the IED. Battery production (specifically of lithium-ion batteries) is expected to
grow in the EU and, although the possible evolution is uncertain, evidence suggests that the
EU27 may host between 45-95 ‘gigafactories’ by 2040 (CIC Energi, 2021)39
. According to
the High-Level Meeting of the European Battery Alliance up to 111 major battery projects
are being developed across EU Member States, with the total level of investment along the
entire value chain amounting to €127 billion40
. Battery production will play a critical role in
39
CIC energiGUNE, Gigafactories: Europe´s major commitment to economic recovery through the
development of battery factories, available at: https://cicenergigune.com/en/blog/gigafactories-europe-
commitment-economic-recovery-battery-factories
40
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_1256
467
the transition of the EU economy to climate neutrality as it is the key enabling technology for
zero-emission mobility and energy storage. This is a gap-filling extension of scope, as much
of the batteries value chain is already covered by IED (non-ferrous metals and processing,
chemicals, production of chemicals, waste treatment).
Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have been extensively employed in portable electronics, electric
vehicles, and grid storage due to a number of valuable qualities such as their high energy
density, high power density and long cycle life41
. Other types of batteries have been and are
continued to be researched and developed, including solid-state batteries (SSBs), sodium-ion
batteries, lithium-sulphur batteries, lithium-air batteries, and multivalent batteries, and they
might be involved in the route to achieving lower prices. However, LIBs are expected to
continue dominating the market for at least the next decade.
Objectives of the measure
 Reducing the environmental impact of industry across the EU-27, via the expansion
of coverage of the IED in Annex I.
 Levelling the playing field for installations across the EU.
Implementation needs
 EU to make legislative change to the IED text.
 EU to develop BAT conclusions.
 Member States to transpose changes into national law.
 Member States to regulate the installations according to the new requirements. This
will require upfront and ongoing implementation actions.
Further evidence and activity data
The battery industry is usually divided in three main areas: electric mobility, stationary
energy storage systems and consumer electronics. In terms of total energy storage capacity,
this substantial growth is primarily attributable to the electrification of transport which will
account for most of the battery demand in 203042
. While the market share of batteries for
electric mobility have rapidly increased and continue to show a steady rising trend, other
industries such as portable electronic or electrical equipment batteries are already very
developed, and they present a slower growing tendency.
In 2020, around 3 million new electric automobiles were registered. This year, for the first
time, Europe led global electric-car sales with around 1.3 million new registrations, and it is
predicted to do so again in 202143
. China followed with 1.2 million new vehicles and then the
United States with 295 000 new registrations44
. The IEA estimates electric vehicles might
account for 15 to 30% of all vehicle sales by 2030.
A number of reasons have contributed to the increase in electric car registrations. On a total
cost of ownership basis, EVs are becoming more competitive in several countries, and
numerous governments have increased or extended fiscal incentives to help electric car
41
Current and future lithium-ion battery manufacturing - ScienceDirect
42
Projected global battery demand by application | Statista
43
The Next Electric-Car Battery Champion Could Be European
44
Trends and developments in electric vehicle markets – Global EV Outlook 2021 – Analysis - IEA
468
customers weather the market downturn (France, Germany, United Kingdom, etc.). Despite
the economic recession, Europe saw a spike in EV registrations in 2020. According to the
IEA, this might be related to two governmental initiatives. First, the European Union's CO2
emissions limits, which limit new car’s average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per
kilometre driven, were set to expire in 2020. Second, as part of stimulus packages to counter
the pandemic's effects, numerous European governments extended EV subsidy programmes.
However, the European battery demand continues to outstrip supply. Hence, the path to build
a battery supply chain rapidly and efficiently is underway across the continent, fuelled by
European and national government funding and solid investment plans.
In this context, the global demand for batteries is expected to increase from 185 GWh in 2020
to over 2000 GWh by 203045
. BloombergNEF estimates that Europe could see its share of
global battery production increase from a 7% in 2020 up to 31% by 203046
, while Benchmark
Mineral Intelligence expects that production capacity (GWh) to rise from 5.4% in 2020 to
16.7% in 2030 as show in the figure below. The European Union’s climate-neutral target
includes an objective of at least 30 million zero-emission cars on the road by 203047
, and the
ambition of European companies meeting more than 90% of the demand for batteries.
Figure A8-22: Lithium-ion battery cell capacity in 2020 and planned for 2030.
Source: Benchmark Mineral Intelligence
Lithium-ion battery production is currently growing at an exponential rate, mainly due to the
41% increase in global electric car registrations and a constant average battery capacity of
55 kWh for BEVs (battery electric vehicles) and 14 kWh for PHEVs (plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles)48
. Over the following decade, global supply is predicted to expand fivefold, from
297 GWh per year in 2018 to 1.6 TWh per year in 202849
.
In 2017, the European Commission formed the European Battery Alliance (EBA)50
to
develop a complete, sustainable and globally competitive battery value chain in the EU. The
45
Projected global battery demand by application
46
The Next Electric-Car Battery Champion Could Be European
47
EU to target 30 million electric cars by 2030 - draft | Reuters
48
Trends and developments in electric vehicle markets – Global EV Outlook 2021 – Analysis - IEA
49
Faraday_Insights-2_FINAL.pdf
50
ABOUT EBA250 - European Battery Alliance
469
objective was to ensure that the EU would become a global centre for battery production,
recycling and innovation and to ensure greater resilience in the single market for this strategic
sector.
The current European annual production capacity is around 35 GWh but announced capacity
might reach 400 GWh by 202551
. Poland and Hungary are now home to the main continent’s
battery plants. Many new battery factories were announced or under development in Europe
in 2020, with financing support from Member States, the European Investment Bank, private
investment among others.
The following map from CIC energiGUNE52
provides an overview of the current and
projected large-scale battery factories in Europe, the main companies involved and their
estimated (minimum and maximum, when available) capacity.
Figure A8-23: Map of the current and projected large-scale battery factories in Europe (2021)
Source: CIC energiGUNE
51
Trends and developments in electric vehicle markets – Global EV Outlook 2021 – Analysis - IEA
52
Gigafactories: Europe´s major commitment to economic recovery through the development of battery
factories | CIC energiGUNE
470
From these European battery factories, the table below lists only those already installed in the
EU-27 and their estimated minimum and maximum capacities. The lowest maximum
capacity of the existing large-scale battery factories is 2.5 GWh. The maximum capacities of
the projected factories in the EU-27 starts from 2.5 GWh up to 70 GWh.
471
Table A8-34: Existing large-scale battery factories in EU-27
Company Year City Country
Capacity (GWh)
Min Max
LG Energy solution 2018 Wroclaw Poland 15 65
Samsung 2018 Göd Hungary 10 15
Faam Research Center 2018 Teverola Italy 10 15
Microvast 2021 Brandenburg Germany 1,5 6
Leclanché Energy Storage
Solutions
2020 Willstätt Germany 1 2,5
Nothvolt 2021 Skelleftea Sweden 32 40
Considering the battery factories listed above, the total capacity in the EU ranges between
69.5 and 143.5 GWh. However, data from the IEA annual report on Trends and developments
on electric vehicle markets53
and studies from Benchmark Mineral Intelligence54
have
estimated the European capacity to be around 35 and 27 GWh, respectively.
This is an area where there are still information gaps, as not all the large-scale battery
factories listed above are fully built and operating at the planned capacity range. According to
information provided by RECHARGE, precise statistics/figures on each plant's current and
final maximum capacity may not be available publicly due to market strategies and R&D
investment in this industrial sector.
Existing legislation currently regulates a number of activities related to battery production.
EU policies and directives for battery technology and other connected and dependant fields55
,
include:
 New batteries regulation: Proposal for a Regulation on batteries and waste batteries
 Batteries directive: DIRECTIVE 2006/66/EC
 Ecodesign directive: DIRECTIVE 2009/125/EC
 REACH regulation: REGULATION (EC) No 1907/2006
 Strategic Action Plan on Batteries: COM(2018) 293 final – Annex 2
 List of critical raw materials: COM(2017) 490 final
For the inclusion of battery production within the scope of Annex I of the IED, battery
production installations will be required to comply with the general regulatory framework set
out by the IED, such as the provisions regarding permits or inspections, detailed in Chapter II
of the IED. This will need to recognise battery compound production (i.e., chemicals, non-
ferrous metals) is already covered within the IED’s present scope; alongside battery disposal
and recovery (to the extent already covered by activity 5.1).
Currently, the IED does include a number of activities that are thought to partially overlap
with battery production, identified via analysis of the E-PRTR dataset, which includes a
53
Trends and developments in electric vehicle markets – Global EV Outlook 2021 – Analysis - IEA
54
EU to target 30 million electric cars by 2030 - draft | Reuters
55
EU LEGISLATION & DIRECTIVES - European Battery Alliance
472
categorisation of facilities by NACE code '27.2 - 'Manufacture of batteries and accumulators'.
The Annex I activities associated most commonly with these sites were IED activity 4.2 on
production of inorganic chemicals. Similarly, IED Annex I activity 5.3a on disposal of non-
hazardous waste with production a capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day (or 5a in Annex I of
the E-PRTR Regulation) or activity 5.3b on recovery, or a mix of recovery and disposal, of
non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 75 tonnes per day for those installations
including battery recycling among their activities, and activity 5.1 on disposal or recovery of
hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day (or 5a in Annex I of the E-
PRTR Regulation) is listed for some plants. It therefore appears that the IED does cover
multiple aspects of the value chain of battery production, just not explicitly with regards to
the phrasing of Annex I.
The key environmental impacts from battery production appear to be already covered by the
IED, referring most of them to the electrode manufacturing step and relating to the use of
chemical substances. Other elements from the production process might not be currently
covered by the IED, such as those associated to the cell assembly or the battery assembly
processes. However, their environmental impact might not be considered as relevant as other
parts of the process. For example, Northvolt’s environmental assessment of the process
considers that the environmental impacts of the battery pack assembly process are
insignificant. The final impact of all elements of the battery production chain, however, is
strongly dependent on the production scale of the installation.
Assessment of impacts
Economic impacts
The sector is growing as stated above and the number of production installations is expected
to be c. 20-25 sites by 2030 and c. 45-95 by 2040. Implementing the measure would be
unlikely to lead to large increases in operating and capital expenditure costs. Economic spill
over effects from positive environmental impacts, such as positive effects on reducing
sickness, healthcare costs and improving productivity, are captured within the environmental
impacts section.
Administrative burden on businesses
The measure would likely lead to weakly negative impacts on the administrative burden on
businesses.
Resources will be required for the permitting process, primarily depending on the number of
installations potentially covered by the IED and the type of permitting framework that would
be introduced. There will be costs to industry of the development of a BREF.
A range of 20-95 is employed, with a central estimate of 25 sites, to develop an average view
of the likely annual average costs of including ‘gigafactories’ in the IED. Based on the
estimated number of installations for this sector and the assumptions of unit costs for the
main requirements for operators, administrative burden on businesses has been estimated
between €0.1m/year to €3m/year, with a central estimate of €0.6m/year, on average over the
period of 20 years from adoption. This wide range is due to the uncertainty in unit
473
administrative costs and the number of installations. These costs are not expected to represent
a significant burden on the sector.
Input from industry via the Targeted Stakeholder Survey, indicated that, for 14 industry
respondents for ‘battery production’, who supplied a definitive response, 5 would anticipate
their costs to be increase by between 5-15%, whilst 7 respondents expect costs greater than
15%. The vast majority of industry respondents chose not to respond, which may be because
they had no particular thematic expertise.
For ‘battery disposal and recovery’, out of the 13 industry respondents who supplied a
definitive response, 5 would anticipate their costs to be increase by between 5-15%, whilst 4
respondents expect costs greater than 15%. Similarly, to the above, the vast majority of
industry chose not to respond.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure will have negative impacts on compliance costs, that is to assume that there
will be costs to achieve BAT, but the exact level is to be determined by the BREF process.
There is uncertainty as to what would be considered BAT for each process, and the degree of
environmental pollution risk, and associated protection measures, already in place via the
activity’s partial inclusion within other activities under Annex I. Such uncertainty means
compliance costs cannot be readily determined.
Competitiveness and level playing field
The total costs of doing business, that is the costs of administrative burden and compliance
combined, are thought to negatively impact upon businesses within the battery industry. The
exact level, however, as noted in the above, is to be determined by the BREF process.
Administrative costs have been estimated and are thought to be small relative to the size of
the sector, which some projections forecast a value of €250 billion by 2025.56
If these costs
cannot be passed on in the price of products, these costs will be incurred by businesses,
impacting upon profitability.
Inclusion of battery production, disposal, and recovery within the Annex I of the IED
imposes a singular set of requirements towards installations and operators. It therefore offers
the potential to level the playing field across the EU by providing minimum criteria for all
member states, notably towards the use of emission limit values. This has largely been
supported within the IED evaluation, where for industry stakeholders surveyed, 69% agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement ‘the IED has contributed to achieving a level playing
field in the EU for IED sectors by aligning environmental performance requirements for
industrial installations’. This is likely to continue to be the case under new sectors adopted,
including for battery production, disposal, and recovery, as in the case of this measure.
The measure therefore can be seen as creating a level playing field as this crucial industry
further develops.
56
Oliver Wyman (2019) Battery manufacturing in Europe
474
Position of SMEs
The limited information available suggests this measure will bring additional impacts to
SMEs. However, this is unlikely given that it is expected that ‘gigafactories’ will be operated
by larger enterprises.
Innovation and research
This measure will have no or limited impact on innovation and research.
Provisions within the IED, such as Article 27 on emerging techniques, allow for research and
development within the context of BAT. Each BREF includes a chapter on emerging
techniques, which acts as an indication of future techniques that could in the future (i.e. ‘if
commercially developed’) be considered as BAT. This pathway encourages the continual
focus on further reducing the environmental impacts of industrial activities or innovating in
ways to save costs when compared to existing BAT. If this measure was adopted, such
activities would be subject to the BREF Process, with emerging techniques considered within
the eventual BREF. The activities partial inclusion to date, owing to similar activities within
Annex I, may have had an indirect effect.
In the baseline, there is significant support from EU instruments and funds to support the
development of the EU battery manufacturing industry. Specifically, through the Important
Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI) instrument which supports two major pan-
European battery projects. In terms of European research, all battery-related issues have been
grouped under the new Horizon Europe framework programme, and a battery partnership
with the industry and other relevant stakeholders has been established (BATT4EU). The
European Investment Bank also significantly contributes to the funding of battery-related
projects in the European Union. Furthermore, several R&D centres have also been
incorporated in the development programmes for battery manufacturers, such as LG Chem
and Northvolt.
Public authority impacts
This measure may have a weakly negative impact on public authorities. This measure would
impact upon the costs to competent authorities. Competent authorities would primarily need
to engage with the permitting process, permit reconsiderations and updates, maintain
information systems and gather evidence provided through monitoring and reporting, lead
inspections, and participate in the BREF process.
Based on the estimated number of installations for these sectors and the assumptions of unit
costs for the main requirements for public authorities, additional administrative costs have
been estimated between €0.3m/year to €3m/year, with a central estimate of €0.8m/year, on
average over the period of 20 years from adoption. This wide range is due to uncertainty in
unit administrative costs and the number of installations. These costs, in isolation, are not
expected to represent a significant burden on public authorities.
Input from both national and regional member state authorities, via the Targeted Stakeholder
Survey for the revision of the IED, indicated that, for the 6 local/regional respondents for
‘battery production’, who supplied a definitive response, 2 would anticipate their costs to be
475
increase by between 5-15%, whilst 1 respondent expect costs greater than 15%. 3 would
anticipate a variation of + or – 5% or little to no impact. The same results the 9 national
respondents for ‘battery production’, who supplied a definitive response, 1 would anticipate
their costs to be increase by between 5-15%, whilst 3 respondents expect costs greater than
15%. 5 would anticipate a variation of + or – 5% or little to no impact. The vast majority of
respondents chose not to respond.
For the 7 local/regional respondents for ‘battery disposal and recovery’, who supplied a
definitive response, 2 would anticipate their costs to be increase by between 5-15%, whilst 2
respondents expect costs greater than 15%. 3 would anticipate a variation of + or – 5% or
little to no impact. The same results the 13 national respondents for ‘battery production’, who
supplied a definitive response, 1 would anticipate their costs to be increase by between 5-
15%, whilst 4 respondents expect costs greater than 15%. 8, however, would anticipate a
variation of + or – 5% or little to no impact. Similar to the above, the vast majority of
respondents chose not to respond, perhaps not having particular thematic expertise.
Environmental impacts
The environmental profile of a battery manufacturing facility is directly related to the process
or processes covered, as not all battery factories include all three steps of the manufacturing
process (electrode manufacturing, cell assembly and battery pack assembly).
The battery manufacturing supply chain begins with the extraction of basic materials. The
battery ingredients are then processed to make them battery-grade ready. After the
manufacture and integration of battery cells in modules, battery packs are integrated with a
battery management system, a cooling system, and a battery case.
An outline of the battery supply chain is shown in the figure below.
476
Figure A8-24: Battery supply chain.
Source: Ricardo PLC
There are numerous lithium-ion battery chemistries and cell designs. However, many of these
use comparable manufacturing procedures, as different ways of cutting and stacking cell
layers result in distinct cell designs. There are a variety of lithium-ion battery (LIB)
technologies available, each with a different chemical composition for different uses and
varying degrees of power and energy density.
The table below lists the primary environmental impacts and their principal sources during
the battery manufacturing process.
477
Table A8-35: Environmental impacts for lithium-ion battery manufacturing process.
Environmental
impacts
Type of emissions Major sources Measures - normal operation Expected values after measures
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON THE OPERATIONAL PHASE
Energy
consumption
Large amounts of energy used
in the manufacture of batteries.
Equipment operation and
auxiliary energy consumption
- Energy efficiency designs.
- Energy management system
- Identification of sources of
waste heat
Depends on the scale of the factory.
However, according to data for current
battery manufacturing, the energy use
lies between 350 and 650 MJ/kWh57
.
Waste
Residual waste Production process
Residual waste is usually sorted
to the waste station while
monitoring quantities, spills and
gas formation.
Depends on the scale of the factory.
Organic solvent (NMP) Production process
Recovered by condensation to
be returned to the process.
Depends on the scale of the factory.
Non-hazardous waste for
external disposal:
- metal (from magnets)
- waste aluminium foil
- waste graphite powder
- waster copper foil
- waste nickel-plated steel
- sodium sulphate (Na2SO4)
Discarded intermediate products
Minimum waste is expected
when operating under normal
operation conditions58
.
However, due to maintenance
and other than normal
operations, waste is expected to
be produced at a rate of 1-5% of
annual production.
1-5% of annual production.
E.g., Norhvolt expected values82
expressed in approx. weight (kg/day):
- metal: 100 kg/day
- aluminium foil: 100 kg/day
- graphite powder: 750 kg/day
- copper foil: 200 kg/day
- nickel-plated steel: 700 kg/day
- See section dedicated to Na2SO4
(emissions to water).
57
The Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Lithium-Ion Batteries
58
Information from Northvolt’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA).
478
Environmental
impacts
Type of emissions Major sources Measures - normal operation Expected values after measures
Hazardous waste for external
disposal:
- Cathode production.:
LiNiCoO, LiOH, NMP, cathode
(discarded)
- Anode production: CBC, SBR,
anode (discarded).
- Electrolyte mixture: ingredient
chemicals, electrolyte
(discarded).
- Capsule manufacturing: PCE,
etc
- Propagation: damaged cells.
- Other: sludges from water
treatment, residual oils,
chemical residues
- Cathode production
- Anode production
- Electrolyte mixture
- Capsule manufacturing
- Propagation (damaged cells)
- Other
Minimum waste is expected
when operating under normal
operation conditions59
.
However, due to maintenance
and other than normal
operations, waste is expected to
be produced at a rate of 1-5% of
annual production.
E.g., Norhvolt expected values82
expressed in approx. weight (kg/day):
- Cathode production: ~1650 kg/day
- Anode production: ~100 kg/day
- Electrolyte mixture: ~200 kg/day
- Capsule manufacturing: ~35 kg/day
- Propagation: ~500 kg/day
Emissions to air
GHG
It is not always easy to determine
which emissions occur from what
stage in the production. Most
common is that the emissions
from the battery components are
presented (anode, cathode etc) but
that it is not divided between
material mining and refining and
further processing.
Information under
development.
The results differ quite drastically. In
general, it appears that most articles are
non-transparent and there are usually
information gaps in the goal and scope
reporting60
.
Dust in form of metal particles
(nickel, cobalt, manganese,
lithium).
- Drying of active material at
cathode manufacturing.
- Other production steps.
Purification techniques.
E.g., ceramic filter or textile
barrier filter followed by HEPA
Max. emissions82
: 103 kg/year
Air flow: 13200 Nm3/h
59
Information from Northvolt’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA).
60
The Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Lithium-Ion Batteries
479
Environmental
impacts
Type of emissions Major sources Measures - normal operation Expected values after measures
filters.
PCE (VOC) Cathode production
Purification techniques.
E.g., carbon filter.
Max. emissions82
: 160 kg/year
Air flow: 1000 Nm3/h
Ammonia
Recycling of ammonia that ends
up in the process effluent after
ammonia has been used for
precipitating a metal slurry.
Purification techniques.
E.g., scrubber for venting from
stripper.
Max. emissions82
: <1 kg/year
Air flow: 50 Nm3/h
Non-metal containing particles:
graphite, CBR and SBR
Production process
Purification techniques.
E.g., condensation trap followed
by textile blocking filter.
Max. emission82
s: 900 kg/year
Air flow: 23100 Nm3/h
NMP (VOC) Production process
Purification techniques.
E.g., condensation followed by
carbon filter.
Max. emissions82
: 1120 kg/year
Air flow: 71700 Nm3/h
Hydrogen
During combustion, only water is
formed.
Purification techniques.
E.g., torch.
Max. emissions82
: 230 tons
Air flow: 30 kg/h
Emissions to
water
Sodium sulphate (Na2SO4) Process wastewater
Conventional drainage
technology (evaporation,
membranes, decants, etc.)
Depends on the production range of the
battery factory.
Ammonia Process wastewater
Recycled in stripper
(exclusively dedicated to
ammonia).
480
Environmental
impacts
Type of emissions Major sources Measures - normal operation Expected values after measures
Aquatic
environment
- Arsenic and the metals
chromium, zinc and copper
- Mercury and PBDE
the flow of process wastewater
is estimated to be approximately
120 m3/h (0.03 m3/s)
- Ni-Co-Mn oxide preparation in
cathode production
- Refinement step in cathode
production
- Cell assembly
- Washing water
Purification steps as part of the
process.
E.g., Norhvolt expected values82
expressed in maximum concentration in
the measuring points:
- Nickel: 20 g/l
- Cobalt: 20 g/l
- NH4 - N: 40 mg/l
- Na2SO4: 2 g/l
- Lithium: 0.2 mg/l
- Organic pollutants: 20 g/l
- NaOH: 9 (pH)
Water temperature
Outgoing water having too high
temperature.
Heat exchanges and cooling
water tower.
Information not available.
Noise and
vibration
Noise
Normal production process.
Specially those steps related to:
- Mechanical process steps
- Loading and unloading of
materials
- Increased transport density in
near roads (e.g., number of
trucks)
- Facility's design.
- Major noise sources placed in
closed areas.
- Installation of local screens.
- Selection of equipment.
40 dBA - 80 dBA
Vibration Information under development.
Information under
development.
< 0.4mm/s
481
Lithium-ion battery production is an energy-intensive process and entails a number of
complex manufacturing procedures.
In several LCAs of battery electric vehicle (BEV) technologies, battery manufacturing is
found to be the source of the greatest amount of energy consumption and associated
environmental effects during the manufacturing stage. Depending on the approach taken and
the electricity generation source, it is estimated a range from 10% to 75% of manufacturing
energy and 10 to 70% of manufacturing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (e.g., coal-fired,
natural gas-fired, or renewable)61
.
The source of the energy used to manufacture batteries has a significant impact on their
environmental footprint, as the largest part of the energy use in the production of lithium-ion
batteries comes from electricity use. Due to this, the electricity mix used is a critical factor for
the GHG emissions from production, as it is stated to account for 62% of the total emissions,
implying that manufacturing accounts for 107 kg CO2eq/kWh.
Manufacturing cells in facilities powered solely by renewable energy sources is currently the
most efficient way to reduce GHG emissions from battery production.
Climate
The measure is expected to have limited or no impacts on greenhouse gas emissions.
Including the sector within the IED would lead to the development of BAT Conclusions for
the sector, which may identify options for improving energy efficiency at the sites, but such
options may be taken up by industry under business as usual.
The 2017 E-PRTR data indicates no emissions of CH4, CO2 or N2O from plants categorised
by NACE code '27.2 - 'Manufacture of batteries and accumulators'. It is thought, therefore,
that the battery production, at least at its current levels, has limited GHG emissions in the EU.
Other research reports do indicate battery manufacturing to lead to GHG emissions, but
clearly these are not being reported to E-PRTR perhaps because they are not occurring in
Europe. The ICCT (2018) conducted a meta-analysis of various battery manufacturing
studies and identified only one study estimating battery production GHG intensity based on
European manufacturing, which had GHG emissions 56 kg CO2e / kWh. That said these
estimates may be taking a lifecycle approach rather than an installation level approach. The
ICCT study, and others, have noted several trends suggesting these may drop over time, as
they are mainly influence by the source of the energy used for the battery manufacturing.
Air quality
This measure could have positive impacts on air quality. However, the extent of this is
uncertain and would depend on the ambition level of future BAT Conclusions. The 2017 E-
PRTR data indicates that only lead emissions were reported from plants categorised by
NACE code '27.2 - 'Manufacture of batteries and accumulators'. This may not simply be due
to the fact these are the only emissions associated with the activity, but rather, these
emissions exceed the pollutant thresholds in Annex II of the E-PRTR Regulation. The
addition, these lead emissions is equivalent to 0.002% of EU27 reported lead emissions,
61
Environmental Effects of Battery Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (fas.org)
482
relative to the baseline scope of the IED. It is considered that the E-PRTR data source
limitations are affecting the conclusions that can be drawn.
According to available information provided from the Environmental and social impact
assessments (ESIA) for a number of battery manufacturing projects in the EU, the main
environmental impacts related to emission to air are those including dust from metal particles
(nickel, cobalt, manganese and lithium), ammonia, non-metal dust (graphite, CBR and SBR),
organic solvent NMP and hydrogen emissions.
Water quality and resources
This measure could have positive impacts on water quality. However, the extent of this is
uncertain and would depend on the ambition level of future BAT Conclusions. By
comparison, the US EPA has developed Battery Manufacturing Effluent Guidelines and
Standards (40 CFR Part 461). The regulated pollutants include cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
copper, cyanide, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, oil & grease, silver and zinc.
According to available information provided from the Environmental and social impact
assessments (ESIA) for a number of battery manufacturing projects in the EU and LCA
studies on the battery electric vehicle (BEV) technologies, the main environmental impacts
related to emission to water are those including sodium sulphates, ammonia, nickel, cobalt,
lithium, and organic compounds.
Soil quality
No releases to soil have so far been identified.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure could have positive impacts on waste. However, the extent of this is uncertain
and would depend on the ambition level of future BAT Conclusions. According to available
information provided from the Environmental and social impact assessments (ESIA) for a
number of battery manufacturing projects in the EU, waste production is mainly related to
residual waste from the production process, organic solvent (NMP) from the cathode
production, and non-hazardous and hazardous waste for external disposal related with several
steps of the battery manufacturing process, such as cathode and anode production, electrolyte
mixture and propagation.
However, regulation of the sector through the IED may further benefit the management of
waste, through provisions such as Article 11, which requires installations are operated within
the principles of the waste hierarchy, as laid out in the Waste Framework Directive (Directive
2008/98/EC).
Efficient use of resources
The impacts on the efficient use of resources are unclear. The regulation of the sector through
the IED may further benefit resource efficiency, with resource efficiency featuring within the
Sevilla Process.
483
Social impacts
The inclusion of battery production sector within Annex I of the IED will incur costs towards
business and operators. If these costs cannot be passed on within the price of products, these
costs will impact upon profitability and, therefore, potentially upon employment. There is
limited evidence available to quantify these impacts, but they are expected to be negative.
Measure 35: Extend the current sectoral coverage to also include shipbuilding
(other than coating) and ship dismantling within the scope of the IED
The measure is to include shipbuilding (other than coating) and ship dismantling within the
scope of Annex I of the IED.
NB: Although the impacts of this measure have been assessed, it was decided to discard the
measure at a later stage in the assessment of the PO5 measures. The rationale for discarding
the measure is as follows:
 Shipyards are already partly covered under IED Activity 6.7, for the coating activity
(being one of the main environmental pressures from the activity). The IED includes
any activity in which a single or multiple application of a continuous film of a coating
is applied to, which includes the surfaces of ships. Shipbuilding and repair
installations that carry out coating activities with an organic solvent consumption
capacity of more than 150 kg per hour or more than 200 tonnes per year are included
in the scope of the IED. By comparison, E-PRTR includes in its scope facilities for
the building of, and painting or removal of paint from ships, with a capacity for ships
100 m long (EC, 2006).
 In the context of ship dismantling and recycling, there is already a set of minimum
requirements for ship recycling facilities across the EU due to the EU Ship Recycling
Regulation (regulation (EU) No 1257/2013, based on the Hong Kong Convention
(2009) on transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposals to the
ship recycling industry). This is argued to already provide a (minimum) level playing
The main environmental pressures from this activity are addressed by existing EU and
national policies.
Measure 36: Extend the current sectoral coverage to also include forging
presses, cold rolling with capacity exceeding 10 t/h, and wire drawing
with capacity exceeding 2 t/h within the scope of the IED (e.g. via Annex I,
activity 2.3).
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
Include forging presses, cold rolling with capacity exceeding 10 t/h, and wire drawing with
capacity exceeding 2 t/h within the scope of the IED (e.g. via Annex I, activity 2.3).
The production of forged materials can be carried out using open/closed die or cold forging
techniques. In open die forging, the preheated metal (materials are typically forgeable at
484
temperature above 60% of their melting temperature) is compressed between multiple dies
that do not completely enclose the material. The open die forging is less suitable for the
production of complex finished shapes than closed die, and machining is typically required
afterwards in order to achieve the desired dimensions. The open die forging process can be
performed by using presses and hammers. Close die forging is more suitable for producing
complex geometries. In close die forging, it is often not possible to achieve the final shape
with one set of dies, and hence multiple forging with various dies would be required to
achieve the final quality. The available published information does not distinguish between
the stand-alone and integrated operations with those of primary/secondary steelmaking or the
application of presses and hammers in closed or open die forging.
Cold rolling is a process by which hot rolled strip steel products are compressed between
rollers with no prior heating in order to adjust and improve the surface, thickness,
mechanical, and metallurgical properties of the product. The stand-alone operation of such
mills is referred to installations where the hot rolling of strip products is occurred outside of
the facility, and hence the steel feedstock used for the cold rolling processes are imported into
the installation. The cold rolling process is performed on hot rolled steel products. The hot
rolling operations with a capacity exceeding 20 tonnes of crude steel per hour is already
covered in the IED, whilst the operation of stand-alone cold rolling mills is not currently
included in the scope.
The wire drawing process is carried out on wire rod coils produced in wire rod mills. The
wire rod mill processes billets that are produced from primary/secondary steelmaking routes.
The size of wire rods is reduced in wire drawing mills by pulling them through a single or
series of drawing dies. There are many applications for such products including, cables,
electrical wiring, structural components, etc. The wire drawing process in part of the scope of
the FMP BREF. However, its stand-alone operation is not currently part of the scope of the
IED.
Therefore, this measure would ensure that certain loopholes in the scope of the IED are
closed.
Objective(s):
The following objectives apply:
 Levelling the playing field for installations across the EU.
 Reducing the environmental impact of industry across the EU-27, via the
amendment/expansion of coverage of the IED in Annex I.
Implementation needs:
The following actions will need to be taken to implement the measure:
 EU to amend the IED to bring the activities inside the scope of the IED, primarily by
including the activities in Annex I.
 EU to make legislative change to the IED text.
 Member States to transpose changes into national law.
485
 Member States to regulate the activities according to the new requirements, to the
extent this requires changes from their existing regulatory approaches. This will
require upfront and ongoing implementation actions.
Further evidence and activity data
The number of plants with operational forging presses is estimated to be around 400 in EU
27 (assumptions based on EUROFORGE data and split between operations of presses and
hammers). The majority of the production of forged materials in Europe is performed by
using closed die operations. Apart from closed die forging that has been in decline during the
period, the rest of the categories of production show little change.
There are estimated to be 140 cold rolling plants in EU 27 with total capacity of 63 060
ktonne per annum. The stand-alone cold rolling plants are estimated to be 93 with total
annual capacity of 21 652 ktonnes. The capacity distribution of the installations for stand-
alone cold rolling plants is provided in the figure below. It can be seen that if a production
capacity of more than 10 tonnes/hour is introduced for inclusion in the IED, this would affect
~35 installations. This amount equates to about 65% of the total number of stand-alone cold
rolling installations in EU 27.
Figure A8-25: The capacity distribution of stand-alone cold rolling installations across EU 27.
As part of the FMP BREF review, there have been 7 wire drawing plants that have reported
data, out of which 3 were standalone plants with permitted capacity exceeding 2 tonnes/hour.
A survey carried out by the Wire Drawers Association indicated that there are 12, 35, 5 and
11 stand-alone installations in Germany, Poland, Netherlands and Sweden, respectively.
There was no data available at the time of reporting on the number of such installations in
Capacities of more than 10 t/h
486
other Member States. The total number of such installations, based on the production figures,
can however be estimated to be around 260 in EU 27.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Six specific categories of economic impacts were selected for an in-depth assessment of the
policy options for the revision of the IED. These include administrative burden on businesses,
operating costs and conduct of businesses, competitiveness of businesses and levelling the
playing field, the position of SMEs, innovation and research and public authority impacts.
The data obtained as part of the complementary study supporting the impact assessment of
the IED revision62
have indicated the total number of forging installations in EU 27 to be
around 400. The estimation of the exact number of such plants that exceed a certain pressing
capacity, for instance 10 000 kN with calorific value of more than 5 MW, has not been
possible.
The data collated for the development of the revised ‘ferrous metals processing industry’
BREF, indicates that a capacity threshold of 10 t/h would be appropriate for standalone cold
rolling plants, capturing 8 out of the 9 known plants. The supporting study has found
approximately 35 standalone installations in EU27 that are estimated to operate at capacities
of higher than 10 t/h. For the Wire Drawing (WD) sector, the data collection did not include
many plants. Only 7 WD plants reported data, out of which 3 were standalone plants with
permitted capacity > 2t/h. The supporting study has estimated the total number of WD plants
to be approximately 260 in EU27. No data was found to provide an estimate on the exact
number of standalone WD installations, however, this number is expected to be far lower
than the standalone cold rolling installations in Europe.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on administrative burden on
businesses.
Businesses would primarily need to engage with the permitting process, permit
reconsiderations and updates, monitoring and reporting, host inspections, and participate in
the BREF process.
The number of installations that would be covered by this extension in scope is uncertain.
Currently estimates suggest that there might be 250-400 sites, and likely closer to the upper
end estimate.
Based on the estimated number of installations for these sectors and the assumptions of unit
costs for the main requirements for operators, administrative burden on businesses has been
estimated between €0.6m/year to €11m/year, with a central estimate of €6m/year, on average
over the period of 20 years from adoption. This wide range is due to the uncertainty in unit
62
Trinomics, Ricardo, Wood, 2021. Gathering of complementary evidence for assessing the impacts of
extending the scope of the IED to additional sectors. Draft final report
487
administrative costs and the number of installations. These costs are not expected to represent
a significant burden on the sector.
It should however be noted that there is uncertainty about the current regime of regulations
across the EU with regards to the emissions from the aforementioned sectors. Among the
respondents to the survey carried out in this study Sweden and Austria have indicated that
they currently have a permitting system in place for such installations. It would however be
unclear for instance that if IED is extended to include forging presses of or above certain
capacity, that what level of BAT-AELs would be required from the industry to adhere to.
Input from industry via the Targeted Stakeholder Survey, indicated that, for 26 industry
respondents for ‘downstream ferrous metal processing activities’, who supplied a definitive
response, 6 would anticipate their administrative costs to be increase by between 5-15%,
whilst 19 respondents expect costs greater than 15%. 1 respondent anticipated administrative
costs to decrease by 5-15%. The vast majority of industry respondents chose not to respond,
perhaps not having particular thematic expertise.
“Administrative costs for installations considered for inclusion in the scope of the IED (e.g.
smitheries below the current IED threshold, downstream ferrous metal processing activities –
Q2-5) would increase significantly due to additional requirements (e.g. environmental
inspections, additional reporting, and creation of the baseline report). Most of these
installations are small and the costs incurred by the additional burden would be
disproportionate compared to the expected environment benefit.”
Operating costs and conduct of business
Compliance costs are thought to be negative, that is to assume that there will be costs to
achieve BAT, but the exact level is to be determined by the BREF process. There is
uncertainty as to what would be considered BAT for each process. Such uncertainty means
compliance costs cannot be readily determined. The SF BREF do not discuss BAT for
forging presses and hammers in detail, and therefore establishment of the baseline would not
be possible at this stage. This is while the FMP BREF provides environmental benchmark for
cold rolling and wire drawing processes that could be extended to stand-alone operations.
Sweden and Austria were among the few Member States that provided a response with
regards to the current regulatory framework for forging presses, stand-alone cold rolling and
wire drawing installations in their Member States. They have stated that these plants are
currently being regulated under the General Binding Rules. Therefore it would not be
possible to estimate how many of the potentially eligible plants for the IED scope extension
across EU 27 would need to make upgrades to their current abatement systems in order to
achieve the BAT-AELs stated in the FMP BREF for cold rolling and wire drawing.
Competitiveness and level playing field
The total costs of doing business, that is the costs of administrative burden and compliance
combined, are thought to negatively impact upon businesses. The exact level, however, is to
be determined by the BREF process. If these costs cannot be passed on in the price of
products, these costs will be incurred by businesses, impacting upon profitability.
488
Inclusion of these activities within the Annex I of the IED imposes a singular set of
requirements towards installations and operators. It therefore offers the potential to level the
playing field by providing minimum criteria for all member states, notably towards the use of
emission limit values. This is likely to continue to be the case under new sectors adopted,
including for downstream ferrous metal processing, as in the case of this measure.
Position of SMEs
The exact impact of this measure towards SMEs remains unclear, especially due to gaps in
the evidence available. According to EUROFORGE, an association for the forging industry
in Europe, more than 90% of the forging industry is operated by SMEs. The picture is
somehow different for the cold rolling industry where the majority of the production capacity
across EU 27 is expected to be operated by large enterprises63
. There is not much data
available about the role of SMEs in the wire drawing industry.
Innovation and research
Including downstream ferrous metal processing within Annex I of the IED may have a
limited impact on research and development. Provisions within the IED, such as Article 27
on emerging techniques, allow for research and development within the context of BAT.
Each BREF includes a chapter on emerging techniques, which acts as an indication of future
techniques that could in the future (i.e. ‘if commercially developed’) be considered as BAT.
This pathway encourages the continual focus on further reducing the environmental impacts
of industrial activities or innovating in ways to save costs when compared to existing BAT. If
this measure was adopted, such activities would be subject to the Sevilla Process, with
emerging techniques considered within the eventual BREF.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to have weakly negative impacts on public authorities. Competent
authorities would primarily need to engage with the permitting process, permit
reconsiderations and updates, maintain information systems and gather evidence provided
through monitoring and reporting, lead inspections, and participate in the BREF process.
Based on the estimated number of installations for these sectors and the assumptions of unit
costs for the main requirements for public authorities, additional administrative costs have
been estimated between €0.5m/year to €7m/year, with a central estimate of €4m/year, on
average over the period of 20 years from adoption. This high and wide range is due to the
uncertainty in unit administrative costs and the uncertainty on the number of installations.
These costs, in isolation, are not expected to represent a significant burden on public
authorities.
Input from both national and regional member state authorities, via the Targeted Stakeholder
Survey, indicated that, for the 8 local/regional respondents for the activity, who supplied a
definitive response, 3 would anticipate their costs to be increase by between 5-15%, whilst 2
respondents expect costs greater than 15%. 3 would anticipate a variation of + or – 5% or
little to no impact. The same results the 12 national respondents, who supplied a definitive
63
Based on Ricardo’s analysis of plant facts provided by Boston Consulting Group
489
response, 4 would anticipate their costs to be increase by between 5-15%, whilst 4
respondents expect costs greater than 15%. 4 would anticipate a variation of + or – 5% or
little to no impact. The vast majority of respondents chose not to respond, perhaps not having
particular thematic expertise.
Environmental impacts
Forging operations are typically associated with the following environmental pressures:
 Emissions to air: The key sources of emissions to air are from the reheating furnaces
(e.g. NOx) and diffuse dust from material storage and handling.
 Noise and vibrations: Noise emissions and vibrations are expected from forging
presses and hammers. As an indication, an average A-weighted Leq values are of the
order of 108 dB for hammer operators and 99 dB for press operators.
 Energy consumption: The estimated net specific energy consumption for smitheries
operating with hammers is in the range 1000-5000 kWh/t of input material. The net
specific energy consumption for presses is expected to exceed 5000 kWh/t9
.
The Key Environmental Issues (KEI) for the cold rolling processes are identified to be64
:
 Emissions to air:
o HCl, H2SO4, SO2, NOx and HF emissions from the respective pickling and
acid regeneration processes;
o emulsion fumes from rolling operations; and
o NOx and SO2 from combustion heat treatment processes such as annealing.
The SO2 emissions are typically associated with the fuel type, for instance on
integrated iron and steelmaking sites, Blast Furnace Gas (BFG) and Coke
Oven Gas (COG) are captured and stored for combustion applications. The
application of such gases is not however expected in stand-alone operations.
 Emissions to water:
o COD/TOC from pickling operations;
o TSS and HOI from rolling processes;
o Pb, Hg, Cd and Cr (VI) and fluoride emissions in pickling of stainless steel;
and
o Fe, Crtot, Ni, Zn from pickling and rolling.
The KEI for the wire drawing processes are identified to be:
 Emissions to air:
o HCl, H2SO4, SO2, NOx and HF emissions from pickling operations;
o Dust, NOx and SO2 emissions from heat treatment processes (e.g. annealing,
patenting);
o Pb and TVOC from lead bath heat treatment operations.
 Emissions to water:
o HOI emissions from the use of lubricants in wet drawing;
o Pb emissions from water quenching baths;
o CrVI
from pickling of stainless steel;
64
FMP BREF data collection, EIPPCB, 2021
490
o TSS from wet drawing operations.
The European Wire Drawers Association believe that the majority (more than approximately
70%) of the wire drawing operations by output in Europe is for production of meshes that do
not require any of the pre-treatment, heat treatment or galvanisation processes, and would
therefore have relatively limited environmental impacts in comparison to operations that do
require such pre or post treatments of wire rods.
Climate
This measure is likely to have unclear or limited positive impacts on the climate. The
evidence available is limited by it suggests that the introduction of these activities within the
scope of the IED could reduce GHG emissions as a by-product to improving their
environmental performance.
Air quality
The measure is likely to have weakly positive impacts on air quality.
The data collated as part of the current project indicate at least 35 standalone cold rolling
installations with capacities of more than 10 t/h. The estimation of the exact number of
forging and standalone wire drawing plants that would fall under a revised IED was not
possible at the time of preparation of this report. It is expected that there are 400 of such
plants across EU 27 that may fall under the new regulation as the result of the revised IED
implementation. These plants may have an outsized contribution towards air pollution
Water quality and resources
The measure is likely to have positive impacts on water quality and resources.
Cold rolling plants generally consume greater quantities of water than hot rolling. Including
the large standalone cold rolling plants, detailed above, within the IED, would therefore
consider this increased water consumption within its remit.
Soil quality or resources
No releases to soil have been identified.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
The measure is likely to have positive impacts on waste production, generation and
recycling.
Regulation of the sector through the IED may further benefit the management of waste,
through provisions such as Article 11, which requires installations are operated within the
principles of the waste hierarchy, as laid out in the Waste Framework Directive (Directive
2008/98/EC).
Efficient use of resources
The measure is likely to have positive impacts on efficient use of resources.
Regulation of the sector through the IED may further benefit resource efficiency, with
resource efficiency featuring within the Sevilla Process.
491
Social impacts
The measure is likely to have limited social impacts.
The sectors will increase the costs of doing business. If these costs cannot be passed on
through the price of services or products, they may affect profitability and, therefore,
potentially impact on employment. There is limited evidence available to quantify these
impacts, but they are expected to be negative.
Measure 37: Extend the current sectoral coverage to also include finishing
activities with the existing capacity thresholds in activity 6.2 (pre-
treatment or dyeing of textile fibres or textiles
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
Revise the activity definition for activity 6.2, to include finishing activities, in addition to pre-
treatment or dyeing. The capacity threshold would remain unchanged. A revised wording
would be ‘Pre-treatment (operations such as washing, bleaching, mercerisation) dyeing or
finishing of textile fibres or textiles where the treatment capacity exceeds 10 tonnes per day’.
This will encompass a larger proportion of the sector’s emissions and impacts, particularly
from waste water impacts.
Objective(s):
The following objectives apply:
 Levelling the playing field for installations across the EU.
 Reducing the environmental impact of industry across the EU-27, via the
amendment/expansion of coverage of the IED in Annex I.
Implementation needs:
The measure will need to be further defined with regards to the proposed wording to be
included in Annex I, however wording and capacity thresholds in this case are already
substantiated by prior research. For example, according to the data collected for the review of
the Textiles BREF, 76 (out of 106) IED plants reported at least one type of functional
finishing of textiles.
Further evidence and activity data
Textile manufacturers are typically small and highly specialised businesses65
. Companies in
the textile finishing sector usually specialise in one type of process. However, there are
companies with several different production processes and integrate other textile activities as
part of the production process. The following type of companies in the finishing sector can be
distinguished, according the TXT BREF:
 Commission or merchant yarn dyers
 Commission or merchant fabric dyers
 Commission or merchant yarn printers
65
The changing profile and map of the EU textile and clothing industry
492
 Integrated companies
The textile finishing industry in the European Union is currently led by four countries (Italy,
Germany, Spain and Portugal), which together account for almost 72% of the market share
for the entire EU, according to data from Eurostat66
. However, Italy is by far the leading
European textile finishing producer, followed by Germany and Spain.
The main processes involved in the textile finishing industry include softening, finishing,
water-/oil-/soil-/repellent finishing, flame-retardant finishing, antistatic finishing, easy-care
finishing, biocidal/fungicidal/mothproofing finishing and shrink-proof finishing. Functional
finishing processes require consideration since these are the processes with the greatest
potential for pollution. Functional finishing includes processes that further enhance the
performance properties of the fabric and/or potentially add new desired qualities67
. Many
such finishes add more than one property to a fabric, and some are more common for certain
types of fibre (e.g., easy-care finishes for cotton, antistatic treatment for synthetic fibres and
mothproofing and anti-felt treatments for wool). Other finishes have a broader application,
such as softening, as detailed in the TXT BREF (D1, 2019).
A number of textiles activities (pre-treatment or dyeing) are already covered by the European
legislation under Article 6.2 of the IED68
. According to E-PRTR, there are currently 132
installations covered under this IED Article in the EU69
.
Using this information and data from Eurostat, it is estimated that the measure would cover
an additional 50-100 installations.
Although there are no figures on the sizes of stand-alone functional finishing installations, it
is plausible to assume that the majority of these sites are SMEs according to information
provided by experts from EURATEX and the German Textile and Fashion Association
(Gesamtverband Textil und Mode e.V.). Therefore, in the context of the European trend in
the textile finishing industry of moving away from intermediate sectors and towards the
production of final products, the production capacities of stand-alone installations may
typically fall below the capacity IED threshold of 10 tonnes per day, while the majority of
these activities are already incorporated as part of integrated plants and covered under the
IED as directly associated activities.
On the other hand, the Belgian associated FEDUSTRIA also provided qualitative information
regarding the high variability on the size of the different textile companies, primarily
distinguishing between commissioning companies, which are solely dedicated to finishing
processes, and integrated companies, which include a variety of manufacturing processes,
including finishing.
66
Eurostat - Data Explorer (europa.eu)
67
Functional Finish - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
68
L_2010334EN.01001701.xml (europa.eu)
69
Installations by country: 33 DE, 26 SP, 17 FR, 15 BE, CZ 12, NL 10, BU 7, RO 4, SW 3, PL 2.
493
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Six specific categories of economic impacts were selected for an in-depth assessment of the
policy options for the revision of the IED. These include administrative burden on businesses,
operating costs and conduct of businesses, competitiveness of businesses and levelling the
playing field, the position of SMEs, innovation and research and public authority impacts.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to have weakly negative impacts on administrative burden.
Businesses would primarily need to engage with the permitting process, permit
reconsiderations and updates, monitoring and reporting, host inspections, and participate in
the BREF process. In this case, there is already some baseline activity across Member States,
suggesting that there might already be some permitting. The data is very limited. However, it
is assumed that only 50% of baseline permitting and baseline report costs would be incurred.
The rest of the core baseline costs are included in full, that is, permit reconsiderations and
updates, monitoring and reporting, hosting inspections and BREF contributions.
The number of installations that would be covered by this extension in scope is uncertain.
Current estimates suggest that there might be 50-100 sites, with a central estimate of 75.
Based on the estimated number of installations for these sectors and the assumptions of unit
costs for the main requirements for operators, administrative burden on businesses has been
estimated between €0.2m/year to €3m/year, with a central estimate of €1.4m/year, on average
over the period of 20 years from adoption. This high and wide range is due to the uncertainty
in unit administrative costs and the number of installations. These costs are not expected to
represent a significant burden on the sector.
Input from industry via the Targeted Stakeholder Survey, indicated that, for 7 industry
respondents for Textiles, who supplied a definitive response, 4 would anticipate their
administrative costs to increase by between 5-15%, whilst 1 respondent expect costs greater
than 15%. 1 respondent anticipated administrative costs to decrease by 5-15% and another
respondent expected little to no impact. The vast majority of industry respondents chose not
to respond, perhaps not having particular thematic expertise
Operating costs and conduct of business
Compliance costs are thought to be negative, that is to assume that there will be costs to
achieve BAT for the activities, but the exact level is to be determined by the BREF process.
There is uncertainty as to what would be considered BAT for each process. Such uncertainty
means compliance costs cannot be readily determined.
Competitiveness and level playing field
The total costs of doing business, that is the costs of administrative burden and compliance
combined, are thought to negatively impact upon businesses. The exact level, however, is to
be determined by the BREF process. If these costs cannot be passed on in the price of
products, these costs will be incurred by businesses, impacting upon profitability.
494
Inclusion of these activities within the Annex I of the IED imposes a singular set of
requirements towards installations and operators. It therefore offers the potential to level the
playing field by providing minimum criteria for all member states, notably towards the use of
emission limit values.
Position of SMEs
No means to identify the costs per employee or businesses have been identified. The impact
of this measure towards SMEs, therefore, remains unclear.
Innovation and research
Revising the activity definition for textiles within Annex I of the IED may have a limited
impact on research and development. Provisions within the IED, such as Article 27 on
emerging techniques, allow for research and development within the context of BAT. Each
BREF includes a chapter on emerging techniques, which acts as an indication of future
techniques that could in the future (i.e. ‘if commercially developed’) be considered as BAT.
This pathway encourages the continual focus on further reducing the environmental impacts
of industrial activities or innovating in ways to save costs when compared to existing BAT. If
this measure was adopted, such activities would be subject to the Sevilla Process, with
emerging techniques considered within the eventual BREF.
Public authority impacts
This measure would have weakly negative impacts on public authorities. Competent
authorities would primarily need to engage with the permitting process, permit
reconsiderations and updates, maintain information systems and gather evidence provided
through monitoring and reporting, lead inspections, and participate in the BREF process. As
with businesses, an assumption that only 50% of baseline costs from new permitting and
baseline reports would be incurred due to already existing administrative activity.
Based on the estimated number of installations for these sectors and the assumptions of unit
costs for the main requirements for public authorities, additional administrative costs have
been estimated between €0.3m/year to €2.7m/year, with a central estimate of €1.3m/year, on
average over the period of 20 years from adoption. This wide range is due to the uncertainty
in unit administrative costs and the number of installations. These costs, in isolation, are not
expected to represent a significant burden on public authorities.
Input from both national and regional member state authorities, via the Targeted Stakeholder
Survey, indicated that, for the 7 local/regional respondents for the activity, who supplied a
definitive response, 3 would anticipate their costs to be increase by between 5-15%, 4 would
anticipate a variation of + or – 5% or little to no impact. The same results the 13 national
respondents, who supplied a definitive response, 4 would anticipate their costs to be increase
by between 5-15%, whilst 3 respondents expect costs greater than 15%. 6 would anticipate a
variation of + or – 5% or little to no impact. The vast majority of respondents chose not to
respond, perhaps not having particular thematic expertise.
495
Environmental impacts
Finishing processes are considered one of the most pollutant aspects of textiles. The main
environmental issues and concerns in the textile finishing industry are those related to the
amount of polluted water discharged and the chemical load it carries, including organic
compounds. Moreover, the textile finishing sector consumes high rates of energy, water and
chemicals. Other relevant issues to consider in this sector are those related to air emissions,
solid wastes and odours, which can be of significant nuisance in certain treatments.
However, likewise to other finishing treatments such as dyeing, emissions are highly
dependent on the chemical treatment employed and whether the manufacturing process is
continuous or discontinuous.
Climate
The measure will likely lead to limited to weakly positive impacts on climate.
E-PRTR data indicates no emissions of CH4, CO2 or N2O from E-PRTR Annex I activity 9a,
‘Plants for the pre-treatment (operations such as washing, bleaching, mercerisation) or dyeing
of fibres or textiles’. It is thought, therefore, that the activity has a limited impact towards
GHG emissions.
Air quality
The measure will likely lead to limited to weakly positive impacts on air quality.
Data for E-PRTR Annex I activity 9a, ‘Plants for the pre-treatment (operations such as
washing, bleaching, mercerisation) or dyeing of fibres or textiles’ is associated with
emissions of NMVOC, NOX and SOx. Comparing the totals for this activity with the E-PRTR
industrial totals for the EU27, comparable in scope to the E-PRTR, indicates that the activity
contributes at most 0.03% towards totals (SOx in 2018). This indicates that emissions from
this activity, at least at the industrial and EU scale, as thought to be minimal. This minimal
contribution suggests a limited potential for the IED to further reduce the environmental
impact. Though the measure represents a minor change in the activity definition to
encompass all processes thought to occur at these installations, this is unlikely to change the
overall magnitude or importance of emissions.
Water quality and resources
This measure is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on water quality and
resources. The main environmental issues and concerns in the textile finishing industry are
those related to the amount of polluted water discharged and the chemical load it carries,
including organic compounds, as these contain substances which might be hazardous,
persistent and/or bio accumulative.
Additionally, data for E-PRTR Annex I activity 9a, ‘Plants for the pre-treatment (operations
such as washing, bleaching, mercerisation) or dyeing of fibres or textiles’ is associated with a
range of heavy metal releases to water, including arsenic, cadmium, copper and nickel has
been associated with water discharges from these processes. These releases equate, at their
maximum, to 0.4% of the total release to water for any one of these pollutants, relative to the
496
baseline scope of the IED. They are therefore, a relatively minor contributor. Nevertheless,
adjusting the activity definition within the IED to capture all processes occurring within
textile manufacturing may help ensure these processes reduce these releases, albeit with a
minor impact.
Soil quality or resources
The measure will likely lead to limited to weakly positive impacts on soil quality.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
The measure will likely lead to limited to weakly positive impacts on waste production,
generation and recycling.
Regulation of the sector through the IED may further benefit the management of waste,
through provisions such as Article 11, which requires installations are operated within the
principles of the waste hierarchy, as laid out in the Waste Framework Directive (Directive
2008/98/EC). Any impact is likely to be minor, as there are already a range of baseline
legislation that regulate waste production and management.
Efficient use of resources
The measure will likely lead to limited to weakly positive impacts on climate, air quality,
waste production, generation and recycling; soil quality; efficient use of resources.
Regulation of the sector through the IED may further benefit resource efficiency, with
resource efficiency featuring within the Sevilla Process.
Social impacts
Public health impacts would be spill over effects from the environmental benefits already
captured within the previous section of this assessment. Further, this measure may result in an
increase in costs towards business. If these costs cannot be passed on through changes in
prices of products sold, they may impact profitability and, therefore, employment. There is
limited evidence available to quantify these impacts, but they are expected to be negative.
Measure 38: Extend the current sectoral coverage to also include smitheries of
20 kilojoule per hammer with no threshold for the calorific power or
reduce the capacity threshold for the calorific value to > 5 MW in activity
2.3(b) (from the current limit of 50 kilojoule per hammer and where the
calorific power used exceeds 20 MW).
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
The measure is to revise IED Annex I activity 2.3b to include smitheries of 20 kilojoule per
hammer with no threshold for the calorific power or reduce the capacity threshold for the
calorific value to > 5 MW in activity 2.3(b) (from the current limit of 50 kilojoule per
hammer and where the calorific power used exceeds 20 MW).
497
The smithery operations can be as stand-alone or an integrated part of steelmaking/foundry
operations with forging hammers being used to shape ingots. The hammers are used in
forging installations in both closed and open die configurations.
The operation of smitheries with hammers with the energy of more than 50 kJ per hammer,
where the calorific value of the associated preheating operations exceeds 20 MW is currently
included in the scope of the IED. This measure is to include operations where the capacity of
such hammers is below this limit.
Objective(s):
The following objectives apply:
 Levelling the playing field for installations across the EU.
 Reducing the environmental impact of industry across the EU-27, via the
amendment/expansion of coverage of the IED in Annex I.
Implementation needs:
The measure will need to be further defined with regards to the proposed wording and
capacity threshold to be included in Annex I, however wording and capacity thresholds in
this case are already substantiated by prior research. For example, research by the German
Industrial Association for Solid Forming (Industrieverband Massivumformung), indicates
that there are currently only 3 smitheries operating hammers in Germany that are above the
current IED criteria, out of a total of 200.
Further evidence and activity data
The latest data from the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) for
2019 show 213 entries that are associated with Activity 2.3 (b) of the IED. There are 197
entries for France, followed by five for Germany and the rest for Czech Republic, Estonia,
Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain70
.
During the last two decades, a change of the forming unit from hammer to forging press has
occurred in the European industry (based on the information submitted in the frame of initial
positions for the review of the SF BREF – April 2019).
Information from Germany (April 2019) shows that from a total of 200 smitheries (data
includes both hammers and forging presses of all sizes), only 3 are IED relevant (fulfil the
criteria of point 2.3 (b) of IED Annex I). It is estimated that about 25 smitheries in Europe
(out of 400 to 500) are currently IED relevant.
The data collected during the SF BREF data collection process indicates a range of 25 to 630
kJ per hammer. The calorific value of these plants was shown to range from 3 850 to 15 206
kWth
71
.
It is expected that the environmental relevance of smitheries with hammers with a lower
threshold than the current IED threshold is nearly the same regarding emissions to air and
70
Note: The provided number of entries appear to be excessive, particularly for France. We will investigate this
by getting in touch with the European Environment Agency.
71
SF BREF development, EIPPCB, Oct 2021
498
water. The energy consumption might be lower due to a lower threshold of hammers and
lower total calorific power required for carrying out such activities. However, regarding the
information from EUROFORGE, new developments of light materials (in weight) that will
be used in future to meet the requirements of the customers might result in a higher energy
consumption compared to the current situation.
The main environmental impacts from forging hammers include:
 Emissions to air (e.g. NOx, CO, dust, diffuse emissions, noise and vibration),
 Emissions to water from cleaning procedures, storage areas, possible from cooling
processes (however, mostly closed cooling circuit applied). These are however
expected to be minor emissions compared to emissions to air.
 Residues: process residues (recycling/reuse), packaging materials,
 Energy consumption.
Typical pollutants emitted or KEIs (Key Environmental Issues) for smitheries include NOx
and CO emissions as well as noise and vibration72
. Others would include material, water and
energy consumption.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Six specific categories of economic impacts were selected for an in-depth assessment of the
policy options for the revision of the IED. These include administrative burden on businesses,
operating costs and conduct of businesses, competitiveness of businesses and levelling the
playing field, the position of SMEs, innovation and research and public authority impacts.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to have weakly negative impacts on administrative burden.
Businesses would primarily need to engage with the permitting process, permit
reconsiderations and updates, monitoring and reporting, host inspections, and participate in
the BREF process.
The number of installations that would be covered by this extension in scope is uncertain.
Current estimates suggest that there might be 400-500 sites, with a central estimate of 450. It
should however be noted that there is uncertainty about the current regime of regulations
across the EU with regards to the emissions from the smitheries with hammers sector. Among
the respondents to the survey carried out in this study Sweden and Austria have indicated that
they currently have a permitting system in place for such installations. It would however be
unclear for instance that if IED is extended to include forging hammers at lower capacity, that
what level of BAT-AELs would be required from the industry to adhere to.
Based on the estimated number of installations for these sectors and the assumptions of unit
costs for the main requirements for operators, administrative burden on businesses has been
estimated between €0.8m/year to €13.5m/year, with a central estimate of €7.1m/year, on
average over the period of 20 years from adoption. This high and wide range is due to the
72
Kick-off meeting (KoM) conclusion of the SF BREF review, EIPPCB, Sep 2019
499
uncertainty in unit administrative costs and the number of installations. These costs are not
expected to represent a significant burden on the sector.
A different pattern was shown for smitheries. For the 19 industry respondents for the activity,
who supplied a definitive response, 5 would anticipate their administrative costs to increase
by between 5-15%, whilst 12 respondents expect costs greater than 15%. 1 respondent
anticipated administrative costs to decrease by 5-15% and another respondent expected little
to no impact. Similar to the above, the vast majority of industry respondents chose not to
respond, perhaps not having particular thematic expertise.
Operating costs and conduct of business
It is expected that to achieve BAT, operators would need to incur additional compliance
costs, directly and indirectly. The evidence available to estimate the scale of these costs is,
however, limited.
Sweden and Austria were among the few Member States that provided a response with
regards to the current regulatory framework for forging hammer installations in their Member
States. They have stated that these plants are currently being regulated under the General
Binding Rules. Therefore it would not be possible to estimate how many of the potentially
eligible plants for the IED scope extension across EU 27 would need to make upgrades to
their current abatement systems in order to achieve the required BAT-AELs.
Competitiveness and level playing field
The total costs of doing business are likely to increase when compared to the baseline. The
extent to which these affect the sector’s competitiveness is unclear, given the evidence
available.
Revising the activity definition for textiles and lowering the capacity threshold for smitheries,
within the Annex I of the IED imposes a singular set of requirements towards these newly
introduced installations and operators. It therefore offers the potential to level the playing
field by providing minimum criteria for all member states, notably towards the use of
emission limit values. This has largely been supported within the IED evaluation, where, for
industry stakeholder surveyed, 69% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘the IED
has contributed to achieving a level playing field in the EU for IED sectors by aligning
environmental performance requirements for industrial installations’. This is likely to
continue to be the case under these new installations, as in the case of this measure.
Position of SMEs
The impact of this measure towards SMEs is likely to be weakly negative, as evidence
suggests that smaller players in the smitheries sectors may be disproportionately impacted.
According to EUROFORGE, an association for the forging industry in Europe, more than
90% of the forging industry is operated by SMEs.
Innovation and research
This measure is likely to have a limited positive impact on research and development.
Provisions within the IED, such as Article 27 on emerging techniques, allow for research and
500
development within the context of BAT. Each BREF includes a chapter on emerging
techniques, which acts as an indication of future techniques that could in the future (i.e. ‘if
commercially developed’) be considered as BAT. This pathway encourages the continual
focus on further reducing the environmental impacts of industrial activities or innovating in
ways to save costs when compared to existing BAT. If this measure was adopted, such
activities would be subject to the BREF Process.
Public authority impacts
This measure would have weakly negative impacts on public authorities. Competent
authorities would primarily need to engage with the permitting process, permit
reconsiderations and updates, maintain information systems and gather evidence provided
through monitoring and reporting, lead inspections, and participate in the BREF process.
Based on the estimated number of installations for these sectors and the assumptions of unit
costs for the main requirements for public authorities, additional administrative costs have
been estimated between €0.6m/year to €8m/year, with a central estimate of €4.9m/year, on
average over the period of 20 years from adoption. This high and wide range is due to the
uncertainty in unit administrative costs and the number of installations. These costs, in
isolation, are not expected to represent a significant burden on public authorities.
Input from both national and regional member state authorities, via the Targeted Stakeholder
Survey, indicated that, for the 7 local/regional respondents for the activity, who supplied a
definitive response, 3 would anticipate their costs to be increase by between 5-15%, whilst
only 1 respondent expect costs greater than 15%. 3 would anticipate a variation of + or – 5%
or little to no impact. The same results the 11 national respondents, who supplied a definitive
response, 2 would anticipate their costs to be increase by between 5-15%, whilst 3
respondents expect costs greater than 15%. 6 would anticipate a variation of + or – 5% or
little to no impact. The vast majority of respondents chose not to respond, perhaps not having
particular thematic expertise.
Environmental impacts
Climate
The measure will likely lead to limited impacts on climate.
Activity 2(c)ii, ‘Smitheries with hammers’ is associated with emissions of GHGs, and
equates to 0.0004 – 0.0006% of GHG emissions, relative to the baseline scope of the IED.
This data is partial, however, arising from a single site. This minimal contribution suggests a
limited potential for the IED to further reduce the environmental impact.
Air quality
The measure will likely lead to positive impacts on air quality.
Data for E-PRTR Annex I activity 2(c)ii, ‘Smitheries with hammers’ is associated with a
wider array of pollutants, with emissions of NMVOC, NOX, SOx and PM10. The comparison
of emission profiles from the model plants with those reported in E-PRTR for activity 2 (c)ii
(smitheries with hammers) indicate a potential total contribution of 199 to 662 tonnes per
501
annum of NOx as the result of inclusion of 500 operational smitheries with hammers in EU 27
within the scope of the IED. This indicates an average of 0.4 to 1.3 tonnes of NOx per
smitheries installation. This is in comparison to the current report of 1.5 tonnes of NOx per
installation from a single installation that reported to E-PRTR in 2019. This figure could also
be compared with an average installation for the processing of ferrous metals (activity 2 (c))
that has reported 154 tonnes of NOx emissions per annum for 2019.
Water quality and resources
The measure will likely lead to positive impacts on water quality and resources.
Data for E-PRTR Annex I activity 2(c)ii, ‘Smitheries with hammers’, suggests the activity is
not associated with releases to water, above the thresholds specified in Annex II of the E-
PRTR Regulation. As such, efforts to reduce the capacity threshold, introducing new
installations within the scope of the IED, would likely have a limited impact towards releases
to water, and thus water quality.
Soil quality or resources
No releases to soil have been identified.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
The measure will likely lead to limited to weakly positive impacts waste production,
generation and recycling.
Regulation of the sector through the IED may further benefit the management of waste,
through provisions such as Article 11, which requires installations are operated within the
principles of the waste hierarchy, as laid out in the Waste Framework Directive (Directive
2008/98/EC).
Efficient use of resources
The measure will likely lead to positive impacts on efficient use of resources.
Regulation of the sector through the IED may further benefit resource efficiency, with
resource efficiency featuring within the Sevilla Process.
Social impacts
The revision of the capacity threshold for smitheries within Annex I of the IED will incur
costs towards business and operators. If these costs cannot be passed on within the price of
products, these costs will impact upon profitability and therefore upon employment. There is
limited evidence available to quantify these impacts, but they are expected to be negative.
Measure 39: Facilitate the adoption of BAT conclusions for activity 5.4
landfills.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
Landfills are currently considered under the IED with the following being defined under
Activity 5.4 of Annex I:
502
Landfills, as defined in Article 2(g) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April
1999 on the landfill of waste (1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1. receiving more than 10
tonnes of waste per day or with a total capacity exceeding 25 000 tonnes, excluding
landfills of inert waste.
Although BATC exist for ‘waste treatment’ covering those activities under 5.1, 5.3, 5.5 and
6.11 of Annex I of the IED, no BATC exist for landfills, considered under activity 5.4. This is
owing to the coverage of this activity under Council Directive 1999/31/EC, the Landfill
Directive.
The Landfill Directive aims to protect both human health and the environment. In particular,
it aims to prevent, or reduce as much as possible, any negative impact from landfill on
surface water, groundwater, soil, air and human health. It does this by introducing rigorous
operational and technical requirements73
. The Landfill Directive applies unless Members
States have declared this not applicable to either:
1. landfill sites for non-hazardous waste with total capacity not exceeding 15 000 tonnes
or with annual intake not exceeding 1 000 tonnes serving islands.
2. landfill sites for non-hazardous waste or inert waste in isolated settlements.
Alongside defining waste that can be accepted in different classes of landfill (Article 6), the
Landfill Directive also defines
 waste acceptance procedures (Article 11 – including checking documentation, visual
inspection at entrance, keeping a register of quantities and characteristics, etc.), and
 control and monitoring procedures in the operational phase (Article 12 – including
carrying out a control and monitoring programme (covering collection of emission
and groundwater data), notifying competent authorities of any significant adverse
effects, reporting, and quality control of analytical operations).
Recital 16 to the Landfill Directive intimates that measures should be taken to reduce the
production of methane from landfills (amongst other things to reduce global warming)
through a reduction in the landfilling of biodegradable waste and requirements to introduce
landfill gas control. The general design and operational requirements for all classes of
landfills are set out in Annex I of the Landfill Directive. They require the following gas
control measures:
 appropriate measures must be taken in order to control the accumulation and
migration of landfill gas;
 landfill gas must be collected from all landfills receiving biodegradable waste and the
landfill gas must be treated and, to the extent possible, used;
 landfill gas which cannot be used to produce energy must be flared;
 the collection, treatment and use of landfill gas must be carried on in a manner, which
minimises damage to or deterioration74
.
Currently the Landfill Directive provisions are deemed to constitute BAT (Art 1(2) of
Directive 1999/31). This measure considers amendments to allow the adoption of BAT
73
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/waste-and-recycling/landfill-waste_en
74
https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/28986/guidance-on-the-management-of-landfill-gas.pdf
503
conclusions for landfills covered by the IED (IED Annex I activity 5.4). That said, some
stakeholders (EEB) disagree with this understanding of the Landfill Directive’s provisions
constituting BAT, given this provision was adopted prior to the revision of the IPPC-
Directive and the IED.
The EU has also published guidance on landfill gas control which is non-binding and aims to:
 help competent authorities improve methane collection through the enforcement of
the Landfill Directive requirements
 provide clarity on landfill gas control requirements within the context of the technical
and regulatory requirements of the landfill directive
 set out the most important criteria in ensuring effective collection, treatment and use
of landfill gas.
Objectives:
An updated BREF and BATC for landfill would allow the consideration of techniques that
are nowadays more prevalently used in the sector, such as methane capture. BAT conclusions
would cover the key environmental issues for which BAT has evolved since the 1990s,
including methane capture. Adopting BATC could also maximise the circular economy
aspects of landfill operation.
Implementation needs:
While pollution can be captured and well-regulated by setting up suitable BAT AELs, so far,
the other environmental goals of the Directive are only addressed by the weaker narrative
BAT conclusions and non-mandatory BAT AEPLs respectively. It is necessary to add
appropriate provisions and BAT-based requirements. BATC for landfill would need to be
defined.
Further evidence and activity data
A 2018 report by the European Commission (EC, 2018) highlighted that amounts of
landfilled municipal waste have steadily fallen in the EU as a whole, dropping by 18% during
the 2013-2016 period (although the average landfilling rate for municipal waste in the EU
still stood at 24% in 2016).
Large differences across the EU persist: in 2016 10 Member States still landfilled over 50%
of municipal waste, while five reported rates above 70%. This is supported by data from the
European Parliament, which notes: “Landfilling is almost non-existent in countries such as
Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria and Finland). Here
incineration plays an important role alongside recycling. Germany and Austria are also the
EU's top recycling countries. The practice of landfilling remains popular in the eastern and
southern parts of Europe. Ten countries landfill half or more of their municipal waste. In
504
Malta, Cyprus and Greece this is more than 80%. In Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria and
Slovakia it is more than 60%, while it is also half or more in Spain and Portugal”75
.
The 2018 European Commission report also noted that despite the closures of non-compliant
landfills reported by the Member States, the number of facilities that are not in line with the
requirements of the Directive remains a matter of concern, perhaps suggesting that the
ambition set out in the Landfill Directive is not necessarily being achieved. A study by
Milieu in 2017 (EC, 2017) found: “significant problems of compliance (…) across the
Member States. These include improper transposition of pre-treatment provisions, the
persistent practice of landfilling significant amounts of untreated waste, and inadequacy of
separate collection systems. In some Member States, the lack of sufficient pre-treatment
infrastructure hinders compliance with pre-treatment requirements”.
In 2018, the EU-27 produced 2 170 Mtonnes of waste, of which 834 Mtonnes went to
landfill. In 2016, there were 5 076 landfill disposal facilities reported in Eurostat across the
EU-27 (of which 296 were for hazardous waste, 2 568 for non-hazardous waste and 2 585 for
inert waste).
The E-PRTR Waste transfer dataset provides varying data over three years from 2017-19.
This may reflect changes in the actual number of sites, or simply variance in data collection.
Taking the largest numbers as an upper bound, this suggests there were around 2 950 landfill
sites in the EU-27 in 2018 (excluding those handling inert waste) – see Table 36. This is
consistent with the EU Registry reporting which includes 2 944 landfill installations in 2018.
Table A8-36: E-PRTR waste transfer data for landfill sites (EU-27)
2017 2018 2019
Total waste quantity (tonnes) 18 544 012 22 880 827 18 670 696
Number of facilities 2 916 2 950 2 675
Stakeholders are broadly supportive of the development of BATC for landfills (Figure A8-
26). Based on the TSS, generally speaking most (77%) of the local and regional Member
State authorities believe that the BAT determination of Annex I activity 5.4 landfills should
be done by adopting BAT conclusions under the IED. However, the national Member State
authorities show a higher level of contrasting opinions with a split majority (47/53%)
showing more resistance to the adoption of BATC under the IED. Stakeholder engagement
for this report did not provide any further evidence for this reasoning.
75
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20180328STO00751/eu-waste-management-
infographic-with-facts-and-figures
505
Figure A8-26: Distribution of responses to question 16.1 to the targeted stakeholder survey: “Do
you consider that BAT determination of Annex I activity 5.4 landfills should be done by
adopting BAT conclusions under the IED?
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
The key economic impacts are expected to be weakly negative impacts on business due to
the additional administrative and possible compliance costs of this measure. However, these
are expected to be small due to the existing requirements already in place through the
Landfill Directive. Nevertheless, a formal BAT conclusions document will still need to be
developed and agreed.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on administrative burden on
businesses.
As landfills already fall under the scope of the IED (with the exception that no BATC are
developed under the IED), it is unlikely to pose an increase in administrative burden towards
businesses, beyond the current system already imposed by the IED. That said, there may be a
transitional cost to the revision of permits, should new BATC be developed which go beyond
the existing requirements as defined in the Landfill Directive, but it would be expected that
permit revisions for landfills would be occurring as a matter of course in the baseline.
There will be costs to industry of the development of a Landfill BREF and BATC. The
estimates in the IED evaluation for this one-off cost of a BREF development were €7.9m
(range €3.6m to €20.7m). Around a third of these costs are likely attributed to businesses.
Therefore, assuming two BREFs are carried out over a period of 20 years, average annual
costs of the BREF process for businesses would range from €0.1m/year to €0.7m/year, with a
central estimate of €0.2m/year.
In response to the stakeholder engagement, the majority of MS authorities stated that no
impact or only a slight impact would be seen from this measure. Of note in an open text
response, the MS National German Environment Agency (German UBA) highlighted that the
cost of the landfill, and therefore the acceptance fees for the waste to be deposited, will be
506
higher if the administrative requirements for operating the landfill are increased. This
suggests that even if a greater burden is placed on businesses, this could be somewhat (or
wholly) passed on.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on total operating costs. The costs
of the measure will depend on the BATC proposed. At this stage there is uncertainty as to
what would be considered BAT for each process.
The Landfill Directive already defines requirements that landfills should meet, including
collection and treatment of gases. For an illustrative reference, these measures appear to be
broadly in line with the measures set out for other sectors – for example gas treatment in the
Chemicals sector in the CWW BREF, and in the Waste Treatment BREF. As such it is
questionable whether more ambitious BATC would be defined if included in the IED.
Where BAT Conclusions are defined that go beyond existing requirement of the Landfill
Directive, compliance costs will be negative – there will be costs to achieve BAT. But the
exact level is to be determined by the BREF process. Such uncertainty means compliance
costs cannot be readily determined.
In response to the TSS, the majority of MS authorities stated that no impact would be seen
from this measure. The overall consensus from Local/Regional MS was that economic
impacts would be still dependent on the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC in conjunction with
Council Decision 2003/33/EC. That said, some MS stakeholders stated that if the BAT
conclusions are stricter than current legislation then there would be some additional economic
impacts. In an open text response, Italian National MS - Ministero della transizione ecologica
highlighted the economic impacts could be significant.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on competitiveness. The total
costs of doing business, primarily compliance costs, will increase for landfill operators where
BAT Conclusions goes beyond the existing requirements of the Landfill Directive. The exact
level, however, as noted in the above, is to be determined by the BREF process. If these costs
cannot be passed on in the price of waste management services, these costs will be incurred
by businesses, impacting upon profitability. Given the nature of the operation, landfill is
deemed not to be at significant risk from international competition.
However, where landfill operators face additional costs, this may favour other operators in
the waste stream (e.g. those involved in recycling operations). Hence landfilling may become
less competitive with these alternative waste stream activities. But to that end, these measures
could also serve to encourage these alternative means of waste treatment within the waste
hierarchy, achieving additional (indirect) environmental impacts. On balance of these
impacts, we would expect the small negative effects could outweigh the small positive
effects.
Factual evidence and stakeholder opinion have been limited for contributing to analysis of
this impact.
507
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to lead to limited impact on the position of SMEs. Given the threshold
for inclusion of landfills in the existing IED definition, this should limit impacts on SMEs.
That said, there is limited evidence and no means to identify the costs per employee of
businesses have been identified. Hence, the impact on SMEs remains uncertain.
Innovation and research
This measure is likely to lead to weakly positive impacts on innovation. Provisions within
the IED, such as Article 27 on emerging techniques, allow for research and development
within the context of BAT. Each BREF includes a chapter on emerging techniques, which
acts as an indication of future techniques that could in the future (i.e. ‘if commercially
developed’) be considered as BAT. This pathway encourages the continual focus on further
reducing the environmental impacts of industrial activities or innovating in ways to save costs
when compared to existing BAT. If this measure was adopted, emerging techniques
considered within the eventual BREF may add to the current state of innovation and research.
That said, given the nature of the process, the potential for innovation is deemed more limited
relative to other sectors.
Factual evidence and stakeholder opinion have been limited for contributing to analysis of
this impact.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative and weakly positive impacts on public
authorities. The addition of an additional set of BATC for landfill could introduce an
additional requirements (if new BATC go beyond existing requirements of the Landfill
Directive) to be reflected in permits and monitored, and the potential for additional
derogation cases, all of which may add to the costs of implementation for public authorities.
That said, there could also be positive impacts: inclusion of BATC for landfill could improve
coherence with the way BATC are defined for environmental permits in other sectors,
making things easier for permitters; and it would enable more regular reviews of BATC in
the sector as part of the BREF cycle.
There will be the costs to public authorities of the development of the Landfill BREF and
BATc. The estimates in the IED evaluation for this one-off cost of a BREF development were
€7.9m (range €3.6m to €20.7m). Around two thirds of these costs are likely incurred by
public authorities. Therefore, assuming two BREFs are carried out over a period of 20 years,
average annual costs of the BREF process for businesses would range from €0.3m/year to
€1.4m/year, with a central estimate of €0.5m/year. It could be expected that the costs of a
landfill BREF would be on the lower end of this range if requirements from the Landfill
Directive can be built upon.
508
Environmental impacts
Overall, the key environmental issues relate to releases to water, soil and air (GHG and air
pollutants). The existing requirements of the Landfill Directive are not shown to be out of
date and may still represent state-of-the-art. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether shifting the
definitional authority to the IED would lead to mitigation of the key environmental issues
through IED-defined BAT conclusions implemented in IED permits.
Climate
This measure is likely to lead to limited or weakly positive impacts on climate.
Landfills remain an important source of GHG emissions: E-PRTR Activity 5(d), which refers
to landfills as defined by the Landfill Directive and aligned with the capacity threshold
currently contained in Annex I of the IED, is associated with emissions of GHGs, equating to
1.6% – 2.4% of GHG emissions, relative to the baseline scope of the IED.
The Landfill Directive already defines BAT for landfill and has driven broad environmental
improvements. Where new BATC go beyond the existing requirements of the Landfill
Directive, this could drive further benefits. That said, BREFs typically focus on
environmental pressures other than emission of GHGs. Furthermore, comparison to other
BREFs (CWW, WT) suggests that the existing requirements of the Landfill Directive may be
broadly in line with those that may be defined under the IED. The impact of the measure
towards climate is uncertain and dependent upon the eventual BREF and therefore cannot be
readily assessed.
Stakeholders have identified that small benefits could be gained by raising the bar for certain
subsectors (e.g. organic wastes). In response to the TSS (Q16.3) ‘What impacts would you
expect of an amendment to move the definition of BAT for landfills from the Landfill
Directive to the IED?’ stakeholders had mixed responses to whether the measure to move the
definition of BAT for landfills from the Landfill Directive to the IED would be beneficial for
emission reductions. However, it should be noted that the majority of the ‘yes’ answers were
circumstantial to if the BAT was stricter than the Landfill Directive. Overall, the consensus
from stakeholders was that these environmental impacts are already covered in the Landfill
Directive. However, it was noted that any environmental impacts that are missed in the
Landfill Directive will be regulated, which would be an important additional benefit.
In an open text response, the National MS German Environment Agency (German UBA)
stakeholder provided a detailed response and explanation. It was highlighted that the
requirements for landfills defined in the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC in conjunction with
Council Decision 2003/33/EC on waste acceptance still represent the state of the art. This
would not change by shifting the definitional authority to the IED. The existing requirements
for the geological barrier, liners, and leachate collection and treatment protect the soil and
groundwater below and in the vicinity of the landfill from contamination. The existing
requirements for landfill gas capture, treatment and recovery protect the atmosphere from
emissions including greenhouse gases. In addition, EU law already stipulates that no waste
collected separately for recycling and waste that can be recycled may be accepted at the
landfill from 01.01.2024 at the latest. In addition, from 01.01.2035, the disposal of municipal
509
waste in landfills may only amount to a maximum of 10% of the total volume of municipal
waste. However, an improvement in the environmental impact is achievable if there were
stricter requirements for the landfilling of residual organic waste. The stakeholder provided a
context-specific example that: in some MS, not in Germany, a relevant share of organic waste
is still landfilled resulting in gas formation (GHG, methane emissions). This, however, would
not require any displacement of the necessary regulations to the IED, but the inclusion of
such additional regulations in Council Decision 2003/33/EC would suffice, e. g. the
limitation of TOC (Total Organic Carbon). Such a limitation would require additional
treatment of the residual waste before it is deposited, e.g., mechanical-biological or thermal,
and permanently prevent the formation of methane as a climate-relevant gas in the landfill.
In addition, it was noted from an open text response that it would be useful to consider
integrating the Landfill Directive in the IED with an annex as a safety net. Vlaamse Overheid
(Belgium, Local/Regional MS) thought a BREF on landfills might propose BAT for existing
activities and potentially diminish emissions (CH4, odour, dust) and the inclusion of Landfill
mining activities in this BREF could be an option.
Air quality
This measure is likely to lead to limited or weakly positive impacts on air quality.
Landfill remains an important source of air pollution: Data for E-PRTR Annex I activity 5(d),
which refers to landfills as defined by the Landfill Directive, is associated with emissions of
NH3, NMVOC, NOX, PM10 and SOx. Comparing the totals for this activity with the E-PRTR
industrial totals for the EU-27, comparable in scope to the E-PRTR, indicates that the activity
can, for some pollutants, moderately contribute to overall pollutant totals. For example, the
activity contributes on average 1.3% of total NMVOC, relative to the baseline scope of the
IED for the years available. Similarly, the activity contributes 1.9% towards NH3 totals across
available years, and 1.4% for SOx.
The Landfill Directive already defines BAT for landfill and has driven broad environmental
improvements. Where new BATC go beyond the existing requirements of the Landfill
Directive, this could drive further improvements. However, the impact of the measure on air
quality is uncertain and dependent upon the eventual BREF and therefore cannot be readily
assessed. Stakeholder opinion on air quality was summarised in ‘Climate’ impact above.
Water quality and resources
This measure is likely to lead to limited or weakly positive impacts on water quality.
Landfill remains an important source of water pollution. Data for E-PRTR Annex I activity
5(d), which refers to landfills as defined by the Landfill Directive, is associated with releases
to water (leachate) of several heavy metals, including cadmium, zinc and chromium. These
releases, relative to the baseline scope of the IED, can be sizeable, e.g. 4.7% – 9% of
cadmium releases are associated with this activity. Depending on the degree of containment,
small releases through leakage may end up in groundwater and/or surface water. Collected
leachate can be subject to dedicated treatment prior to release to sewage systems.
510
The Landfill Directive already defines BAT for landfill and has driven broad environmental
improvements, e.g. the collection and recirculation of leachate to prevent contamination of
land, groundwater and waterways, as well as requiring the monitoring of potential water
releases in pathways and receptors during and after landfill closure. Where new BATC go
beyond the existing requirements of the Landfill Directive, this could drive further
improvements. However, the impact of the measure towards water quality is uncertain and
dependent upon the eventual BREF and therefore cannot be readily assessed. Stakeholder
opinion on water quality was summarised in ‘Climate’ impact above.
Soil quality or resources
This measure is likely to lead to limited or weakly positive impacts on water quality.
Similar to the above detail on releases to water, E-PRTR data indicates that the activity is
also associated with releases to land, including multiple heavy metals, such as arsenic, zinc,
and lead.
The Landfill Directive already defines BAT for landfill and has driven broad environmental
improvements. Where new BATC go beyond the existing requirements of the Landfill
Directive, this could drive further improvements. However, the impact of the measure
towards soil quality is uncertain and dependent upon the eventual BREF and therefore cannot
be readily assessed. Stakeholder opinion on soil quality was summarised in ‘Climate’ impact
above.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure is likely to lead to limited or weakly positive impacts on waste
production/generation. As discussed under economic impacts above, any increase in costs for
landfill operators, which may be passed through to gate fees will increase the incentive to
direct waste to other treatments and/or reduce waste overall. Furthermore, regulation of the
sector through the IED may further benefit the management of waste, through provisions
such as Article 11, which requires installations are operated within the principles of the waste
hierarchy, as laid out in the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC). However,
the size of the impact will depend on the BATC set out.
Efficient use of resources
This measure is likely to lead to unclear or limited impacts on resource use. Water and
energy use is not a key environmental impact of landfill. BATC such as methane capture
could positively impact indirectly on energy use in other sectors. Furthermore, regulation of
the sector through the IED may further benefit resource efficiency, with resource efficiency
featuring within the Sevilla Process. However, factual evidence and stakeholder opinion have
been limited for contributing to analysis of this impact.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to lead to limited impacts on employment. The drawing up of a BREF
for landfills and the associated BAT conclusions will incur costs towards business and
operators. If these costs are significant and cannot be passed on within the price of waste
management services, these costs will impact upon profitability and could therefore impact
511
upon employment. Given the existing BAT requirements of the Landfill Directive, these costs
and impacts are considered to be limited. Factual evidence and stakeholder opinion have been
limited for contributing to analysis of this impact.
Measure 40: Revise the capacity threshold in Annex I for activity 5.4 landfills.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
This measure proposes to lower the capacity threshold for activity 5.4, landfills, with Annex I
of the IED. This, in turn, will require a number of landfills across the EU-27, that are smaller
in size or capacity, to comply with the general regulatory framework set out by the IED, such
as the provisions regarding permits or inspections, detailed in Chapter II of the IED.
The EU wants to promote the prevention of waste and the re-use of products as much as
possible. If this is not possible it prefers recycling (including composting), followed by using
waste to generate energy. The most harmful option for the environment and people's health is
simply disposing of waste, for example on landfill, although it is also one of the cheapest
possibilities.
From 2005 to 2021 the average amount of municipal waste as measured per capita declined
in the EU. However, trends vary by country. For example, while municipal waste generation
per capita increased in Greece, Malta and the Czech Republic, it decreased in Bulgaria,
Spain, Hungary, Romania and the Netherlands (European Commission, 2021). Future trends
indicate that with increased stringency and uptake in policy developments, increased
recycling and circular waste management are expected to contribute to declining landfilling
activities.
Objective:
The follow objectives apply:
 Levelling the playing field for installations across the EU.
 Reducing the environmental impact of industry across the EU-27, via the amendment/
expansion of coverage of the IED in Annex I.
Implementation needs:
The measure will need to be further defined with regards to the proposed wording and/or
capacity threshold to be included in Annex I. Currently, the IED includes activity 5.4, which
details that ‘Landfills, as defined in Article 2(g) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April
1999 on the landfill of waste receiving more than 10 tonnes of waste per day or with a total
capacity exceeding 25 000 tonnes, excluding landfills of inert waste’ are to be considered.
Article 2(g) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC refers to the legal definition of a landfill within
the Landfill Directive and is not anticipated to be amended.
Both the receiving rate and total capacity are to be amended, however the specific values will
need to be determined with stakeholders, as currently there is no means or existing data
sources identified through which an appropriate capacity threshold could be defined. This
512
could be solved if more specialist data on the size or financial performance of smaller landfill
sites could be obtained.
A local/regional Member State authority (County Administration Board, Sweden) highlighted
in the TSS that it is important to keep the Landfill Directive (for landfills) below the IED
Annex I threshold, in particular where a BREF and BATC will be developed under the
revised IED, for landfills above a certain threshold (see measure 39 above). One option
would be to align the threshold in the IED with that in the Landfill Directive.
As the IED introduced a system of regulation, it is also important to ensure that any
associated costs of compliance with the IED are practical for these smaller landfill sites,
adding to the need to define the threshold with stakeholder input.
Further evidence and activity data
Very limited data could be found regarding the distribution of landfills by capacity size,
which limits the ability to assess impacts of this measure.
Data compiled by EURELCO suggests the number of landfills in the EU not covered by the
IED could be much higher than the number of landfills reported to the EU Registry and
described in measure 39 (~2 950 landfill sites). EURELCO record: “The figure for the total
amount of landfills in Europe is most likely even bigger than initially thought. With a
reasonable safety level, we can now state that Europe hosts more than 500 000 landfills. 90%
of those landfills are in reality non-sanitary landfills, predating the Landfill Directive (1999).
In most cases non-sanitary landfills lack the required environmental protection technologies
and will eventually require costly remediation. The Landfill Directive is therefore rather
irrelevant for at least 450 000 landfills76
. Excluding those landfills that pre-date the Landfill
Directive and removing landfills in the UK (24 000), and assuming around half of the
remaining landfills handle inert waste (based on Eurostat data, assuming that inert waste sites
continue to be excluded from the IED), that suggests there may be around 23 800 landfills in
the EU which do not pre-date the Landfill Directive, handling non-inert waste. This is a much
larger figure than the 2 950 registered in Eurostat in 2018. However, it is unclear what the
distribution across capacities is.
Some data from SEPA in Scotland, whilst outside of the EU, suggests that most landfills are
above the 25 000 tonnes capacity threshold of the IED (all 63 out of 63 landfills registered in
2019 were above the threshold).77
For the TSS question (16.2) ’should the threshold of Annex I activity 5.4 for inclusion within
the scope of the IED be reduced, to what level?’ the majority of MS stakeholders were
strongly against reducing the threshold of Annex I activity 5.4 for inclusion within the scope
of the IED. The consensus was that they are already set so low that they are exceeded by
practically all landfills that meet the requirements of the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC in
conjunction with Council Decision 2003/33/EC and are also operated economically and
affordably (German UBA). Below the thresholds, only landfills on islands or isolated
settlements are conceivable, for which the Landfill Directive already allows exemptions from
76
https://eurelco.org/2018/09/30/data-launched-on-the-landfill-situation-in-the-eu-28/
77
https://www.sepa.org.uk/data-visualisation/waste-sites-and-capacity-tool/
513
the requirements. In an open text response, a MS National stakeholder response from the
National Environmental Protection Agency (Romania) stated they were against the measure,
as European and national policies already encourage prevention or reduction of waste
generation.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is expected to have only rather limited impacts because of the limited
number of additional sites this measure would be likely to affect, given the existing
requirements of the Landfill Directive. The overall economic impacts may be limited or
weakly negative, with the key costs of this measure anticipated to be the administrative
burden on businesses and authorities for the new sites brought into scope, and because these
would be smaller landfills, there is the potential for this measure to disproportionately impact
SMEs.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to limited or weakly negative impacts on the administrative
burden on businesses, although the evidence is unclear. No robust assessment of
administrative burden can be made as the number of sites affect cannot be readily determined
from available data sources.
The Landfill Directive already places requirements on sites with a capacity above 15 000
tonnes. Hence some sites (those between 15 000 and 25 000 tonnes) may see only very
marginal impacts. More significant burden will be placed on smaller sites (those < 15 000
tonnes) that come into scope not covered by the Landfill Directive. That said, based on
stakeholder feedback, the number of sites relative to those already covered may be fairly
small.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to limited impacts on operating costs. Assuming that the
measure IED#39 is not introduced in parallel, the key costs of this measure are anticipated to
be administrative burden on new sites brought into scope of the IED rather than additional
compliance costs. This is because BAT Conclusions would not apply to these additional sites
if IED#39 is not implemented, and landfills are only required to perform broader monitoring
and reporting under the current IED.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on competitiveness. As discussed
above, there is unlikely to be additional compliance costs for business, but the total costs of
doing business could increase for landfill operators as a consequence of an additional
administrative burden. If these costs cannot be passed on in the price of waste management
services, these costs will be incurred by businesses, impacting upon profitability.
Given the nature of the operation, landfill is deemed not to be at significant risk from
international competition. However, if landfill operators face additional costs, this may
514
favour other operators in the waste stream (e.g. those involved in recycling operations).
Hence landfilling may become less competitive with these alternative waste stream activities.
But to that end, these measures could also serve to encourage these alternative means of
waste treatment, achieving additional (indirect) environmental impacts.
Furthermore, given larger landfill operators already fall under the scope of the IED, any
additional costs will only fall on smaller operators. Although technically this harmonises the
set of requirements across a wider array of installations and operators and proposes a more
level playing field (the IED evaluation confirmed that industry stakeholders perceived in
general that inclusion of a sector in the IED contributed to achieving a level playing field in
the EU for IED sectors by aligning environmental performance requirements for industrial
installations), given that these costs fall solely on smaller operators will place a greater
burden on entering the market and their ability to grow. This will impact on the ability of
small operators to provide competition for larger operators.
Factual evidence has been limited for contributing to analysis of this impact.
Position of SMEs
This measure is likely to lead to uncertain or weakly negative impacts on the position of
SMEs. Reduction of a threshold will bring smaller operators solely into scope. The Landfill
Directive already places requirements on sites with a capacity above 15 000 tonnes. Hence
some sites may see on very marginal effects.
More significant burden will be placed on smaller sites that come into scope not covered by
the Landfill Directive. That said, the number of operators affected in anticipated to be small
(stakeholder feedback). Given the lack of data on number of sites in each capacity bound
(and on what the resulting threshold might be), the impact of this measure towards SMEs,
therefore, remains uncertain.
Factual evidence and stakeholder opinion have been limited for contributing to analysis of
this impact.
Innovation and research
This measure is likely to lead to negligible impacts on innovation. Assuming no BATC are
implemented alongside the threshold change, there is no key driver to innovate. The smaller
operators that come into scope are only required to comply with wider monitoring and
reporting requirements.
Factual evidence and stakeholder opinion have been limited for contributing to analysis of
this impact.
Public authority impacts
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on public authorities. The
expansion of scope to smaller landfill operators could introduce an additional burden for
public authorities, as a larger number of permits need to be defined / amended (where these
already reflect the requirements of the Landfill Directive) and enforced, as well as remaining
IED Chapter II requirements. However, the Landfill Directive already places requirements on
515
sites with a capacity above 15 000 tonnes. Hence some sites may see on very marginal
effects.
This report has found no means to assess public authority impacts. This is because the
predicted number of new installations that may be introduced within the scope of the IED,
requiring regulation via the lowering of the capacity threshold within Annex I of the IED,
cannot be accurately determined from available data sources. Stakeholder opinion has also
been limited for contributing to analysis of this impact.
Environmental impacts
This measure is likely to lead to negligible environmental impacts. Assuming no BATC are
implemented alongside the threshold change, smaller operators that come into scope are only
required to comply with wider monitoring and reporting requirements which have no
significant direct impact.
Climate
E-PRTR Activity 5(d), which refers to landfills as defined by the Landfill Directive and
aligned with the capacity threshold currently contained in Annex I of the IED, is associated
with emissions of GHGs, equating to 1.6 – 2.4% of GHG emissions, relative to the baseline
scope of the IED. However, it is assumed that the emissions from smaller landfill sites would
be lower.
This measure is likely to lead to negligible impacts on climate. Assuming no BATC are
implemented alongside the threshold change, smaller operators that come into scope are only
required to comply with wider monitoring and reporting requirements which have no direct
impact.
Air quality
Data for E-PRTR Annex I activity 5(d), which refers to landfills as defined by the Landfill
Directive, is associated with emissions of NH3, NMVOC, NOX, PM10 and SOx. Comparing
the totals for this activity with the E-PRTR industrial totals for the EU-27, comparable in
scope to the IED, indicates that the activity can, for some pollutants, moderately contribute to
overall pollutant totals. For example, the activity contributes on average 1.3% of total
NMVOC, relative to the baseline scope of the IED for the years available. Similarly, the
activity contributes 1.9% towards NH3 totals across available years, and 1.4% for SOx.
However, it considered unlikely that this data captures emissions from smaller sites given the
number reporting in the E-PRTR.
This measure is likely to lead to negligible impacts on air quality. Assuming no BATC are
implemented alongside the threshold change, smaller operators that come into scope are only
required to comply with wider monitoring and reporting requirements which have no direct
impact.
Stakeholder opinion has been limited for contributing to analysis of this impact.
516
Water quality and resources
Data for E-PRTR Annex I activity 5(d), which refers to landfills as defined by the Landfill
Directive, is associated with releases to water of several heavy metals, including cadmium,
zinc and chromium. These releases, relative to the baseline scope of the IED, can be sizeable,
e.g. 4.7 – 9% of cadmium releases are associated with this activity. However, it considered
unlikely that this data captures emissions from smaller sites given the number reporting in the
E-PRTR. Depending on the degree of containment, small releases through leakage may end
up in groundwater and/or surface water. Collected leachate can be subject to dedicated
treatment prior to release to sewage systems.
This measure is likely to lead to negligible impacts on water resources. Assuming no BATC
are implemented alongside the threshold change, smaller operators that come into scope are
only required to comply with wider monitoring and reporting requirements which have no
direct impact.
Stakeholder opinion has been limited for contributing to analysis of this impact.
Soil quality or resources
Similar to the above detail on releases to water, E-PRTR data indicates that the activity is
also associated with releases to land, including multiple heavy metals, such as arsenic, zinc,
and lead. However, it considered unlikely that this data captures emissions from smaller sites
given the number reporting in the E-PRTR.
This measure is likely to lead to negligible impacts on soil quality. Assuming no BATC are
implemented alongside the threshold change, smaller operators that come into scope are only
required to comply with wider monitoring and reporting requirements which have no direct
impact.
Stakeholder opinion has been limited for contributing to analysis of this impact.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure is likely to lead to weakly positive impacts on waste production. As discussed
under economic impacts above, any increase in costs for landfill operators (in this case just
administrative burden), which may be passed through to gate fees will increase the incentive
to direct waste to other treatments and/or reduce waste overall. Furthermore, regulation of the
sector through the IED may further benefit the management of waste, through provisions
such as Article 11, which requires installations are operated within the principles of the waste
hierarchy, as laid out in the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC). However,
the size of these impacts is likely to be small, in particular given the number of sites is likely
to be limited.
Factual evidence and stakeholder opinion have been limited for contributing to analysis of
this impact.
Efficient use of resources
This measure is likely to lead to unclear or limited impacts on resource use. Water and
energy use is not a key environmental impact of landfill. Furthermore, assuming no BATC
517
are implemented alongside the threshold change, smaller operators that come into scope are
only required to comply with wider monitoring and reporting requirements which have no
direct impact.
Social impacts
This measure is likely to lead to limited impacts on employment. Some smaller landfill
operators may face additional costs associated with monitoring and reporting. If these costs
cannot be passed on within the price of waste management services, these costs will impact
upon profitability and could therefore impact upon employment. However, such impacts are
likely to be small, in particular considering only a limited number of sites are affected.
Factual evidence and stakeholder opinion have been limited for contributing to analysis of
this impact.
Measure 41: Include minerals extraction activities (E-PRTR Annex I activities
3a and 3b) within the scope of the IED
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
The measure consists of including mineral extraction activities within the scope of the IED.
The measure relates to the non-energy extractive sector78
, to the extraction and treatment of
metallic, industrial, and construction minerals. This, in turn, will require the mining activities
to comply with the general regulatory framework set out by the IED, such as the provisions
regarding permits or inspections, detailed in Chapter II of the IED.
Mining activities are covered by the E-PRTR (E-PRTR Annex I activities 3a and 3b),
including mining activities for energy and for non-energy purposes. For activities under 3a
(‘underground mining and related operations’) no capacity threshold is applicable, in other
words all facilities are subject to reporting (for pollutants above the Annex II threshold for
releases). While, for activities under 3b (‘opencast mining and quarrying’), operators are
subject to reporting when the surface of the area effectively under extractive operation equals
25 hectares.
As far as environmental risks are concerned, the overarching legislation applied at the EU
level to minerals extraction activities stems from Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
according to the EIA Directive (2011/92/EU) and, in relation to extractive waste, the
Extractive Waste Directive (EWD, 2006/21/EC). In accordance with the EWD (pursuant to
Article 21(3)), a BREF for the Management of Waste from Extractive Industries is published
(MWEI BREF, 2018), which presents data and information on the management of waste
from extractive industries, including information on BAT, associated monitoring and
developments in them. Furthermore, other relevant EU environmental legislation includes,
inter alia, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Birds and Habitats Directives.
78
Exploration and production of oil and gas is covered under measure IED#43; other energy related mining
(coal) is excluded from measure #41 as one of the main environmental issues (methane emissions) is
addressed by DG ENER initiatives under the methane strategy.
518
The assessment indicates, as outlined below, that given the higher number of quarries
(extraction of aggregates) in the EU, compared to the mining of metallic and industrial
minerals, there would be significantly more permits to issue/review for these types of
activities. Furthermore, it is considered that quarrying is associated with fewer environmental
issues compared to the other types of extraction activities. Therefore, it is concluded that the
measure, the related BAT requirements and their implementation in permits need to
focus on the most significant sources of emission of pollutants (extraction and processing
of metallic and industrial minerals).
Objective(s):
The following objectives apply:
 Levelling the playing field for installations across the EU.
 Improving the environmental effectiveness of the IED, via the expansion of coverage
of the IED in Annex I. The measure is anticipated to result in the reduction of
emissions to air, water, and soil. The extent of this reduction is contingent upon the
level of BAT conclusions reached during the BREF process with respect to the
minerals extraction activities.
Implementation needs:
The measure will need to be further defined with regard to the proposed wording and
capacity threshold (or lack of) to be included in Annex I.
In addition to further defining the scope and wording of the IED, the following actions will
need to be taken to implement the measure:
 EU to amend the IED to bring minerals extraction activities inside the scope of the
IED, primarily by including the activities in Annex I.
 Mining operators to engage in the BREF process and take steps to ensure that BAT
conclusions are met.
 EU to make legislative change to the IED text.
 EU to develop BAT conclusions for minerals extraction activities.
 Member States to transpose changes into national law.
 Member States to regulate minerals extraction activities according to the new
requirements, to the extent this requires changes from their existing regulatory
approaches. This will require upfront and ongoing implementation actions.
Further evidence and activity data
Extraction sites and minerals
Minerals extraction activities involve the extraction (surface or subsurface mining) and
primary treatment of metallic, industrial or construction minerals (see table below).
519
Table A8-37: Overview of minerals extraction activities and type of minerals
  Type of mineral  Extraction
method
 Treatment methods
 Mining  Metallic minerals: Base
metals (Cu, Ni, Pb, Sn, Zn);
Precious metals (Ag, Au, Pt); Iron
ores and others (Fe, Co, Mn, Mo,
V, W, ilmenite or titanium minerals
or Ti); Bauxite.
Surface;
Subsurface;
Borehole mining;
Solution mining
Comminution (size reduction, e.g.
crushing and grinding);
Size control (screening, mineral
sorting and classification);
Beneficiation (physical separation -
chemical separation - biological
separation);
Upgrading (dewatering,
sedimentation, drying).
 Industrial minerals:
Limestone and gypsum; Kaolin;
Potash; Feldspar; Phosphate rock;
Other industrial minerals (e.g.
magnesite).
 Quarrying  Construction and
ornamental stones
Surface;
(subsurface)
Comminution (size reduction, e.g.
crushing and grinding);
Size control (screening, mineral
sorting and classification);
Beneficiation (physical separation);
Upgrading (dewatering,
sedimentation, drying).
 Aggregates (gravel, sand,
clay, etc)
Under E-PRTR, there were in total 1 706 facilities in the EU27 registered in 2018 falling
under the mining activities, split as follows:
 Activity 3(a) - Underground mining and related: 579 facilities; and
 Activity 3(b) - Opencast mining and quarrying: 1 127 facilities.
Quarrying and mining data from Eurostat Annual detailed enterprise statistics for industry
(NACE Rev. 2, B-E)79
, split by sector, are presented below for the EU27 overall. This
addresses specifically the number of enterprises operating in the sector (Note: this data is
also available, split by Member State in some cases).
Table A8-38: Number of enterprises – Mining and quarrying (source: Eurostat, NACE Rev. 2,
B-E)
 Activity/sector  Number of enterprises
EU27 (2018)
 Mining of metal ores (iron and non-ferrous metal ores)  382
 Mining and quarrying n.e.c.  1 574
 Quarrying of stone, sand and clay  12 261
 Mining and quarrying (total)  14 217
Whilst general extractive activities are spread across a number of Member States, when
considering specific types of mining activity – namely metals and other industrial chemicals
– the number of Member States concerned changes rather dramatically, with ES, RO, SE, FI,
PT, PL, BG, GR and FR in particular containing a number of enterprises involved in these
79
[SBS_NA_IND_R2__custom_1220764]
520
activities and a large number of the remaining Member States containing no or a small
number of enterprises within their territory.
Furthermore, the MWEI BREF presents an estimate of the number of mines in the EU28
compiled using different comprehensible databases and sources of information. In summary,
for the EU27, the estimates of mineral resources extraction sites in 2012 were as follows
(non-energy minerals)
Table A8-39: Estimates of mineral resources extraction sites in the EU-27 in 2012 (based on
MWEI BREF, 2018)
 Mineral resource  Estimated
number of
extraction sites
 Aggregates  24 869
 Industrial and other construction
minerals
 2 961
 Bauxite, alumina, magnesite, ilmenite  46
 Cu, Ni, Pb, Sn, Zn ores  52
 Fe, Co, Cr, Mn, Mo, V, W ores  22
 Ag, Au, Pt ores  106
 Other metalliferous ores  7
 Total  28 063
The draft final report of the study for the European Commission ‘Study supporting the
development of general guidance on the implementation of the Extractive Waste Directive’
(2021) included a description of the extractive sectors. A summary of the number of sites per
category of mineral in the EU is presented in the table below. A more detailed overview of
this data is available in the study supporting the impact assessment of the IED revision (per
type of mineral)80
. The study indicates that the number of production sites per mineral
commodity is difficult to ascertain with absolute precision as it not always being clear
whether the reported numbers relate to individual mining sites or to mining companies.
However, the data presented below is considered to be the most comprehensive dataset
available.
80
Trinomics, Ricardo, Wood, 2021. Gathering of complementary evidence for assessing the impacts of
extending the scope of the IED to additional sectors. Draft final report
521
Table A8-40: Number of non-energy mineral extraction sites in the EU-27, split by sub-sector81
Member State Number of extraction sites
Aggregates and
construction minerals
Industrial minerals Metallic minerals
AT 1 363 27 2
BE 112
BG 295 14
CY 25 1
CZ 387 70 1
DE 2 733 148 1
DK 417
EE 300
EL 198 32
ES 1 874 214 10
FI 2 140 18 11
FR 2 822
HR 225 5
HU 525 7 1
IE 430 1
IT 2 800
LT 210
LU 13
LV 105
MT 10
NL 295
PL 2 786 35 9
PT 247 125 4
RO 1 120 27 2
SE 1 391 15 14
SI 153 33
SK 270 20 1
EU-27 total 23 246 744 104
81
Based on EC (2021). Study supporting the development of general guidance on the implementation of the
Extractive Waste Directive. Draft Final Report.
522
The aggregates sector represents the bulk of the non-energy extractive industries. Almost 2.7
billion tons of aggregates are produced and used in Europe annually based on European
Aggregates Association (UEPG) data.
The EU mining industry produces mainly basic metals (copper, lead, iron ore), bulk
commodities, specialty commodities, industrial minerals and precious metals (gold, silver,
and platinum group metals)82
. Industrial minerals are used mostly in the manufacture of
mineral products (e.g. glass, cement) or chemicals (e.g. mineral fertilisers, plastic additives,
pharmaceuticals).
Industrial minerals extraction represents a total amount of c. 160 Mt (in 2016). Potash (33
Mt), chalk (10 Mt), rock salt (22 Mt), gypsum (24 Mt), lime (29 Mt) and kaolin (10 Mt) sum
up to 79% of the exploited amount of industrial minerals in the EU in 2016. Bentonite (2 Mt),
potash dolomite (9 Mt), feldspar (6 Mt), magnesite (2 Mt), quartz (5 Mt) and sulfur (2 Mt)
counts for another 17%. Germany is by far the biggest producer of industrial minerals, with
potash (32 Mt), gypsum (4 Mt) kaolin (5 Mt) and rock salt (6 Mt) as the largest contributors.
Europe’s contribution to world metal ore production is limited to the following metals:
aluminum/bauxite, copper, lead, zinc, chromium, nickel, iron, and tungsten. There is also
production to a lesser extent of precious metals (gold and silver), cobalt, manganese, and tin.
In the EU-27 (2017) 70 active metallic mineral mines (including the treatment of mineral
resources with integrated mine location, operated as a complete entity, where one operator
excavates material from more than one site), with 104 active metallic mineral excavation sites
have been identified, which are located in Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden. Additionally, 11
projects have been identified that are under development or in an exploration stage.
Based on all data collected for the period 2015 – 2017 under the study supporting the
development of general guidance on the implementation of the Extractive Waste Directive, it
has been estimated that all metallic mineral extraction sites together produced about 223,000
Kt of ore per year. The annual production of copper sulfide and polymetallic copper ore in
the period 2015 – 2017 amounted to 132,500 Kt, and iron extraction produced about 38,000
Kt of ore. Together, they amount to almost 80% of the metallic mineral ores produced in the
EU. The annual production of nickel ore was about 15,000 Kt, of lead-zinc ore 11,500 Kt and
of gold ore 10,500 Kt.
The figure below gives an idea of the importance of the mining sector for metals and selected
industrial material in each MS in 2017.
82
European Commission (2021). Raw Materials Scoreboard 2020 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/eb052a18-c1f3-11eb-a925-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-233015861
523
Figure A8-27: Mining production of metals and selected industrial material
Source: EC, 2021. Raw Materials scoreboard 2020.
Employment in the sector
The table below shows the Eurostat data on the number of full-time employees employed in
the Mining of coal and lignite, Mining of metal ores, Other mining and quarrying sub-sectors
for 2018. For completion the persons employed in all mining and quarrying sub-sectors from
Eurostat are presented.
524
Table A8-41: Number of persons employed in each subsector per Member State and relative share of the total (Eurostat, data for 2018)
Member
State
Mining and
quarrying
total (incl.
energy
activities)
Mining of
iron ores
Mining of
non-
ferrous
metal
ores
Quarrying
of stone,
sand and
clay
Mining and
quarrying
n.e.c.*
Support
activities
for other
mining and
quarrying
Share of
mining of
iron ores
over total
mining and
quarrying
Share of
non-ferrous
metal ores
over total
mining and
quarrying
Quarrying of
stone, sand
and clay over
total mining
and
quarrying
Mining and
quarrying
n.e.c. over
total
mining and
quarrying
Support
activities for
other mining
and quarrying
over total
mining and
quarrying
AT 6,825 c c 4,296 710 c c c 63.0% 10.4% c
BE 2,160 0 0 c c c 0.0% 0.0% c c c
BG 21,663 0 6,634 4,173 497 582 0.0% 0.0% 19.26% 2.3% 2.7%
CY 538 0 c c 0 0 0.0% c c 0.0% 0.0%
CZ 24,237 0 c 5,254 249 c 0.0% c 21.68% 1.0% c
DE 47,392 c 0 27,715 4,750 387 0.0% 0.0% 58.48% 10.0% 0.8%
DK 5,073 0 0 687 329 19 0.0% 0.0% 13.54% 6.5% 0.4%
EE 4,200 0 0 721 808 33 0.0% 0.0% 17.17% 19.2% 0.8%
EL 7,703 c c 4,372 712 32 c c 56.76% 9.2% 0.4%
ES 17,751 66 2,185 10,606 3,024 805 0.4% 0.4% 59.8% 17.0% 4.5%
FI 7,281 c c 1,651 2,244 1,091 c c 22.68% 30.8% 15.0%
FR 12,723 c c 10,207 1,000 77 c c 80.22% 7.9% 0.6%
HR 4,040 0 0 1,895 154 39 0.0% 0.0% 46.9% 3.8% 1.0%
HU 3,979 0 3 2,682 121 583 0.0% 0.0% 67.4% 3.0% 14.7%
IE 4,113 c c c c c c c c c c
IT 17,716 0 2 11,937 1,953 0 0.0% 0.0% 67.4% 11.0% 0.0%
525
Member
State
Mining and
quarrying
total (incl.
energy
activities)
Mining of
iron ores
Mining of
non-
ferrous
metal
ores
Quarrying
of stone,
sand and
clay
Mining and
quarrying
n.e.c.*
Support
activities
for other
mining and
quarrying
Share of
mining of
iron ores
over total
mining and
quarrying
Share of
non-ferrous
metal ores
over total
mining and
quarrying
Quarrying of
stone, sand
and clay over
total mining
and
quarrying
Mining and
quarrying
n.e.c. over
total
mining and
quarrying
Support
activities for
other mining
and quarrying
over total
mining and
quarrying
LT 2,734 0 0 1,489 1,104 0 0.0% 0.0% 54.5% 40.4% 0.0%
LU 286 0 0 286 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
LV 3,186 0 0 1,032 2,116 26 0.0% 0.0% 32.4% 66.4% 0.8%
MT 202 0 0 c 0 c 0.0% 0.0% c 0.0% c
NL 8,439 0 0 870 1,383 c 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 16.4% c
PL 144,917 0 c 18,835 2,667 12,587 0.0% c 13.0% 1.8% 8.7%
PT 9,497 21 1,950 6,701 380 430 0.2% 0.2% 70.6% 4.0% 4.5%
RO 24,313 28 1,990 7,761 2,113 153 0.1% 0.1% 31.9% 8.7% 0.6%
SE 7,898 c c 1,914 129 79 c c 24.2% 1.6% 1.0%
SI 2,355 0 0 922 c 3 0.0% 0.0% 39.2% c 0.1%
SK 6,777 0 c 1,740 1,169 118 0.0% c 25.7% 17.3% 1.7%
Note: *Mining and quarrying activities n.e.c. includes:- mining and quarrying of various minerals and materials: • abrasive materials, asbestos, siliceous fossil meals,
natural graphite, steatite (talc), feldspar etc. • natural asphalt, asphaltites and asphaltic rock; natural solid bitumen • gemstones, quartz, mica etc.
c indicates confidential information.
526
Among the non-energy related activities – quarrying of stone, sand, and clay seems to be the
most important activity in the EU. The mining of metal ores (i.e. iron and non-ferrous metal
ores) seems to occur especially in Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Greece,
Poland and Bulgaria. However, a lot of information is confidential, so the above cannot be
stated with certainty.
Future developments and policy action
The nature of the mineral industry in the EU is expected to change in coming years to address
climate aspects in terms of i) considerable reduction of carbon footprint in extraction and
processing, ii) higher circularity and increased recovery of minerals and metals (including
CRMs) from mining waste, iii) and increased production of critical raw materials through
extraction. In its assessment ‘Minerals for Climate Action: The Mineral Intensity of the Clean
Energy Transition’83
the World Bank noted that a low-carbon future will be very mineral
intensive because clean energy technologies need more materials than fossil-fuel based
electricity generation technologies. In particular, graphite, lithium and cobalt will need to be
ramped up by more than 450 percent by 2050 from 2018 level to meet demand for energy
storage technologies. The International Energy Agency states that the energy sector’s overall
needs for critical minerals could increase by as much as six times by 2040, depending on how
rapidly governments act to reduce emissions84
. In some cases, extraction will venture into
areas for which the EU has limited experience, particularly in the case of lithium mining,
where there is only one mine presently in existence in Portugal, and cobalt mining, for which
Finland operates the only EU cobalt extraction activities in four mines. In the case of lithium
extraction for example, the expected growth is illustrated by plans to extract the mineral in
western Serbia. Those reports estimate that over the expected 40-year life of the mine, 2.3m
tonnes of battery-grade lithium carbonate would be produced, a mineral critical for large-
scale batteries for electric vehicles and storing renewable energy85
.
In its Communication ‘Critical Raw Materials Resilience Charting a Path towards greater
Security and Sustainability’86
, the Commission has set forward a number of actions to
increase EU resilience with regard to mineral needs to feed the green and digital
transformations. In this respect a number of actions have been identified. A description of
the Actions and their progress to date is indicated below.
83
Minerals for Climate Action: The Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition, 2020. The World Bank.
84
The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, 2021. International Energy Agency.
85
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/nov/19/rio-tintos-past-casts-a-shadow-over-
serbias-hopes-of-a-lithium-revolution
86
COM(2020) 474
527
Table A8-42: Status of actions under the Commission Communication COM(2020) 474
 Action number and description  Progress
(reported in October
2021)
 Action 1 – Launch an industry-driven European Raw Materials Alliance
in September 2020, to build resilience and open strategic autonomy for the rare
earths and magnets.
 Completed
 Action 2 – Develop sustainable financing criteria for the mining,
extractive and processing sectors in Delegated Acts on Taxonomy by end 2021
(Platform on Sustainable Finance, Commission ).
 Expected mid-
2022
 Action 3- Launch critical raw materials research and innovation in 2021
on waste processing, advanced materials and substitution, using Horizon Europe,
the European Regional Development Fund and national R&I programmes.
 Work ongoing
 Action 4 - Map the potential supply of secondary critical raw materials
from EU stocks and wastes and identify viable recovery projects by 2022.
 Work ongoing.
 Action 5 - Identify mining and processing projects and investment needs
and related financing opportunities for critical raw materials in the EU that can be
operational by 2025. In collaboration with Member States and promoted by the
European Raw Materials Alliance.
 Work ongoing.
 Action 6 – Develop expertise and skills in mining, extraction and
processing technologies, as part of a balanced transition strategy in regions in
transition from 2022 onwards (Commission, industry, trade unions, Member
States and regions);
 Work ongoing.
 Action 7 - Deploy Earth-observation programmes and remote sensing for
resource exploration, operations and post-closure environmental management
(Commission, industry). The Commission is promoting an Earth Observation
platform for Raw Materials.
 Work ongoing.
 Action 8 – Develop Horizon Europe R&I projects on processes for
exploitation and processing of critical raw materials to reduce environmental
impacts starting in 2021 (Commission, R&I community).
 Work ongoing.
 Action 9 - Develop strategic international partnerships and associated
funding to secure a diversified and sustainable supply of critical raw materials,
including through undistorted trade and investment conditions, starting with pilot
partnerships with Canada, interested countries in Africa and the EU’s
neighbourhood in 2021 (Commission, Member States, industry and third country
counterparts);
 Partnerships
with Canada, Ukraine:
completed.
Partnerships with
countries in Africa,
Serbia: work ongoing.
 Action 10 - Promote responsible mining practices for critical raw
materials through the EU regulatory framework (proposals in 2020-2021).
 Work ongoing.
The Commission
published the EU
principles for
sustainable raw
materials in September
2021.
528
The above Communication also identifies the main locations of both critical raw materials as
well as EU battery raw material resources, highlighting those Member States that have
currently been identified as having the greatest potential for increases in mining activity in
the future.
Mineral extraction activities are primarily addressed at the EU level in relation to
environmental impact and mitigation and health and safety of operations. As far as
environmental risks are concerned, the overarching legislation applied at the EU level to
mining and quarrying activities stems from Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
according to the EIA Directive (2011/92/EU) and, in relation to extractive waste, the
Extractive Waste Directive (EWD, 2006/21/EC). The scope of the EWD includes energy
fuels, metals ores, industry minerals and constructive minerals. Furthermore, other relevant
EU environmental legislation includes, inter alia, the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the
Birds and Habitats Directives, the Environmental Liability Directive, the Directive
2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and its fourth daughter Directive 2004/107/EC and the
Waste Framework Directive.. The application of these pieces of legislation to extraction
activities is not considered commensurate with the requirements of the IED as a result of:
 The fact that the EIA process does not explicitly set permit conditions – rather it looks
to mitigate environmental effects before an activity is undertaken or when significant
changes are made to the operation during the lifetime of an installation. The EIA
process also looks at the compliance with other legislation. The results of assessments
are generally implemented through planning controls rather than an operational permit
that evolves over time to take into account changes in BAT as is the case under IED.
Furthermore, in the absence of common emission levels at the EU level for emissions
from the extractive sector it is likely that with further examination of the conditions
set for the extractive sector across different Member States that the conditions set
would vary significantly. This issue was identified in the Commission report of 2009
on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive that noted that the EIA
Directive lays down essentially procedural requirements; it does not establish
obligatory environmental standards. The ability to make valid decisions depends on
the quality of the information used in the EIA documentation and the quality of the
EIA process. Quality is therefore a crucial element for the effectiveness of the
Directive and in this respect many Member States have pointed out that the lack of
sufficient quality in the information used in the EIA documentation is a problem.
There are major differences in the quality of EIA documentation, not only between
different Member States but also within Member States themselves.
 The Extractive Waste Directive focusses on waste management on extraction sites
and does not consider other operational activities on site that may also have an impact
on the environment (such as emissions to air, water and soil). Legal coherence
between the EWD and the IED will need to be ensured when including mining and
quarrying activities under the IED.
GHG from non-fossil fuel extractive installations are excluded from the EU ETS. The Effort
Sharing Regulation sets emission reduction targets for each MS based on the principles of
529
fairness, cost-effectiveness and environmental integrity for those sectors not covered by the
EU ETS. Therefore, MS are responsible to set national policies and measures to regulate
the mining sector. For example, potash mines are subject to extensive permitting and
inspection systems in Spain and Germany – the only MS with such mines87
.
An important aspect on which national legislation intervene – at country, regional, and local
level – is the land use change due to extractive activities. Member States may set an absolute
ban, conditional clauses, or protective provisions in relation to extractive activities under
national or regional regimes. In addition, 3D spatial planning is a common practice and part
of the regulation in some MS88
.
Additional legislation has also been designated by some Member States for the protection of
habitat and species, in cases not covered by EU law.
An examination of the approaches to permitting of the extractive sector by Member State was
performed in the study supporting the impact assessment of the IED revision89
, using
materials gathered under the Minlex study on the Legal framework for mineral extraction and
permitting procedures for exploration and exploitation in the EU. The detailed overview is
provided in the supporting study. In general it can be concluded that all Member States
appear to have a permitting regime in place for extractive activities taking place within their
territory. Secondly, it is apparent that Member States generally maintain provisions in
relation to environmental legislation for mining, albeit a large majority of the legislation is
the transposing law for EU Directives and Regulations. However, there are examples of
permitting approaches that go beyond EU law, for example in Germany where a BAT-based
approach is applied to extractive permits.
Furthermore, there is significant variation in the permitting approaches of Member States in
relation to the environment, ranging from single mining permits addressing all operational
aspects of a site, to separation of environmental permits by theme (e.g. waste, water, air). In
case where permitting approaches are subject to separate applications and authorisations it is
less likely that an integrated consideration to environmental protection from extractive
activities is being applied, albeit this is impossible to determine with absolute certainty
without examining the permits issued. It is not apparent from the legislation examined how
the key environmental impacts of the extractive sector are specifically addressed and for dust
emissions in particular, as an example, it is difficult to see the manner in which national law
currently specifies techniques for mitigating those emissions. This need for a more coherent
approach is also illustrated by the one of the Commission’s priority actions in 2022, i.e.
streamlining permitting procedures for battery raw material projects in Member States, in line
with highest environmental standards.
87
European Potash Producers Association position paper attached to the OPC on the Revision of the Industrial
Emissions Directive
88
Hamor, T., Vidal Legaz, B., Zampori, L., Eynard, U. and Pennington, D. (2021), A review of European Union
legal provisions on the environmental impact assessment of non-energy minerals extraction projects, JRC.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125111
89
Trinomics, Ricardo, Wood, 2021. Gathering of complementary evidence for assessing the impacts of
extending the scope of the IED to additional sectors. Draft final report
530
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
The costs of including the minerals extraction activities under the IED will depend, inter alia,
on the BAT eventually defined and its current uptake.
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure will likely have weakly negative impacts on the administrative burden on
businesses.
Annual additional administrative costs would be incurred if this measure is implemented,
especially as there would be a need to review permits, expand business engagement in the
BREF review process, monitor and report more data, and engage with inspections and other
enforcement-related activities. These costs are unlikely to deviate significantly from the
permitting costs applicable to the likes of cement and lime activities, given that these are the
closest current IED activity to minerals extraction activities (they involve extraction and on-
site processing so for metal ore extraction are likely to represent a good proxy).
Consideration also needs to be given to the nature of the extractive activities themselves.
Quarries undertaking extraction of aggregates and construction minerals are generally
deemed to be less of an environmental risk than extraction of industrial minerals and metallic
minerals due to the generally inert nature of the materials extracted and the processing
undertaken on site. The full application of IED permitting to quarries involved in aggregate
and construction minerals is, therefore, unlikely to be proportionate to the benefits achieved
via IED. Given the higher number of quarries (extraction of aggregates) in the EU
(approximately 23 000 – 27 000 sites), compared to the mining of metallic and industrial
minerals, there would be significantly more permits to issue/review for these types of
activities. There would be an additional burden for an industry that consists of over 90%
SMEs, with an average of 7-8 people working in every site. This is an important finding to
be taken into account in order to ensure that the measure, related BAT requirements and their
implementation in permits focus on the most significant sources of emission of pollutants.
By focussing the measure on the extraction of metallic and industrial minerals it is
estimated that, based on the estimates above, c. 800-900 minerals extraction installations
would be regulated under the IED (c. 750 industrial mineral extractive sites and 100 metallic
mineral sites).
Based on the estimated number of installations for these sectors and the assumptions of unit
costs for the main requirements for operators, administrative burden on businesses has been
estimated between €1m/year to €19m/year, with a central estimate of €12m/year, on average
over the period of 20 years from adoption. In this case, this range is due to the uncertainty in
administrative burden (see earlier sections) since there is one central estimate of the number
of installations. These costs are not expected to represent a significant burden on the sector.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure will have negative impacts on the operating costs and conduct of business.
This will be due to operators needing to implement techniques to mitigate the environmental
531
impacts as will be identified in a BAT conclusions document for the sector. Note that in some
Member States, techniques are already applied as a result of national policy. The measure’s
impacts on operating costs and conduct of business in the mining sector are unclear. The
magnitude of these costs would be primarily dependent upon the BREF process.
There is uncertainty as to what would be considered BAT, for each process and type of
mineral. There is variation between the types of extraction and treatment processes and
minerals, which creates uncertainty when calculating the abatement costs.
The JRC Science for Policy Report on available techniques for the prevention or reduction of
environmental impacts in non-energy extractive industries (NEEI) 90
, indicates a number of
techniques are used within the sector to minimise environmental impacts across stages of
extractions, transport, treatment and storage, but no formal evaluation of the measured
effectiveness or cost of these techniques has taken place.
Competitiveness and level playing field
Inclusion of minerals extraction activities within the Annex I of the IED imposes a singular
set of requirements towards mining sites and operators in the EU. It therefore offers the
potential to level the playing field by providing minimum criteria for all Member States
through BAT Conclusions. The measure would therefore likely lead to weakly positive
impacts on level playing field.
This measure will have weakly negative impacts on competitiveness. Mining sites,
depending on the existing requirements, could see additional cost impacts, and the relative
competitiveness of these sites would be expected to decrease. The total costs of doing
business, that is the costs of administrative burden and compliance combined, are thought to
negatively impact upon the sites. The exact level, however, is to be determined by the BREF
process.
Position of SMEs
Looking at the number of persons employed in each MS in the mining industry and the
number of enterprises, there can be a considerable number of mining sites defined as SME.
As stated above, the majority of extraction sites in the EU correspond to small mines with a
relatively limited number of employees (less than 10 workers). This is particularly the case
for the extraction of aggregates.
By focussing the measure on the extraction of metallic and industrial minerals it is estimated
that the measure will likely have weakly negative impacts on SMEs. Focussing on industrial
minerals and metallic mineral extractive sites is likely to still impact on some SMEs, but the
size of sites is likely to be significant higher in terms of number of employees than for the
aggregates and construction sector.
Innovation and research
90
Garbarino, E., Orveillon, G., Hamor, T., Saveyn, H.G.M., Eder, P., Collection of available techniques for the
prevention or reduction of environmental impacts in non-energy extractive industries (NEEI), EUR 30827 EN,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-41493-3, doi:10.2760/622092,
JRC125247.
532
This measure may have a limited impact on research and development. Provisions within the
IED, such as Article 27 on emerging techniques, allow for research and development within
the context of BAT. Each BREF includes a chapter on emerging techniques, which acts as an
indication of future techniques that could in the future (i.e. ‘if commercially developed’) be
considered as BAT. This pathway encourages the continual focus on further reducing the
environmental impacts of industrial activities or innovating in ways to save costs when
compared to existing BAT. If this measure was adopted, such activities would be subject to
the Sevilla Process, with emerging techniques considered within the eventual BREF.
Public authority impacts
This measure will have negative impacts on public authority costs. The largest impact will
be on permitting and inspecting authorities, due to a significant number of mining sites that
would require (a review of) an environmental permit, with requirements on BAT use and
adherence to emission limit values.
There will be the costs to the Commission for the development of a BREF. The estimates in
the IED evaluation for this one-off cost of a BREF development were €7.9m (range €3.6m to
€20.7m). After apportioning the fraction of this cost for public authorities, and annualising
over a period of 20 years assuming two BREFs in this period, the annualised cost of the
BREF process for public authorities would be expected to range from €0.3m/year to
€1.4m/year.
There will be one-off costs to the Member States for transposition of new requirements, as
well as ongoing regulatory costs.
Based on the estimated number of installations for these sectors (c. 800-900, excluding
extraction of aggregates and construction minerals) and the assumptions of unit costs for the
main requirements for public authorities, additional administrative costs have been estimated
between €1m/year to €12m/year, with a central estimate of €8m/year, on average over the
period of 20 years from adoption. In this case, this range is due to the uncertainty in
administrative burden. These costs, in isolation, are not expected to represent a significant
burden on public authorities.
Environmental impacts
According to the JRC EIA report91
, the upstream activities of the non-energy extractive sector
(i.e. extraction and primary processing) generate relatively low quantities of GHG emissions,
as the energy intensive processing occurs off the mining sites. Given the nature of the
activity, emissions to air during extractive practices are represented by dust and particles,
91
Hamor, T., Vidal Legaz, B., Zampori, L., Eynard, U. and Pennington, D. (2021), A review of European Union
legal provisions on the environmental impact assessment of non-energy minerals extraction projects, JRC.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125111
533
which are easily dispersed by the wind92
. Such emissions differ substantially based on the
techniques used and the composition of the ore, even within subsectors93
.
Sources of air pollution during mining and quarrying activities include mobile sources like
vehicles for excavation, as well as movement of materials on site. The main sources of
emissions to air from the extractive sector vary somewhat for opencast and underground
mining. Opencast activities result in emissions from digging, drilling and blasting, material
processing such as crushing, screening and transfer, internal transport, material handling
including loading and unloading and wind erosion from stockpiles. Underground mining is
subject to less direct air emissions from digging, drilling and blasting, with any emissions
taking place emitted through ventilation shafts whose primary purpose is to maintain the
health and safety of workers underground. However, similar overground activities such as
processing, transport, loading and unloading and erosion from stockpiles are likely to take
place once materials have been brought up to the surface from underground extraction.
Additionally, noise pollution, vibrations, odours, light pollution, heat anomalies that can have
an impact on the local climate, ionizing radiation because of the common presence of
naturally occurring radioactive materials, and toxic heavy metals94
are also emitted during
mining and quarrying activities.
Extractive activities are placed where the natural resources exist, with no or very limited
possibilities to be relocated. In some cases, they involve high concentrations of certain
elements due to natural background levels and/or diffuse pollution. If suitable measures are
not implemented, mining activities can affect freshwater ecosystems in different ways
through changes in the groundwater and surface water hydrology, or through the release of
chemicals and/or sediments in water. Impacts on water will depend on the type of mineral,
mining practices, substances used at the processing stage, and the way mining waste is
handled95
.
The figure below presents a summary of the Key Environmental Issues (KEI) for about
25.000 extraction sites in the EU-2796
. The figure differentiates the category of minerals
(construction, industrial, and metallic) and presents a relative impact of the extraction and
treatment activities on the environmental issues studied, i.e. the structural, physical, and
chemical stability, emissions to soil, water, and air, noise, vibration, odour, biodiversity and
92
Hamor, T., Vidal Legaz, B., Zampori, L., Eynard, U. and Pennington, D. (2021), A review of European Union
legal provisions on the environmental impact assessment of non-energy minerals extraction projects, JRC.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125111
93
European Potash Producers Association position paper attached to the OPC on the Revision of the Industrial
Emissions Directive
94
Hamor, T., Vidal Legaz, B., Zampori, L., Eynard, U. and Pennington, D. (2021), A review of European Union
legal provisions on the environmental impact assessment of non-energy minerals extraction projects, JRC.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125111
95
SWD(2019) 439 final
96
Garbarino, E., Orveillon, G., Hamor, T., Saveyn, H.G.M., Eder, P., Collection of available techniques for the
prevention or reduction of environmental impacts in non-energy extractive industries (NEEI), EUR 30827 EN,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-41493-3, doi:10.2760/622092,
JRC125247.
534
land use, energy, water, and material consumption, and hazardous materials97
. Metallic
minerals have the highest aggregated impact, followed by industrial and construction
minerals. Among the KEI, the strongest impacts across all mineral categories can be seen on
structural and physical stability, emissions to soil and groundwater, and the discharge of
suspended particles and metals in surface water. Differences across mineral categories on the
most relevant KEI are related to the extraction methodology (e.g. the use of explosive leads
to nitrate emissions, vibrations, and odour).
Figure A8-28: Relative environmental impact of each mineral category where on the Y axis the
distribution of the impact is represented, while on the x axis each environmental issue is shown.
The benefits of including the non-energy extractive sector under the IED corresponds to BAT
that can be implemented to prevent or reduce the KEI listed and to ensure a level playing
field in the EU. The BREF would thus contribute to the mitigation of the KEI identified. It
would also provide the basis to build a data frame displaying a more representative picture of
the size of the (non-energy) minerals extraction sector in the EU27, and of the related
emissions.
Stakeholders, in their opinion on the matter, collected in the TSS, on average attributed the
most significant impact to water, followed by land and air, in the form of fugitive dust.
97
The JRC study does not include extractive waste among the environmental issues studied, as it is detailed
explored in the MWEI BREF.
535
The analysis also indicates that quarrying, i.e. the extraction of aggregates, has typically
fewer environmental issues compared to the more complex extraction and treatment of
metallic and industrial minerals. Extraction of aggregates mainly lead to (diffuse) emissions
of dust, noise and vibrations, whilst the other minerals have also a high potential for
emissions to water, soil and impacts on the (chemical, structural, physical) stability.
Through the BAT conclusions for the sector, the measure could be effective in addressing the
KEIs, including emissions to air (dust and other pollutants), pollution of surface water,
groundwater and soil, noise and vibrations.
Climate
This measure should provide weakly positive impacts on reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. A benefit of introducing the non-energy extractive sector under the IED is related
to the tonnes of GHG emissions that can be regulated and potentially avoided. However,
precise data on the GHG emissions produced by the non-energy extractive sector are not
currently available.
Air quality
This measure will have positive impacts on reducing air pollutant emissions. According to
the JRC EIA report (2021)98
, sources of air pollution during minerals extraction activities
include mobile sources like vehicles for excavation, processing as well as movement of
materials on site. The main air pollutants related to all mining activities, as reported under E-
PRTR activities 3a and 3b, were carbon dioxide and methane, followed by carbon monoxide,
nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, and particulate matter. Particulate Matter would have
expected to be significantly higher, being one of the primary substances produced during
mining activities99, 100
.
Based on E-PRTR data, the sector appears to lead to substantial emissions of PM10,
equivalent to 4.4% of total industrial emissions covered by the IED in 2019. A similar degree
of significance is observed for NOX and SOx, with a potential contribution of around 0.85%
to 1% depending on the year assessed (2017-2019). NH3 and NMVOC are not significant,
with a maximum contribution of 0.17% of total industrial emissions covered by the IED. An
examination of UNECE CLRTAP reported data also emphasises the importance of extractive
activities in relation to dust emissions, with emissions for non-coal extraction contributing
around 4.5% of total dust emissions in the EU.
98
Hamor, T., Vidal Legaz, B., Zampori, L., Eynard, U. and Pennington, D., A review of European Union legal
provisions on the environmental impact assessment of non-energy minerals extraction projects, EUR 30743
EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-38988-0,
doi:10.2760/705726, JRC125111.
99
Patra et al. (2016). Emissions and human health impact of particulate matter from surface mining
operation—A review https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352186416300153
100
Hamor, T., Vidal Legaz, B., Zampori, L., Eynard, U. and Pennington, D. (2021), A review of European Union
legal provisions on the environmental impact assessment of non-energy minerals extraction projects, JRC.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125111
536
It appears, therefore, that there is significant potential to reduce emissions of PM from this
activity by integrating it into the IED. That said, the size of impacts will depend on the
outcome of the BREF process.
Water quality and resources
This measure should provide positive impacts on water quality and resources. The
integrated approach of the IED and the range of environmental issues that could be covered
by a BREF and BAT conclusions would be expected to lead to tighter controls on activities
potentially affecting surface water quality and the use of water in extraction and treatment
processes.
In particular, the extraction and treatment of metallic and industrial minerals have the
potential of emissions to water. Different extracted materials have different impacts on the
water quality and the quantity used101
. Different pollutants can enter the surface water
depending on the extraction activity. For example:
 sulphidic rocks and treatment chemicals may lead to acidity or extreme alkalinity in
water pH and to sulphur-bearing compounds;
 suspended particles and sediments can enter in circulation;
 explosives can lead to deposits of nitrites, nitrates and ammonium;
 rocks, local fertilizers and flotation reagents introduce inorganic and organic
phosphate species
 potash extraction is responsible for chloride.
The JRC assessment of the relative impact of the extraction and treatment activities per
mineral category on the environmental issues studied,102
indicates that the strongest impacts
across all mineral categories can be seen on structural and physical stability, emissions on
soil and groundwater, and the discharge of suspended particles and metals in surface water.
Addressing these risks is likely to have a weakly positive impact on water pollution.
Soil quality or resources
This measure should provide weakly positive impacts on soil quality. Land is also affected
by extractive activities. Land use change practices have numerous consequences, including
the loss of soil functions and of biodiversity. Incidents can have severe consequences on the
land, by damaging the surface and threatening its physical stability and integrity. The subsoil
quality is also negatively affected because of the oxidation of the organic material103
.
101
Hamor, T., Vidal Legaz, B., Zampori, L., Eynard, U. and Pennington, D. (2021), A review of European Union
legal provisions on the environmental impact assessment of non-energy minerals extraction projects, JRC.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125111
102
Garbarino, E., Orveillon, G., Hamor, T., Saveyn, H.G.M., Eder, P., Collection of available techniques for the
prevention or reduction of environmental impacts in non-energy extractive industries (NEEI), EUR 30827 EN,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-41493-3, doi:10.2760/622092,
JRC125247.
103
Hamor, T., Vidal Legaz, B., Zampori, L., Eynard, U. and Pennington, D. (2021), A review of European Union
legal provisions on the environmental impact assessment of non-energy minerals extraction projects, JRC.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125111
537
Mining activities can cause the habitat degradation whose scale depends on the features of the
extraction site and may result in the habitat loss. Similarly, certain species can be subject to
significance disturbance because of noise, dust, and pollution affecting their ability to bread,
feed, or rest. Significant disturbance can lead to species migration, changes in species
composition, and the colonisation from invasive species104
.
The penetration in the subsoil during the extractive activities impacts surface and
groundwater, changing its baseline condition, as well as polluting it in the presence of
chemicals. As a result, changes in water quality and its physical status, water volume and
balance, and water ecosystems can occur. Mitigation and control measures could avoid these
impacts.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure should provide limited impacts on waste production. The extraction sector
produces important volumes of waste material in the form of extractive residues and
extractive waste. The first is described as the part of the co-excavated material which ends up
unsold or unprocessed. While the second is defined by the extractive waste directive105
as the
extractive waste resulting from excavation of mineral resources, such as waste rocks and
tailings. The amount of extractive residues generated during the whole extractive process
depends on the extracted commodity, the extraction method and the site-specific local
conditions. As a result, this can vary between one unit per unit of final product to several
hundred thousand units per unit of product106
. Requirements for the management of waste in
the extractive sector are already set under the MWEI BREF107
. Therefore, unless stricter BAT
and/or BAT-AEPLs would be set under a new BREF, including the mining activities under
the scope of the IED would not lead to significant improvements in terms of waste generation
and recycling. As noted above, legal coherence between the EWD and the IED will need to
be ensured.
Efficient use of resources
Unclear impacts. No means of assessing the efficient use of energy or water have been
identified, however, regulation of the sector through the IED may further benefit resource
efficiency, with resource efficiency featuring within the Sevilla Process.
Social impacts
This measure has unclear social impacts. Public health impacts would be spillover effects
from the environmental benefits already captured within the previous sections of this
104
Hamor, T., Vidal Legaz, B., Zampori, L., Eynard, U. and Pennington, D. (2021), A review of European Union
legal provisions on the environmental impact assessment of non-energy minerals extraction projects, JRC.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125111
105
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 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02006L0021-20090807
106 JRC (2018). Best available techniques (BAT) reference document for the management of waste from extractive
industries. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/74b27c3c-0289-11e9-adde-01aa75ed71a1/language-
en
107 JRC (2018) Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Management of Waste from Extractive
Industries in accordance with Directive 2006/21/EC https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-
files/jrc109657_mwei_bref_-_for_pubsy_online.pdf
538
assessment. Furthermore, this measure will incur costs towards business and operators. If
these costs cannot be passed on within the price of produce, these costs will impact upon
profitability and could therefore impact upon employment. There is limited evidence
available to quantify these impacts, but they are expected to be negative.
Measure 42: Include aquaculture within the scope of the IED
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
The measure seeks to include aquaculture (E-PRTR Annex I activity 7b) within the scope of
Annex I of the IED. This, in turn, will require aquaculture installations to comply with the
general regulatory framework set out by the IED, such as the provisions regarding permits or
inspections, detailed in Chapter II of the IED.
Objectives:
The following objectives apply:
 Levelling the playing field for installations across the EU.
 Improving the environmental effectiveness of the IED, via the extension of coverage
of the IED in Annex I.
Implementation need(s):
The Commission will need to further define the definition of an aquaculture installation and
capacity threshold to be included in Annex I.
 Currently, the E-PRTR uses the following threshold and activity definitions: 7(b) –
‘Intensive aquaculture’, ‘with a production capacity of 1 000 tonnes of fish or
shellfish per year’ (EC, 2006).
An option in the implementation of this measure is to adopt the E-PRTR definition in the
Annex I of the IED, aligning the IED with the E-PRTR. However, the IED and the E-PRTR
are associated with different levels of regulation. The IED subjects installations to a
regulatory framework, whereas the E-PRTR is predominantly to collate environmental data.
Therefore, it is not clear whether adopting the E-PRTR definition is appropriate when
considering the system of regulation required under the IED. The capacity threshold,
therefore, remains an evidence gap. Other options pertain to interviews or other means of
determining an appropriate capacity threshold. There may be a basis in which a separate
threshold for shellfish and fish is necessary, given the different environmental pressures that
apply, i.e., whether only certain aquaculture systems warrant regulation.
In addition, to further defining the scope and wording of the IED, the following actions will
need to be taken to implement the measure:
 EU to amend the IED to bring aquaculture activities inside the scope of the IED,
primarily by including aquaculture in Annex I.
 EU to broaden the IRPP BREF to include aquaculture, and to produce BAT
Conclusions for aquaculture installations.
539
 Aquaculture operators to engage in the BREF process and take steps to ensure that
BAT Conclusions are met.
 EU/ Public institutions to establish a common reporting system that encompasses the
aquaculture industry via channels such as the EEA EU Registry and other piscatorial-/
agricultural-related databases.
 Member States to monitor aquaculture operators to ensure compliance with IED.
Further consideration of scope and baseline
The EU demand for fish is met by EU aquaculture (10%) and EU fisheries (30%),; the
remaining 60% of wild and farmed fish consumed in the EU is imported from third countries
(EC, 2016)108
. In 2018, EU annual aquaculture production was 1.32 million tonnes109
, with a
total value of €4.8 billion (EUMOFA, 2020). The EU represents 1.0% of the world
aquaculture production in volume and 1.5% in value.
Between 2009 and 2018, gross annual production grew slightly (3%) while in real terms the
value of this production grew significantly (36%) (EUMOFA, 2020), due to increased
production of high value species and organic products as well as a rise in demand
(EUMOFA, 2020).
The most important farmed species in the EU are mussels, oysters, salmon, trout, carp,
seabass and seabream. Relatively small quantities of other species are also produced, for
example turbot, Bluefin tuna, clams and catfish. The freshwater species (carp and trout) are
reared in semi-intensive ponds and intensive recirculation systems, while marine finfish
(salmon, seabass and seabream) are usually farmed in cages located in more protected inshore
waters. In 2018, marine fishes, freshwater fishes and shellfish accounted for 21%, 23% and
56% of the EU production of aquaculture in terms of weight, respectively. In value terms,
marine fishes, freshwater fishes and shellfish accounted for 42%, 25% and 33% of the
production value (Figure A8-29).
Figure A8-29: Aquaculture production in the EU27, in value and weight, by subsector: 2008-
2018.
Source: JRC, 2021 and FAO, 2021
108
SWD(2016) 178 final
109
Includes UK aquaculture produce
540
In 2018 there were about 15 000 EU companies involved in the aquaculture sector,
employing 69 000 people and producing 1.2 million tonnes of produce in the same year (EC,
2021). In 2012, approximately 90% of aquaculture enterprises in the EU employed fewer
than 10 people (FAO, 2015). In terms of sector forecasts, aquaculture sector and farmed fish
production in the EU is set to remain stable with some estimating a slight increase. Using the
number of installations which report to the E-PRTR as a proxy for the number of aquaculture
installations which produce >1000 tonnes a year, there are 55-250 aquaculture installations in
the EU. In 2018, 62 aquaculture installations (EU27) in operation, reported under the regime
of the E-PRTR regulation.
According to the industry representative for FEAP, aquaculture production has stagnated.
The value per tonne of fish produced has increased, however, gross output has fallen. The
representative for FEAP argues strict environmental regulation has contributed to declining
production rates. The representative for FEAP also noted that organic aquaculture, with the
exception of salmon farming in Ireland, has been unsuccessful.
 According to the TSS, there are approximately 2 550 aquaculture installations.
However, it is unclear whether the TSS respondents reported total aquaculture enterprises or
only enterprises which produce >1000 tonnes a year. Therefore, this estimate does not appear
to be reliable. Where respondents clarified whether their response referred to all enterprises in
a Member State or only those which produce >1000t a year, the data has been used to inform
this analysis.
 According to data collection and analysis conducted by Ricardo for the purposes of
this Study, there may be around 12 000 aquaculture enterprises and/or aquaculture farm sites
in the EU-27 (EC, 2019). Table 43 details the breakdown of the number of aquaculture
enterprises in Member States. Unfortunately, Member State reporting does not always
differentiate between enterprises and farms – an enterprise may represent several farms. This
could explain the slightly lower total figure in comparison to EU analysis (EC, 2021), which
suggests there are around 15 000 aquaculture farms in the EU.
Table A8-43: Output from aquaculture production for 2018 and 2019 and the number of
aquaculture enterprises by Member State. Output data from EC (2019). Enterprise data from
FAO (2015).
Member State Production output (tonnes in live weight) Enterprises
2018 2019
EU27 Total (from 2020) 1 132 966 1 114 379 11 855
Austria 4 084 4 250 n/a
Belgium 111 86 n/a
Bulgaria 10 758 11 959 163
Croatia 19 680 20 444 174
541
Member State Production output (tonnes in live weight) Enterprises
Cyprus 7 347 8 079 10
Czech Republic 21 750 20 989 40
Denmark 32 167 40 221 127
Estonia 944 1 062 6
Finland 14 323 15 296 120
France 188 327 194 328 3 249
Germany 31 796 37 998 8
Greece 132 375 128 748 1 051
Hungary 17 900 17 315 279
Ireland 35 252 34 977 587
Italy 142 726 126 477 6
Latvia 828 626 n/a
Lithuania 3 450 3 775 n/a
Malta 19 291 13 823 n/a
Netherlands 53 004 45 750 115
Poland 36 806 39 731 840
Portugal 11 766 12 881 1 443
Romania 12 298 420
Slovakia 2 247 2 689 n/a
Slovenia 1 938 2 138 11
Spain 318 702 306 507 3 032
Sweden 13 094 11 600 174
 Using the data collected, it is possible to estimate the number of enterprises and/or
farms, out of the ~11 000 identified, which align with the E-PRTR definition of aquaculture,
that is, producing >1000 tonnes a year. According to the FAO, around 90% of aquaculture
enterprises in Europe employ fewer than 10 people. Member State reports in the European
Commission aquaculture report (2021) supports the FAO’s findings. Based on quantitative
and qualitative evidence from Member State reporting in the (2021) study, it is likely that
between 1-2% of all aquaculture farms identified produce >1000 tonnes a year. This would
mean that there are likely between 95 and 236 farms which produce >1000 tonnes a year
across the EU-27. Complemented by a reported number of 55 installations in 2018, a range
542
between 55 and 250 aquaculture installations is proposed for the number that may covered by
the IED if the E-PRTR definition is retained.
 There is a range of EU-level and national legislation focussed on mitigating the
environmental impacts of aquaculture. This includes: the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
(inland and coastal waters), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (marine
waters) and the ‘SEA Directive’. The WFD and MSFD require all new aquaculture
installations to apply for a permit to establish a farm. The permit includes a limit on
production and emission limits for Nitrogen and Phosphorus, the main emissions from
aquaculture installations. Emission limits are set at various distances in relation to the
installation, such as, the sea floor, the immediate marine environment and downstream of the
installation. According to a representative for the Federation of European Aquaculture
Producers (FEAP), it takes 8 to 9 years to acquire a new permit. It is not clear how regularly
permits are reviewed.
 Under the WFD and the Priority Substances or Environmental Quality Standards
Directive, (EQSD), a variety of chemicals used in aquaculture practices – such as copper and
zinc are already regulated. The WFD’s objective for good chemical and ecological status is
supported by other EU legislation, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the REACH
legislation, the Biocidal Products Regulation, the Veterinary Medicines Directive, the Plant
Protection Products Regulation and the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive, as well as the
IED (EC, 2016). In addition, the Commission has set out new guidelines110
seeking to help
build an EU aquaculture sector that is competitive and resilient; ensures the supply of
nutritious and healthy food; reduces the EU’s dependency on seafood imports; creates
economic opportunities and jobs; and, becomes a global reference for sustainability (EC,
2021). In order for the EU to reach these aims, the implementation of this measure could be
essential for the better regulation of aquaculture facilities and fisheries.
Different approaches are used by Member States to issue permits to new facilities, conduct
Environmental Impact Assessments and monitor environmental management within and
across countries. In Germany, fish farms with a fish yield of more than >1000 tonnes per year
are subject to an Environmental Impact Assessments. In France, aquaculture is covered under
“Installations Classées pour la Protection de l’Environnement (ICPE)” classification 2130
(AIDA, 2021). The threshold here is 20 tonnes a year, in comparison to the E-PRTR
threshold of >1000 tonnes a year. 180 installations are covered by ICPE authorisation in
France. France does have installations above the E-PRTR threshold, such as Aquanord in
Hauts-de-France, which produces 1 800 tonnes of finfish a year, or Acquadea in Corisca,
which produces 1 000 tonnes of finfish a year. Additionally, French National MS authority
MET stated in its response to Question 7 in the TSS that they would look to increase the
current ICPE authorisation threshold from 20 to 100 tonnes a year in order to regulate fewer
aquaculture installations.
Moreover, Table 44 outlines the legislative framework for aquaculture for another three of
the largest aquaculture-producing Member States, namely Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.
110
SWD(2021) 102 final
543
The analysis demonstrates how aquaculture is affected by a wide range of regulation in
Member States where the industry is well-established. The legislative frameworks examined
are relatively similar, employing permits and Environmental Impact Assessments to control
emissions. Aquaculture regulation is particularly well-established in the Netherlands, with
different layers of regulation and harmonisation between regions. By contrast, there is a lack
of harmonisation between different regions in other Member States, such as Spain or Italy.
Table A8-44: Illustration of legislative frameworks affecting aquaculture production in Italy,
Spain and the Netherlands
Member State Legal Area Description
Italy
Basic Legislation The National Fisheries and Aquaculture Plan for 2004 (Ministerial
Decree of May 7th, 2004) sets out policy for competitiveness,
associations and pooling, environmental sustainability, and products
certification (FAO, 2021a).
Guidelines Reported in Commission Communication establishing a Strategy for the
Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture (COM (2002) 511),
registration in the scheme requires an organisation to adopt an
environmental policy containing commitments to achieve continuous
improvements in environmental performance and to comply with all
relevant environmental legislation (FAO, 2021a).
Water and
Wastewater
Legislative Decree No.152 concerning the Protection of Waters against
Pollution (1999, as amended in 2000) sets minimum environmental
quality objectives for main waterbodies, and quality objectives for
waterbodies intended for specific purposes, including fish and molluscs
life, to be met by 2016 (FAO, 2021a). The legislation provides quality
parameters and methods of analysis (FAO, 2021a).
EIA According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, Italy lacks a
systematic legislative framework for EIA (FAO, 2021a).
Council Directive 85/337/EC, states that Member States decide whether
aquaculture projects are subject to an EIA (FAO, 2021a). Italy has laws
which provide for transitional procedural rules for the assessment of
projects that are likely to significantly affect the environment (FAO,
2021a).
Spain
Code of conduct Spain has established the following strategic priority for the
development of aquaculture throughout period 2007–2013:
“Establishment of methods or means of aquaculture exploitation that
reduce adverse consequences or improve positive effects on the
environment” (FAO, 2021b).
EIA The administrative procedure for the EIA in Spain varies among the
Autonomous Communities (FAO, 2021b). An environmental impact
assessment carried out by aquaculture producer should include the
following information (FAO, 2021a):
 General description of the project and foreseeable requirements
in relation to the use of land and of other natural resources as
applicable
 Analysis of technically feasible alternatives and justification of
544
Member State Legal Area Description
adopted solution
 Assessment of the direct or indirect foreseeable effects of the
project
 Adoption of preventive and corrective measures;
Environmental Monitoring Scheme
 Summary of the study and its conclusions (FAO, 2021b).
Authorisation
System
The following administrative procedures are relevant to aquaculture
(FAO, 2021b):
 An application for occupation of the public zone
 Identification of the applicant (person or company)
 The works endorsed by a certified technician
 A financial feasibility study
 Scheme for the execution of the operation endorsed by a
certified technician
 Proof of payment of duties
 The EIA and the sanitary requirements, as applicable.
Netherlands Authorisation
System
There are no specific authorisations required to engage in and set up an
inland aquaculture farm (FAO, 2021c). Each business in the
Netherlands must have a number of permits to be allowed to conduct its
activities (FAO, 2021c).
According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the Dutch
system of permits, defined by various laws and controlled by different
ministries, is elaborate and complex (FAO, 2021c). The permits mainly
deal with environmental protection and are prescribed in different
environmental laws (see below) (FAO, 2021c). In addition, the setting
up of a farm should stroke with land use planning regulations (FAO,
2021c).
EIA
The Environmental Management Act (1993, as amended) (Wet
Milieubeheer) provides that certain business entities need an
environmental protection act permit (EPA permit) (FAO, 2021c).
These include entities engaged in aquaculture and entities engaged in
the processing of fish and shellfish. The competent authority for these
permits is the municipality (FAO, 2021c).
Water and
Wastewater
According to the Surface Waters Pollution Act (2002) every discharge
of wastewater into a surface water (and in some listed cases into
municipal sewers) requires a permit from the competent authority. All
dischargers are liable to pay a pollution levy (FAO, 2021c).
Aquaculture
Investment
Priority is given to projects which boost employment including support
for small enterprises and also for the processing and marketing of
fisheries and aquaculture products (FAO, 2021c).
545
Finally, the new strategic guidelines for EU aquaculture set out the vision and an operational
path to transform the industry111
. They outline best practice actions that would ensure good
environmental performance and encourage circular practices in aquaculture, for instance
through environmental monitoring of sites and waste management. The action plan for the
development of the organic food sector contains a number of initiatives specifically aimed at
boosting organic aquaculture production in the EU (EC, 2021).
Outside the EU, nations have varying levels of regulation over aquaculture. Table 45 outlines
the legislative frameworks for China and Vietnam. Vietnamese regulations for aquaculture
have a strong legal baseline, definition, and authorisation system. Further, Vietnam has an
integrated environmental management approach where regulatory powers are decentralised to
below state-level, and environmental regulations in Vietnam are thus often seen as inclusive
and effective. It should be noted that the farming of different species in Vietnam has seen
varying extents of success; while shrimp farming is well regulated and maintains good
standards of environmental protection, pangasius aquaculture has relatively poorer standards
due to certification issues and high production costs (UNEP, 2016). In comparison, China –
despite being the world’s largest contributor towards aquaculture production – has relatively
poor regulations for aquaculture. There is no legal definition for the sector, and there is no
EIA process that specifically applies to aquaculture. China’s environmental framework is
often poorly enforced due to its macro-scalar nature, poor environmental legislative structure
and ineffective policy enforcement at the provincial and municipal levels. Consequently,
even where there are some regulations that cover aquaculture and environmental protection
for the sector, their implementation is questionable.
Table A8-45: Legislation regulating the environmental impacts of aquaculture in Vietnam and
China
Nation Legal Area Description
Vietnam Basic Legislation The basic legislation applicable to aquaculture is the Fisheries Law of
2003 (FAO, 2021d). Chapter IV is dedicated to the regulation of
aquaculture, with 14 Articles that establish a master plan, rights and
obligations for those practicing aquaculture, allocation and lease of land
and area, feed and control of decease among others (FAO, 2021d).
In addition, other legislation that has implications for aquaculture
include: the Law on Land, the Law on Water Resources and the Law on
Environment Protection (FAO, 2021d).
There also exists secondary legislation, mainly decrees, adopted on the
basis of these laws. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
(MONRE) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
(MARD) serve as the competent national authorities responsible for all
related matters (FAO, 2021d).
Legal Definition There is no legal definition of the practice of aquaculture in the
Fisheries Law (FAO, 2021d). However, Article 2 of that Law defines
111
SWD(2021) 102 final
546
Nation Legal Area Description
“aquaculture land”, which includes land with inland water surface;
coastal and riverine alluvial land, coastal sandy beaches; land used for
farming economy purposes, non-agricultural land with water surface
allocated and leased for aquaculture purposes, and “marine areas for
aquaculture”, which includes sea areas that are planned for aquaculture
purposes (FAO, 2021d).
Authorisation
System
Chapter IV on Aquaculture in the Fisheries Law outlines the provisions
for the access to land and marine areas for aquaculture purposes (FAO,
2021d). The basis for access and development decisions made by the
ministry of fisheries is found in the master plan on aquaculture
development, as established by Article 23 of the Law (FAO, 2021d).
EIA Process The Fisheries Law Chapter on Aquaculture establishes the general
principle that individuals and organizations engaged in aquaculture
activities must comply with the regulations relating to environmental
protection (FAO, 2021d).
There are two parts to the EIA process (FAO, 2021d):
1. The strategic environmental assessment, an analysis and forecast of
the environmental impacts of a project are undertaken
2. The EIA reports are appraised by local government.
China Basic Legislation The Fisheries Law (1986, amended 2000) enhances the production,
increase, development and reasonable utilization of the nation’s fishery
resources (FAO, 2021e).
The law requires the state to adopt a policy that calls for simultaneous
development of aquaculture, fishing and processing, with special
emphasis on aquaculture (FAO, 2021e).
Legal Definition There is no legal definition of aquaculture in Chinese law.
Authorisation
System
According to the Fisheries Law and its implementing Regulation (1987),
the government at or above the county level may grant licenses to state
and collectively owned units to use state-owned water surfaces and tidal
flats for aquaculture purposes.
Natural spawning, breeding and feeding grounds of fish, shrimp, crab,
shellfish and algae in state owned water surfaces and tidal flats as well
as their major migration passages must be protected and cannot be used
as aquaculture grounds (FAO, 2021e). Licences can be revoked if water
surfaces and tidal flats are neglected for a period of 12 months without a
proper reason (FAO, 2021e). The use of state-owned and collectively
owned land is regulated under the Land Administration Law (1998)
(FAO, 2021e).
Units or individuals who wish to use designated aquaculture areas must
apply for an aquaculture permit through the competent fisheries
administration at or above the county level, and the aquaculture permit
will be granted by the government at the same level to allow using the
547
Nation Legal Area Description
area for aquaculture activities (FAO, 2021e).
EIA Provisions on EIA requirements can be found in various environmental
laws. None of the laws refer specifically to aquaculture.
The main body of China’s environmental legislative framework is the
Environmental Protection Law (1989). The State Environmental
Protection Administration (SEPA), (ministerial status, under State
Council) plays the lead role in overall environmental management.
The environmental impact statement of construction projects – including
large-scale aquaculture projects – should contain an assessment
regarding the water pollution hazards the projects are likely to produce,
including their impact on the ecosystem, and a description of measures
for prevention and control. There is no mention of smaller-scale projects
(FAO, 2021e).
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
The analysis indicates the measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts
additional to the baseline, which may already be burdensome for industry. The number of
installations which would be subject to IED regulation (if the E-PRTR threshold and
definition is used) would be very small. Therefore, there are limited overall economic
impacts related to administrative burden. Consequently, implementing the measure would be
unlikely to lead to large increases in operating and capital expenditure costs. Economic spill
over effects from positive environmental impacts, such as positive effects on reducing
sickness, healthcare costs and improving productivity, are captured within the environmental
impacts section.
Administrative burden on businesses
The measure would likely lead to weakly negative impacts on the administrative burden on
businesses. The analysis conducted by Ricardo estimates there are between 55 and 250
aquaculture installations which produce >1000t a year. The resources required for the
permitting process and administrative activities required under the IED may range from €0.2
million to €7.1 million of additional administrative costs each year, with a central estimate of
€1.8m/year, primarily depending on the number of installations potentially covered by the
IED and the type of permitting framework that would be introduced. These estimates are
based on adjusted assumptions from the 2007 IED IA and additional analysis carried out for
this Study.
There will be costs to industry of the development of a BREF. The estimates in the IED
evaluation for this one-off cost of a BREF development were €7.9m (range €3.6m to
€20.7m). After apportioning the fraction of this cost for businesses, and annualising over a
period of 20 years assuming two BREFs in this period, the annualised cost of the BREF
548
process for businesses would be expected to range from €0.1m/year to €0.7m/year, with a
central estimate of €0.2m/year.
These ballpark estimates would, therefore, suggest, once again, that administrative burden
from the proposed legislative change would not necessarily affect the sector in a significant
way (based on the assumption that this affects 1-2% of aquaculture installations), although
these marginal increase in burden would be additional to already burdensome legislative
frameworks across EU Member States.
Industry stakeholders participating in the TSS suggested that their administrative costs may
increase as a result of including aquaculture in the IED, as estimated. Moreover, Member
State stakeholders from France’s Ministry of Ecological Transition stated that they would
expect little to no impact on administrative burden of business from the implementation of
this measure. That said, anecdotal evidence suggests that France’s legislative framework may
already include burdensome requirements, including impact studies, waste control and
monitoring.
Operating costs and conduct of business
The measure’s impacts on operating costs and conduct of business in the aquaculture sector
are unclear. The magnitude of these costs would be primarily dependent upon the BREF
process. There is uncertainty as to what would be considered BAT, for each process and type
of aquaculture system. There is variation between the types of processes and species farmed
in aquaculture, which creates uncertainty when calculating the abatement costs. Aquaculture
can take place in saltwater, freshwater and artificial environment. Aquaculture farms can be
divided between open and closed systems. In open aquaculture systems, emissions are
released directly into the natural environment. Closed aquaculture systems recycle water
used, removing harmful emissions before they are discharged or reused. Many different
species are farmed in aquaculture. According to FEAP, different species have varying
environmental impacts and require varying technologies and approaches. Such uncertainty
means that substantive compliance costs resulting from aquaculture’s inclusion within the
IED cannot be readily determined.
According to a representative from FEAP, the available abatement techniques in the
aquaculture industry are the type of feed, the methods of feeding and the location of the
ponds. The main source of pollution from aquaculture are emissions of Nitrogen and
Phosphorus. Nitrogen and Phosphorus emissions originate from uneaten feed and fish faeces
which are released in high concentrations into the surrounding environment. High quality
feed can be used to reduce; the amount fish need to be fed, and the food’s ability to leach into
the natural environment. Suitable feeding patterns and processes can also reduce the amount
of feed which is required. According to FEAP, the location of pens is the most significant
determinant for a farm’s environmental impact. Deep water and strong currents distribute
emissions of Nitrogen and Phosphorus, allowing the nutrients to be recycled into the natural
environment without causing eutrophication. Pens located in shallow water with no current
will cause a higher build-up of Nitrogen and Phosphorus emissions than a farm located in
deep water with a strong current.
549
According to the representative for FEAP, high quality feed is used consistently across
producers. The FEAP representative could not comment on the costs of feed, or the costs of
different feed distribution processes and technologies. Moving pens to locations where there
is sufficient flow and depth of water would be highly disruptive to farms.
The representative for FEAP believed there were nascent technologies being trialled in
Danish Fjords which trapped uneaten food and faeces. According to FEAP these technologies
are not well-developed.
Analysis in the environmental impacts section of this measure suggests that aquaculture
installations are potentially responsible for a considerable proportion of industrial releases to
water of Nitrogen and Phosphorus (c. 3-5% of total industry releases, based on E-PRTR
data). Therefore, a consequence of including aquaculture in the scope of the IED could be to
improve environmental performance by investing and/or adjusting their operations to reduce
Nitrogen and Phosphorus emissions to water.
Overall, therefore, this evidence could suggest that implementing the measure would be
unlikely to lead to large increases in operating and capital expenditure by businesses, but this
remains very uncertain.
Competitiveness and level playing field
Inclusion of aquaculture within the Annex I of the IED imposes a singular set of requirements
towards installations and operators. It therefore offers the potential to level the playing field
by providing minimum criteria for all Member States through BAT Conclusions. This would
be supported by findings from the recent IED evaluation, where 69% of the industry
stakeholder surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that ‘the IED has contributed to achieving a
level playing field in the EU for IED sectors by aligning environmental performance
requirements for industrial installations.” This is likely to continue to be the case under new
sectors adopted, including for aquaculture, as in the case of this measure.
In the position paper submitted by the European Environmental Bureau, the E-NGO state a
number of arguments in favour of including aquaculture in the scope IED based on improving
harmonisation across Member States. The position paper argues that including aquaculture in
the IED could help to define common standards for limits on emissions associated with
marine and land-based aquaculture (e.g., use of antibiotics, use of chemicals and pesticides,
escapees, water quality); lead to an integrated EU aquaculture license, easier to control and
monitor with a centralised database and, Support the delivery of the Farm to Fork Strategy’s
goals in relation to aquaculture (which include a significant increase in organic aquaculture).
Position of SMEs
Limited analysis is available from data sources such as Eurostat on the nature of SMEs within
the aquaculture industry. A 2020 EU call for economic data (JRC, 2021), however, identifies
that, in 2017 and 2018, around 80% of all aquaculture enterprises are ‘micro-enterprises’
comprising of fewer than 10 employees, and are often ‘family-owned’, though use extensive
production methods and systems. Further analysis of the data collated as part of the JRC 2021
survey of aquaculture in the EU further delineates by employment size class, with 80% of
enterprises have less than 5 employees within the EU27, out of the survey sample (20 012 out
550
of the 25 164 enterprises surveyed in 2018). This underlines that the industry consists
primarily of small enterprises, requiring consideration within the measure’s design. If the
measure were to use the E-PRTR’s definition of an aquaculture installation (>1 000t a year
production), this would exclude smaller aquaculture enterprises and, therefore, it would be
unlikely to affect the position of SMEs.
Industry stakeholder FEAP stated in the TSS that aquaculture production is already subject to
strict environmental permits, and further requirements will not provide extra benefits for the
protection of the environment but will be an extra burden for enterprises, including SMEs
if applicable, which comprise the industry.
Innovation and research
This measure may have a weakly positive impact on research and development. Provisions
within the IED, such as Article 27 on emerging techniques, allow for research and
development within the context of BAT. Each BREF includes a chapter on emerging
techniques, which acts as an indication of future techniques that could in the future (i.e., ‘if
commercially developed’) be considered as BAT. This pathway encourages the continual
focus on further reducing the environmental impacts of industrial activities or innovating in
ways to save costs when compared to existing BAT. If this measure was adopted, aquaculture
would be subject to the BREF process, which will include the consideration of novel and
emerging techniques.
Public authority impacts
This measure may have a weakly negative impact on public authorities. Member State
competent authorities would be charged with implementing the IED nationally or sub-
nationally, which will mean that they would have a greater number of installations under this
measure. This will come with additional costs from a range of provisions within the IED,
such as inspections under Article 23, or the facilitation of access to information requirements
under Article 24. Based on current assumptions of enterprises that would be affected, the
implementation of this measure will incur between €0.3 and €4.7 million per year of
additional administrative burdens each year over a 20-year period, with a central estimate of
€1.5m/year.
There will be the costs to the Commission of the development of a BREF. The estimates in
the IED evaluation for this one-off cost of a BREF development were €7.9m (range €3.6m to
€20.7m). After apportioning the fraction of this cost for public authorities, and annualising
over a period of 20 years assuming two BREFs in this period, the annualised cost of the
BREF process for public authorities would be expected to range from €0.3m/year to
€1.4m/year, with a central estimate of €0.5m/year.
Environmental impacts
Aquaculture is a very diverse industry, and environmental impacts cannot be generalised
across the sector (EC, 2015). Impacts vary with species, farming methods and management
techniques, precise location and local environmental conditions and wildlife. An overview of
the main aquaculture systems used in the EU is provided below (CEFAS, 2014).
551
Table A8-46: Aquaculture systems used in the EU
Cultivation system Environment Species group cultured
Net-pen systems Freshwater & marine Finfish
Flow-through land-based systems Freshwater & marine Finfish
Land-based recirculation systems Freshwater & marine Finfish (crustaceans)
Extensive and static water earth ponds Freshwater Finfish (crustaceans)
Lagoon & valliculture Marine Finfish
Rafts and longlines Marine Bivalves
Intertidal shellfish culture Marine Bivalves
Sub-littoral bottom shellfish culture Marine Bivalves
Source: CEFAS, 2014.
The research conducted for this measure indicates that aquaculture may not contribute
significantly to the emissions of pollutants regulated by the IED, other than releases of
nutrients. The main environmental issue caused by aquaculture which falls within the scope
of the IED is nutrient loading, caused by excessive release of Nitrogen and Phosphorus into
the natural environment (IEEP, 2006). Nitrogen and Phosphorus releases lead to
eutrophication, ammonia foundation and formed solids. Aquaculture also contributes to
environmental issues that may be regulated by other frameworks, issues such as, climate
change, salinisation, nutrient pollution, pharmaceuticals contributing to antibiotic resistance,
damaging wild fish populations by reducing genetic diversity, introduction of invasive
species, and, finally, diseases. Resource efficiency, such as, using wild fish as feed for
aquaculture and use of potable water are issues that could be addressed by BAT-AEPLs,
especially if their legal status is strengthened through the revision of the IED.
Proponents of freshwater aquaculture argue that good practices lead to ecosystem benefits,
ecosystem services and cultural values, including, water management, biodiversity, landscape
management, education, and regional identities (EUMOFA, 2021). When best practices are
used, freshwater aquaculture can contribute to control of water quality and biodiversity
conservation. Currently, some freshwater fish farmers adopt voluntary Codes of Best Practice
to maintain or improve environmental standards (EUMOFA, 2021).
Different techniques and processes in aquaculture have varying environmental impacts. For
example, Recirculating Aquaculture System (RAS), which has seen a 25% increase in
production volume between 2009 and 2018, allows more efficient control of inputs and
effluents, as well as a reduction in water consumption (EUMOFA, 2021). However, the
simulation of a marine or freshwater environment required in RAS facilities is energy and
water intensive. Multifunctional pond farming is where pond farming is associated with other
activities, such as ecosystem and tourist services (EUMOFA, 2021). There has been
particular focus in this area in Central and Eastern Europe, where pond fish farming plays an
important role in food supply and rural development. This approach makes farmers more
economically resilient and places greater emphasis on preservation and improvement of the
surrounding natural environment. As environmental regulations get stricter, the future points
552
to less production from traditional farms and more from model farms and RAS. The Danish
model farms show that a transition of the sector is possible while keeping up with the
environmental regulations and bureaucracy. The strategy of partial RAS farms in show that
increased production can be achieved without increasing the environmental impact
(EUMOFA, 2020b).
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) regulates the introduction of non-
indigenous species (NIS), nutrients, organic matter, contaminants including pesticides and
litter, the disturbance to wildlife, and the possibility for escape of farmed fish (EC, 2016).
The role of the MSFD is becoming increasingly important to ensure that aquaculture
activities provide long-term environmental sustainability. The table below outlines the
potential interactions between aquaculture and the environment based on MSFD descriptors
derived from impact statements from various Member States. Noticeably, all but one
descriptors are categorised as having a small degree of interaction, with non-indigenous
species having a large degree of interaction between aquaculture farms and the environment.
This emphasises the range of potential environmental impacts posed by aquaculture farming.
Out of this selection, the IED only regulates eutrophication, which mainly applies to Member
States around the Baltic Sea and inland aquaculture farms.
Table A8-47: The potential interactions between aquaculture and the environment. Adapted
from EC (2016)
Descriptor Degree of
interaction
Evidence and mitigation
1. Biodiversity Small If unmanaged, escapees, diseases and parasites may have localised effects
on biodiversity. These should be addressed through the implementation of
the EIA, SEA and Habitats Directives. Siting is a critical factor in reducing
the potential impacts on biodiversity.
2. Non-indigenous
species
Large Aquaculture provides a potential route for introduction of NIS; introduction
of alien species in aquaculture is regulated by Regulation 708/2007
requiring a specific authorisation for any introduction of alien species.
3. Commercial fish
& shellfish
Small If unmanaged escapees (gene flow), diseases and parasites may have
localised effects on wild commercial fish and shellfish.
4. Foodwebs Small If unmanaged escapees (gene flow), diseases and parasites may have
localised effects on foodwebs. Siting is a critical factor in reducing the
potential impacts on foodwebs.
5. Eutrophication Small Some impact at local scale, but generally unlikely to occur at sufficient
scale at present to have significant impact except in enclosed seas like the
Baltic that already have significant nutrient inputs. In such cases, Member
States may consider the application of nutrient-neutral schemes or other
approaches that remove nutrients from the sea.
6. Sea-floor
integrity
Small Some impact at local scale due to siltation or scour, but unlikely to occur at
sufficient scale at present to have significant impact. This can be mitigated
553
Descriptor Degree of
interaction
Evidence and mitigation
by moving cages, by fallowing areas or by relocation to more energetic sea
areas (areas with a greater circulation.
7. Hydrographical
conditions
Small Some impact at local scale due to formation of small scale features
including eddies, but unlikely to occur at sufficient scale at present to have
significant impact unless large scale facilities.
8. Contaminants Small Some impact at local scale due to contamination by hazardous substances
and microbial pathogens, but unlikely to occur at sufficient scale at present
to have significant impact. Mitigation comes from the regulatory limits set
within food safety legislation. However, these regulatory limits, which are
set to protect the health of consumers, are not specifically designed to
protect the environment. Therefore, additional action may be necessary to
ensure adequate environmental protection.
9. Fish & seafood
contaminants
Small Impacts are assessed using regulatory limits set within food safety
legislation.
10. Marine litter Small Aquaculture may be a source of marine litter alongside urban discharges
and fisheries.
11. Underwater
energy (e.g. noise)
Small Some impact at local scale close to cages, but unlikely to occur at sufficient
scale at present to have significant impact. Little information available on
potential mitigation.
In the position papers from E-NGOs, ClientEarth and the EEB highlight that environmental
challenges associated with aquaculture which are not regulated under the IED. This includes
escapes of non-native species into the environment impacts on marine and freshwater
ecosystems.
ClientEarth also argue including aquaculture within the scope of the IED would support,
more consistent environmental regulation of the aquaculture sector. In ClientEarth’s response
to Question 2A of the Targeted Stakeholder Survey, the E-NGO highlight that Regulation
1380/2013 of the Common Fisheries Policy aims to boost the development of aquaculture by
having all Member States draw up multi-annual national strategic plans aimed at facilitating
the sustainable development of aquaculture. However, they stated that there is no single EU
aquaculture license and aquaculture permit systems are developed at the Member State level.
Consequently, there are different regulatory regimes from one MS to another and therefore
different levels of implementation for the same sector.
On the other hand, Fertilizers Europe commented in the TSS that aquaculture should be
excluded from the revised IED scope, because there are already national and EU level
legislation that focus on reducing harmful environmental impacts of these sectors and efforts
should be made to avoid multiple regulations. Similarly, the aquaculture business association
Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP) stated in the TSS that aquaculture
production is already subject to strict environmental permits.
554
Further, stakeholders responding to the TSS had mixed views about the contribution of
aquaculture to environmental pollution and/or emissions to air, water, soil and GHG
emissions, energy use, resources and materials use, waste generation, and water use. E-NGOs
noted high significance for all environmental pressures. Industry stakeholders noted a
moderate significance for all pressures. Local and regional MS authority stakeholders stated a
varying significance for environmental pressures with higher significance for emissions to
water, energy use, materials and resource use, and waste generation.
Climate
The measure is likely to have limited to no impact on aquaculture’s greenhouse gas
emissions. If GHG were included in the scope of the IED, the measure may have some
weakly positive impacts on emissions, although these are not expected to be significant. The
latest available E-PRTR data indicates no emissions of CH4, CO2 or N2O from activity 7b, on
aquaculture. It is thought, therefore, that the aquaculture has no, or a limited, direct impact to
GHG emissions.
Aquaculture may contribute to climate change indirectly. A life-cycle analysis of Asian
aquaculture plants highlights that aquaculture feed production requires energy to grind and
mix the raw materials, make the pellets and dry them (FAO, 2017).
In response to the TSS, the EEB stated that emissions of GHG arise during production of raw
materials used for feed for the fish (for example, energy used by vessels that capture fish to
produce fishmeal, and NOx emissions arising from crop cultivation), and during their
subsequent processing and transportation.
In response to the TSS, Danish Industry stakeholder European Fishmeal (EFFOP) stated that
CO2 and SO2 emissions depend on the species in fisheries. Salmon and mollusc rank lower
than beef, chicken and pork on both CO2-eq, whereas catfish rank higher on CO2-eq and
roughly on par regarding CO2-eq in comparison to beef (Hilborn, Banobi, Hall, Puclyowski,
& Walsworth, 2018).
E-NGO stakeholder ClientEarth also stated in the TSS that when it comes to aquaculture the
upstream supply chain (specifically the production of feed ingredients) can have a
considerable emissions footprint and many sectors of the aquaculture industry rely heavily on
soy, palm and other intensively grown crops with well-documented environmental impacts.
Air quality
This measure is likely to have limited to weakly positive impacts on air quality. The latest
available E-PRTR data indicates emissions of ammonia, NH3, but no other relevant emissions
to air. Data for activity 7b on aquaculture, from the E-PRTR indicates that the addition of
aquaculture would be equivalent to adding 0.01-0.02% to the total industry emissions of NH3
within baseline scope of the IED.
Water quality and resources
This measure is likely to have weakly positive impact on water quality and resources. The
latest available E-PRTR data indicates no releases to water of heavy metals, only data
pertaining to nitrogen and phosphorus releases is reported. These data indicate that the
555
addition of aquaculture to the scope of the IED’s Annex 1 included sectors could be
equivalent to adding approximately 3% of total industry releases of nitrogen and
approximately 5% of total industry releases of phosphorus for the industry sectors reporting
under the E-PRTR, (data from 2018).
A study by CEFAS (CEFAS, 2014) suggests that these releases could lead to changes in
water chemistry, leading to eutrophication within water bodies. By weight, the majority of
aquaculture production is accounted for by shellfish, totalling 56% in 2018. However, these
cultivation systems are likely less to be directly associated with effluent discharge into
surrounding water bodies when compared to finfish cultivation (e.g. trout), even though this
is the smaller activity by weight. Shellfish, according to the 2014 CEFAS study, may have
many positive benefits to the surrounding aquatic ecosystem, such as the maintenance of
nutrients. There exists, therefore, examples of certain co-cultivation aquaculture systems,
such as finfish and shellfish or algae systems being located together to help manage the
balance of excess nutrients112
, known as integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). In
terms of environmental impact, it would appear plausible that the releases of nitrogen and
phosphorus, cited above, would originate primarily from finfish systems. Table 48 shows the
quantity of pollutants released from aquaculture installations in the EU. The variation
between the types of permit conditions makes it challenging to compare emissions between
installations.
Table A8-48: Permits for aquaculture installations
MS Farm/ Company
name
Species Annual
limits on N
Annual
limits on P
Annual
production
limits
Annual
feed limits
Year
FR Aquanord
(GEORISQUES,
2008)
Sea bass & sea
Bream
280 tonnes 10.7 tonnes 1,800
tonnes
2008
NO Fredrikstad
Seafoods AS
(Norskeutslipp,
2019)
Salmon 72 tonnes 0.85 tonnes 800 tonnes 2019
NO Aqua Gen AS
(Fylkesmannen,
2018)
Rainbow trout,
salmon and
trout
216 tonnes 7 tonnes 300 tonnes 2018
NO Profunda AS
(Fylkesmannen,
2017)
Rainbow trout,
salmon and
trout
3.9 tonnes
per 100
tonnes of
feed
0.4 tonnes
per 100
tonnes of
feed
100 tonnes 2017
NO Bjølve Bruk AS
(Fylkesmannen,
Juvenile
salmon & aura
35 tonnes
per 100
tonnes of
4 tonnes per
100 tonnes
of feed
788 tonnes 945 tonnes 2014
112
European Commission (2015), FUTURE BRIEF: Sustainable Aquaculture, available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/sustainable_aquaculture_FB11_en.pdf
556
MS Farm/ Company
name
Species Annual
limits on N
Annual
limits on P
Annual
production
limits
Annual
feed limits
Year
2014) feed
NO Fishbase Group
AS
(Fylkesmannen,
2020)
Salmon, roe
rainbow trout,
gilthead
seabream
45 tonnes 5 tonnes <2,000
tonnes
<2,000
tonnes
2020
NO Lerøy Vest AS
(Fylkesmannen,
2020)
Juvenile
salmon & aura
32 tonnes 3.3 tonnes 1,100
tonnes
1,100
tonnes
2020
NO Havlandet
Havbruk AS
(Fylkesmannen)
Salmon 12 tonnes 0.27 tonnes 200 tonnes 2017
NO Eidesvik
Settefisk AS
(Fylkesmannen,
2018)
Juvenile
salmon &
rainbow trout
66 tonnes 8 tonnes <3,000
tonnes
2018
NO Salmo Terra AS
(RAS)
(Fykesmannen,
2018)
Salmon &
aura
175 tonnes 21 tonnes <8,000
tonnes
2018
NO Havlandet
Havbruk AS
(Fylkesmannen,
2019)
Salmon &
aura
288 tonnes 12 tonnes <10,000
tonnes
11,250
tonnes
2019
Heavy metal compounds copper and zinc are also released from aquaculture. Elevated levels
of copper adversely affect fish and other aquatic life. For instance, it has found to reduce
growth and reproduction levels in clams (Munari & Mistri, 2007113
), damage gills of fish
(Mochida et al., 2006114
) and inhibit phytoplankton growth (Cid et al., 1995115
; Franklin,
Stauber & Lim, 2001116
). Additionally, a 2007 study of a Scottish salmon farm found copper
in sediment up to 300 meters away from the cages.117
The highest concentration detected, 805
micrograms of copper per gram of sediment (μg g−1), was well above Scottish regulatory
113
Munari, C. & Mistri, M. (2007) Effect of copper on the scope for growth of clams (Tapes philippinarum) from
a farming area in the Northern Adriatic Sea. Marine Environmental Research 64 (3): 347–357.
114
Mochida, K., Ito, K., Harino, H., Kakuno, A. & Fujii, K. (2006) Acute toxicity of pyrithione antifouling biocides
and joint toxicity with copper to red sea bream (Pagrus major) and toy shrimp (Heptacarpus futiliros- tris).
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25 (11): 3058–3064.
115
Cid, A., Herrero, C., Torres, E. & Abalde, J. (1995) Copper toxicity on the marine microalga Phaeodactylum tricornutum: effects on
photosynthesis and related parameters. Aquatic Toxicology 31 (2): 165–174.
116
Franklin, N.M., Stauber, J.L. & Lim, R.P. (2001) Development of flow cytometry-based algal bioassays for assessing toxicity of copper in
natural waters. Environ- mental Toxicology and Chemistry 20 (1): 160–170.
117
Dean, R.J., Shimmield, T.M. & Black, K.D. (2007) Copper, zinc and cadmium in marine cage fish farm
sediments: an extensive survey. Environmental Pollution 145 (1): 84–95.
557
limits of 270 μg g−1 and indicates adverse benthic effects (EC, 2015). High levels of zinc can
result in some fish accumulating zinc in their bodies, when they live in zinc-contaminated
waterways.118
When zinc enters the bodies of these fish, it bio-magnifies up the food chain.
Both zinc and copper are covered as emissions in the IED. However, there are a range of
other chemical discharges which are not covered by the IED, outlined in Table 49. Alongside
the WFD, MSFD, and EQS Directive and a range of other regulations, the release of
chemicals from aquaculture operations is typically tightly regulated nationally, with most
Member States specifying what chemicals can be used as part of aquaculture operations and
their maximum permitted discharge levels, irrespective of whether they are considered as
river basin specific pollutants under the WFD.
Table A8-49: A list of chemicals used in aquaculture operations and their uses. Adapted from
EC (2016).
Chemical Aquaculture uses Covered by the IED?
Zinc Feed supplement and anti-foulant Yes
Copper Antifouling Yes
Diflubenzuron Sea lice treatment No
Cybutryne Sea lice treatment No
Formaldehyde Antiparaciticide and antifungal treatment No
Azamethiphos Sea lice treatment No
Cybutryne Antifouling No
EDTA Improve water quality No
Aquaculture has also been linked with depletion and salinization of potable water.
Furethremore, aquaculture also relies on antifouling chemicals, abeit this would not
necessarily be addressed by the IED. These chemicals can contaminate seafloor sediment
around farms. For example, a study of a Scottish salmon farm found copper in sediment up to
300 metres away from the cages (EC, 2015). The highest concentration detected, 805
micrograms of copper per gram of sediment (μg/g), was well above Scottish regulatory limits
of 270 μg/g and indicates adverse effects (EC, 2015).
Use of antibiotics in aquaculture has been flagged as a particular concern in open aquaculture
where they enter the surrounding marine environment via fish faeces and can persist for long
periods in sediment (EC, 2015). In Europe, they are typically administered via medicated
feed, but only a percentage is absorbed by the fish. For instance, it is estimated that 60–73%
of the antibiotic oxytetracycline administered to sea bass on Greek farms is released to the
118
https://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/zinc-production-environmental-impact/
558
environment via the fishe faeces (EC, 2015). High concentrations of oxytetracycline and
florfenicol, both active against furunculosis in salmon, inhibit growth of the wild alga
Tetraselmis chuii, an important food source for other marine organisms. Such studies are
largely limited to short-term laboratory studies and the concerns they raise highlight the need
to further investigate the effects of ‘real-world ’chronic, low-level exposure to antibiotics on
wild species. While data on the environmental and human health effects of antibiotics used in
aquaculture is limited, concerns raised by research so far would further support their prudent
use, as in other veterinary and human medicine applications.
Aquaculture can have positive impacts on water quality. Species, such as, bivalves, seaweed
and shellfish can return nutrient quantities in water to healthy levels. 50–60 tonnes of mussels
per hectare in a eutrophic Danish fjord per year can extract 0.6–0.9 tonnes of nitrogen and
0.03–0.05 tonnes of phosphorus per hectare (EC, 2015).
In response to the TSS, the EEB added that aquaculture contributes to nutrient build-ups in
the case of open water aquaculture (cages), which can lead to eutrophication and/or
nitrification from non-consumed feed, faeces, dead fish. Furthermore, depending on feed
material, pharmaceutical products, growth promoters, antibiotics, and anti-algae biocides can
leach into the surrounding aquatic environment, impacting other species, causing localised
pollution and leading to anti-microbial resistance.
In the TSS, ENGO European Environmental Bureau (EEB) stated that aquaculture
contributed significantly to emissions to water, GHG emissions, waste generation, and
contributed slightly to moderately to emissions to air, soil, and energy use in answer to
Question 2A. The organisation commented that the implementation of this measure would
significantly reduce emissions to water and soil, in answer to Question 2B in the TSS.
ClientEarth added in their response to the TSS that the simulation of a marine environment
on land is energy and water intensive. Land-based operators may still require feed and
antibiotics and include additional chemical water treatments. Waste water from recirculating
systems is discharged back into the marine environment, which can create a steady stream of
environmentally damaging outputs, polluting soils, rivers and the ocean.
Soil quality or resources
The effects that this measure is likely to have on soil quality and resources is unclear.
Releases to land from aquaculture are expected minimal, even though some aquaculture
systems may be found on land.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
This measure is likely to have negligible positive impact on waste production, generation,
and recycling. Analysis of the E-PRTR 2017 dataset for activity 7b on aquaculture, suggest
that this industry may be responsible for minimal volumes of waste, equivalent to 0.0001% of
the E-PRTR total for the non-hazardous waste destined for disposal. No other waste or
treatment types were reported.
The generation of waste features in the IED through provisions such as Article 11, which
requires installations are operated within the principles of the waste hierarchy, as laid out in
559
the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC). The IED, therefore, can be seen to
actively contribute towards the management of waste and circular economy principles.
This preliminary analysis suggests aquaculture generates a relatively limited volume of waste
and, therefore, inclusion under the scope of the IED is unlikely to lead to any significant
improvements on waste. The effectiveness of the IED, in this regard, however, is dependent
on the BREF Process.
Efficient use of resources
The project team has not identified evidence to assess the efficient use of energy or water in
this industry. However, regulation of the sector through the IED may further benefit resource
efficiency, with resource efficiency featuring within the BREF Process.
One resource efficiency concern specific to aquaculture relates to the use of wild-caught fish
as feed in aquaculture. According to the EC’s 2015 report, Sustainable Aquaculture, the
amount of fish used in feed to produce one unit of output should be reduced by at least 50%
from current levels for aquaculture to be sustainable in 2050 (EC, 2015).
The EEB’s position paper highlights that feed ingredients can also be heavily reliant on wild-
caught fish. The paper highlights release of discards, so-called “ghost gear” from fishing
vessels, and chemicals, waste water and organic waste from fishing vessels.
Social impacts
Public health impacts would be spillover effects from the environmental benefits already
captured within the previous section of this assessment. Further, this measure may result in an
increase in costs towards business. If these costs cannot be passed on through changes in
prices of products sold, they may impact profitability and, therefore, employment. There is
limited evidence available to quantify these impacts, but they are expected to be negative.
In some areas of the EU, freshwater fish consumption is often a key element in the way of
life and tradition of communities living in wetlands areas, such as, Hungary, Poland,
Romania, Finland and Lithuania (EUMOFA, 2021). Freshwater fish farming constitutes and
important element of the long-standing cultural traditions in certain regions of these Member
States. If the measure made aquaculture production economically unviable or caused a rise in
prices such that produce was unaffordable, it is foreseeable that longstanding cultural
practices could be harmed or changed.
Measure 43: Include upstream oil and gas industries within the scope of the
IED.
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
Include upstream oil and gas industries within the scope of Annex I of the IED. This, in turn,
will require installations under a specific activity definition, and/or capacity threshold, to
comply with the general regulatory framework set out by the IED, such as the provisions
regarding permits or inspections, detailed in Chapter II of the IED. Currently, the IED does
cover a range of downstream oil and gas activities, such as activity 1.2, ‘refining of mineral
560
oil and gas’, but does not cover explicitly upstream activities such as offshore or onshore
exploration, prospecting and production.
The measure may need to be further defined with regards to the proposed wording and
capacity threshold to be included in Annex I. There is no coverage of upstream oil and gas
activities in E-PRTR to draw upon for this purpose. Reporting of GHG inventories under
IPCC guidelines119
includes category 1B2 to cover “all [upstream] oil and natural gas
activities” with primary sources including “fugitive equipment leaks, evaporation losses,
venting, flaring and accidental releases”; no capacity thresholds are specified due to GHG
inventories needing to be comprehensive. Currently, no similar legislation or regulatory
framework considers upstream oil and gas. There is therefore no former example of capacity
thresholds upon which to draw.
The various sub-activities of the upstream oil and gas sector have been defined in more detail
and in the context of BAT however. In 2015-2018, the European Commission initiated an
information exchange to develop a Guidance Document on BAT in upstream hydrocarbon
exploration and production. This resulted in the publishing of a Best Available Techniques
Guidance Document on upstream hydrocarbon exploration and production, based on
information provided by a Technical Working Group. This document set out non-binding
guidance on best available techniques for organisations engaged in hydrocarbons activities
and for regulatory authorities to draw upon.
The following activities were covered for onshore activities in the guidance document:
1. Site selection, characterisation, design and construction of surface activities
2. Handling and storage of chemicals
3. Handling and storage of hydrocarbons
4. Handling of drill cuttings and drilling muds
5. Handling of hydraulic testing water and of well completion fluids
6. Management of hydrocarbons and chemicals – Well stimulation using hydraulic
fracturing
7. Energy efficiency
8. Flaring and venting
9. Management of fugitive emissions
10. Water resources management
11. Water resources management for hydraulic fracturing
12. Produced water handling and management
13. Environmental monitoring
The following activities were covered for offshore activities in the guidance document:
1. Handling of drill cuttings and drilling muds
2. Risk management for handling and storage of hydrocarbons
3. Risk management for handling and storage of chemicals
119
https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_4_Ch4_Fugitive_Emissions.pdf
561
4. Energy efficiency
5. Flaring and venting
6. Management of fugitive emissions
7. Produced water handling and management
8. Management of drain water
9. Risk management for facility decommissioning
10. Environmental monitoring
The guidance document does not include any indication of different sizes/capacities of sites
that could give indication of any potentially useful thresholds to then be potentially used to
specify installations that would be regulated by the IED.
On number of active installations in this sector (Table 50). Responses to the TSS were
provided by authorities in 11 Member States estimating the possible numbers of installations
in the upstream oil and gas sector. These summed to approximately 1 400 to 1 500
installations counting fields rather than drillings (see table below). It is unclear however how
many of the these would be installations, since some of the responses to the TSS have
provided the number of fields; Germany reported the number of drillings and the number of
fields. Taking also the information from the OSPAR inventory, which details discharges,
spills and emissions from offshore oil and gas installations (i.e. not onshore activities) in
Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Spain (non EU Member States also in the
agreement are Norway and the United Kingdom), this identified 179 installations in 2018 for
four of the EU27 Member States listed (no data for Spain), the majority belonging to the
Netherlands (Netherlands: 154 installations, Denmark 21 installations, Germany 2
installations and Ireland 2 installations). Regarding data relating to the Netherlands, the TSS
indicates there are 5 fields offshore, while OSPAR indicates there are 154 installations
offshore. It is unclear the extent to which these two numbers are in agreement.
Table A8-50: Numbers of installations reported in TSS and in OSPAR for on/offshore sector
Member State Number of installations reported in TSS
(onshore and offshore)
Number of installations reported in OSPAR
(offshore only)
Austria 10 or 50 to 100, depending on definition -
Croatia 45 -
Czech
Republic
93 -
Denmark - 21
France ~60 -
Germany 77 fields; 469 drillings 2
Ireland - 2
Italy 200 -
Latvia 1 -
562
Member State Number of installations reported in TSS
(onshore and offshore)
Number of installations reported in OSPAR
(offshore only)
Netherlands 250 natural gas fields on shore and 5 fields off
shore
154
Poland 170-180 -
Romania 476 -
Slovenia 1
Spain - No data
Total ~1 433 (counting fields not drillings) 179
There are also a large number of inactive (disused) or abandoned offshore installations. The
OSPAR Convention reporting for 2018 estimates there to be ~1 700 of these in 2017. These
would not be considered in scope of the measure.
Noting that many countries are considering the phasing out of new oil and or gas extraction
which would imply installation numbers will be in decline. That said, as an example,
Denmark with its own 2030 climate target, is planning to end oil and gas extraction in 2050
(not in 2030).120
Overall, combining the TSS data with the limited Member State submissions for OSPAR, as
well as the consideration of future climate targets and phasing out of oil and gas use, a range
of 1 000-2 000 installations is estimated.
Objectives:
The follow objectives apply -
 Levelling the playing field for installations across the EU, where there is currently
variation in national regulations (See section on Administrative burden on
businesses).
 Improving the environmental effectiveness of the IED, via the extension of coverage
of the IED in Annex I. The measure is anticipated to result in the reduction of
emissions to air, water, and soil.
Implementation needs:
EU to make legislative change to the IED text
 EU to review and consolidate the guidance BAT document to develop it into a BAT
Conclusions document
 Member States to transpose changes into national law
 Member States to regulate the installations according to the new requirements, to the
extent this requires changes from their existing regulatory approaches. This will
require upfront and ongoing implementation actions.
120
https://euobserver.com/nordic/150287
563
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
The main Economic impacts of extension of the scope of the IED to cover upstream oil and
gas are:
 Administrative burden impacts on businesses as well as public authorities from
permitting costs under the IED, as well as administrative burden associated with
ongoing monitoring and reporting.
 Potential increases in up-front investment costs as well as ongoing operating costs
from the application of BAT in installations not already applying BAT
Administrative burden on businesses
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on administrative burden on
businesses. Administrative burden, in this context, can be defined as the costs of meeting a
range of administrative activities under the IED for the purposes of wider compliance, that do
not directly pertain to the installation of specific technologies (as might be needed for
compliance against ELVs, or BATC) or the adoption of specific practices. Such
administrative activities, in the context of the IED legal text, include:
 Preparation and application for a permit under Article 12,
 Assisting permit reconsiderations by the competent authority under Article 21(2),
 Preparation of a baseline report under Article 22, if applicable,
 Facilitating environmental inspections under Article 23,
 Monitoring and reporting requirement, as laid out by permit conditions under
provisions in Article 16,
 Notifying competent authorities of ‘any planned change in the nature or functioning,
or an extension of the installation which may have consequences for the
environment’, as detailed in Article 20.
This also depends on the current level of regulation and associated administrative burden for
the sector in Member States. Some Member States provided information in the TSS in
relation to this. In Germany, under conditions set out in the Ordinance on the Environmental
Impact Assessment of Mining Projects (UVP-V Bergbau), an environmental impact
assessment is required for projects over certain size thresholds (500 t/d crude oil, 500 000
m3
/d natural gas), as well as operating in coastal waters. Reference to permitting appears to
cover only the right to mine/extract and not, for example, prescribe BAT to minimise
environmental impacts. In France, oil and gas extraction are subject to the Mining Code121
.
The latest climate bill in France did include the ambition to bring the Mining Code more in
line with the Environment Code, which currently appears to only be referenced for public
consultation prior to opening new sites122
. In the Netherlands, air quality limits have been
prescribed for combustion plants in offshore platforms.123
There are permit obligations in
121
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGITEXT000006071785
122
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGISCTA000033038620/
123
https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=9c5cc436-d3cb-401a-9ef1-
e0ae5b84e468&title=NOGEPA%20NOX%20REDUCTIE%20PROGRAMMA.%20EINDRAPPORT.pdf
564
Sweden which vary depending on geographic location.124
There is therefore variation in how
the sector is regulated between Member States. However, it appears that regulation mostly
relates to the exploration and opening of new sites and does not include environmental
inspections or prescription of BAT for environmental performance in most cases.
Based on the number of installations for this sector listed above in the introduction and
applying the standard assumptions on the unit costs for the main requirements for operators,
an estimate of the administrative burden on business is € 2m/year to €52m/yr , with a central
estimate of €23m/year that could be added to the IED scope. This high and wide range is due
to the large number of potential installations that could come into scope, and the high
uncertainty on this number of installations.
This central estimate is equivalent to around 0.18% of GVA for the ‘extraction of crude
petroleum and natural gas’. As such, administrative burden is not expected to present a major
impact to the sector.
There will also be costs to industry of the development of the BREF and BATc. The
estimates in the IED evaluation for this one-off cost of a BREF development were €7.9m
(range €3.6m to €20.7m). After apportioning the fraction of this cost for businesses, and
annualising over a period of 20 years assuming two BREFs in this period, the annualised cost
of the BREF process for businesses would be expected to range from €0.1m/year to
€0.7m/year, with a central estimate of €0.2m/year. It could be expected that the costs of a
BREF for this sector would be on the lower end of this range because of the existing non-
binding BREF guidance document in place.
Operating costs and conduct of business
This measure is likely to lead to weakly negative impacts on operating costs. There will be
costs to achieve BAT, but the exact level is to be determined by the BREF process (what
would be considered BAT for each process), and in particular the degree of environmental
protection already in place. Such uncertainty means compliance costs cannot be readily
determined. The guidance document BREF for upstream oil and gas contains details of BAT
to minimise the environmental impacts of the sector. However, it did not gather data on the
cost of techniques.
Competitiveness and level playing field
This measure is likely to lead to weakly positive impacts on competitiveness and the level
playing field. The total costs of doing business, that is the costs of administrative burden and
compliance combined, are thought to negatively impact upon businesses within the upstream
oil and gas sector. The exact level, however, as noted in the above, is to be determined by the
BREF process. Administrative costs have been estimated and are thought to be small relative
to the size of the sector. Compliance costs in the form of investment/operational costs are
unknown but could be substantial. As this sector deals with a product that is a commodity,
costs cannot be passed on in the price of products, and so the sector is particularly susceptible
to large cost increases.
124
Miljöprövningsförordning (2013:251) Svensk författningssamling 2013:2013:251 t.o.m. SFS 2021:731 -
Riksdagen
565
Inclusion of upstream oil and gas within the Annex I of the IED imposes a singular set of
requirements towards installations and operators. It therefore offers the potential to level the
playing field by providing minimum criteria for all Member States, notably towards the use
of emission limit values. This has largely been supported within the IED evaluation, where,
for industry stakeholder surveyed, 69% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘the IED
has contributed to achieving a level playing field in the EU for IED sectors by aligning
environmental performance requirements for industrial installations’. This is likely to
continue to be the case under new sectors adopted, including for upstream oil and gas, as in
the case of this measure.
Position of SMEs
This measure is expected to lead to limited to no impacts on SMEs. There are expected to be
few SMEs in the upstream oil and gas sector, as such no impacts are expected.
Innovation and research
Including upstream oil and gas within Annex I of the IED may have a limited impact on
research and development. Provisions within the IED, such as Article 27 on emerging
techniques, allow for research and development within the context of BAT. Each BREF
includes a chapter on emerging techniques, which acts as an indication of future techniques
that could in the future (i.e. ‘if commercially developed’) be considered as BAT. This
pathway encourages the continual focus on further reducing the environmental impacts of
industrial activities or innovating in ways to save costs when compared to existing BAT. If
this measure was adopted, upstream oil and gas would be subject to the Sevilla Process, with
emerging techniques considered within the eventual BREF.
Public authority impacts
The inclusion of upstream oil and gas within Annex I would have weakly negative impacts
upon the costs to competent authorities. Based on the number of installations for this sector
listed above in the introduction, and applying the standard assumptions on the unit costs for
the main requirements for competent authorities, an estimate of the administrative burden on
authorities is € 1.1m/year to €28m/yr, with a central estimate of €15m/year that could be
added to the IED scope. This high and wide range is due to the large number of potential
installations that could come into scope, and the high uncertainty on this number of
installations.
There will also be the costs to public authorities of the development of the BREF and BATc.
The estimates in the IED evaluation for this one-off cost of a BREF development were €7.9m
(range €3.6m to €20.7m). After apportioning the fraction of this cost for public authorities,
and annualising over a period of 20 years assuming two BREFs in this period, the annualised
cost of the BREF process for public authorities would be expected to range from €0.3m/year
to €1.4m/year, with a central estimate of €0.5m/year. It could be expected that the costs of a
BREF for this sector would be on the lower end of this range because of the existing non-
binding BREF guidance document in place.
566
Environmental impacts
The upstream oil and gas non-binding BREF highlight the environmental impacts associated
with each onshore and off-shore activity. Additionally, the BREF for the Management of
Waste from Extractive Industries sets out the key environmental issues associated with
extractive waste. These are outlined below.
Based on the TSS, overall, stakeholders agree that impacts from upstream oil and gas
industries are significant for the following key environmental issues – greenhouse gases, and
emissions to air, water, and soil (Figure A8-30). There is a very strong consensus amongst the
Environmental NGOs and ‘Other’ stakeholders that there are significant environmental
pressures resulting from emissions from oil and gas activities. There is a strong consensus
from local and regional Member State authorities that these environmental pressures are
significant for releases to soil and air. However, there is less certainty among these
stakeholders in terms of emissions released to water and GHG. Regarding the industry and
national Member State stakeholders there is a high level of uncertainty and variability among
answers, with split majorities for every emission source.
Figure A8-30: TSS responses on impacts from upstream oil and gas industries
Climate
There are expected to be weakly positive impacts on climate from this measure.
Hydrocarbons operations involve the separation and processing of reservoir fluid
combinations of gas, oil and water, and incorporate flaring and venting to release gases to the
atmosphere. Flaring and venting are a significant source of GHG emissions. Fugitive
emissions are also a significant source of GHG emissions, most notably methane.
The OSPAR inventory, with details of discharges, spills and emissions from offshore oil and
gas installations, includes 133 installations in 2017 for Member States within the EU27, the
majority belonging to the Netherlands. These 133 installations emitted 12 700 tonnes of CH4
in 2017, equivalent to around 1.6% of the E-PRTR total analogous to that of the IED. This
analysis may be an underestimate, owing to onshore facilities and terminals, which do not
feature in the OSPAR inventory.
The inclusion of upstream oil and gas activities within the scope of the IED, and thus making
binding recommendations for BAT and BAT-AELs for the sector through a BAT
Conclusions document would be expected to target methane releases as a key environmental
issue of the sector. In this way, the measure would be expected to contribute to the EU’s
pending (currently being drafted) Methane Strategy; legislation specifically targeting
567
methane emissions from the energy sector is expected in the fourth quarter of 2021, as
indicated in the “Fit for 55” package.
Air quality
There are expected to be weakly positive impacts on air quality from this measure. Flaring
and venting are also a significant source of air pollution. LRTAP contains reported data from
the EU27 on emissions associated with fugitive emissions from upstream oil and gas as well
as emissions from venting and flaring. This shows that emissions in 2019 were 0.2 kt of
PM2.5, 8.1 kt of NOx, 18 kt of SOx, and 102 kt of NMVOCs. The OSPAR inventory, with
details discharges, spills and emissions from offshore oil and gas installations, includes 133
installations in 2017 for Member States within the EU27, the majority belonging to the
Netherlands. These 133 installations emitted 8.3 kt of NOX in 2018, 2.9 kt of NMVOCs, and
85 tonnes of SO2. As a result, environmental benefits attained from regulation of the sector
would be significant.
The MWEI BREF also sets out that emissions of particulates to air is a key environmental
issue.
Water quality and resources
Handling and storage of chemicals is required for operations during both onshore and
offshore exploration and production. The use of chemicals has potential to pose risks to the
environment through planned discharges as well as accidental releases. Unintended releases
can occur from loss of containment from handling chemicals to point of use, loss of
containment during drilling, and spillages during routine operations. The BREF sets out BAT
for site design as well as for operations, which includes the need for rEUord keeping, spill
response, and routine inspections.
Unintended releases of hydrocarbons into the environment from failure of equipment, human
error, or incidents/accidents can cause significant impact on water resources including surface
waters and groundwater, however accidents are already regulated by the Seveso Directive.
The OSPAR Inventory includes rEUords of multiple accidental chemicals and oil spills (2
and 2 in 2018 respectively in the EU27), and with information on the quantity spilled as well
as the composition relating to LC50/EU50, plonor list substances125
, LCPA and
biodegradation. 20,566 tonnes of plonor list substances were spilled in 2018. A comparison to
totals, such as those in the E-PRTR, and therefore an indication of their relative importance,
compared to other Economic activities covered by the IED, is not possible. It serves,
however, that inclusion within Annex I of the IED may serve to reduce the occurrence or
impact of spills.
Extractive waste can contain chemical residues including nitrates, cyanides, xanthates and
residues of caustic soda. Emissions of dissolved substances are also a KEI for the
management of extractive waste, in the form of Acid/Neutral Rock Drainage and Saline
Drainage, as well as discharge of extractive waste with high levels of salt content. These
125
https://www.cefas.co.uk/data-and-publications/ocns/ocns-bulletin-board/new-plonor-list-issued/
568
issues can lead to high levels of metals and sulphates in drainage water, leading to potential
impacts on acidification, bioaccumulation of metals, and subsequent impacts on ecosystems.
Soil quality or resources
The majority of impacts described for water quality and resources are also applicable to soil
quality: Namely, planned and accidental releases of chemicals, chemical residues in
extractive waste, unintended releases of hydrocarbons, and dissolved substances and
chemical residues in extractive waste.
Waste production, generation, and recycling
The management of waste from upstream oil and gas is covered by the BREF on
management of waste from the extractive industries (MEWI). Onshore activities generate
waste including drill cuttings and drilling muds high in contaminants, which must be
disposed of appropriately and managed to avoid accidental releases.
No means of assessing the volume or type of waste has identified, however regulation of the
sector through the IED may further benefit the management of waste, through provisions
such as Article 11, which requires installations are operated within the principles of the waste
hierarchy, as laid out in the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EU).
Efficient use of resources
The hydrocarbons industry is energy-intensive, due to activities throughout drilling,
hydrocarbon production and powering of utilities and auxiliary systems. Upstream
hydrocarbon operations may need to use significant quantities of water and can have
significant impacts on local water supply and demand.
No means of assessing the efficient use of energy or water have been identified; however,
regulation of the sector through the IED may further benefit resource efficiency, with
resource efficiency featuring within the Sevilla Process.
Social impacts
The inclusion of upstream oil and gas within Annex I of the IED will incur costs towards
business and operators. If these costs cannot be passed on within the price of energy products,
these costs will impact upon profitability and therefore upon employment. In the TSS, some
Member States provided estimates of the number of employees in the upstream oil and gas
sector. This showed that there are significant variations in the level of employment in this
sector between Member States, with the Netherlands having by far the highest level of
employment (Table 51).
569
Table A8-51: TSS responses on number of employees in the upstream oil and gas sector
Member State Number of employees
France About 300 employees
Germany <3 400
Italy 7 000
Netherlands 16 500
Romania 2 315
Measure 44: Establish a watch mechanism to identify and include emerging
activites/ sectors of concern
Description of the measure and requirements for implementation
The descriptions and impact assessment of this measure have been necessarily abbreviated
compared to other IED measures, owing to its future orientated and hypothetical status at the
time of compiling the impact assessment.
Objectives and implementation needs
This measure comprises the establishment of a dynamic system to identify and include
emerging activities/sectors of concern (“sunrise list”), according to the significance of
production and attendant (already occurring, or risk of) pollutant emissions, and the IED’s
potential to address these issues. This would entail, for example, enabling the Commission to
identify and include new activities in the future via delegated acts.
Assessing impacts
Economic impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts, as it will lead to a
greater number of activities being captured under the scope of the IED in the future, and more
installations being subject to the IED’s permitting requirements and governance system. It is
not known which further activities may be included in the future and thus it is not possible to
assess the impacts that may be incurred.
Time would be required for the European Commission and/or the EEA to maintain the
sunrise list and identify activities of emerging concern.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be weakly negative
for any new activities included in the future although the scale of such impacts are unclear at
this stage. Operators in any new activities will have to obtain IED permits from the
Competent Authorities, and submit required IED reporting data to these same Competent
570
Authorities as well as undergo IED controls and inspections. Some initial time would also be
required to set up the appropriate data capture, calculation and reporting mechanisms.
Position of SMEs
Overall impacts on SMEs are expected to be very limited. Appropriate activity thresholds
would need to be established for any new activities to ensure that smaller facilities
(potentially including SMEs) would normally be exempt from the revised IED scope, except
where the newly-included sector comprises highly polluting, energy-intensive or resource-
intensive activities, in which case the intensity of the potential associated environmental
impacts may require inclusion in the IED framework at relatively low activity thresholds.
Public authority impacts
Overall impacts on public authorities are expected to be weakly negative. This includes
additional time for reporting of initial data as required, related to potential new activities to
Member States’ Competent Authorities.
The EEA and/or European Commission would incur some additional costs for maintaining
the watch list/ sunrise list, and for the task of identifying and reviewing potential emerging
activities. These costs have not been determined.
Once the potential need for a new activity to be included in the scope of the IED has been
determined, that would require further assessment by the European Commission, eventually
triggering the compilation of a BREF, the identification of BAT and the writing of BAT
conclusions. As this scenario is presently hypothetical, these costs have not been determined.
(In each case, these eventual costs would be at the level of the European Commission, and
owing to the involvement of time and expertise of all stakeholders involved in the co-creation
of BREFs in the activity-specific Technical Working Groups.)
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts as it will
increase the coverage of activities that are covered in the scope of the IED. It will ensure that
the IED activity list can be updated as and when emerging activities are identified, helping to
support the objectives of wider environmental policies, as supported by the E-PRTR
reporting mechanism, and associated to wider air, water and soils legislation.
Increasing the activity coverage will help to improve the environmental performance of those
activities being included, as it will enable an EU-wide level playing field, and better
management and comparison of installations’ pollution prevention and emissions control
methods, energy and resource efficiency, application of circularity methods and
environmental management systems’ performance management, as captured by the revised
IED scope. There will be associated environmental, ecological and health benefits from the
measures applied. In addition, inclusion of a new activity within the IED scope will ensure
571
greater engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to
information, and participation in permitting decisions).
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts. As discussed
immediately above, increasing the number of activities and installations included in the IED
could potentially help to improve environmental performance of those activities newly within
scope, which would have positive impacts for health. Furthermore, including new activities
improves public access to information, potentially enabling greater participation in IED-
related environmental decision-making.
Summary of problem area 5 measures
It is difficult to understand the relative scale of the burden that could result from expanding
the scope of the IED. Industrial installations new in scope differ in size and activity
significantly, covering a wide range of industrial sectors. It is, therefore, not straightforward
to pick one single installation that could represent the ‘typical’ (or modal) implications of the
change. Estimates of the administrative burden per installation for the IED scope extension
measures in the preferred policy package, are based on numerous assumptions.
There are eight measures that seek to bring new sectors into the scope of the IED. These
sectors are not currently regulated by the IED and, therefore, do not have baseline regulatory
costs.
The Table below sets out the outputs of this analysis for comparison. The baseline costs of
the ‘typical’ installation were included in this comparison, as no uplift has been considered or
introduced for PO5 measures to account for potential interactions with Policy Options 1
through to 4.
Table A8-52: Administrative costs per installation
Type of installation
Baseline IED framework and cost components (€/year)
Operator Public Authority Total
‘Typical’ installation baseline
(central estimate), for
reference, although this
excludes new permit issuance
and baseline reports
11 533 €/year 8 286 €/year 19 819 €/year
Cattle farm 1 215 €/year 1 215 €/year 2 430 €/year
IRPP farm 1 039 €/year 1 039 €/year 2 079 €/year
Gigafactories 24 507 €/year 31 551 €/year 56 058 €/year
Forging presses, cold-rolling
and wiredrawing 15 958 €/year 11 205 €/year 27 163 €/year
Textile finishing 18 369 €/year 16 944 €/year 35 313 €/year
Smitheries 15 812 €/year 10 857 €/year 26 669 €/year
Landfill None/limited None/Limited None/limited
Mining and quarrying 13 621 €/year 9 451 €/year 23 072 €/year
572
First, bespoke analysis was employed to estimate the burden associated with cattle and IRPP
farms. This was based on existing evidence, expert and stakeholder elicitation.
Secondly, for the rest of the scope extensions, the baseline assumptions outlined in Table 3
were employed. The reason for different administrative costs per installation across the
sectors stems from BREF costs, which were assumed to be always the same, independent to
the number of installations covered by the sector. This is unlikely to be the case. For
example, costs closer to lower bound estimates of BREF costs are likely for sectors that may
affect fewer installations (e.g., gigafactories).
Finally, if BREF costs are excluded, the per installation administrative costs for the scope
extensions (excl. cattle farm and IRPP) would be around 15 300 €/year per installation for
operators and 9 640 €/year per installation for public authorities over a period of 20 years.
Costs per installation for mining and quarrying would be slightly lower based on assumptions
about the ongoing baseline activity in the sector.
Table A8-53 summarises the economic, environmental and social impacts of the measures
using the qualitative ratings. Table A8-54 similarly uses qualitative ratings to summarise
costs and benefits for measures in problem area 5, with central estimates of administrative
costs for businesses and public authorities also shown.
Table A8-53: Summary of economic, environmental and social impacts for measures in problem
area 5
Policy measures
Economic
impacts
Environmental impacts
Social impacts
(employment focus)
#31   
#32   
#33  O 
#34   O
#35 Measure discarded in late Impact Assessment considerations
#36   O
#37   O
#38   O
#39   O
#40   O
#41   O
#42   
#43   
#44 U U U
573
Table A8-54: Summary of costs and benefits for measures in problem area 5, with central
estimates of administrative costs for businesses and public authorities shown
Policy measure
Administrative
costs – businesses
(€m/yr)
Administrative
costs – public
authorities (€m/yr)
Overall costs Overall benefits
#31 102-401 102-401  
#32 80-194 80-194  
#33 -63-232(benefit) -63-232
(benefit)
O 
#34 1.0 1.0  
#35 Measure dicarded at a late stage in Impact Assessment evaluation
#36 5.0 3.0  
#37 1.0 1.0  
#38 7.0 5.0  
#39 0.2 0.5  
#40 No/limited Not estimated  
#41 12.0 8.0  
#42 2.0 2.0  
#43 23 15  
#44 No/limited Not estimated U U
574
REFERENCES
AIDA. (2021). 2.1 Activités Agricoles et Animaux. Mistere de la Transition Ecologique et Solidaire.
Retrieved from https://aida.ineris.fr/consultation_document/10539
Appledore International Limited. (2000). Eastern European Shipbuilding IIndustry Study: Romania
Final Country Report. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjb0r3Yr
bvyAhUCoVwKHbwiCKEQFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fdocsroom
%2Fdocuments%2F3279%2Fattachments%2F1%2Ftranslations%2Fen%2Frenditions%2Fnat
ive&usg=AOvVaw1L2nYhw8ZrC8Y
CEFAS. (2014). Background information for sustainable aquaculture development, addressing
environmental protection in particular.
CESA. (2021). CESA: The Industry. CESA. Retrieved from https://www.cesa.eu/the-industry
CMS-Law. (2020). Overview of environment legislation in Romania. Retrieved from https://www.cms-
lawnow.com/ealerts/2000/07/overview-of-environment-legislation-in-romania?cc_lang=en
COM/2020/98 final. (n.d.). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a
cleaner and more competitive Europe.
Departament de Medi Ambient i Habitage. (2007). AVALUACIÓ TÈCNICA I ECONÒMICA
D’ALTERNATIVES PER A LA MILLORA AMBIENTAL DELS PROCESSOS INDUSTRIALS.
Generalitat de Catalunya: Departament de Medi Ambient i Habitage. Retrieved from
http://mediambient.gencat.cat/web/.content/home/ambits_dactuacio/empresa_i_produccio_so
stenible/prevencio_i_control_dactivitats/mtd/les_guies_catalanes/documents/mtd_econ.pdf
EC. (2006). REGULATION (EC) No 166/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006R0166&from=EN
EC. (2007). DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPERAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on industrial
emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control). Brussels: European Commission.
Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/air/stationary/ippc/pdf/recast/ia_en.pdf
EC. (2007). Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2007/sec_2007_1679_en.pdf
EC. (2012). Green growth opportunities in the EU shipbuilding sector. Brussels: European
Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry. Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/dbab20d2-2d8e-41c5-a941-97aedbc2a8a8
EC. (2013). REGULATION (EU) No 1257/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL of 20 November 2013 on ship recycling and amending Regulation (EC) No
1013/2006 and Directive 2009/16/EC. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02013R1257-
20180704&from=EN
EC. (2015). FUTURE BRIEF: Sustaianble Aquaculture. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved
from
575
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/sustainable_aquaculture
_FB11_en.pdf
EC. (2015). Science for Environment Policy FUTURE BRIEF: Sustainable Aquaculture. Retrieved
from
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/sustainable_aquaculture
_FB11_en.pdf
EC. (2015). Study to analyse differences in costs of implementing EU policy . Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/memberstate_policy/pdf/Differences%20in%20costs
.pdf
EC. (2016). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/SWD_2016_178.pdf
EC. (2016). Communication from the Commission — Requirements and procedure for inclusion of
facilities located in third countries in the European List of ship recycling facilities — Technical
guidance note under Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 on ship recycling. Brussels: European
Commission. Retrieved from
circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai/navigation/container.jsp?FormPrincipal:_idcl=Form
Principal:libraryContainerList:pager&page=1&FormPrincipal_SUBMIT=1&org.apache.myface
s.trinidad.faces.STATE=DUMMY
EC. (2016). EC staff working document on the application of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in relation to aquaculture. Retrieved
from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/SWD_2016_178.pdf
EC. (2017). Study to assess the implementation by the EU Member States of certain provisions of
Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.
EC. (2018). on the implementation of EU waste legislation, including the early warning report for.
EC. (2019). Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tag00075/default/table?lang=en
EC. (2020). BAT Tool Version February 2020. Brussels: European Commission.
EC. (2020). Ship. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/waste-and-
recycling/ships_en
EC. (2021). Economic report of the EU aquaculture sector (STECF-20-12). Brussel: European
Commission. Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/7f9c98f0-
0fe4-11e9-81b4-01aa75ed71a1
EC. (2021). European Green Deal: Commission adopts strategic guidelines for sustainable and
competitive EU aquaculture. Brussels: European Commisssion. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1554
EC. (2021). European Green Deal: Commission adopts strategic guidelines for sustainable and
competitive EU aquaculture. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1554
EC. (2021). Identificaiton / Screening of Impacts. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-19_en_0.pdf
EC. (2021). Organic Action Plan. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/farming/organic-farming/organic-action-
plan_en
EC. (2021). Shipbuilding Sector. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/maritime/shipbuilding_en
EC. (2021). Typology of costs and benefits. Brussels: European Commission.
576
EC, T. a. (2017). Cumulative Cost Assessment for the EU chemical industry. Retrieved from
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8eb1b47a-ee94-11e6-ad7c-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en
EEA. (2014). Costs of air pollution from European industrial facilities 2008–2012 — an updated
assessment. Brussels: European Environment Agency. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/costs-of-air-pollution-2008-2012
EEA. (2018). Industrial waste water treatment – pressures on Europe’s environment. Brussels:
European Environment Agency: Report No. 23/2018.
ELC, I. (2005). Amendments to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against
Pollution from Land-Based Sources. Retrieved from
https://www.ecolex.org/details/treaty/amendments-to-the-protocol-for-the-protection-of-the-
mediterranean-sea-against-pollution-from-land-based-sources-tre-
001335/?q=shipbuilding&xcountry=European+Union&xdate_min=&xdate_max=
ETC/WMGE. (n.d.). The effects of CE initiatives on industrial pollution reduction.
EU. (2013). Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20
November 2013 on ship recycling and amending Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 and Directive
2009/16/EC. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1257&from=EN
EU. (2013). REGULATIONS: Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 20 November 2013 on ship recycling and amending Regulation (EC) No
1013/20006 and Directive 2009/16/EC. Brussels: European Union. Retrieved from https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1257&from=EN
EUMOFA. (2020). The EU Fish Market: 2020 Edition. Brussels: European Commission: European
Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products. Retrieved from
https://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/415635/EN_The+EU+fish+market_2020.pdf
EUMOFA. (2020b). Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. European Market Observatory for Fisheries
and Aquaculture Products. Retrieved from
https://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/84590/RAS+in+the+EU.pdf/
EUMOFA. (2021). Freshwater Aquaculture in the EU. Brussels: European Commission: European
Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products. Retrieved from
https://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/442176/Freshwater+aquaculture+in+the+EU.pdf
Eunomia. (2019). An Assessment of the IED Permitting Stringency. Brussels: DG Environment:
Eunomia.
European Commission. (2017). Circular reconomy research and innovation - Connecting economic &
environmental gains. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2018). Summary on IED contribution to water policy.
European Commission. (2020). Commission Staff Working Document Evaluation of the IED. Directive
2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on
industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control). SWD(2020)181. Brussels,
23.09.2020.
European Commission. (2020). EU Action Plan “Towards a Zero Pollution Ambition for air, water and
soil – building a Healthier Planet for Healthier People” Roadmap.
European Commission. (2020b). Evaluation of the Industrial Emissions Directive. Brussels: European
Commission.
577
European Union. (2012). establishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions under Directive
2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions for iron
and steel production. Journal of the European Union.
European Union. (2013). establishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions under Directive
2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions for the
production of cement, lime and magnesium oxide . Journal of the European Union.
Eurostat. (2021). Retrieved from europa.eu
FAO. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/i6865e/i6865e.pdf
FAO. (2015). REGIONAL REVIEW ON STATUS AND TRENDS IN AQUACULTURE
DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE - 2015. FAO. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/3/i6865e/i6865e.pdf
FAO. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from aquaculture: A life cycle assessment of three Asian
systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/3/i7558e/i7558e.pdf
FAO. (2021a). Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles: Italy. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organisation. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/ITA/en
FAO. (2021b). National Aquaculture Legislation Overview: Spain. Rome: FAO. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_spain/en
FAO. (2021c). National Aquaculture Legislation Overview: Netherlands. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_netherlands/en#tcNB00A6
FAO. (2021d). National Aquaculture Legislation Overview: Vietnam. Rome: FAO. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_vietnam/en
FAO. (2021e). National Aquaculture Legislation Overview: China. Rome: FAO. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_china/en
Fykesmannen. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.norskeutslipp.no/WebHandlers/PDFDocumentHandler.ashx?documentID=48946
8&documentType=T&companyID=116926&aar=0&epslanguage=en
Fylkesmannen. (2014). Retrieved from
https://www.norskeutslipp.no/WebHandlers/PDFDocumentHandler.ashx?documentID=49557
&documentType=T&companyID=14281&aar=0&epslanguage=en
Fylkesmannen. (2017). Retrieved from
https://www.norskeutslipp.no/WebHandlers/PDFDocumentHandler.ashx?documentID=25682
7&documentType=T&companyID=84849&aar=0&epslanguage=en
Fylkesmannen. (n.d.). 2017. Retrieved from
https://www.norskeutslipp.no/WebHandlers/PDFDocumentHandler.ashx?documentID=30240
4&documentType=T&companyID=85063&aar=0&epslanguage=en
Fylkesmannen. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.norskeutslipp.no/WebHandlers/PDFDocumentHandler.ashx?documentID=40489
4&documentType=T&companyID=139453&aar=0&epslanguage=en
Fylkesmannen. (2018). Bakgrunn og forklaring til løyve etter ureiningslova til Ofs Måløy AS for
landbasert. Retrieved from
https://www.norskeutslipp.no/WebHandlers/PDFDocumentHandler.ashx?documentID=46921
7&documentType=T&companyID=127463&aar=0&epslanguage=en
578
Fylkesmannen. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.norskeutslipp.no/WebHandlers/PDFDocumentHandler.ashx?documentID=54840
3&documentType=T&companyID=127954&aar=0&epslanguage=en
Fylkesmannen. (2020). Retrieved from
https://www.norskeutslipp.no/WebHandlers/PDFDocumentHandler.ashx?documentID=60781
6&documentType=T&companyID=31710&aar=0&epslanguage=en
Fylkesmannen. (2020). Retrieved from
https://www.norskeutslipp.no/WebHandlers/PDFDocumentHandler.ashx?documentID=60540
9&documentType=K&companyID=22137&aar=2020&epslanguage=en
GEORISQUES. (2008). Registre des émissions polluantes. Retrieved from
https://www.georisques.gouv.fr/risques/registre-des-emissions-
polluantes/etablissement/details/9424#/
Greenpeace. (2008). Retrieved from https://wayback.archive-it.org/9650/20200503105331/http:/p3-
raw.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2008/3/challenging-the-
aquaculture.pdf
Greenpeace. (2008). Challenging the Aquaculture Industry on Sustainability. Amsterdam:
Greenpeace. Retrieved from https://wayback.archive-it.org/9650/20200503105331/http:/p3-
raw.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2008/3/challenging-the-
aquaculture.pdf
Hilborn, R., Banobi, J., Hall, S. J., Puclyowski, T., & Walsworth, T. E. (2018). The environmental cost
of animal source foods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 329-335. Retrieved from
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.1822
IEEP. (2006). Data gathering and impact assessment for a possible review of the IPPC Directive:
Project update & questionnaire. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy.
Retrieved from https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/442f566e-5951-4779-9c65-
752289988907/library/a4c47eb8-cc96-497c-9141-26605b88fe7a/details
Ineris. (2017). Guide de demande de dérogation (Art. R. 515-68 du CE. Paris: Ministère de la
Transition écologique et solidaire. Retrieved from
https://aida.ineris.fr/sites/default/files/gesdoc/95612/Guide_demande_derogation_v1.pdf
Ineris. (2017b). Presentation couts derogation v1. Paris: Ministere de la Transition Ecologique.
Retrieved from
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faida.ineris.fr%2Fsites%
2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fgesdoc%2F95613%2Fpresentation%2520couts%2520derogation%25
20v1.xls&data=04%7C01%7CJames.Dyson%40ricardo.com%7C3fcd7ea6026845d79ac308d
93b98c8ed%7C0b
iSBS Consultancy, APA, IP. (2013). Guia de Aplicação BREF Economics and Cross-Media Effects .
Lisbon: AGÊNCIA PORTUGUESA DO AMBIENTE.
JRC. (2020). Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document on Surface Treatment Using
Organic Solvents including Preservation of Wood and Wood Products with Chemicals.
Brussels: European Commission: Joint Research Commission. Retrieved from
https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-06/jrc122816_sts_2020_final.pdf
JRC. (2021). The EU Aquaculture Sector – Economic report 2020. Brussels: JRC Scientific, Technical
and Economic Committee for Fisheries. Retrieved from
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/2783239/STECF+20-12+-
+EU+Aquaculture+economics.pdf/ef242822-3343-43f4-b0a3-dfad889dd52c
Ministère de la transition écologique et solidaire. (2019). 2712. Installation d'entreposage, dépollution,
démontage ou découpage de véhicules hors d’usage ou de différents moyens de transports
579
hors d'usage, à l'exclusion des installations visées à la rubrique 2719. Retrieved from AIDA:
https://aida.ineris.fr/consultation_document/10719
Ministerstwo Srodowiska. (2017). Podręcznik dotyczący zasad udzielania odstępstw od granicznych
wielkości emisyjnych zawartych w Konkluzjach BAT dla dużych źródeł spalania (LCP),
zgodnie z art. 204 ust. 2 Ustawy POŚ. Ministerstwo Srodowiska. Retrieved from
http://ekoportal.gov.pl/fileadmin/Ekoportal/Pozwolenia_zintegrowane/poradniki_branzowe/Pod
recznik_dotyczacy_udzielania_odstepstw_-__Konkluzje_BAT_dla_LCP.pdf
Ministerstwo Srodowiska. (2021, June).
Zalacznik_1.B_do_podrecznika_dotyczacego_odstepstw_BAT_LCP_01.2018. Ministerstwo
Srodowiska. Retrieved from
ekoportal.gov.pl/fileadmin/Ekoportal/Pozwolenia_zintegrowane/poradniki_branzowe/Zalacznik
_1.B_do_podrecznika_dotyczacego_odstepstw_BAT_LCP_01.2018.xlsb
NOBE Indepedent Center for Economic Studies. (1999). The Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Sectors in
the candidate countries: Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republique, Hungary and Slovenia.
Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjb0r3Yr
bvyAhUCoVwKHbwiCKEQFnoECAQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fdocsroo
m%2Fdocuments%2F3285%2Fattachments%2F1%2Ftranslations%2Fen%2Frenditions%2Fn
ative&usg=AOvVaw095_ilWALVu-0
Nordic Council of Ministers. (2016). Nordic Shipyards Best Available Techniques (BAT). Retrieved
from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1061775/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Norskeutslipp. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.norskeutslipp.no/WebHandlers/PDFDocumentHandler.ashx?documentID=18579
2&documentType=T&companyID=33074&aar=0&epslanguage=en
OECD. (2013). Global value chains in shipbuilding: The Italian perspective. Paris: Organisation for
Economic Co-Operation and Development. Retrieved from
https://www.mit.gov.it/mit/mop_all.php?p_id=16921#:~:text=The%20Italian%20Shipbuilding%
20Cluster%20employs,linked%20to%20the%20shipyards'%20business.
OECD. (2016). Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/PeerReview_Shipbuilding_Portugal_FINAL.pdf
OECD. (2016). PEER REVIEW OF THE PORTUGUESE SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIR INDUSTRY.
OECD. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/PeerReview_Shipbuilding_Portugal_FINAL.pdf
OECD. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/finland/peer-review-finland-shipbuilding-
industry.pdf
OECD. (2019). Best Available Techniques (BAT) for Preventing and Controlling Industrial Pollution,
Activity 3: Measuring the Effectiveness of BAT Policies. Environment Directorate, OECD.
Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-
management/measuring-the-effectiveness-of-best-available-techniques-policies.pdf
OECD. (2019a). Ship recycling. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
OECD. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/peer-review-netherlands-shipbuilding-
industry.pdf
OECD. (2020). PEER REVIEW OF THE DUTCH SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY. OECD. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/peer-review-netherlands-shipbuilding-industry.pdf
Pulli. (2013). Designing Environmental Performance Indicator for Shipbuilding and Ship Dismantling.
15. Retrieved from http://julkaisut.turkuamk.fi/isbn9789522164605.pdf
580
Ricardo. (2016). Analysis and development of methodologies for estimating potential industrial
emissions reductions and compliance costs of BAT conclusions adopted under the Industrial
Emissions Directive. Brussels: European Commission.
Ricardo. (2017). Technical support for developing the profile of certain categories of Large
Combustion Plants regulated under the IED. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f568a5b1-8c7a-475c-8162-a6c47b86ef7f/LCP%20profile.pdf
Ricardo. (2018). Assessment and summary of Member States' reports under Commission
Implementing Decision 2018/1135/EU. Brussels : European Commission: DG Enviornmnet.
Ricardo. (2018). Summary on IED contribution to water policy. Brussels: European Commission - DG
Environment.
Ricardo. (2019). Assessment and summary of Member States' reports for Modules 1, 3 and 4 of
Annex II of Commission Implementing Decision 2012/795/EU. Retrieved from
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/e6a8f5a7-2b35-4bc5-a195-10acfaa49755/Final%20report.pdf
Ricardo. (2020). Technical assistance on industrial emissions – Assignment #3 Online real-time
monitoring of industrial emissions.
Ricardo. (2020b). Permitting of emissions to water under the IED: Current practices in Europe.
Brussels: European Commission.
Ricardo. (2021). Assessment and summary of Member States’ reports under Commission
Implementing Decision 2018/1135/EU.
Ricardo. (2021). Assessment and summary of Member States’ reports under Commission
Implementing Decision 2018/1135/EU. Ricardo Energy and Environment.
Ricardo. (2021). Assessment and summary of Member States’ reports under Commission
Implementing Decision 2018/1135/EU. Ricardo Energy and Environment.
Ricardo et al. (2019). IED Contribution to the circular economy.
Ricardo et al. (2020). Support to the evaluation of the IED (Directive 2010/75/EU).
Ricardo. (forthcoming). Assessment and summary of Member States’ reports under Commission
Implementing Decision 2018/1135/EU .
Riigi Teataja. (2015). Maritime Safety Act. Retrieved from
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/518062015003/consolide
Smith, J. a. (2020). The joys of automatically referencing documents that you're allowed to reference.
Retrieved from website source name: www.referencelocation.com
Technopolis Group, UCL et al. (2018). Cooperation fostering Industrial Symbiosis: market potential,
good practice and policy actions. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
UN. (2020). Romania. Retrieved from Harmony with Nature United Nations:
http://harmonywithnatureun.org/provision/RoERf1vASlqCb3g3Ybqm7BexKpC!N+9bcXCzZMa
8qx23Y96!PkSxSfeTslpRPwOLqKwdWQ1WHV!j3JHdSvQX5g==
UNEP. (2016). Retrieved from https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/14870/ge-
top_vietnam_1.pdf?sequence=1&amp%3BisAllowed=
UNITAR. (2020). Guidance Series for Implementing a National Pollutant Release and Transfer
Register (PRTR) Design Project, Series 5: Addressing Industry Concerns Related to PRTRs.
Retrieved January 26, 2021, from
https://cwm.unitar.org/cwmplatformscms/site/assets/files/1482/5_addressing_industry_concer
ns_related_to_prtrs.pdf
581
US EPA. (2021). Battery Manufacturing Effluent Guidelines Documents. Washington DC: United
States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/eg/battery-
manufacturing-effluent-guidelines-documents
USWE. (2020). Forescasting trends & challenges for a 4.0 Shipbuilding Workforce in Europe.
Upskilling Shipbuilding Workforce in Europe. Retrieved from
https://www.usweproject.eu/images/D24_Forecast_for_Shjipbuilding_40_Report.pdf
Vito. (2017). Guideline for determining the Best Available Techniques at Installation Level. Vito.
Ympäristöministeriö. (2018). JÄTEVESIIN LIITTYVIEN LYHYEN AIKAVÄLIN PÄÄSTÖRAJA-
ARVOJEN SOVELTAMINEN YMPÄRISTÖLUVISSA. Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö.


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Strasbourg, 5.4.2022
SWD(2022) 111 final
PART 2/5
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the documents
Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November
2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council
Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste
and
Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on reporting of environmental data from industrial installations and establishing an
Industrial Emissions Portal
{COM(2022) 156 final} - {SEC(2022) 169 final} - {SWD(2022) 110 final} -
{SWD(2022) 112 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0156 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
71
Annex 1: Procedural information
1. LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES
The preparation of this file was led by DG Environment (ENV), with support from DG Joint
Research Centre B.5’s European IPPC Bureau (JRC.B.5).
The file essentially comprises a revision of existing “industrial emissions” EU legislation: the
Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) and Regulation (EC) 166/2006 on the European
Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR).
The E-PRTR provides the most important reporting tool to track the reduction of pollutants to
air, water and soil from IED (agro-)industrial installations via the IED’s implementation, as
well as some (agro-)industrial sectors which lie outside of the scope of the relevant annexes
of the IED. Additionally, the E-PRTR has lower reporting thresholds for some activities than
those that govern inclusion within the IED regime of permit-based application of “Best
Available Techniques” and pollution prevention and control technologies.
This overall “industrial emissions” revision takes into account the two separate evaluations
that were performed for the two legal instruments (E-PRTR and IED), and incorporates as
many as possible of those recommendations that have resulted from those evaluations. In
addition, the objective of the “two-in-one” revisions of existing EU “industrial emissions”
legislation is to update the two instruments to be able to deliver the aims and targets of the
wide-ranging and overarching policy aims as described in Section 2 (below).
Since this file comprises two combined sub-initiatives, they were included as two discrete
items in the DECIDE/Agenda Planning database, as follows:
Commission proposal for revising the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) PLAN/2020/6608
Commission proposal for the revision of the E-PRTR regulation PLAN/2020/8555
2. ORGANISATION AND TIMING
This joint “industrial emissions” initiative is a deliverable under the European Green Deal1,
the Zero Pollution Action Plan2
, the Circular Economy Action Plan3
(CEAP) and has strong
1
COM(2019) 640 final https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640
2
COM(2021) 400 final https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0400&qid=1623311742827
3
COM(2020) 98 final https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:9903b325-6388-11ea-b735-
01aa75ed71a1.0017.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
72
links to the revised May 2021 Industrial Strategy for Europe4
, which in turn built on the 2020
Industrial Strategy.5
For E-PRTR, the Inception Impact Assessment Roadmap was published on 28 September
2020 with a feedback period until 26 October 20206
.
For the IED, the Inception Impact Assessment Roadmap was published on 24 March 2020
with a feedback period until 21 April 20207
.
The Inter Service Steering Group (ISSG) for the Impact Assessment was set up by the DG
Environment. It included the following DGs and services: AGRI (Agriculture), CLIMA
(Climate Action), ENER (Energy), ESTAT (Eurostat), FISMA (Financial Stability, Financial
Services and Capital Markets Union), GROW (Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship
and SMEs), JRC (Joint Research Centre), JUST (Justice and Consumers), MARE (Maritime
Affairs and Fisheries), RTD (Research and Innovation), SANTE (Health and Food Safety),
SJ (Legal Service), TAXUD (Taxation and Customs Union) as well as ECHA (European
Chemicals Agency) and the EEA (European Environment Agency). Meetings were organised
between autumn 2020 and autumn 2021.
The ISSG discussed the Inception Impact Assessments from both the IED and E-PRTR sub-
initiatives. Already at the first ISSG meeting (15.9.2020), it was decided to merge the Open
Public Consultation process for the two sub-initiatives (see Annex 2). All ISSG meeting have
covered both sub-initiatives to maximise the interaction and synergies between the two
existing legal instruments, and their subsequent evolution. The ISSG meetings have discussed
the main milestones in the joint process, in particular evidence gathering, coherence with
other ongoing draft legislative initiatives, the consultation strategy and main stakeholder
consultation activities. The ISSG has been consulted regarding, and has given input to, key
deliverables from the support study, and the combined IED / E-PRTR draft Impact
Assessment report prior to its submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB).
3. CONSULTATION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD (RSB)
An informal upstream meeting with the RSB took place on 7 October 2020.
After final discussion with the ISSG, a draft of the impact assessment was submitted to the
RSB on 10 November and discussed at a meeting with the RSB on 8 December 2021.
Following the positive opinion of the RSB, changes were made to the IA in order to reflect
the recommendations of the Board. Table A1-1 presents an overview of the RSB's comments
and how these have been addressed.
4
COM(2021) 350 final https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/communication-industrial-strategy-
update-2020_en.pdf
5
COM(2020) 102 final https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1593086905382&uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0102
6
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12583-Industrial-pollution-
European-Pollutant-Release-and-Transfer-Register-updated-rules-_en
7
Industrial emissions – EU rules updated (europa.eu)
73
Table A1-1: How RSB comments have been addressed
RSB comments How addressed
Main findings
1. The report does not sufficiently explain how the
revised IED and E-PRTR will interact with and
support other legislation.
Additional sub-sections have been introduced in
section 1 of the main report explaining the interaction
of respectively the IED and the E-PRTR Regulation
with relevant legal instruments. Related
considerations have been fine-tuned in the rest of the
impact assessment, including in Section 8 presenting
the preferred policy package and its impacts.
2. The report is not clear how the 25 measures under
the option supporting ‘more effective legislation’
have been chosen and why no alternative measures
are envisaged.
For better clarity on the nature of the options and the
policy decisions they entail, Option 1 has been split
into four sub-options, two of which include
alternatives related to some key measures. Further
explanations concerning the process that has led to
retaining measures has been provided.
3. The report is not clear on some relevant impacts of
the envisaged measures, in particular on industrial
competitiveness, Member States and consumers.
The description of potential impacts has been
reviewed and clarified, where additional information
was available, it has been added.
What to improve (comments summarised)
1. The report should expand and strengthen its
analysis of the coherence between the revised IED
and E-PRTR and other legislation. It should improve
its explanation of the interaction with the EU
Emissions Trading System and be clearer about any
overlap (or synergy) with the Common Agricultural
Policy when it comes to adjustment costs. It should
explain how IED would interact with the Effort
Sharing Regulation (ESR) given that it is an EU-wide
horizontal instrument imposing binding GHG
reduction requirements on specific operators and
sectors, while the ESR sets an overall reduction target
but leaves it to Member States to determine the
appropriate national mix. It should, for example,
explain how methane emissions (potentially covered
by both instruments) would be tackled.
As per finding 1 above. Furthermore:
 The interaction of IED with the ETS has been
revised in the problem definition.
 The assessment of sub-option PO5-a includes
explanation on eligibility of farms’ adjustment
costs under the CAP.
 The contribution to FF55 and the longer term
decarbonisation goals is discussed in section 8,
presenting the preferred policy package and its
impacts.
2. The report should consider alternatives for the
package of 25 measures in the option supporting
more effective legislation (option 1). Many of these
measures are contentious or are not merely clarifying
ambiguous provisions but are clearly increasing
ambitions. The report should consider all options that
are likely to emerge in the legislative process,
including a more restricted package of measures.
As per finding 2 above.
3. The report should further develop the analysis of
competitiveness impacts on industry (taking into
account the high – in absolute terms – compliance
costs even with only partial quantification) and assess
the risk that operators may outsource their production
to third countries. In particular, it should assess more
thoroughly the impacts on competitiveness of the
newly included industry sectors (e.g. livestock farms)
and the risk that EU production will be substituted by
third-country imports (benefitting from less stringent
production requirements).
As per finding 3 above. The discussion of
competitiveness has been extended, both in the
introductory section and by introducing additional
sub-sections on competitiveness impacts in the
relevant sections summarising the assessment. Where
costs could be quantified, this includes the discussion
of their comparative relevance, including for
livestock farms.
74
RSB comments How addressed
4. The report should better explain, and present
transparently, impacts on consumer prices (in terms
of potential cost pass-through) and on third countries.
It should clearly identify and analyse the impacts by
Member State to reveal whether the implementation
burden falls unevenly. It should assess territorial
impacts, as the envisaged inclusion of the livestock
sector is likely to affect in particular rural areas.
As per finding 3 above. The discussion of impacts
has been extended in the assessment sections to better
understand the likelihood of impacts on consumer
prices, where available information allowed a
comparative analysis of costs.
5. When it comes to the proportionality of the
measures considered, the report should more clearly
account for the fact that for some of the benefits there
is a higher level of uncertainty that they will
materialise when compared with the costs. The report
also needs to explain better the combined impact (any
synergies
The sections discussing proportionality have been
expanded to better explain the assessment. In
particular, the reasoning to set the threshold for
covering livestock farms was added, which includes
proportionality as a key parameter.
The discussion of synergies between the package and
climate policies has been expanded, notably in
Section 8 presenting the preferred impacts and its
impacts.
6. The report should be more explicit about any
possible implementation issues and whether the
necessary resources will be available across all
Member States to ensure the consistent and effective
implementation of the revised instruments.
Experience concerning availability of resources to
Member States’ competent authorities has been
addressed in Section 1.
The description of the proposed tailored permit for
livestock farms has been enhanced, as well as the
discussion of what this means in terms of alleviated
administrative procedure for the Member States.
7. The report should better reflect the diversity of
stakeholder views through the analysis and indicate
how dissenting or minority views have been taken
into account.
References to stakeholder views have been
systematically expanded in the main report and a
detailed overview of stakeholder views has been
incorporated in Annex 2.
4. EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY
To support the analysis of the different options, the European Commission awarded two
support contracts to external experts.
For the IED Impact Assessment support, the consortium of consultants comprised: Trinomics
B.V. (Consortium Lead), with Ricardo plc (Lead for the Specific Assignment), supported by
VITO (Flemish Institute for Technological Research) NV, Wood plc and E3Modelling SA.
For the E-PRTR Regulation Impact Assessment support, the consortium of consultants
comprised: RPA Europe srl and Risk Policy Analysts (RPA) (Lead for the Specific
Assignment), Air Quality Consultants (AQC) and Aether, supported by Ökopol and ERG.
Evidence was compiled from the evaluation reports of the IED8
and the E-PRTR9
, as well as
via specific desk studies and data collection performed as sub-assignments, feeding into the
overall impact assessment work.
Further information is given regarding the evidence bases compiled by the external
consultants in the following annexes:
 Annex 8 (IED) – Shortlisted measures
8
SWD(2020)181 final available at https://europa.eu/!HP74fW
9
SWD(2017)710 final available at https://europa.eu/!bC98wG
75
 Annex 9 (E-PRTR) – Shortlisted measures; and
 Annex 10 (combined impact assessment of all options).
In addition, extensive consultation of stakeholders was carried out by the two teams of
external experts, as detailed in:
 Annex 2 (Stakeholder consultation synopsis)
The two teams of external expert consultants worked in close cooperation with the European
Commission throughout the different phases of the study, and partly in consultation with one
another throughout the process, particularly in the latter stages of assembling a coherent
evidence base and in assessing, screening and adjusting policy measures and options.
76
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation
INTRODUCTION
The impact assessment accompanying the combined revision of the Industrial Emissions
Directive (IED) and E-PRTR (European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register) Regulation
was subject to a thorough consultation process. This included a variety of different
consultation activities aimed at gathering the views of all relevant stakeholders and ensuring
that the views of different organisations and stakeholder types were presented and
considered.
This Annex describes the consultation activities that have taken place and presents a
summary of views.
Part 1: Description of consultation activities
1. CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES - IED
 IED solely - feedback period via the Commission’s “Have Your Say” interactive
portal on the published Inception Impact Assessment1
(154 responses; consultation
period 24 March 2020 to 21 April 2020)
 Joint IED and E-PRTR Public Consultation2
- online survey via the Commission’s
“Have Your Say” interactive portal (336 responses; 20 December 2020 to 23 March
2021). The survey contained 24 questions, four of which directly concerned the E-
PRTR. Most were multiple-choice questions using Likert-scales of 5 options (most
negative to most positive). The scales for most questions included one or more “opt-
out” responses, such as “I don’t know” to avoid forcing respondents into giving an
opinion that they might not feel qualified giving. Five questions were open-ended,
including one open question at the end, which asked the respondents for any further
relevant feedback, information, or opinions they wished to share. It should be noted
that respondents were able to provide comments to most questions by selecting
“Other”.
 IED solely - Targeted Stakeholder Survey (TSS)3
consultation, which consisted of
an online survey of a more detailed nature (235 responses; 8 February 2021 to 9 April
2021). The TSS questionnaire was developed in discussion and agreement with the
European Commission including the Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG). The TSS
was by invitation only, to organisations with a known stake in the IED.
The electronic questionnaire was launched using the online tool “Survey Monkey”,
pdfs and guidance regarding the questionnaire were hosted on a dedicated website4
of
the lead consultant, Ricardo. This consultation was carried out to enhance further the
1
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12306-Industrial-emissions-EU-
rules-updated_en
2
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12583-Industrial-pollution-
European-Pollutant-Release-and-Transfer-Register-updated-rules-_en
3
https://cdn.ricardo.com/ee/media/assets/ied-ia_tss_1.pdf
4
Revision of the industrial emissions directive – consultations (ricardo.com)
77
evidence base through the collection of more specialised feedback from targeted
stakeholder groups on six problem areas, grouped by the options under consideration
for the impact assessment study5
. These problem areas are:
1. The environment is polluted (split by zero pollution ambition and non-toxic
environment)
2. Climate crisis is happening
3. Natural resources are being depleted
4. Innovation - State of the art techniques cannot respond satisfactorily to
problem areas 1 to 3 (above)
5. Private individuals have limited opportunities to get informed about, and take
action regarding impacts caused by agro-industrial plants
6. Excessive burdens may affect the efficiency of policy instrument(s)
The questionnaire script included a number of multiple-choice questions. In many
cases, respondents had the option to select an “other” option and then there was an
opportunity to provide an open text response giving further information about this
“other” option, or to provide further information about the response to the preceding
multiple-choice question. At the end of the questionnaire, respondents also had an
opportunity to provide any additional comments and to upload any supporting
evidence.
Of the total 235 responses received, most of the respondents (71%) represented
industry views, 21% were Member State representatives (split by national and
local/regional), 3% were environmental NGOs and 5% were classified as ‘Other’.
 IED and E-PRTR – Targeted stakeholder engagement via one-to-one interviews,
carried out with key stakeholders from June to September 2021, to complement the
other stakeholder activities and to ensure more in-depth views, specifically:
 To gain more specific feedback, as required, on identification of options
 To fill specific data gaps identified for the impact assessment.
 IED and E-PRTR - Targeted stakeholder engagement via focus groups, held in June-
August 2021. The focus groups enabled stakeholders to engage in discussions at
greater depth on key emerging themes. Stakeholders were selected based on their
sectoral representation and a good geographical and stakeholder type distribution
between environmental NGOs, industry representatives and Member States’
Ministries and Competent Authorities was ensured to enable balanced discussions.
 Joint IED and E-PRTR: Two Stakeholder Workshops were held remotely via online
meeting webinars on 15 December 2020 (IED = 350 persons registered; 253 attended;
E-PRTR = 236 registered; 195 attended) and 7-8 July 2021 (IED = 395 registered;
278 attended; E-PRTR = 266 registered; 165 attended).
5
These initial problem areas were subsequently re-structured into five problems during the latter preparation
stages of this Staff Working Document. They cover the same issues with a slightly different breakdown, but
the insights were easily mapped across from input reports and thus employed in the production of this SWD
and associated external consultants’ reports.
78
2. STAKEHOLDER GROUPS PARTICIPATING IN CONSULTATIONS - IED
Table A2-1 below summarises the types of stakeholders who participated in the various
stakeholder consultation activities.
Table A2-1: Stakeholder groups and sub-groups participating in IED-related consultations
Stakeholder Group Stakeholders
1. Public authorities within
EU Member States
 National level Member State Authorities
 Regional/ local Member State Authorities
2. Industry  Key industries involved in the IED
 Business and trade associations for sectors under the scope of the
IED
 Individual operators of large agro-industrial plants
 Technology providers
3. Other  Environmental NGOs (main interlocutor – the European
Environment Bureau, with additional climate and standards
environmental NGOs)
 General public/ private individuals
 Workers’ associations/ trade unions
 Existing IED platforms, including the Industrial Emissions Expert
Group (IEEG), the IED Article 13 Forum
 European Commission and other EU services and expert
groups/networks, such as JRC, ECHA, EEA
 Technical experts, academics and research institutes
 Third parties and countries with links to the IED
Figure A2-1 below illustrates the overall numbers of respondents per IED consultation
activity, post-Inception Impact Assessment (noting that the Open Public Consultation and
Stakeholder Workshops were joint IED/ E-PRTR consultation activities).
Figure A2-1: IED-related consultations and numbers of participants
Furthermore, a breakdown of the proportion of the types of stakeholders participating in each
of the consultation activities is illustrated in Figure A2-2. Figure A2-2 illustrates that there
was a preponderance of industry representatives responding to, and interacting with, the
278
253
36
80
235
336
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Second Stakeholder Workshop
First Stakeholder Workshop
Interviews/ correspondence
Focus Groups
Targeted Stakeholder Survey
Open Public Consultation
Number of respondents
79
consultation activities, followed as a proportion by Member States’ Authorities, and then a
smaller share of “other” respondents (environmental NGOs, members of the general public,
specialist independent/ consultancy/ think-tank experts, etc).
Throughout the analyses of the results, efforts have been made to compensate for the over-
representation of industry and Member State respondents by not quoting pie charts of overall
responses as if they were representative of a homogeneous “population” of participants.
Instead, population groups are analysed separately, to explore the variations between the
separate groups of respondents.
Figure A2-2: IED Consultations and breakdown of stakeholder participants by overall groups
3. CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES - E-PRTR
 E-PRTR solely - feedback period via the Commission’s “Have Your Say” interactive
portal on the published Inception Impact Assessment6
(37 responses; consultation
period 28 September to 26 October 2020)
 Joint IED and E-PRTR Open Public Consultation7
(336 responses) – as in “IED”
section above.
 E-PRTR solely - Targeted Stakeholder Survey (TSS)8
, consisting of an online
survey of a more detailed nature (161 responses; consultation period 8 March to 30
April 2021).
6
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12583-Industrial-pollution-
European-Pollutant-Release-and-Transfer-Register-updated-rules-_en
7
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12583-Industrial-pollution-
European-Pollutant-Release-and-Transfer-Register-updated-rules-_en
8
https://625a7483-1957-4fcd-9bee-
bd29b4507dbb.filesusr.com/ugd/b48dda_9614b8ce29d74a68b10f80746e2aa845.pdf
27
36
4
11
19
84
168
151
12
31
167
227
83
66
20
38
49
25
0 50 100 150 200 250
Second Stakeholder Workshop
First Stakeholder Workshop
Interviews/ email
correspondence
Focus Groups
Targeted Stakeholder Survey
Open Public Consultation
Number of respondents
Member State Authority Industry Other
80
The E-PRTR TSS questionnaire was developed in discussion with the European
Commission, and subsequently put online utilising the survey tool, Alchemer.
Intended to gather feedback for the impact assessment from stakeholders involved in
implementation of the E-PRTR Regulation, this TSS grouped questions under six
problem areas that broadly reflected the inception impact assessment, and was tailored
with specific questions for the following types of stakeholders:
a. stakeholders responsible for providing data to a competent authority (facility
operators)
b. stakeholders responsible for checking the data provided at national level and
forwarding them to the European Environment Agency (regional and national
competent authorities)
c. more general questions for all stakeholder groups.
d. E-PRTR solely – Targeted telephone interviews. Targeted telephone interviews, to
complement the online TSS survey, took place with representatives of regional and
national competent authorities, European institutions, representatives of non-EU
PRTRs, representatives of the Kyiv Protocol Bureau, industry associations, civil
society and other key stakeholders. The stakeholder interviews were grouped into two
categories:
Stand-alone interviews with stakeholders who were not the primary target of the
online survey (e.g. EU institutions, such as EEA, relevant units of the
Commission, and the European Central Bank).
Follow-up interviews with survey respondents who expressed their interest to take
part in interviews to further discuss their inputs to the survey. Survey
respondents included two main stakeholder groups: industry associations and
national authorities.
Stand-alone interviews commenced in March 2021 while the targeted survey was still
open. Follow-up interviews mainly took place after the closure of the targeted
stakeholder survey between May and August 2021. In total, 36 interviews were
conducted.
 E-PRTR solely – Focus Groups. Focus group discussions were held online in August
2021 to complement the online survey and interviews. Representatives of Member
State authorities, industry associations and the NGO community took part in the
discussions. Attendance at the Focus Group was by invitation only. Two focus groups
were organised to tackle different problem areas.
 Joint IED and E-PRTR: Two Impact Assessment information and Question/ Answer
Stakeholder Workshops, held remotely via online meeting webinars on 15 Dec 2020
(350 persons registered; 253 attended) and 7-8 July 2021 (395 registered; 278
attended).
4. STAKEHOLDER GROUPS PARTICIPATING IN CONSULTATIONS - E-PRTR
Table A2-2 summarises the types of stakeholders who participated in the various E-PRTR
stakeholder consultation activities.
81
Table A2-2: Categories of stakeholders consulted
Stakeholder Group Stakeholders
1. EU Member State public authorities
 National level authorities
 Regional/local authorities
2. Industry
 Key industries in the scope of the E-PRTR Regulation
 Business and trade associations for sectors in the scope of
the E-PRTR Regulation
 Public utility providers
3. Other
 NGOs, specifically the European Environment Bureau
 The general public
 Academics and research institutes
 Representatives of the Kyiv Protocol Bureau
 The European Environment Agency
 The European Central Bank
 Other Units within the European Commission DG
Environment
Figure A2-3 below summarises the number of respondents by consultation activity for the E-
PRTR and joint E-PRTR/ IED consultations.
Figure A2-3: Number of respondents by consultation activity
82
Part 2: Summary of stakeholder views on defining the problems
This section summarises the views of the different types of stakeholders with regard to
defining the problem areas and placing relative weights of importance on them.
Civil society and environmental NGOs consider all problems to be of high relevance, in
particular regarding:
- environmental impacts being insufficiently addressed by the IED
- the need to have the E-PRTR pollutant list updated more quickly to take account of
new threats18
- limited access to information on installations’ performance levels.
Limited access to information is perceived by all stakeholder groups as an important element
to address.
However, differences occurred in the evaluations of industry and business associations, who
were rather neutral (but not negative) in recognising problem area 3 (resource efficient and
less toxic production). Industry and business associations were also rather neutral in
recognising the problems of Problem Area 4 (decarbonisation) pointing to potential
additional reporting costs and risks of overlaps with the ETS. For Problem Area 5 (scope),
industry and business associations brought into play similar costs arguments, and claimed
that existing national regimes and exiting EU legislation tackled most of the problems
encountered sufficiently well already.
It is notable that a consensus of all stakeholders agreed that Problems Area 2 is a real issue
that requires design and implementation action – namely, that the IED is limited in its efforts
to engender, facilitate, harness and promote innovation.
Part 3: Summary of stakeholder views on the options
1. INTRODUCTION
This annex provides a summary of the views of stakeholders on the various options. The
reports from the consultants supporting this impact assessment contain the full details of
those consultations.
2. STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON POLICY OPTIONS CONTRIBUTING TO EFFECTIVENESS (PO1)
This section summarises views of the measures comprising PO1 across five themes;
a. PO1: Ensuring that BAT-AELs are achieved
Almost all NGOs who participated in the OPC noted that the directive’s mechanisms
regarding the achievement of BAT-AELs required some changes, many changes or a
complete system overhaul. Furthermore, NGOs responding to the TSS were broadly
supportive of all the measures IED#1 to IED#5, which are grouped within this theme. NGOs
were also supportive of shorter derogation periods if necessary.
This is consistent with NGO views provided in in the context of the environmental reporting
fitness check19
, where the “EEB also argued that reporting has informed the dissemination of
18
E-PRTR evaluation - SWD (2017)710
83
information about polluting activities, which has helped to significantly improve the
performance of heavily polluting industries, as well as informing the identification of
pollution hot spots and targeted measures to improve the quality of the environment and
human health”.
Half to two- thirds of public authorities, EU citizens and other respondents also believe
that at least some changes are required to improve the effectiveness of the IED. Member State
and other public authorities offer, however, more neutral or mixed views as to how that may
be done, with some authorities supporting the measures proposed IED#1 to IED#5 (Table
A2-3). With regard to derogations, authorities consider that any time limit should be set on a
case-by-case basis.
By contrast, fewer than 20% of companies and business associations considered that at
most only minor changes are required. Industry stakeholders are not as supportive of
measures IED#1 to IED#5 as they believe these measures are unlikely to have any significant
positive impacts. These respondents do not support a time limit for derogations or suggest
that the limit should be set on a case-by-case basis if at all.
Table A2-3: Stakeholder views on PO1, Measures IED#3 to IED#5
PO1 Supportive Unsupportive Neutral
IED#3 Amend Article
15(1) to introduce an
explicit requirement that
indirect releases of
polluting substances to
water shall be assessed and
evidence must be provided
to demonstrate that such
releases would not lead to
an increased load of
pollutants in receiving
waters when compared to a
scenario where the IED
installation applies BAT
and meets AELs for direct
releases.
Only Member state
national authorities
consider the measure
would have a significant
impact on emissions to
water.
Some Environmental
NGOs support this
measure and they
consider it should be
BAT to monitor
emissions from both
direct and indirect
discharges.
Industry
representatives consider
the measure would only
have a slight impact
across emissions to air,
soil water, and GHGs.
They consider a large-
scale centralised system
for waste water treatment
the most economically
efficient approach,
removing pollutants
more effectively than
decentralised systems.
Environmental
NGOs, Member
State regional
authorities and
representatives
from other groups
consider the measure
would have a
moderate impact on
emissions to water.
IED#4 Amend Article 18
to require that stricter
ELVs are set in permit
conditions in the case that
environmental quality
standards cannot be met by
implementing existing
BAT conclusions.
Environmental NGOs
consider the measure will
have a significant impact
across emissions to air,
soil water, and GHGs
Industry
representatives consider
the measure would only
have a slight impact on
emissions.
Member State
national and
regional authorities,
as well as
representatives of
other groups believe
the measure would
have a moderate
impact on emissions.
IED#5 Clarify Article
15(3)(a) by specifying that
when setting emission
limit values that do not
exceed the BAT-AELs, the
Environmental NGOs
believe the measure will
have a significant impact
across the environmental
Industry
representatives thought
the measure would only
have a slight impact
across the mediums
Member State
national and
regional authorities
consider the measure
would have a
19
See page 103 of
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/reporting/pdf/Reporting%20and%20monitoring/support_fitness_che
ck_report.pdf
84
PO1 Supportive Unsupportive Neutral
starting point is the lower
limit of the BAT-AEL
range, unless the operator
demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the
competent authority that
applying BAT techniques
as described in BAT
Conclusions only allows
meeting a higher ELV
within the BAT-AEL
range.
issues examined.
Member State national
and regional authorities
believe the measure will
have a significant impact
on emissions to air and
water. Other
organisations believe
the measure will have a
significant impact on all
media apart from
emissions to soil.
examined.
They consider that it
could have a detrimental
effect on the IED’s
effectiveness as a tool to
reduce environmental
impacts in an integrated
approach, citing BAT-
AEL ranges as crucial to
accommodate
interactions between
pollutants.
moderate impact on
emissions to soil and
GHG emissions.
b. PO1: Homogenising and enhancing enforcement
Almost all the environmental NGOs support these measures IED#6 to IED#7. In the
TSS, environmental NGOs considered that all of the enforcement options presented in the
survey would likely improve IED implementation. In particular, 100% of NGOs that
provided a response thought there would be a significant improvement following the
introduction of common compliance assessment rules with ELVs under Chapter II of the
IED. The ‘other’ stakeholders also expected improvements as a result of implementing the
proposed measures, with all respondents expecting at least a moderate improvement for both
allowing competent authorities to suspend operation of non-compliant plants (IED#6) and for
elaborating Article 79 on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions on the IED
(IED#8).
Member State authority respondents generally perceive some albeit limited
opportunities for these measures to improve the IED’s effectiveness. Typically, around
two thirds of the local/regional Member State authority respondents anticipate at least a
moderate improvement from implementing these measures. Almost all of the national
Member State authority respondents expect at least a moderate improvement following from
the introduction of common compliance assessment rules with emission limit values under
Chapter II of the IED (IED#7). Mixed responses were received for each of the other
measures, tending towards the general expectation of a slight improvement in the IED’s
effectiveness from the implementation of these other measures.
The majority of industry respondents consider that these measures will have no impact,
that is, expect no value from their implementation. Industry stakeholder respondents
anticipate a far less significant impact than NGOs, with the most used response being that
there would be no impact across any of the measures.
c. PO1: Tackling transboundary pollution
All environmental NGOs and the majority of ‘other’ stakeholders support this measure
(IED#9), and indicated that improved cooperation between neighbouring Member States
could result in moderate to significant reductions in transboundary pollution from (agro-)
industrial plants. It was noted that issues that currently contribute to the transboundary
pollution problem include ‘lack of established communication channels between Members
States and coordination from the EU’, and so this measure can help. One local/regional
authority also added that having EU-law, covering all types of diverse scenarios that can
entail pollution for neighbouring countries, can solve a great deal of uncertainty.
85
Industry stakeholders and Member State authorities indicate far less support for this
measure (IED#9), with 76% of industry respondents, 67% of local/regional authorities and
71% of national authorities indicating that such a measure would result in slight to no impact
on transboundary pollution. Stakeholders consider that one of the most important obstacles in
cross-border cooperation is the diversity between EU and international rules, all applicable in
different situations.
d. PO1: Improving and expanding the public’s access to information and access
to justice
A large majority of environmental and civil society NGOs consider that information is
moderately or very difficult to access and all consider a policy option on access to
information to be relatively or very important. Between about 65% and 70% of public
authorities, EU citizens and other respondents to the OPC also consider a policy option on
access to information to be relatively or very important. In addition, some NGOs stated, in
open text responses to the OPC, that access to information is insufficient and inconsistent
across MS.
Industry respondents are generally less supportive of these measures. About 50% of
business associations and companies/ business organisations that responded to the OPC
considered a policy option on access to information to be relatively or very unimportant. In
open text responses, a group of six business associations (of 21 who provided open text
responses) and three companies (of 16) argued there is a need to protect sensitive
information.
Furthermore, in the E-PRTR consultations, stakeholders provided many comments on
improving of the reporting of data. Data quality and timing of the reporting were the most
discussed topics. Additionally, the significance of guidance was emphasised to improve the
quality of data and general efficiency of the reporting. Figure A2-4 summarises the major
themes that emerged.
Regarding renewed access to justice provisions from the OPC, business associations and
company/business organisations overall felt that the public access to justice functions very
well for industrial activities. The opposite view is held by all NGOs who typically believe
that public access to justice does not function well. A largely mixed view has been provided
by public authorities and EU citizens.
Business associations thought most strongly that public access to justice functions well with
respect to their right to bring a case before a court, or to ask for a judicial review in their
Member State, with around 90% of business association respondents stating that this was
functioning very well. A similar level of functioning was stated with respect to all public
access to justice elements covered in the OPC, at a slightly lower level for individual
enterprise respondents (75%) stating that it was functioning very well.
Environmental NGOs thought this access was functioning very poorly; 82% of environmental
NGO respondents thought that it was functioning very poorly for both public access to justice
in my Member State and public access to justice at the EU level. 93% of environmental
NGOs who expressed an opinion also felt public access to justice was functioning very
poorly for other related elements. A very similar level of responses was also provided by civil
society NGOs, with a clear view that public access to justice was functioning very poorly
across the OPC scenarios.
Public authorities and EU citizens however provided a very mixed view, with no discernible
clear stance for either stakeholder group as to how public access to justice was functioning.
86
Figure A2-4: Themes in problem area 4
Respondents in all E-PRTR stakeholder groups observed that there were issues with the
quality of the reported data, which further elaboration of the automated QA systems could
help improve.
There was a discussion regarding the possibility to reduce reporting times (E-PRTR
measures#47a and #47b). There were two alternatives: reduced reporting times of 3 months
for either ALL facilities (E-PRTR #47a) or SOME facilities (E-PRTR #47b) facilities.
Feedback from across the range of stakeholders stated that neither of these accelerated
reporting schedules would be possible to implement, and that they would lead to the risk of a
decrease in data quality, whilst also causing an increase in reporting costs and administrative
burden in general. These two measures were screened out (see Annex 13).
e. PO1: Clarifying and simplifying existing legal requirements
Stakeholders are largely in favour of amending the legislation to clarify the scope of
coverage of the IED pertaining to gasification, liquefaction, and pyrolysis plants
(IED#14). Industry stakeholders commented on the ambiguity resulting from Article 42(1)
(including that it has blocked the introduction of waste co-gasification solutions to the EU
market for over a decade) and the classification of waste, and the need for improvements to
Article 42 around the natural gas comparison and end of waste criteria methodology. A
Member State authority also considers the natural gas comparison test to be subject to
interpretation.
The majority of industry stakeholders (60%) and Member State authority respondents
(93%) indicate that the harmonisation of averaging periods that would occur from new
Chapter II rules taking precedence over other compliance assessment provisions
(IED#16) would be very helpful or slightly helpful. This is primarily because these
stakeholders expect a reduction in administrative burden from avoiding compliance
assessment for multiple rules (averaging periods), with almost all stakeholders indicating
there would be little to no environmental impacts of the change.
One industry stakeholder representing the electricity industry has an opposing viewpoint,
stating that while the power sector has been advocating for aligned averaging periods, it has
now been four years since the publishing of the LCP BATC and, as such, competent
authorities and operators have already devised ways to accommodate the discrepancies, so
any changes should be considered carefully.
Stakeholders did not generally provide opinions on whether they supported or opposed
the deletion of Annex II (IED#15). The majority of industry stakeholders (66%) indicate
that they primarily refer to the BAT Conclusions when reviewing and setting permit
conditions, i.e., that Annex II of the IED “List of polluting substances” is not a primary
reference when they consider permit conditions. However, 42% did indicate they refer to
Annex II at least to some extent.
87
3. STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON POLICY OPTIONS SUPPORTING INNOVATION (PO2-A TO C)
PO2-a (Facilitate the development and testing of emerging techniques): Industrial
federations and operators (for example, FuelsEurope) support these measures as they
introduce wider flexibilities and impose no additional requirements on IED operators.
Technology suppliers (such as Accessa) believe that this measure will not deliver any
significant change in the use of innovative techniques or technologies for emission
reductions. Suppliers believe that these exemptions (more months without AEL
requirements) are not key drivers of investment decision-making by IED operators and their
parent companies.
Member States and other public authorities were not explicitly in favour or against this policy
option. In a focus group, Spain’s IED focal point requested European guidelines on how to
justify and allow these derogations to ensure a level playing field.
PO2-b (Establish shorter BREF cycles OR an INCITE: Most stakeholders’ comments
state a relatively neutral position and explain that the feasibility and efficiency of these
measures will depend on the specific features and how they are implemented. For example,
German representatives stated that “if we establish the Innovation Observatory [read
INCITE] it is key to institutionalise it within the IED. It should be mentioned in the expanded
Article 13 where its mandate, role and procedures are clarified.” Concawe, initially
unsupportive, requested in a second workshop that shorter BREF cycles only applied to new
plants. The Copper Federation (in the workshop) and the Iron and Steel Federation (in the
focus group) shared the same concern, as well as being concerned about the large amount of
resources that would be necessary to implement these measures effectively (“How will it be
secured that the EIPPCB and Member State experts have sufficient time and resources to
conduct these reviews at an increased rate, and with an increasing number of elements to be
taken into account? The in-depth technical exchange to develop BREFs was highlighted
during the review as a key pillar of IED success, and this should not be compromised.”).
Eurofer and Euroelectric stated in the focus group that the evidence to underpin INCITE
documents might be based on a few data points or it may not be reliable if it is based on pilot
plants (or low TRL assets). German representatives said in the second workshop that public
authorities do not have resources to review (many) permits every five years and this could
also generate negative impacts on private companies.
Certain MS focal points stated that INCITE could provide support (analysing, summarising
or validating evidence) on emerging or novel techniques.
Table A2-4: Stakeholder views on PO2-b
PO2-b Supportive Unsupportive Neutral
IED#19:
shorter BREF
cycles
No (explicit)
positive feedback
provided from any
stakeholder
Industry had requested a clearer
statement on whether this would apply
to major retrofits; also expressed
concern it may generate negative
impact on investment cycles.
During FG event on
innovation MSs focal
points had (implicit)
neutral position.
IED#20:
INCITE
MS have been
supportive
explaining that
information might
be useful for the
Industry has requested that INCITE
does not deliver legally binding
decisions or deliverables (so those
remain in the TWG).
Concerns that data to support INCITE
Certain requests on
detailed implementation
decision to ensure that it is
efficient.
88
PO2-b Supportive Unsupportive Neutral
BREF reviews and
for public
authorities
deliverables might be weak or based on
few data points.
PO2-c (Supporting transformation): Industrial operators (such as Concawe or Eurofer)
were generally in favour of more time to implement BAT conclusions during energy
transformation because this imposes no additional requirement and adds flexibilities.
The industrial operator, Eurofer, was neutral about these measures; they reiterated that
sectoral transformation will take a long time, and that the IED is not the best tool to support
the sector. During the second workshop, some stakeholders asked for clarity on the sectors
that are planned to be covered by this measure.
German representatives suggested that transformation plans should be required as early as
possible: “2035 [the original deadline for the permit review obligation] is not a little too late.
It is much too late to come up with a plan for decarbonisation. The time is mature already
now to start working on this. This decarbonisation plan needs flexibility for amendments but
should show a serious consideration and assessment of options and planned investments. The
plan will be a moving target since the future cannot be predicted. Work should start at the
latest when the new IED will be transposed into national legislation, i.e., in the course of the
year 2027”.
Table A2-5: Stakeholder views on PO2-c
PO2-c Supportive Unsupportive Neutral
IED#21: Allow more
time to implement BAT-
C if transformation
required
Industrial operators in
favour of this measure
since it recognises the
complexity of plant
retrofits.
No negative feedback
for this option
Certain federations stated
that this transformation may
take longer than 10 years
and IED might not have
large impact.
IED#22: establish a
permit review obligation
and require
transformation plans
No explicit supportive
feedback
Member state suggesting
that this may be needed
earlier than 2035
-
4. STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON POLICY OPTIONS CONCERNING RESOURCES AND CHEMICALS
(PO3-A TO G)
Overall, environmental NGOs were in favour of the measures proposed in this policy option.
They responded positively on the expected benefits and environmental impacts of the
measures. For example, environmental NGOs strongly urge for more elaborate and
harmonized reporting of information on resource efficiency, circular economy and the use
and management of chemicals (PO3-b); for increased public access to such information; and
for binding levels or benchmarks for such environmental issues (PO3-a). There are concerns
that the continuous improvement requirement of environmental management systems, and
their sections for resource efficiency and circular economy plans and chemical management
systems, is too vague, and environmental impacts should therefore be bound in some way.
On the contrary, industry was generally not in favour of the policy measures and options
concerning IED addressing this problem area, indicating that the expected environmental
89
benefits are small, while associated administrative and compliance costs would be significant.
There are a number of concerns on the proposed measures, such as that:
 mandatory reporting of resource efficiency and circular economy reporting could
come into conflict with Confidential Business Information protection (PO3-b);
 binding BAT-AEPLs could conflict cross-media considerations for some pollutant
emissions (PO3-a); and
 binding BAT-AEPLs may not sufficiently take into account differences in process or
product characteristics and, as a result, limit potential innovation and development of
products or processes in the future (PO3-a).
With regard to the Chemical Management Systems (CMS) component (PO3-b), industry
stakeholders voiced concerns about the potential overlap with REACH and suggested that
better implementation of REACH could be a more important focus rather than additional
requirements under IED. This position was countered by NGO representatives, who
suggested that a CMS was not an expansion of requirements, but was rather a strengthening
of coherence between REACH and IED policy instruments. Further, if CMS becomes a
requirement, some representatives from industry sectors associated with wastewater and
waste generally commented that it would be useful that the CMS would not only record
chemicals that are intentionally used, but also reactants/by-products, as these represent a
significant challenge for waste sectors to manage.
Public authorities, both national and local/regional, provided a more mixed response to the
proposed policy measures and options that concern IED. While expectations on
administrative costs were comparable with those of industry, the expected impact of the
measures was more positive. For example, some public authority representatives expressed
their preference for a resource efficiency and circular economy plan, which could be linked to
reporting requirements and BREF benchmarks, rather than making BAT-AEPLs binding in
the same manner as BAT-AELs (PO3-a). This confirmed or echoed some of the concerns
mentioned by industry. Some of these public authorities were also in favour of more
elaborate reporting of resource efficiency and circular economy information. Others,
however, were more in favour of binding BAT-AEPLs wherever appropriate (PO3-a), whilst
it was recognized by some that derogation conditions, such as those of BAT-AELs, could
result disproportionately burdensome in the case of BAT-AEPLs. Public authorities also
highlighted that requirements for a chemical management plan had already been discussed
and added to some BREFs (most notably the textiles BREF), and that a tailored or sector-by-
sector approach may be needed to focus or adapt to the issues that are relevant for each sector
and avoid undue administrative burden (PO3-b).
In the E-PRTR consultations, most comments related to contextual information requirements
and the role of E-PRTR as a tool for tracking the progress towards the circular economy.
Figure A2-5 summarises the major topics that emerged in the discussions.
Figure A2-5: Themes in problem area 3
90
Both industry and public authorities were mainly negative about the requirement to report E-
PRTR contextual information. Respondents argued that reporting contextual information will
require a lot of effort and will become a burden e.g., “It is difficult to precisely assess the
additional time that our operators would spend on reporting this information, but clearly this
would be significant. We have not been able to quantify precisely what this additional time
would be. It is a very demanding exercise. They are asking for very detailed information, on
energy and so on.”
Additionally, industry pointed out that contextual information will not serve its purpose to
inform the public because its interpretation requires specialised knowledge e.g., “There are
also issues surrounding this information being used to compare facilities which are not
comparable due to differences in processes, production volumes etc. For the chemicals
industry every process is unique and the provision of contextual data to make it seem like
they are comparable would lead to inaccurate conclusions being drawn by end users.”
Industry also highlighted that contextual information could disclose specific business details
that are confidential and publicizing such information might affect competition law,
However, there were two positive responses about including contextual information,
highlighting that it could be beneficial, while recognising possible pressure from the industry
e.g. “Yes, there is always resistance from the industry. There should a balance between the
desire of industry and that of the public. Definitions are really important; they need to be
very consistent.”
Most respondents did not see E-PRTR as a tool for tracking the progress on resource use and
suggested that it should be implemented by a different legislative tool e.g., “We would
encourage the use of other monitoring ideas for measuring progress towards the circular
economy but do not see the E-PRTR as a tool to do this. Emissions are not linked to the
circular economy.”
5. STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON POLICY OPTIONS CONTRIBUTING TO DECARBONISATION OF
INDUSTRY (PO4-A TO D)
Environmental NGOs consider that a revision of the IED has the potential to translate
international and EU climate targets into legal obligations. NGOs have launched a petition on
this matter20
. Currently, the IED does not systematically address climate protection, which
needs to be added explicitly. They support the inclusion of scientifically based GHG emission
limit values under the scope of the IED and the introduction of mandatory energy efficiency
requirements. Accordingly, the current exclusion provisions in Article 9(1) and Article 9(2)
of the IED must be deleted.
NGOs note that there is no duplication of regulation between the IED and the EU ETS and
believe that dedicated decarbonisation and GHG mitigation provisions for the energy
intensive industries should be set as target level BAT. This could foresee differentiated
compliance periods, depending on the scale of effort to be made by industry in terms of deep
process switching.
Member States authorities agree that the BREF process should be more flexible and sectoral
plans (and for one Member State installation specific plans) with reduction targets could be
developed.
20
https://caneurope.org/eu-industrial-pollution-law-revision-essential-to-cut-greenhouse-gases-and-
pollutants/
91
Member State authorities would generally maintain the provisions in Articles 9(1) and 9(2),
as voluntary energy efficiency agreements are in place and distortions of competition
between sites covered by ETS and others could occur. GHG BAT-AELs under the IED
would bring limited additional contribution in terms of carbon neutrality and an issue of
double regulation could result in terms of compliance obligations. In addition, due to the
ongoing revision of EU ETS there are uncertainties in estimating the future added value by
IED for emissions covered by ETS. However, at least one Member State considered that the
IED could take a more active role in decarbonisation.
Industry representatives agreed that a fair balance between pollution reduction and energy
usage for abatement is needed. However, they consider that potential additional measures
within the IED to accelerate direct and indirect GHG emission reductions from plants could
hinder the effective functioning of the EU ETS, jeopardising its success and efficiency.
Furthermore, industry considers that the IED should avoid covering GHG emissions and
energy efficiency where these are already covered by the EU ETS, as the IED is not suitable
for regulating them. GHG emissions of IED activities which are not covered by the ETS
Directive can already be addressed in the frame of the IED through the BREF (e.g., methane
slip values in the LCP BREF). The current system efficiently avoids any overlaps between
the two pieces of legislation while ensuring that pollutants can be regulated and reduced by
either of them.
Industry emphasised that deleting the provisions under Article 9 of the IED would create
uncertainties related to the investment framework and cancel the benefits brought by a
market-based instrument for plants covered by the EU ETS, leaving the choice for operators
to make the most cost-efficient investments. In addition, this could also have adverse effects
on the carbon price signal delivered through the EU ETS. Furthermore, industry feedback
indicated that by setting a constraint on GHG emissions at the level of each unit, instead of at
the installation level, the IED would leave no flexibility to operators to optimize abatement
options through a cost-efficient approach, making the industry less competitive. In addition,
the inclusion of GHG conditions in BREFs for installations outside the scope of EU ETS
would probably lead to slight environmental impacts, since those small installations are not
the main contributors to GHG emissions.
In the E-PRTR consultations, there was little discussion about the role of E-PRTR for
tracking the progress in decarbonisation but neither were there negative reactions. On the
reporting of disaggregated HFCs, HCFCs, CFCs and PFCs, a significant part of two
stakeholder groups – researchers, NGOs, public and authorities – noted that this was
important, whereas only a small share of industry representatives also considered it to be
important.
6. STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON POLICY OPTIONS CONCERNING SECTORAL SCOPE (PO5-A TO I)
Stakeholder input is summarised at the level of the sub-options below. In addition, much
factual input was provided by stakeholders, via the overall consultation process, and two
specific consultations and studies performed: (i) to inform PO5-a considerations; and (ii) to
inform considerations regarding PO5-b to PO5-f . This factual input has been extensively
used in the sections considering IED and E-PRTR scope extension in Annex 8, pp. 184 et
seq.
a. PO5-a: rearing of animals (cattle farming, expand IRPP AND a tailored
permitting process for the rearing of animals)
NGOs are generally in favour of expanding the scope of the IED as proposed, and they
are also critical of the effectiveness of existing regulation. As an example, one NGO points
92
out that the IED approach of using thresholds can lead to avoidance of regulation by placing
farm sizes just below the threshold. NGOs also criticise the existing level of ambition of the
IRPP BAT conclusions. This criticism was also echoed by some Member State authorities
during focus group discussions, who mentioned that the IRPP BATC upper BAT-AELs
rarely go beyond the existing national requirements.
Several Member States are also in favour of inclusion of cattle farming within the IED.
For example, the German Environment Agency (UBA) has provided evidence highlighting
the potential positive benefit-cost ratio of including cattle farming within the IED, already
established in 2012, and provided details on environmental benefits that can be obtained from
the implementation of these proposals. Albeit generally supportive of this policy option,
Member State stakeholders also have concerns over introducing excessive additional
administrative burden, and hence support a tailored approach to minimise burden that can
accommodate those Member States already regulating smaller farms.
Further, several notes were made on the overall effectiveness of this without a “regulatory
framework for the sector”. This is noted because SMEs in particular are faced with increasing
administrative burden via having to respond to the demands of various different EU
Regulations and Directives. The tailored approach could be seen as a way to answer this, at
least partially. An example is provided in that the IED is important on IRPP for its BAT on
land spreading of manure, from which the Nitrates directive can benefit. Having more
integration between the two directives is seen as key.
On the lowering of IRPP thresholds, a business association campaign (6 stakeholders)
provided feedback on details of the existing IED regulation that they do not feel are effective,
with a large focus on the reporting and monitoring measures (i.e., which could be addressed
through the tailored approach). The level of feedback on IRPP scope expansion was not as
detailed as on the scope extension to cattle farming, with two main points: the opinion that it
is too soon to do an evaluation and update, given the 2017 publication of IRPP BATC, and
repeated concerns about administrative costs.
A Member State also opposed this based on it leading to additional farms being covered
under the IED, via the argument that these farms were already covered under national
legislation.
On the tailored approach to permitting, overall Member States are in favour, largely based
on argumentation that there is a lot of other potentially overlapping regulation and that this is
an approach that could help avoid unnecessary additional administrative burden. Various
specific points of feedback were given by Member States and Industry on elements of the
current IRPP BATC and permitting approaches. Among NGOs, the main message was that
the EC should ensure that environmental protection standards are not compromised in favour
of efficiency.
Industry stakeholders have mixed views about this policy option, not wholly in favour
or against. Some industry representatives highlight the continued problem of excess manure
production and would implicitly support measures that helped to resolve this issue. Other
industry (associations) make overt statements against further regulation (both extension and
expansion), with the opinion that there already is enough environmental regulation on the
sector.
On the extension to cattle farming, Business Associations are generally unsupportive of
expansion of the IED into cattle or could support a “limited expansion”, while they highlight
issues that they see with the current implementation of the IRPP BREF and associated
BATC. As an example, one association highlight that the cattle sector is already subject to
93
other EU regulations and, therefore, do not support this expansion to avoid regulatory
overlaps or duplication. Another business association also highlighted the existing regulations
and the need to avoid overlap, although they were not explicitly in favour or against. On the
other hand, individual company respondents tended to be supportive of the inclusion of cattle
farming within the IED, although these stakeholders did not include individual farm SMEs.
In a different context, drinking water companies and water authorities also regularly express
their concerns about the continuous increase of water treatment costs, notably related to
emissions to water from rearing of livestock, e.g. in relation to nitrate and pesticide removal
from surface and groundwater.
Table A2-6: Stakeholder views on PO5-a
PO5-a Supportive Unsupportive Neutral
IED#31 Include cattle
rearing
Business case made by
some MS authorities to
include cattle farming.
Strong support from
NGOs across the board.
Implied support from
some businesses who
highlight the extent of
remaining manure issues.
Explicit feedback
provided by industry
associations who state not
to be in favour of this
option, citing the
presence of existing EU
and national regulations.
FG participants (MS
representatives) had
implicit neutral positions,
as opportunity was given
for vocal opposition.
IED#32 Amend capacity
thresholds for rearing of
pigs and poultry
Support from NGOs for
all measures on the basis
of observing that the
IRPP sector emissions are
still very high. One
Member State also
expressed explicit support
for lowering the IED
thresholds.
Two Member States did
not support this measure,
citing concerns on
administrative cost and
competitiveness of
industry.
Most Member State
Authorities did not
express explicit support
or opposition. Some
acknowledged the need,
but observed current
IRPP BREF ambition
levels may be too easy to
meet. Thus, it does not
capture all potential
environmental benefits
that could be made at
reasonable cost.
IED#33 Introduce a
tailored regulatory
framework for
installations carrying out
rearing of animals
Member States are
generally supportive of
this measure. Almost all
Member States that
participated in the Focus
Group highlighted that
there is existing
regulation and that the
IED should avoid
overlap.
Questions on this topic
were often used to repeat
the point of being against
scope
extensions/expansions,
and little specific
feedback was provided on
the tailored approach by
industry.
NGOs generally
emphasised that the
tailored approach should
not result in lower
environmental protection
standards.
b. PO5-b: Extension of current sectoral scope in battery production, smitheries,
textiles, forging presses, cold rolling, wiredrawing, AND shipbuilding and
ship-dismantling.
Environmental NGOs appear generally supportive of expanding the scope of the IED to
cover the sectors within this option. They consider the environmental pressures arising from
the sectors that would be covered by this policy option to be significant. Further, they
94
consider the potential for reduction of these pressures were the policy option to be
implemented as moderate to significant.
Industry respondents, however, are generally not convinced that the IED could benefit
these sectors. They nevertheless generally identify the environmental pressures arising from
the sectors under this policy option as being slight to moderate. They also consider the
potential for reduction of these pressures if the option were implemented as slight to
moderate. In addition, industry notes impacts for each of the measures on EU
competitiveness, EU market share and on trade with third countries.
Member state respondents have more neutral views. Their estimates of environmental
pressures and scope for reduction if the policy option were implemented tend to be similar to,
though slightly higher than, the estimates from industry. These respondents generally indicate
that there is some legislative basis for these sectors in their Member State and, in around 50%
of cases, there are also financial instruments and voluntary measures.
Table A2-6: Stakeholder views on PO5-b
PO5-b Supportive Unsupportive Neutral
IED#34 Include battery
production
Environmental NGOs
anticipate a significant
reduction in most
environmental pressures
if IED provisions are
applied.
One MS authority
supports including
lithium-ion battery
production, sorting and
recycling plants in IED.
Industry stakeholders
generally suggest that
reductions in
environmental pressures
if IED is applied will be
slight to moderate.
National MS authorities
anticipate slight to
moderate reductions in
most environmental
pressures if IED
provisions are applied.
IED#36 Include forging
presses, cold rolling, with
capacity exceeding 10 t/h,
and wiredrawing, with
capacity exceeding 2 t/h
Environmental NGOs
anticipate a significant
reduction in many
environmental pressures
if IED provisions are
applied.
One MS authority
explicitly supports
inclusion of cold rolling
with capacity exceeding
10t/h.
Industry stakeholders
generally suggest that
reductions in many
environmental pressures
if IED is applied will be
no impact to slight.
However, they also
anticipate moderate to
significant impacts for
energy use,
resource/material use and
water use.
National MS authorities
anticipate slight to
moderate reductions in
most environmental
pressures if IED
provisions are applied.
It is also queried whether
cold rolling and wire
drawing are already
covered by the Ferrous
Metals Processing BREF.
IED#37 Include finishing
activities with the
existing capacity
thresholds in activity 6.2
(pre-treatment or dyeing
of textile fibres or
textiles)
Environmental NGOs
indicate moderate to
significant environmental
pressures from textile
activities below current
IED production capacity
thresholds. Some mention
that microplastics could
be covered.
One national MS
authority suggests that
printing and finishing be
included.
Industry stakeholders
generally suggest that
environmental pressures
from textile activities
below current IED
production capacity
thresholds are slight to
moderate.
National MS authorities
anticipate slight to
moderate reductions in
most environmental
pressures if IED
provisions are extended.
One national authority
opposes lowering the
threshold, as this would
significantly increase
administrative burden for
industry.
95
PO5-b Supportive Unsupportive Neutral
IED#38 Include
smitheries of 20 kilojoule
per hammer with no
threshold for the calorific
power or reduce the
capacity threshold for the
calorific value to > 5 MW
in activity 2.3(b) (from
the current limit of 50
kilojoule per hammer and
where the calorific power
used exceeds 20 MW)
Environmental NGOs
indicate significant
energy and waste
generation environmental
pressures from smitheries
below current IED
production capacity
thresholds.
Industry stakeholders
generally suggest that
environmental pressures
from smitheries below
current IED production
capacity thresholds are of
no impact to slight
impact.
One national MS
authority suggested no
change as lowering the
threshold would reduce
competitiveness of
companies concerned.
National MS authorities
generally indicate slight
to moderate
environmental pressures
from smitheries below
current IED thresholds.
One national MS
authority, noting that few
smitheries currently fall
under IED, suggests
retaining the current limit
of 50kJ per hammer but
removing the requirement
on calorific power.
c. PO5-c: Revision of the activity’s capacity threshold AND/OR adoption of
BAT conclusions for landfills
NGOs (environmental and non-environmental) and civil society stakeholders endorse
this policy option. In particular, NGO stakeholders consider that landfills should be covered
by the IED and the associated BREFs process.
Member State and other public authorities have mixed views about these policy option.
Firstly, most public authorities disagree that the threshold for inclusion within the scope of
the IED should be reduced. Smaller landfills than the threshold are not considered viable, and
they are already set so low that they are exceeded by a large majority of landfills that meet
the requirements of the Landfill Directive (in conjunction with Council Decision
2003/33/European Commission). Further, just over half the Member State authorities
consulted disagree that that BAT determination of Annex I activity 5.4 landfills should be
done by adopting BAT conclusions.
However, the rest considers that moving the definition of BAT for landfills from the Landfill
Directive to the IED could have improved environmental impacts. Moreover, they noted that,
from a circular economy perspective, there could be economic gains due to reduced pollution
and better use of resources, and considering administrative costs, if IED WT plants are
operated by the same operator as the landfill sites (e.g., Sweden), many landfill operators
already have knowledge of IED BREFs and BAT Conclusions, which could reduce the
administrative burden.
Some authority stakeholders also mentioned that there are only a few existing landfills in
operation so impacts would be insignificant (e.g., Finland), and that these landfills are
currently regulated effectively, e.g., by the Landfill Directive 1999/31/European Commission
in conjunction with Council Decision 2003/33/European Commission on waste acceptance.
Industry stakeholders are not generally supportive of this policy option. They consider
that as landfills are regulated with permits, monitoring, etc., as part of the Landfill Directive,
it does not need to be included within the IED. This includes respondents specifically from
the chemicals sector. In particular, stakeholders are concerned about duplication and
inefficiency and consider that moving the definition of BAT for landfills from the Landfill
Directive to the IED would have negative economic impacts, increase administrative costs
and technical requirements, and would not necessarily result in significant improvement of
emissions when compared to the counterfactual.
96
The Landfill Directive is already regarded as being sufficiently detailed in prescribing
techniques for landfills. Therefore, these stakeholders consider that it would be more
effective to review and update the existing legislation instead of introducing additional and
overlapping legislation via the IED. In fact, some stakeholders suggested deleting activity 5.4
from Annex I of the IED in order to avoid double regulation. One industry stakeholder,
representing material recycling for energy production (waste incineration), supported the
extension of the IED to landfills and methane emissions.
Table A2-7: Stakeholder views on PO5-c
PO5c Supportive Unsupportive Neutral
IED#39 Facilitate the
adoption of BAT
conclusions for activity
5.4 landfills
All NGOs in favour.
78% of local/regional
authorities consulted
support this, and 47% of
national authorities.
53% of national authorities
consulted disagree.
Industry stakeholders not in
agreement.
Public
authorities have
mixed views
IED#40 Revise the
capacity threshold in
Annex I for activity 5.4
landfills
- Most Member State authorities
believe the threshold should stay
the same. They are already set so
low that they are exceeded by a
large majority of landfills, and
smaller landfills than the
threshold are not viable.
-
d. PO5-d: Mining and quarrying
Environmental NGOs support inclusion of mining and quarrying under the IED. Their
main focus is on mining of energy sources, particularly coal and lignite, where control under
IED is seen as a manner of phasing out these energy sources on sustainability grounds. Some
focus particular attention to control of methane and of water use. However, some
stakeholders have suggested that there is a need to ensure control of mining activities related
to essential services, i.e., those mining and quarrying activities that will feed into the zero-
pollution ambition of the EU, focusing on renewable energy sources and electrification in
general.
Member States authority stakeholders noted that the application of the IED to mining
and quarrying activities would have the largest environmental impact of all potential
new activities considered for the expansion of the IED’s scope. These stakeholders also
confirm the existence of current European and national legislation regulating the sector, and
the expectation that adopting the IED would lead to an increase in regulatory burden. One
Member State representative was unsupportive of this option because of the existing
legislation at European and national level.
Industry representatives consider that mining and quarrying activities are already
legislated (EIA, Extractive Wastes, Rehabilitation and specific national permitting processes)
and the inclusion of this sector in the IED would primarily increase the regulatory burden
with limited additional benefit. In addition, industry stakeholders note the heterogeneity of
mining and quarrying facilities and, hence, the potential difficulty in applying commonly
applicable BAT. Consequently, industry stakeholders consider that the introduction of IED
permitting would primarily drive additional and potentially duplicative burden that would
harm competitiveness without a significant net improvement to the environment.
97
e. PO5-e: Aquaculture
Environmental NGOs support the inclusion of aquaculture under the IED. Their main
points focus on the emissions from aquaculture farms, specifically to water and soil
depending on their location as well as GHG emissions and emissions from energy use, where
the IED would provide definitive emissions limits and an EU-wide integrated licensing
framework to support more consistent environmental regulations. Some NGOs focus on
supporting the facilitation of sustainable development within the sector and contributing to
the delivery of the ‘Farm to Fork’ Strategy.
Member State stakeholder representatives also appear supportive of the inclusion of
aquaculture within the scope of the IED. In particular, authority representatives note that
setting permit conditions could have a positive impact on the environment, particularly for
emissions to water, energy use, materials and resource use, and waste generation. They also
consider that this could happen with little to no impact on the administrative burdens of
business and other economic costs. However, the evidence provided does suggest that the
existing legislation regulating aquaculture in some Member States (namely the highest
producers in the EU) is already burdensome for businesses and may affect the EU’s
competitiveness.
Industry representatives argue that, while they recognise the environmental impacts,
the inclusion of aquaculture in the IED would create multiple layers of regulation and
bureaucracy on top of existing legislation (Water Framework Directive, MSFD, etc.). They
state that this would increase administrative costs for businesses and could introduce barriers
and/or disruptive for producers. Thus, industry stakeholders consider that the inclusion of
aquaculture in the scope of IED would result in economic costs that are unlikely to lead to
significant, additional environmental improvements.
f. PO5-f: Upstream oil and gas
In general, stakeholders regarded upstream oil and gas as a significant contributor to
emissions to air, water and soil, as well as GHG emissions. This is also the case for energy
use, water use and waste generation. Stakeholders additionally expected, with high
probability, that the introduction of IED provisions could significantly improve these
environmental impacts of the sector.
Some Member State stakeholders note that they already regulate the sector nationally.
There is, therefore, some variation in how the sector is regulated across Member States.
However, it appears that regulation mostly relates to the exploration and opening of new sites
and does not include environmental inspections or prescription of BAT for environmental
performance.
Industry stakeholders are, in general, unsupportive of expanding the IED to cover
upstream oil and gas, especially as they expect that this would lead to significant increases in
regulatory burden, reductions in EU competitiveness and EU’s market share.
g. PO5-g: Align E-PRTR scope to IED activity descriptions
E-PRTR respondents mostly commented on activities that should be included in, or excluded
from, the E-PRTR Regulation. There were no contradictory opinions in different groups of
the respondents (public authorities, NGOs and industry) in this problem area. Figure A2-6
summarises the major themes that emerged in the discussion.
98
Figure A2-6: Themes in problem area 1
Some respondents provided general criteria that would prescribe what activities the E-PRTR
should cover. Criteria for inclusion mostly addressed the scale of activities. However, other
criteria, such as the scale of emissions, the presence of an activity in the Industrial Emissions
Directive (IED) were also covered, e.g. “If it’s in the IED, it should be included. If it’s not in
the IED, it shouldn’t be included.”
Respondents also named specific activities to be covered by the E-PRTR. These activities
included five areas – transport, agriculture, ship dismantling, battery technology, and mining
e.g. “With regards to cattle farms and fishing farms, we have proposed a revision of the IED
directive to include these two. If this happens, they should be maintained in the scope of the
E-PRTR regulation.”
h. PO5-h: Revise E-PRTR activity descriptions regarding MCPs and UWWTPs
Q23 of the TSS asked ‘How important is it to extend the E-PRTR activity threshold to cover
combustion plants with the following capacities?’ giving response options of 1 – 5 MW; >5 –
20 MW and >20 – 50 MW. The majority of the industry stakeholders thought it was not
important at all and noted that lower reporting thresholds would require a large number of
plants would have to report for the first time. This would require monitoring and reporting
systems to be installed and additional personnel due to higher workload and administrative
burden. Although the authority representatives considered a threshold extension to plants
with the capacity of 1-5 MW not important, the majority indicated that a threshold extension
to >5-20 MW and >20-50 MW plants was important. All respondents in researchers and
NGOs group considered it important for all capacities.
Question 24 of the TSS asked ‘For the purpose of legislative coherence, how important is it
to lower the existing threshold for UWWTP from 100,000 p.e. to the options below?’ and
giving response options of 1,000 p.e.; 2,000 p.e.; 5,000 p.e.; 10,000 p.e.; 50,000 p.e.; and
‘other’. Most industry respondents did not think it was important, whereas researchers and
NGOs considered it important for all options. The majority of authority representatives
thought that lowering the threshold was important for 10,000 and 50,000 p.e. plants, not as
important for 5,000 and 2,000 p.e. plants, and not at all important for 1,000 p.e. plants. There
was a suggestion to consider basing UWWTP reporting thresholds on actual wastewater load
to the plant rather than plant capacity. Lowering the threshold to 10,000 p.e. was considered
relevant by several authority stakeholders, especially for nitrogen and phosphorus. It was also
noted that, for coherence with the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) and for
practicability, both reporting obligations should be streamlined. Similarly, industry
stakeholders suggested aligning thresholds with the UWWTD. In addition, lowering of the
threshold to 10,000 p.e. was supported by some industry stakeholders.
99
PO5-i: Establish a dynamic system to identify and include emerging activities of
concern
For the E-PRTR, NGOs and authorities support the establishment of a more dynamic
instrument.
Whilst applying this option to the IED was only considered at a late stage of the impact
assessment process, and was therefore not subjected to consultation, stakeholders have
provided their views concerning the potential inclusion of a wide range of activities. Those
views vary across stakeholder groups, depending on the particular activity as referred to
above.
Part 4: Fit for Future Platform Opinion on the IED – received 6th
December 2021
The Fit for Future Platform (FFFP) Opinion on the IED was submitted to the European
Commission on 6.12.2021. It should be noted that the FFFP’s views were given separately to
the formal OPC, TSS and related Focus Group/ interviews consultations of the IED/ E-PRTR
Revision Impact Assessment consultation process per se.
Summary description of Fit for Future Platform Opinion – December 2021
Table A2-8 (below) gives a summary of the FFFP suggestions, in which the European
Environmental Bureau’s dissenting remarks within the Platform are shown, in parallel to the
Platform’s suggestions. Many of the suggestions of the Platform refer to might achieve a
“better implementation” of the IED, which fit in with some of the PO-1 “Effectiveness”
measures as described throughout the Impact Assessment.
Subsequently, Table A2-9 summarises possible follow-up actions per suggestion of the FFFP.
Table A2-8: Fit for Future Platform views
Summary of Fit for Future Platform Views European Environmental Bureau dissenting
responses
Introductory text regarding IED
Stated that the IED comprises five important pillars:
1. Integrated approach
2. Use of BAT
3. Flexibility (of permits etc)
4. Inspections
5. Public participation
Disagree with the citing of “flexibility” as a key
pillar of the IED. The over-use and abuse of
“flexibility” in permit conditions and derogations
from BAT requires Competent Authorities
administrative burden with respect to the time need
for interpreting the situations and excess
evaluations.
Suggestion 1 – Duration of permit process
a) Increase effectiveness and speed re.
provision of permits with regard to initial
permits, and their updates/ revision.
b) Link IMPEL to this process.
To be achieved by assessing the practices of the EU-
27 Member States, to engender and spread best
practices.
100
Summary of Fit for Future Platform Views European Environmental Bureau dissenting
responses
Suggestion 2 – Duration of BREF process
Suggest, to accelerate and improve the BREF
process:
a) A more systematic methodology to achieve
BAT-conclusions
b) A stronger focus on main issues
c) Resolving the Confidential Business
Information (“CBI”) issues during BAT
determination.
Suggestion 3 – Digitalisation recommendations
Inter alia:
a) Implement unified coding of IED permits.
 Thus to facilitate ready readability of
permits, authorisations and controls for
Member States’ Competent
Authorities.
 Also to enable easier cross-
comparisons across Member States.
Assess feasibility and applicability of continuous
consumption and emissions monitoring to
installations other than the energy sector.
Suggestion 4 – Monitoring provisions
a) To be clarified better in BAT-conclusions
Allege that some monitoring is not clear, and is an
unnecessary excess burden for operators with regard
to achieving/ checking BAT use.
 Disagree with the validity of the criticism.
If greater guidance is needed, it should be to more
closely align monitoring with the “polluter-pays-
principle”.
Suggestion 5: Baseline Reports–Groundwater and
Soil
a) Suggest further guidance is necessary re.
Art. 22 IED (site closure), also with regard
to Baseline Reports.
 Such Baseline Reports have been required since
2010, and guidance was issued in 2014.
Content of the Baseline Reports should rather be
made more publicly accessible, e.g., via the EEA
Industrial Emissions Portal Vers. 2.0.
Suggestion 6 (noted as “5” in the Opinion) –
Avoiding overlapping requirements
Revise Annex I of the IED where there are activities
with more minor impacts that may be directly
associated, to avoid overlaps.
Instead, it would be better to focus on include
internalisation of external costs, including
climate debt.
Suggestion 7 (noted as “6” in the Opinion) –
Functioning of BREF process
a) Utilise systematic BREF guidance
Avoid ‘disproportionate burden’ on operators.
Rejects notion of some data being requested that is
non-essential in compiling BREFs.
Suggestion 8 (noted as “7” in the Opinion) – Clarity
and Harmonisation [New “Revision”-type
suggestion rather than solely “better
implementation”]
a) Introduce concept of “single property” as
opposed to “installation”
b) Above concept to enable technical
assessments for “whole site” as opposed to
 Concept too complex, and could lead to a very
difficult attempted assessments of multiple risks,
causing delays to permit authorisations/ changes.
 “Site”-approach – suitable for Seveso-style risks
instead.
101
Summary of Fit for Future Platform Views European Environmental Bureau dissenting
responses
several “installations” (where applicable)
Revise definitions/ more thorough IED
implementation.
 Retain “installations” for IED.
 Harmonise, instead:
o Article 15.4 derogation practices
o Compliance assessment (uncertainty
measurement methods)
Significance thresholds for breach situations and
findings of inspections.
Description/ “Global Dimension”
a) Recommend a study overall of costs-
benefits of implementing BREFs in sectors.
This to be used to enable benchmarking of the
performance of EU industry sectors with that of
non-EU competitors.
Rather, modify the IED to enable industry sectors’
decarbonisation commitments to be achieved
and monitored.
Potential follow-up of the 2021 FFF platform opinion on IED
Table A2-9 summarises possible follow-up suggestions in response to the Fit for Future
Platform’s adopted opinion regarding how to improve the Industrial Emissions Directive and
its implementation.
Table A2-9: Fit for Future Platform suggestions, with indicative possible follow-up actions by
the European Commission and other actors
FFFP suggestion Possible follow up
Suggestion 1: Duration
of the permit process
This is considered under the baseline, as part of the European Commission’s
ongoping implementation and compliance support activities, in particular by
facilitating the exchange between Member States of good practices to promote a
swift revision of permits.
Suggestion 2: Duration
of the BREF process
Post-revision of the IED, a review of the implementing act containing the guidance
on drawing up of the BAT ReFerence documents (BREF guidance) is likely. This
review would provide the opportunity to streamline and shorten the process as far
as possible.
Suggestion 3: Entering
the digital age for the
authorisation and control
phases
An EU-level common electronic permit is probably not feasible given the diversity
of national approaches. However, the IED revision includes the assesspment of a
requirement for a harmonised digital permit summary, for which the Commission
could establish a common format.
Suggestion 4:
Monitoring provisions
Improvement of the monitoring provisions included in BAT conclusions and
ensuring their consistent application could be discussed as part of the future
revision of the BREF guidance, post revision of the IED.
Suggestion 4: Baseline
reports on soil and
groundwater
(numbering error in the
FFF opinion)
Existing guidance for the Baseline reports is already in place, but there is a
Commission commitment to review the implementation of the provisions on the
soil baseline report as part of the Commission’s implementation and compliance
support activities. This review should ensure better compliance by the Member
States. It should be noted that the legal base underpinning the IED already allows
Member States to take stricter measures, such as requiring baseline reports in a
wider number of cases.
102
FFFP suggestion Possible follow up
Suggestion 5:
Overlapping
requirements
The problem may be due to the lack of BAT conclusions for some directly
associated activities in IED sectors, rather than the wording of Annex I that defines
the sectoral scope of the IED. This issue will be checked during future BREF
reviews.
Suggestion 6:
Functioning of the
BREF process
The continuous improvement of the BREF process includes revising data collection
and processing methods. In particular, the definition of key environmental
information (KEI) as well as the processing of confidential business information
(CBI) is the subject of agreements within each Technical Working Group
undertaking the revision of a BREF. As part of the IED revision, a provision
establishing clear legal rules on the processing of CBI is being considered.
Suggestion 7: Clarity
and harmonisation
This assertion is not consistent with the outcome of the IED evaluation and of
consultations undertaken as part of this impact assessment. On the contrary, the
IED’s approach to permitting individual facilities has been proven to be effective,
also regarding related provisions, such as defining ‘operators’ and the combination
of permits.
Description 8: Global
dimension
Both the IED evaluation and this impact assessment have examined
competitiveness aspects. No significant impacts have been identified. The EU’s
IED BAT approach is seen as best practice internationally; many third countries are
working towards adoption of similar approaches or standards at national level. In
support of such dynamics, BAT Conclusions have been posted on the web in all
UN languages. The Commission also funds OECD work to exchange good
practices on BAT, and publishes authoritative reports that showcase the EU
approach.
103
Annex 3: Who is affected and how?
INTRODUCTION
This annex sets out the practical implications of the preferred policy package for the various
types of stakeholders concerned. It describes the actions that the enterprise or public authority
might need to take in order to comply with the obligations under the revised legislation and
indicates the likely costs to be incurred in meeting those obligations, or where quantitative
information is not available the nature and magnitude of such costs. It also presents the
implications for the public.
1. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE
Businesses already falling under the scope of the IED and/or the E-PRTR
At entry into effect of the revised legislation (i.e. transposition date for IED and entry into
force date for the E-PRTR Regulation), installations will have to report in more detail on their
environmental performance and will face enhanced scrutiny from the competent authorities.
This includes more complete reporting to the E-PRTR at installation level rather than at
facility level and renewed attention and wider scope of the already required Environment
Management System (EMS) to better address resource efficiency and use of safer substances.
Furthermore, operators will have to make environmental information easily accessible to the
public on the Internet.
On the one hand, operators benefitting from IED derogations and flexibilities will have to
justify the need for their continuation. In particular:
 Installations releasing substances to the sewer will have to verify that the treatment plant
receiving their waters is able to appropriately handle those substances and that the load of
pollution exiting the treatment plant does not exceed the pollution load of an installation
which would have its own treatment plant. If this is not the case, operators will have to
install additional onsite abatement techniques in their own installations.
 Installations benefitting from derogations that are not limited in time will have to plan for
the end of such derogations, or justify the need for continuation to the satisfaction of the
competent authority.
On the other hand, frontrunners will be able to get sufficient time to test emerging techniques.
After publication of revised BAT Conclusions, installations will have to agree with the
competent authorities the Emissions Limit Value (ELV) - within the whole BAT-AEL range
– that truly reflects BAT performance for their particular installation. Operators will face new
requirements to reduce emissions of GHGs that do not fall under the ETS.
104
Frontrunners firmly committing to meet a ‘step change’ in lower emission levels via
deployment of emerging techniques instead of BAT will be given more time to comply with
revised BAT Conclusions.
To prepare the 2030 review of individual installations’ permits, operators of installations will
have to draw up and discuss with the competent authorities their Transformation Plan, which
entails an integrated consideration of future investments to optimise each installation’s
contribution to decarbonisation and zero pollution, in line with the 2050 objectives for each
aim.
The above concerns all installations except those active in rearing of pigs and poultry. The
latter will benefit from the new tailored permitting or registration regime that will focus on
key issues, and simpler reporting to E-PRTR, resulting in a significantly reduced
administrative burden. However, this depends on whether Member States decide to maintain
the full IED permit for those installations or to move to the proposed tailored approach.
Installations newly falling under IED
The IED will become applicable to activities newly brought under its scope when the
Commission adopts BAT Conclusions for individual activities. The Commission will
prioritise the drawing up of new BREFs, as well as the revision of existing BREFs, to cover
installations newly falling under the revised IED. This would result in adoption of relevant
BAT Conclusions between 2025 and 2030.
New installations permitted after their date of adoption will have to comply immediately with
the BAT Conclusions, which would concern most the high growth sectors like battery
manufacture for electric vehicles. Existing installations would have four years to comply, as
is currently the case, which would concern mainly contracting or slow growth sectors, such as
landfilling and textile finishing.
The cattle sector will face a new regulatory environment through the application of the IED
tailored permitting and registration approach, that includes less requirements than the full
IED permit. This will require operators to implement measures to meet emission levels
reflecting the use of BAT.
Competent authorities
Upon entry into effect of the new legislation, the competent authorities of the Member States
will have increased responsibilities in ensuring that the environmental performance of
installations reflects the application of BAT.
Increased responsibilities will be ongoing, as permits are considered and installations are
inspected. This includes a more rigorous examination of permits issued or reviewed to reflect
‘true BAT performance’ and to support sectoral front-runners. Additional responsibilities will
also comprise a strict assessment of the need for derogations, the requirement for enhanced
cooperation with authorities in charge of air and water quality, where an environmental
quality standard is at stake. Related additional activities will include stricter enforcement of
105
permits, and more systematic and deeper cooperation with the authorities of other Member
States, where installations have, or are suspected of having, significant transboundary
environmental impacts.
Key additional tasks include ensuring public participation in all permit reviews that have
significant environmental impacts; monitoring the continuous improvement of the
environmental performance of installations through their EMS, including the implementation
of energy efficiency measures reflecting requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive;
and reviewing permits to incorporate the operator’s Transformation Plan.
The public
The new legal provisions should not have any perceptible impact on the cost of consumables.
Hence, the public will only enjoy benefits, as the obligations under the IED and the E-PRTR
solely apply to businesses and public authorities, and aim at improving the quality of the
environment.
The public concerned will have more complete and easier access through the Internet to
information on the operation of IED installations, in particular through the publicly available
harmonised permit summary and environmental reporting by installations.
The public concerned will have the right to participate in all important permit review or
issuance procedures.
Other
Experts from Member States, industry and NGO involved in the BREF process, as well as the
Commission services, will have to devote increasing resources to cover in greater depth
certain issues than in the past. Such issues concern especially GHG emissions, material, water
and energy efficiency, water reuse and the use of safer chemicals.
New networks of experts will be set up to contribute to INCITE, which will also require
additional resourcing by the Commission services, as well as the resources of the concerned
experts who provide their input to the successful running of INCITE.
106
2. SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS
The following table provides the summary of costs and benefits per problem area for the options included in the preferred policy package.
I. Overview of direct and indirect Benefits and estimated costs (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option vs BAU
Businesses National Authorities Citizens and Consumers
More effective
legislation (PO1)
PO1 will improve the effectiveness of the IED and the E-PRTR Regulation by clarifying and simplifying the IED legislative framework;
improving public access to information, coherence with the broader EU legal framework and policy objectives, especially the European Green
Deal, zero-pollution ambition and the Aarhus Convention; and will level the playing field and raise standards of laggard Member States,
especially in environmental protection.
Direct benefits:
 The measures introduced on the E-PRTR will result in
administrative cost savings for reporting – in total by 10.2
million/year. This counterbalances the additional administrative
costs related to IED measures referred to below, resulting in
overall limited increase in administrative costs for businesses
under this option (2 million/year)
 Savings stemming from clarification and simplification in the
IED and the E-PRTR that could not be quantified
Indirect benefits:
 Improved level playing field primarily by homogenising and
clarifying the requirements that businesses should comply with
and expected enforcement practices
 Improved environmental performance could have operational
benefits in the medium to longer term, for example, through
increased energy efficiency
Direct benefits:
 Less duplication of effort, taking advantage of
synergies via greater cohesion with related
business and environmental ministries and
departments
Indirect benefits:
 Clarifying and simplifying existing legal
requirements will translate into reduced
administrative costs
Costs:
 Authorities will need marginally more
resources for bringing together and sharing
data and information
 Total administrative burden €19 million/year
Direct benefits:
 Improved quality of the environment via
lower levels of emissions to air, water and
soil
 Participation in permitting of installations
responsible for significant emission of
pollutants
Indirect benefits:
 Improving public access to information
will increase public leverage and ability
to influence the environmental
performance ambition
 The reduction in pollutant emissions
linked to use of safer chemicals will have
indirect benefits such as improving public
health and labour productivity, reducing
social and healthcare burden
 Illustrative calculations for health benefits
107
Costs:
 Installations will need to employ more resources due to an
increase in the frequency and/or depth and breadth required in
permit reconsiderations, derogations and exemptions. This will
constitute one off costs as they will materialise once per 10
years, corresponding to a yearly average of 12.4 million/year
 Operational costs may increase or will be brought forward,
primarily by introducing more stringent requirements and
limiting the duration and/or reducing the likelihood of approval
of derogations from implementing BAT Conclusions. This will
also affect CAPEX: illustrative estimations for five sectors
estimate CAPEX for reducing NOx emissions to represent €210
million/year
from reductions of NOx emissions in five
sectors estimate this to represent at least
between €860 million and €2 800
million/year
Accelerating
innovation (PO2)
PO2 is expected to introduce incentives for operators to develop, test and deploy more innovative technologies in a context of rapid
technological advancement and a need for deep industrial transformation in sectors regulated by the IED. The scale of impact of this measure
would depend on the take-up and the findings of INCITE.
Businesses National Authorities Citizens and Consumers
Direct benefits:
 Streamlined investment to develop and test innovative
techniques and technologies
 Effective and efficient intervention in updating BREFs through
the INCITE’s monitoring
Indirect benefits:
 Putting the EU’s industry in the front-foot of transformation,
potentially gaining first-mover advantage and exporting
acquired know-how or innovative techniques
Costs:
Direct benefits: NA
Indirect benefits: NA
Costs:
 Administrative burden €4 million/year. This
stems mainly from occasional one-off activities
linked to permit reconsiderations following
BREF reviews and inspection/enforcement
Direct benefits:
 Access to information about state-of-the-
art techniques
 Improved environment through faster
deployment of innovative techniques
Indirect benefits:
 The potential reduction in pollutant
emissions is likely to have indirect
benefits such as improving public health
and labour productivity, reducing social
and healthcare burden. The scale of such
108
 Additional capital and operating expenditures will be needed
from operators, although the scale is uncertain and would
depend upon the response by IED operators and the selected
novel technologies
 Heavy industry transformation mainly be driven by the climate
policy requires significant investments. This option may lead to
an increase in and/or bring forward costs for IED operators,
especially capital expenditure, by encouraging industrial
transformation and favouring innovative and emerging
technologies
 Administrative costs are estimated at €23 million/year. This
stems mainly from occasional one-off activities linked to permit
reconsiderations following BREF reviews, less from yearly
monitoring and reporting activities (1.1 million/year)
benefits will depend on the degree of
acceleration of technological progress
Contributing to a non-
toxic and resource
efficient circular
economy (PO3)
PO3 would enhance the status of the parts of BAT conclusions whose legal status is unclear. The EMS will provide sufficient flexibility for the
pertinent actors. This will encourage a more efficient and circular use of resources with the lowest possible administrative, operational and
capital costs. In the longer term, installations will contribute more to a circular economy and a resource efficient model of business and will
move to using safer chemicals.
Businesses National Authorities Citizens and Consumers
Direct benefits:
 Operational cost savings in the longer term due to improved
resource efficiency, reduced waste and carbon footprint
 Market likely to reward good performers
Indirect benefits:
 Encouraging research and innovation
Costs:
 60%-80% of IED installations may be affected, resulting in
Direct benefits:
 Clarity on how to implement BAT conclusions
Indirect benefits: N/A
Costs:
 Administrative burden: €36 million/year
Direct benefits:
 Reduced environmental footprint of
industrial installations
 Increased public access to information on
emission of all pollutants by individual
industrial installations
Indirect benefits:
109
administrative costs for those operators; costs induced by
measures to improve chemicals management, circular economy
and resource efficiency will depend on the complexity of
installation's plans and systems
 Administrative burden: at €101 million/year
 Enabling benchmarking of the
environmental performance of different
industrial activities
 The potential reduction in pollutant
emissions linked to use of safer chemicals
is likely to have indirect benefits such as
improving public health and labour
productivity, reducing social and
healthcare burden
Addressing
decarbonisation of
industry (PO4)
The scale of benefits of PO4 will depend on how energy efficiency and associated GHG and other pollutant emissions reductions incentivised
via the IED may interact with the EU ETS framework. The benefits would include positive impacts on air quality; the efficient use of
resources; waste production, generation and recycling; innovation and research; and levelling the playing field.
Businesses National Authorities Citizens and Consumers
Direct benefits:
 Economies of scale stemming from an integrated approach
towards transformation (depollution and decarbonisation)
 Improved energy efficiency
Indirect benefits:
 Encouraging more investment in developing and testing
innovative techniques and technologies
Costs:
 Additional capital and operating expenditures related to energy
efficiency measures implemented by operators is uncertain and
would depend upon the response by IED operators, and whether
those measures are needed to comply with other climate or
energy law (e.g. the Energy Efficiency Directive).
 Administrative burden: €28 million/year
Direct benefits: N/A
Indirect benefits:
 Cooperation between authorities in charge of
the IED and the Energy Efficiency Directive
should ease overseeing of overall
implementation
Costs:
 Administrative burden: €21million/year
Direct benefits:
 Information and better understanding of
all GHG emissions (going beyond CO2)
Indirect benefits:
 The potential reduction in pollutant
emissions is likely to have indirect
benefits such as improving public health
and labour productivity, reducing social
and healthcare burden
110
Industrial scope (PO5) PO5 is the most significant option in terms of costs. It will more than triple the number of installations covered by the IED, mainly in the
livestock-rearing sector. The tailored regulatory framework will significantly mitigate the associated administrative burden.
Businesses National Authorities Citizens and Consumers
Direct benefits:
 IED permitting provides a recognition that installations apply
BAT, improving the green credentials of the company
 Levelling of EU playing field
Indirect benefits:
 Encouraging more investment in developing and testing
innovative techniques and technologies
Costs:
 Depending on the capacity thresholds, livestock production will
bring additional 84 000-330 000 cattle farms and 77 000-187
000 pig and poultry farms under the IED scope, representing
together with the farms already covered by IED less than the
largest 10-40% non-subsistence farms, out of the c.1.5 million
farms within these sectors. The tailored approach reduces the
administrative costs associated with IED permitting by 20 to
30%, depending on the specific activity. Compliance costs will
be both one-off (abatement techniques) and recurring and should
be between €265-812 million/year
 Other scope expansion will bring additional 1 500 to 1 900
installations under the IED that will be subject to full IED
permitting, possibly including some SMEs. The associated costs
for businesses should not surpass €265 million/year
 Administrative costs of between €181-425 million/year stem
mainly from IED related obligations (€145-390 million/year).
Direct benefits:
N/A
Indirect benefits:
N/A
Costs:
 Depending on the capacity thresholds,
livestock production will bring additional 84
000-330 000 cattle farms and 77 000-187 000
pig and poultry farms under the IED scope.
The tailored approach reduces administrative
costs associated with IED permitting by about
30% through
 Other scope increase will bring additional
1500 to 1300 installations under the IED scope
that will be subject to full IED permitting
 Administrative costs: €141-385 million/year
Direct benefits:
 Participation in permitting of installations
responsible for significant emission of
pollutants
 Increased public access to information on
emission of all pollutants by individual
industrial installations
Indirect benefits:
 The potential reduction in pollutant
emissions is likely to have indirect
benefits such as improving public health
and labour productivity, reducing social
and healthcare burden
 Minimum expected reductions in methane
and ammonia emissions are valued at
between €5 450 and €9 240 million per
year (using damage costs and carbon
price)
111
Annex 4: Analytical methods
INTRODUCTION
Due to the breadth of the sectors covered by the two policy instruments of the Industrial
Emissions Directive and the Regulation on European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register,
the Impact Assessment is not based on a single methodology, but rather on a variety of
qualitative and quantitative approaches that have been synthesised qualitatively. Most Policy
Options will likely induce various magnitudes of effects on agro-industrial operators,
associated technology providers, Member States’ Competent Authorities and the general
public, which it is very difficult to quantify at high accuracy levels at the overall EU level.
The assumptions and methods used for the assessment of these impacts are described in the
respective sections in Annex 10.
The following summary of the analytical methods used subdivides the description into two
parts:
 PART A: Industrial Emissions Directive
 PART B: E-PRTR regulation
A. IED - Tasks, Analytical Methods, Policy Screening, Impact Assessment of Measures
and Overall Options
Overview of tasks and methods
The methods employed were developed according to the European Commission’s Better
Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, adapted based on the time available to complete the
Impact Assessment support work and the report team’s wealth of practical experience in
delivering impact assessments. For example, the report team previously led the 2019-2020
evaluation21
of the current IED framework and was involved in the previous industrial
emissions policy impact assessment completed in 2007, which are two key sources of
evidence for this report.
The Impact Assessment support work was structured around seven tasks, represented in
Figure A4-1 below.
Each task was based on and/or followed the EC’s Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox.
These are described below.
 Task 1: Define and clarify the problems to be addressed. The recent evaluation of
the IED has been a key source of evidence to review, define and clarify the problems
to be addressed as part of the revision for the IED. The approach taken to review the
problems facing the IED was inspired on Tool #14 of the Commission’s Better
Regulation Toolbox. General and specific objectives were also set following Tool #16
21
SWD(2020)181final: https://europa.eu/!HP74fW
112
and building on the European Commission’s commitments as outlined within the
European Green Deal and other published strategies and plans.
 Task 2: Construct the baseline scenario against which to assess options. The study
considered how the status quo would likely evolve, including the existing problems as
well as the Commission policy action without further policy change within the IED
framework. This work was inspired in the broader Commission Better Regulation
Guidelines, and particularly drawing from Tool #14 and Tool #17.
Figure A4-1: Overview of the tasks of the impact assessment support work
 Task 3: Identify possible EU level actions. Whilst the baseline was being defined,
the study team engaged with the European Commission and stakeholders to develop a
longlist of policy options that could address the problems identified. Tool #17 of the
Commission’s Better Regulation Toolbox sets out a process to consider a variety of
policy measures in addition to the baseline that would address the problems and
problem drivers as these might evolve, which was followed for this Study. Over one-
hundred and thirty measures or actions were identified that could be adopted to
address the problems facing the IED and contribute to achieving the objectives set.
 Task 4: Screen policy measures and define policy options. Not all policy measures
or actions were viable. The report team therefore developed a screening process based
on Tool #17 of the Better Regulation Toolbox. Eight criteria (see Section 3.1, this
Task 2: Construct the baseline scenario against which to assess options
2.1 Outline the current status and identify the main relevant EU level instruments
2.2 Define the general economic outlook
2.3 Develop long-term baseline projections
Task 1: Define and clarify the problems to be addressed
1.1 Define the problems to be addressed
1.2 Develop the intervention needs
1.3 Establish general and specific policy objectives
Task 3: Identify possible EU level
actions
3.1 Map EU level actions and linkages
between drivers and objectives
3.2 Identify required policy instruments
and processes
33 Develop a longlist of policy measures
Task 7: Stakeholder
consultation
7.1 Open consultation
7.2 Targeted Survey
7.3 Workshops
7.4 Focus Groups
7.5 Interviews
Task 4: Screen policy measures and
define policy options
4.1 Establish and agree policy screening
approach
4.2 Screen policy measures
4.3 Develop a shortlist of policy measures
4.4 Define the policy options
Task 5: Assess the impacts, costs and benefits of the policy options
3.1 Screen impacts to identify the most significant categories for in-depth assessment
3.2 Assess impacts (qualitative and, where, possible quantitatively)
3.3 Develop case studies
Task 6: Compare policy options and conclusions
6.1 Compare policy options
6.2 Develop conclusions
113
Appendix) were established and defined, and experts employed a set of guidelines and
judgement to rate each policy measure against these criteria. This screening process
produced a draft shortlisted that was discussed and iterated with experts and the
European Commission, and finally checked for suitability. Forty-four measures were
retained for in-depth assessment and packaged into policy options that were aligned to
the identified problem areas.
 Task 5: Assess the impacts, costs and benefits of the policy options. A longlist of
possible impacts was developed and screening, based on Tool #19 of the Better
Regulation Toolbox. From these, thirteen impact categories were identified as likely
to be significant for a more in-depth assessment. Across these impact categories,
different types of costs and benefits were considered in line with Tool #58-60 of the
Better Regulation Toolbox. A multi-criteria analysis was employed, building on the
policy screening process (Tools #57 and #63). An evidence-based qualitative scoring
approach was taken to rate each policy measure and option.
 Task 6: Compare policy options and conclusions. This evidence on impacts, costs
and benefits was employed to compare policy measures and options and develop
conclusions as to whether a given option would contribute to achieving set objectives
and generate benefits that would be likely to outweigh costs.
 Task 7: Stakeholder consultation. Stakeholder engagement was a horizontal task,
central to this support study and feeding into all of the aforementioned tasks. The
consultation activities and data analysis carried out in this Study were based on Tool
#54 (and others) of the Better Regulation Toolbox. These activities included an open
consultation, a targeted survey, workshops, focus groups and interviews.
Multiple methods were employed across these tasks, which may be grouped into three types:
1. Desk research and rapid evidence reviews
2. Analytical methods
3. Field research/ stakeholder feedback and validation.
The following sections describe the use of these methods in this report.
1. Desk research and rapid evidence review
Evidence utilised has been collected from literature (studies, reports, articles) to support the analyses
in most of the tasks, especially in Tasks 1-5, in line with Tool #4 of the Commission’s Better
Regulation Toolbox. Four steps were generally followed:
 Review of the core sources for this report, such as the recent evaluation of the IED
and the European Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment and associated
feedback.
 Carrying out an evidence mapping exercise to identify key needs and/or gasps.
 Undertaking a rapid literature review:
114
o Systematic web search with the use of search tools including Google, Google
Scholar, Web of Science and others
o Coverage of a wide range of stakeholders’ sources, such as industry,
government, trade journals, etc.
o Considering a diverse set of document types, such as policy reports and
studies; documents from the European Commission; grey literature (e.g.
industry association briefings, etc.); proceedings of conferences, symposia, and
meetings; academic articles.
 Screening of literature to determine the types of information contained and the extent
that the data is reliable and sound.
The outputs of this process are the evidence base that underpins the impact assessment.
2. Analytical methods
A range of methods were employed to support this report. The following sections provide an
overview to three methods employed to support the tasks outlined earlier. These are:
 Screening approaches
 Case studies
 Impact Analysis
 Standard Cost Modelling
2.1. Screening approaches
Screening exercises were employed across various tasks, especially in Tasks 3 and 4, for
example, to develop long and short lists of possible and viable policy measures or options.
Each screening exercise consistent of at least five steps:
 Define the objectives of the screening process
 Develop and agree a set of screening criteria
 Carry out the screening exercise
 Review and assure outputs
 Develop conclusions
The primary screening exercise carried out was to develop the shortlist of policy options,
moving from a longlist of over 130 policy measures to a shortlist of 44. Policy measures. This
was an iterative process drawing on the evidence collected and expert judgement of the
consultant team, experts at the Commission, and stakeholders consulted during this report.
The criteria for screening the policy measures (Task 4) were developed in accordance with
Tool #17 of the Better Regulation Toolbox22
. These criteria are outlined below.
22
Tool #17. How to identify policy options. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-
regulation-toolbox-17_en_0.pdf
115
1. Legal feasibility: Policy measures must respect the principle of conferral. They
should also respect any obligation arising from the EU Treaties (and relevant
international agreements) and ensure respect of fundamental rights. Legal obligations
incorporated in existing primary or secondary EU legislation may also rule out certain
options. We have, therefore, considered whether measures were compatible with EU
law and obligations arising from the EU treaties and international agreements,
including by answering:
 Is the measure compatible with EU Treaties?
 Is the measure legally feasible to implement and enforce?
 Will the measure respect fundamental rights?
2. Technical feasibility: It was considered whether the measures may be technologically
and technically feasible to implement, monitor and enforce, including by answering:
 Would the measure be technologically and technically possible to implement?
 Is there a system in place to monitor the implementation and impact of the
measure (or could it be established)?
 Would Member State Authorities be able to inspect and enforce any possible
sanctions under the measure?
3. Stakeholder acceptability: It was established whether the measure could garner the
necessary stakeholder support for legislative adoption at the EU and MS level,
including by answering:
 Is the measure consistent with EU-level and MS policies and public positions?
 Does the measure instil legislative certainty?
 Could the measure cause competitive distortion (e.g. by limiting the growth of
certain industries or creating discrimination between industries based in different
Member States)?
4. Effectiveness: The external consultant team also explored the extent to which the
measures could contribute to addressing the specific problem(s) and/or meeting the
objectives that it is seeking to address. The following questions guided this
exploration:
 To what extent could the measure contribute to protecting the environment by
reducing pollution (concerning air, water, soil and waste) and/or the use of
potentially toxic substances?
 To what extent could the measure contribute to achieving climate neutrality by
2050 and/or a more circular use of resources?
 Does the measure directly promote or incentivise investment in technological
innovation and/or rapid uptake of state-of-the-art technologies that can reduce the
environmental footprint of industrial activities?
116
5. Efficiency: The external consultant team assessed at a high-level the extent to which
measures can improve social, economic and environmental welfare in an efficient
way, especially when compared to the alternatives. The following queries guided the
assessment:
 Could the measure have significant, positive social and environmental impacts
e.g., reduced pollution, lower GHG emissions, lower use of resources, more green
jobs, etc.?
 Could the measure have a high-cost burden on consumers, businesses and/or
public institutions e.g., higher price of consumer goods, lower production
efficiency, etc.?
 How do the expected benefits and costs compare?
6. Proportionality: The external consultant team determined the extent to which the
measure can address the problem that it is targeting to explore whether this proposed
way is proportionate to the costs or constraints that may arise from implementing the
measure. The following questions guided this evaluation:
 To what extent are the costs resulting from the regulatory actions taken by the EU
proportionate to the potential environmental and health benefits?
 Could the measure have a disproportionate impact on smaller companies?
7. EU added value: The external consultant team considered the likely advantages of
EU-level intervention to resolve these problems, compared to actions at the national
level, including - but not restricted to - answering the following :
 Could the measure result in a more consistent approach across the EU than
national-level alternatives?
 To what extent could the measure help raise standards in those Member States
which are lagging behind on environmental protection?
 To what extent would the measure be more cost-effective at the EU versus
national level?
8. Coherence: The compatibility of the measure with existing policy frameworks at the
international and EU level (e.g., European Green Deal, Chemical Strategy for
Sustainability, EU ETS legislation, E-PRTR, and UWWTD) was determined. In
particular, the experts assessing this were guided by the following queries:
 Is the measure compatible with EU acquis?
 Is the measure coherent with the objectives and/or actions set out in the European
Green Deal, the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability, EU ETS, E-PRTR and
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive revisions, etc.?
The experts carrying out the screening exercise scored the policy measure against each of
these criteria: 5-high score, 3-medium score, and 1-low score, or any integer in between.
The external consultants’ team developed general guidelines, outlined in Table A4-1 below,
for what generally constituted each score for each criterion. These general guidelines were
117
aimed at providing some consistency to the task from the start, although the screening
process was iterative and the experts carrying this out had multiple opportunities to come
together and calibrate their assessment effectively based on evidence available and their
expert judgement.
Table A4-1: General guidelines for scoring across each criterion
Criteria (5) High score (3) Medium score (1) Low score
1 -Legal feasibility Compatible with EU Treaties,
and legally instruments to
implement and enforce are
available.
Compatible with EU Treaties,
but some doubts as to whether
legal instruments are readily
available to implement and
enforce.
Not compatible with EU
Treaties or no legal
instruments available.
2-Technical
feasibility
Technology and techniques
available to implement,
monitor, inspect and enforce
measure.
Technology and techniques
available to implement
measure, but doubts on how
to monitor, inspect, and
enforce measure.
Measure cannot be
implemented technically, or
measure cannot be enforced,
inspected, or monitored.
3-Stakeholder
acceptability
Consistent with policies and
public positions, instils
certainty and does not cause
distortions.
Consistent with policies, but
not necessarily fitting with
public positions or instil
certainty.
Inconsistent with current
policies, not necessarily
fitting with public positions,
instil certainty and could
cause unwanted market
distortions.
4 -Effectiveness Contributes significant/clearly
to one or two of: protecting
environment, climate
neutrality, circular use of
resources, encouraging
innovation.
Contributes, potentially, to
one or two of: protecting
environment, climate
neutrality, circular use of
resources, encouraging
innovation.
Doubtful contribution to any
of: protecting environment,
climate neutrality, circular use
of resources, encouraging
innovation.
5 -Efficiency Evidence of clear benefits to
limited costs or significant
benefits to some acceptable/
proportionate costs.
Doubtful evidence on benefits
but limited costs, or clear
evidence on strong benefits
and doubtful evidence on
potentially high costs.
Limited expected or high
uncertainty on benefits, but
some or clear evidence on
high costs.
6 -Proportionality Benefits are high and/or
address objectives at the
lowest possible cost, based on
evidence. SMEs not impacted
disproportionately.
Benefits are high and/or
address objectives at
relatively low cost, based on
evidence, but SMEs affected
disproportionately.
Costs are too high for
potential benefits -e.g.
industry struggle to compete,
etc.- based on evidence.
SMEs affected
disproportionately.
7 -EU value added Bringing more consistency
across the EU, raising
standards across countries,
and more cost-effective at
EU-level.
Clear evidence on one or two
of: Bringing more consistency
across the EU, raising
standards in some countries,
and more cost-effective at
Unclear evidence on any of:
More consistency across the
EU, raising standards across
countries, and more cost-
effective at EU-level.
118
Criteria (5) High score (3) Medium score (1) Low score
EU-level.
8 -Coherence Compatible with EU acquis
and coherent with EU
plans/strategies' objectives.
Compatible with EU acquis
and coherent with some of EU
plans/strategies' objectives.
Not compatible with EU
acquis or coherent with a
limited set of EU
plans/strategies' objectives.
The output of this exercise is a robust and consistent shortlist of retained policy measures
selected to tackle the problems and drivers identified in Task 1. This shortlist of measures
packaged into policy options and taken forward for an in-depth assessment of their potential
impacts, costs and benefits.
2.2. Case Studies
Three sectors were selected to develop case studies of expected industrial transformation
needs. The objective of the case studies was to explore with expert representatives from
specific industries, Member States’ authorities and NGOs what could be the expected
potential impacts on emissions of GHG and other key environmental pollutants, via
anticipated transformation in the specific industry sectors selected. Secondly, how might the
existing IED framework, and proposed changes to the IED/ E-PRTR regulatory instruments,
impact thee changes.
Sectors were selected by a process of comparing evidence on the availability of alternative
processing/ production techniques with an estimate of the level of transformation that would
most likely be required, on a sector-by-sector basis, as pertinent to the highly carbon-relevant
IED sectors listed below:
 Iron and steel
 Glass and ceramics
 Chemicals
 Downstream oil and gas (refineries)
 Pulp and paper
 Cement
 Textiles
 Slaughterhouses
Experts within the consultancy consortium carried out a shortlisting assessment, taking into
consideration the two main criteria (level of transformation needed, and techniques’
availability) outlined above. This assessment concluded that the following three sectors
should be taken forward, based principally on the following arguments:
- Iron and steel - on the grounds that a variety of decarbonisation solutions should be
available to this sector in the near- to mid-term;
119
- Downstream oil and gas (refining) - with regard to the adaptation to bio-derived
feedstocks and also higher percentages of bio content in end-products; and
- Cement - with regard to possibilities for the incorporation of additional quantities of
“waste” as fuel feedstock, circular economy possibilities with regard to reused
concrete “demolition waste” as an ingredient, as well as evolving cement and clinker
techniques.
A case study for each of these three sectors was developed, based on the most recent publicly
available evidence, expert opinion and information collected through the consultation
activities carried out for this report.
2.3. Impact Analysis
The impacts of the IED and, therefore, any necessary revisions are inherently dependent upon
the independent BREF process and the associated BAT conclusions. Moreover, technological
progress is very uncertain; therefore, the evidence available has limitations as to the
(especially future) technologies that operators might adopt as a result of changes to the IED,
how much these might cost and the specific extent to which their adoption might lead to
better environmental performance.
These and other limitations have meant that the impact analysis has been built on a partial
evidence base, which has then been complemented by informed expert judgement and
opinion.
A qualitative analysis framework inspired by both Multi-Criteria and Cost-Benefit Analysis
(as per Tools #57 and #63 of the Better Regulation Toolbox) was employed. Six steps were
followed, as shown below:
 Identification of the key economic, environmental and social impact categories for
a more in-depth assessment, defined these categories practically, and selected proxy
indicators that helped to build an evidence base and understanding of the scale of
potential impacts.
 Development of a qualitative scoring framework on a scale of “-10 to +10 points”
for policy measures across each impact category. Individual policy measures were
qualitatively scored, summed up and amalgamated into a rating at the ‘policy option’
level (or combination of policy measures). The scoring reflects the direction (positive
or negative) and magnitude (weakly to strongly, limited or unclear) of the qualitative
assessment of the likely impacts.
 Mapping and assessment by a team of experts with respect to impacts of measures
across the categories, each expert covering between 3-8 measures from the original
shortlist of over 50 measures.
o Experts were encouraged to use their existing specialised knowledge in their
domain, as well as the outputs of the policy screening exercise, together with
readily available evidence regarding the subject of the measures. This enabled
the experts to score the proposed measures against the impact categories in a
first and rapid two-week iteration. This iteration also centred on identifying
120
key evidence gaps. Sources of evidence for this iteration included, as already
mentioned, the recent IED evaluation and Inception Impact Assessment,
complemented by data from Eurostat, E-PRTR, the EU Registry, and a range
of sector-specific literature, studies and publications.
o Three additional iterations were conducted, each time building on any
additional evidence identified and the ongoing adjustments to measures from
interactions with stakeholders and the European Commission.
 A re-calibration exercise was carried out after every iteration from the team of
experts and comments were provided by the consortium economist lead. This was to
ensure that the ratings were internally coherent within teams, across teams, and
challenged constructively overall to achieve consistency and consensus. The scope of
the measures and evidence of the likely scale of impacts were used to test and validate
the relative position of each measure in terms of its economic, environmental and
social impacts.
 A policy/ impact aggregation exercise was implemented upon the definition of
policy options. The qualitative and quantitative analyses were carried out for
individual measures. It should be noted that aggregated policy options might combine
up to as many as sixteen discrete measures (e.g., PO1). This exercise was centralised,
and an index was developed to ensure that the aggregation of points across the impact
categories, costs and benefits from combining policy measures could be mapped on to
the -10 to +10 scale utilised.
 Validation and quality assurance activities were also taken forward with a team of
experts within the consultant team.
Key economic, environmental and social impact categories
All key impacts of the policy measures on the core stakeholders – public authorities, industry
(large and smaller businesses), citizens and workers, third countries – were identified,
mapped, and screened. An assessment of the expected absolute and relative magnitude of
these impacts and their likelihood was carried out in line with Tool #19 of the EC’s Better
Regulation.
The result of this screening of impacts was that thirteen economic, environmental, and social
impact categories were selected for use in the in-depth impact assessment as part of this
study, outlined in the Table below. For clarity, a brief description is provided of the specific
impacts and proxy indicators considered in this assessment of options for the revision of the
IED.
121
Table A4-2: Significant impacts for in-depth assessment and core indicators
Broad impact
category23
Specific impact
category
Description
Economic
impacts
Administrative
burdens on
businesses
Any administrative costs, enforcement costs and/or direct regulatory
charges, including but not only through the permit application,
derogation and BREF processes, monitoring and reporting, hosting
inspections, etc.
Operating costs
and conduct of
businesses
Substantive compliance costs, that is, the additional capital expenditure
and/or operating expenditure (excluding administrative burden) that are
required to comply with the policy measures’ requirements. This may
include upgrading installations and equipment, using alternative inputs
of production, etc.
Competitiveness
of businesses
Comparative advantage of the industry in an international context and
how this may be affected by changes to the costs of doing business in
the EU; and any impacts on the level playing field in the EU.
Position of SMEs Overall costs of the measures on the industry across differences in
business size; that is, whether the average administrative and
compliance costs per employee are comparable across larger and
smaller businesses or there is a significant difference in the impacts by
size.
Innovation and
research
Level of investment in Research and Development and expected
innovation outcomes that may result from the implementation of
proposed measures.
Public authority
impacts
Administrative, compliance and enforcement activity by public
authorities and other costs related to the BREF, permit-setting and
derogation-granting processes; compliance assessments and
inspections; and/or ensuring public access to permit procedures, among
others.
Environmental
impacts
Climate Emissions of Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere (tonnes of CO2
equivalent)
Air quality Emissions of pollutants to air, which may include NOx/SOx, NMVOC,
dust, NH3, Hg, or any other pertinent pollutant.
Water quality and
resources
Releases of heavy metals (Cd, Hg, Pb, and Ni), N and P or any other
pertinent pollutant to water.
Soil quality or
resources
Emissions of pollutants to soil, which may include Arsenic, Cadmium,
Chlorides, Chromium, Copper, Halogenated Organic compounds,
Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Total Phosphorus
and Zinc.
Waste production,
generation and
Volume of waste generated (tonnes) and recycled (tonnes).
23
The assessment of social impacts and associated ratings focus on how the measures may affect employment
levels across the EU. Public health and public health system impacts are indirectly related to environmental
impacts and, therefore, are captured within this category and noted for completion. Similarly, reductions in
polluting emissions may indirectly affect labour productivity and other economic impact categories. These
benefits, where directly related to the environment and usually captured as part of the monetisation of these
benefits through the use of damage cost functions, have been qualitatively captured in the environmental
impacts category to avoid confusion with the analysis and interpretation of the ratings.
122
Broad impact
category23
Specific impact
category
Description
recycling
Efficient use of
resources
Volume of energy consumed (TWh), volume of “virgin” water
consumed (m3
) and volume of “re-cycled” water consumed (m3
).
Social impacts Employment Number of employees, in full-time equivalent, in industry and/or public
authorities.
Qualitative scoring framework
Having identified the thirteen impact categories of special significance for this Study, a
qualitative scoring framework was developed, first on a scale of -10 to +10 points for policy
options (or combination of policy measures). This was to ensure that the framework was
effective at showcasing the relative significance of the impacts of policy measures, also when
comparisons were made at the higher level of ‘options’ and ‘packages of options’, whilst
maintaining internal coherence.
The scoring reflects the direction (positive or negative) and magnitude (weakly to strongly,
limited or unclear) of each measure, option, or package of options. The language used to
describe each measure’s potential economic, environmental or social impacts was based on
uniform descriptors outlined in Table A4-3 below, with intermediate scoring options being
allowed along the spectrum.
Table A4-3: Coding used to present expected impacts
Guidance was provided to the project team, to ensure that even though the assessment was
qualitative, an iterative process with a centralised re-calibration exercise was always expected
and planned from the start.
Firstly, the scope was considered:
 “No or limited impact” would be used where a measure/ option affected <1% of the
installations in the baseline or equivalent
 “Weakly (negative or positive)” would be utilised where a measure/option affected
1%-10% of the installations in the baseline or equivalent
 “Strongly (negative or positive)” would be used for a measure/ option affecting 10% -
75% of the installations in the baseline
 Conversely, neither ‘weakly’ nor ‘extremely’ would be allowed in the rating scheme
where a measure/option affected the above range of 10% - 75% of the installations in
the baseline
123
 The use of the highest rating, i.e., ‘extremely’ (negative or positive) would be
restricted to those measures/options affecting >75% of the installations. The most
striking illustrative example of this category concerns the options expanding the
IED’s scope to include cattle farms and additional IRPP farms, which would affect a
number of installations equivalent to more than 300% of the baseline scenario.
Secondly, the intensity of the expected impact when compared to the baseline on a per unit
basis was explored via a similar rating scheme
 ‘No’ or ‘limited’ impact would relate to a measure/option that could lead to a change
of <1% in a unit cost or benefit (e.g. administrative burden)
 ‘Weakly (negative or positive)’ would relate to a measure/option that could lead to a
change of >1%-20% in a unit cost or benefit
 Neither ‘weakly’ nor ‘extremely’ (negative or positive) would be allowed to be used
where a measure/option could potentially lead to a change of between 20%-75% in a
unit cost or benefit
 ‘Extremely’ (negative or positive) would be reserved for those cases in which a
measure/ option could lead to a change of >75% in a unit cost or benefit. Again, a
representative example of the use of ‘extremely’ is the proposal to include over 160
000 additional farms in the scope of the IED via PO5a options (IED measures #31,
#32 and #33) ; this yields huge environmental benefits, and at the same time is likely
to increase the administrative burden considerably, even with a tailored permitting
framework.
These two sets of overall guides were considered by the experts in the project team and
combined with their knowledge and expert opinion. The outcome was the production of a
qualitative rating that was supported by the evidence available.
Thirdly, experts carried out a scoring exercise following the scale outlined in Table A4-3,
that is, on a scale of -10 to 10 points, to enable comparability and coherence between policy
measures and options with very different and varied degrees of impact. These adjustments
were carried out centrally, with support from the expert teams, to maximise coherence and
comparability.
To avoid confusion across categories, the qualitative assessment employed focussed on direct
impacts of the policy measures (or options). As an illustration, significant and direct
environmental impacts from the retained policy options, especially on air quality, are also
likely to have substantial and positive indirect effects on human health and the public health
and social care system across the EU and potentially beyond, which would in turn yield
significant positive social impacts. These impacts would also benefit the economy by
improving labour productivity and other economic factors.
These indirect impacts have been captured as part of the qualitative assessment of
environmental impacts; however, in order to avoid ‘double-counting’, these indirect
impacts have not been added into the consolidated qualitative ratings for economic impacts,
or social impacts.
124
As a further point of clarification, the qualitative scoring framework of -10 to 10 points was
identified as the most effective scoring range to ensure that two complementary aims were
achieved:
 Reflecting, as proportionately as possible, the differences in expected impacts across
policy measures, policy options and packages of options. As an illustration, a small
number of policy measures (e.g. IED #31, part of PO5a on Livestock Rearing) was
assessed to have benefits of more than 10 times the points (or number of ‘ticks’) than
other policy measures (e.g. IED #17, part of the Emerging Techniques suites of
measures in PO2a). However, when balancing the overall comparison, it is necessary
to broadly maintain this comparative numerical relationship in a coherent manner
whilst successfully proportionately mapping the individual assessments onto the
single “-10 to +10” selected point scale.
 The internal coherence of the scoring framework in difference contexts needed to be
ensured, such as when it is employed to assess measures across each of the thirteen
impact categories. The scoring framework needs to allow a summation of the
allocated points, to enable them to be mapped, to then produce an assessment at the
total policy measure level, and subsequently one step further, by summing and
mapping at the higher levels of policy option, or policy package. As an illustration,
three policy measures (e.g. IED #31-33, measures under PO5a –Rearing of Animals)
were assessed to have benefits of three to six points (or ‘ticks’); therefore, when
grouped together as the policy option level (PO5-a), this agglomerated policy option
has to have six points (or ‘ticks’) – possibly more, depending on fine tuning, to
ensure internal coherence when using the qualitative scoring framework, i.e., the “-10
to +10 point” scale.
On an overall scale of impacts, the majority of policy measures (and options) are expected to
have significantly lower impacts than measures and options related to expanding the scope of
the IED, i.e., the PO5 series of measures and options. The end member of highest ‘points’
scoring is PO5-a (extending the scope of the IED to include cattle and additional installations
of IRPP). Without utilising a sufficiently wide scale such as that selected (i.e., the -10 to +10
point scale), the majority of non-PO5 policy measures, of much less significance than PO5-a,
would become almost de minimis by comparison, solely registering a score in the lower
‘points’ of the scale (e.g. between 0 and 1). Therefore, the chosen -10 to +10 point scale was
favoured over narrower more conventional options, such as point scale ranging from -5 to +5,
to enable an adequate differentiation of magnitudes to be appreciated. This is further
considered in ‘Policy/ impact aggregation’ below.
Detail on the inputs used by the teams of experts
The teams of experts mapped and assessed impacts of measures across the categories, each
expert covering between three to eight measures from the original shortlist of over 50
measures.
 These experts were encouraged to use their existing knowledge and readily available
evidence to score qualitatively in a first and rapid two-week iteration where evidence
125
gaps were identified. Key sources already mentioned - including the recent IED
evaluation and Inception Impact Assessment - were complemented by data from
Eurostat, E-PRTR, the EU Registry, and a range of sector-specific literature, studies
and publications.
 Three additional iterations were conducted for the measures being considered. Each
iteration built on additional evidence identified during the process, also taking into
account any ongoing adjustments to measures resulting from interactions either with
stakeholders or the European Commission key IED/ E-PRTR team and Inter-Service
Steering Group.
Re-calibration exercise
The outputs of the assessment by the team of experts were brought together and reviewed by
a central team, including the lead economist of this project, after each iteration. This re-
calibration exercise was performed multiple times, and also served as a way to identify
evidence needs, doubts and areas for further exploration. It also allowed the team to produce
overall rankings of measures/options, e.g., in terms of their scale and direction of potential
net impacts, which the team could test with a wider network of experts available to the
consortium of consultants, as well as with the European Commission and stakeholders.
Policy/ impact aggregation
A centralised team also used the ratings by measure to aggregate impacts up to the level of
policy options (i.e., combinations of measures). An index (or mapping approach) was
developed to ensure that the aggregation of ‘points’ across the impact categories, costs and
benefits from combining policy measures could be mapped to this -10 to +10 scale
coherently.
For example, “+1 to +4 points” on environmental impacts would represent one green tick,
whereas a score of “-25 to -21 points” on economic impacts would represent five crosses.
Finally, for internal coherence, this index had to be rated against the maximum number of
ticks and crosses that could be achieved in the event of developing a package of all of the
policy options available (or those alternatives with the greatest impacts) with respect to the
extremities of the scale, i.e., -10 or +10 points.
Further re-calibration was also required during this policy aggregation exercise. In particular,
the exercise highlighted that the weight of specific measures might not be as representative as
expected. Therefore, any such doubts were reviewed and contrasted with the expanding
evidence base. Generally, this exercise did not generate any different overall ratings or
conclusions per measure, but instead improved the ability to differentiate and compare
between options (i.e., combinations of multiple measures) and their internal coherence.
Overview Summary of Steps with Visual Depiction
To illustrate this and earlier steps, as well as the rationale for using a scale of -10 to +10
points, the descriptions provided so far are complemented by a brief recapitulation and some
visual illustrations.
126
 First, each measure was assessed against thirteen categories using the -10 to +10 point
scale to maintain the expected relative position of measures across each of these
categories (e.g. relative costs and relative benefits, etc.) as much as possible.
 Secondly, having scored each measure across the thirteen categories, it was necessary
to aggregate this up to the measure level for the three broad impact categories
(environmental economic and social), together with the costs and the benefits, so that
each measure could be assessed and compared. This meant that a mapping exercise
was required between the sum of all the ‘points’, e.g. all the costs and benefits, onto
the proposed -10 to +10 scoring scale. The figure below illustrates how this mapping
was performed, to maintain a broadly proportionate position for each of the policy
measures.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 2 4 6 8
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
Mapped onto a -10 to 10 framework
Sum
of
cost
and
benefit
points
across
thirteen
impact
categories
onto
the
policy
measure
level
Costs Benefits
127
 Thirdly, policy options (or combination of measures) also needed aggregation of
‘points’ against each broad impact category, as well as total costs and total benefits
for their assessment and comparison. A mapping exercise was again required between
the ‘sum of all the points of the measures making up each option’ and the -10 to +10
point scale. The figure below illustrates this mapping and shows the limitations,
whilst keeping a relatively proportionate position for each of the policy measures, on
a “-10 to +10” point scale. Neither the costs nor the benefits graphs below represent
one strictly linear relationship between allocated points. The explanation is because,
as policy measures are progressively packaged into the options with the varying scale
and/or depth of change required, the differences in relative impacts across them grow
further apart. This effect can be noted most markedly between points -5 and -6 in
“costs”, and between points +6 and +7 in the “benefits” aggregated plots.
 Fourthly and finally, leading policy options can be aggregated into a preferred policy
package. Therefore, the maximum points that could ever be obtained from any
combination of policy options must map onto the overall “-10 or +10 points” scale, so
that the preferred policy package can be depicted, whilst retaining internal coherence.
It is at the third and fourth stages in the scoring and aggregation process that the E-
PRTR-related options were added, and carefully scored in full calibration with their
estimated weight of qualitative impacts compared to the IED policy options.
The value of a “-10 to +10 point” scale is that it depicts and compares concisely and
proportionately the relative position of policy measures, policy options and potential
packages of these options, whilst ensuring internal coherence.
Validation and quality assurance
Validation and quality assurance activities were organised with a team of experts within the
consultant team. This included the review and testing of the resulting balance of costs and
benefits per policy measure/ option. The overall ranking of policy options, in terms of the
scale and direction of total and net benefits, as well as across impact categories, were also
presented to test and validate their relative position.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 2 4 6 8
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
Sum
of
cost
and
benefit
points
across
multiple
measures
forming
policy
options
Costs Benefits
Mapped onto a -10 to 10 framework
128
Finally, where evidence was available, a more traditional cost-benefit analysis framework
was employed. This was primarily the case for assessing policy option to expand the scope of
the IED to also include cattle farming and more rearing of pigs and poultry installations. The
methods employed follow the guidelines provided by Tool #59 of the Better Regulation
Toolbox. This analysis, nevertheless, was partial and only included the core costs and
benefits expected from this policy option.
2.4. Standard Cost Modelling
A bottom-up cost modelling approach was employed to estimate the additional administrative
costs (or administrative burden) on businesses and public authorities that would result from
the adoption of the retained policy measures or options inspired by the Standard Cost
Modelling approach outlined in Tools #59-60 of the Better Regulation Toolbox.
In line with Tool #60 especially, three general steps were taken:
1. Preparatory analysis. Firstly, this included the qualitative identification of the scope
and type of potential administrative impacts of the retained measures (and options) on
businesses and public authorities. This was then followed by the identification of
evidence needs, e.g., baseline administrative requirements and additional inputs
required, their intensity and frequency over a period (e.g. 20 years, as used here) and
unit costs. Finally, sources were identified and desk research and a rapid evidence
review was carried out, building on the recent IED evaluation, the previous IED
impact assessment, the consultation activities, and other key sources of evidence.
2. Data capture and standardisation. The data available was collated for all the
parameters identified in step 1, generally structured and saved within an Excel
workbook.
3. Calculation. A specific baseline for each measure was quantified in line with the
general baseline established as part of Task 2, and the potential additional
administrative costs (that is, the administrative burden) generated by the retained
measures or options were calculated employing the bottom-up cost modelling
approach
Where evidence was available, estimates were produced for the effects of the measures or
options on administrative burden over a period of 20 years (in constant 2020 euro), and
annual average figures were developed and presented for comparison. Generally, this
included estimates of the additional administrative costs (or burden) and savings associated
with changes to the BREF and permitting processes in intensity, frequency and/or scope (one-
off costs), as well as monitoring and reporting and enforcement and activities linked to
inspections (recurrent costs). These assessments were quality assured by experts in the
consultant team and validated, and uncertainties and sensitivities considered.
Basic assumptions behind all calculations are provided in Table A4-4.
129
Table A4-4: Cross-cutting evidence-based assumptions employed in the impact assessment
Specific indicator Evidence-based
assumptions
Comments and sources
Number of existing IED
installations in the baseline
52 000
Average of the latest three years of data available
via the EU Registry
Number of new IED
installations expected each
year in the baseline, on
average
500
Average based on baseline data analysis carried
out for this report
Number of permit
reconsiderations (and
updates) every year in the
baseline, on average
5 200
Average based on the assumption that permit
reconsiderations and updates may take place at
least once every 10 years, in line with the BREF
cycle
Number of BREF reviews
completed in a period of 20
years
60
Based on the assumption that a BREF occurs at
least once every 10 years, thus each of 30 sectors
will be reviewed at least twice in the 20-year
period
BREF review costs for one
sector-operators (2020 €)
€1 million - €7 million,
with a central estimate of
€2 million
Based on the recent IED Evaluation (Ricardo et al,
2020)
BREF review costs for one
sector-public authorities
(2020 €)
€3 million - €14 million,
with a central estimate of
€5 million
Based on the recent IED Evaluation (Ricardo et al,
2020)
One-off costs of issuing new
permits -public authorities
(2020 €)
€3 250 - €35 000, with a
central estimate of €23
400
Based on evidence from the IED IA 2007 (EC,
2007), adjusted for inflation over the period (GDP
Deflator sourced from the World Bank and
Eurostat), and contrasted with evidence gathered
through the recent IED Evaluation (Ricardo et al,
2020)
One-off costs of issuing new
permits -operators (2020 €)
€10 000 - €62 250, with a
central estimate of €28
000
Based on data collected through stakeholder
engagement for this report, the IED Evaluation in
2020 (Ricardo et al, 2020), and a study to analyse
differences in costs of implementing EU policy
(EC, 2015)
One-off costs of permit
reconsiderations and updates
-public authorities (2020 €)
€1 600 - €17 500, with a
central estimate of €11
700
Based on an assumption employed in the IED IA
2007 (EC, 2007) that permit reconsiderations and
updates costed around 50% of the permit issuance
costs
One-off costs of permit
reconsiderations and updates
-operators (2020 €)
€1 500 - €31 250, with a
central estimate of €14
000
Based on evidence provided by stakeholders
engaged for this report, and complemented by
evidence from the IED IA 2007 (EC, 2007).
Annual costs for managing
information and systems -
public authorities (2020 €)
€100 - €3 000 with a
central estimate of €2 000
Based on evidence provided by stakeholders
engaged for this report and the recent IED
Evaluation (Ricardo et al, 2020)
Annual monitoring and
reporting costs-operators
€150 - €12 000 with a
Based on evidence provided by stakeholders
engaged for this report and the recent IED
130
Specific indicator Evidence-based
assumptions
Comments and sources
(2020 €) central estimate of €8 000 Evaluation (Ricardo et al, 2020)
Inspection costs every two
years -public authorities
(2020 €)
€500 - €12 000 with a
central estimate of €9 600
Based on evidence provided by stakeholders
engaged for this report and the recent IED
Evaluation (Ricardo et al, 2020)
Inspection costs every two
years -operators (2020 €)
€125 - €5 000 with a
central estimate of €4 000
Based on evidence provided by stakeholders
engaged for this report and the recent IED
Evaluation (Ricardo et al, 2020)
One-off applications for
derogations or exemptions -
public authorities (2020 €)
€550 - €4 250, with a
central estimate of €850
Although the burden is primarily on operators to
develop and submit the application, it is assumed
that public authorities spend half as much effort
reviewing and engaging in the process
One-off applications for
derogations or exemptions -
operators (2020 €)
€1 100 - €8 550, with a
central estimate of €1 700
Based on evidence from IED IA 2007 (EC, 2007),
suggesting applications for derogations could
require between 40 to 300 worker hours
One-off baseline reports -
public authorities (2020 €)
€4 000 - €20 000, with a
central estimate of €10
000
Based on an assumption public authorities would
engage with baseline reports provided by operators
and spend around 20% of the effort
One-off baseline reports -
operators (2020 €)
€20 000 - €100 000, with
a central estimate of €50
000
Based on the recent IED Evaluation (Ricardo et al,
2020)
Average hourly labour costs
in EU-27 (2020 €/h)
€29/h
Latest Eurostat statistics for EU-27 (Eurostat,
2021)
3. Field research/ Stakeholder Feedback and Validation
As part of the study, a number of stakeholder consultation activities were carried out between
December 2020 and Sept 2021 to confirm the problem definition and policy objectives, to
gather insights and evidence on the policy measures and options identified, and assess the
potential impacts of the longlisted and shortlisted policy measures and options aimed at
addressing the problems identified. This enabled the potential policy measures and options to
be discussed with stakeholders, as well as obtaining their feedback and validation of the draft
ongoing evaluations being made.
These activities were carried out in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines (Chapter VII:
Guidelines on Stakeholder Consultation and Chapter III, Guidelines on impact assessment).
Four broad steps were taken across these activities.
 Development of a Consultation Strategy, mapping the scope and objectives of the
consultation, listing key targeted stakeholders, consultation activities and a proposed
timetable.
 Preparation of the Consultation documentation for each of the activities.
 Announcement and communication with stakeholders following due process.
 Documented stakeholder engagement.
131
The consultation activities are summarised in the Annex 2 synopsis, and a fuller description
of the public consultations and their results is described in greater detail in Annex 12
(Extended summary of consultation activities).
These consultation activities included:
 An open public consultation launched on 22 December 2020 and open until 23 March
2021.
 Targeted stakeholder survey launched on 8 February 2021 and open until 9 April
2021.
 Two stakeholder workshops that took place in December 2020 and June 2021.
 Seven focus groups that took place between June and July 2021.
 Three case studies that were compiled in July 2021, based on feedback from three of
the focus groups, coupled with external data, publicly available sectoral roadmaps and
expert “foresighting”-type methods, to explore the likely evolution of three different
sectors going forwards from the 2020s to the 2030s and beyond
 A series of one-to-one stakeholder interviews / correspondence between June and
Sept 2021.
132
B. E-PRTR - Tasks, Analytical Methods, Policy Screening, Impact Assessment
of Measures and Overall Options
1. OVERVIEW OF TASKS AND METHODS USED
The analysis of problems followed the major steps advised in BR Guidelines Tool #14.
Intervention logic, an analytical tool used to understand and visualise how an intervention
solves a specific challenge, was used to establish the links between problem drivers and
policy options.
The development of the baseline and analysis of options, including the development of
baseline, was based on the principles set out in BR Guidelines Tool # 17. In particular, an
initial set of E-PRTR (sub)policy options was screened by using a set of criteria for
determining which options to include or not as advised in BR Guidelines Tool # 17.
A description and, where possible, quantification of the economic, social and environmental
impacts of the short-listed options was performed, following BR Guidelines Tool # 19. The
main direct impacts were quantified and monetised (for both the baseline and the policy
options under consideration). Furthermore, indirect impacts were quantified, where possible,
and if not then they were assessed qualitatively with a clear indication of their nature and
likely magnitude. Costs and benefits were disaggregated, as far as possible, according to
each identifiable action under the different options and identified according to the standard
typology of costs (e.g., administrative, enforcement) and benefits (BR Guidelines Tool #58
and #59). The assessment was undertaken in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines and,
in particular, Chapter 8 of the Toolbox (“Methods, models and costs and benefits”). The
overall qualitative scoring mechanism was carefully aligned with that utilised in the IED
evaluation, as explained in Part A, Section 2.3 of this Annex.
Stakeholder consultation followed the advice outlined in BR Guidelines Tools # 53 – # 56.
In line with BR Guidelines Tool #54, questionnaire surveys were used to allow the
stakeholders and the public to voice their opinions on the improvement of the E-PRTR. To
avoid limitations of a questionnaire survey in terms of the focus on pre-defined answer
options, open questions and follow-up interviews were designed. Descriptive statistics and
MS Excel were used for the analysis of quantitative data. Visual aids were used for the
presentation of quantitative data. For interpreting qualitative data thematic analysis was
applied and supported by NVivo content analysis software.
4. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTICAL SUPPORT
Desk research comprised literature and evidence assessment, as well as quantitative
assessment related to administrative burden.
Evidence and literature have been sourced via a number of routes: from references in the
terms of reference for the E-PRTR impact assessment support study; from current work being
undertaken by project partners; from reports and other evidence signposted by the European
Commission; from a review of literature; and from respondents to stakeholder engagement
133
for this study through responses to the open public questionnaire, targeted stakeholder survey,
interviews and focus groups.
The analysis of reported E-PRTR data, to date, has also been a key source of information,
providing the likely number of facilities to be impacted by different policy options.
The inclusion of additional activities and the assessment of the administrative burden has
been informed by the consultation of Eurostat statistics and the EU Registry on Industrial
Sites. Consultation of other EU environmental legislation and the European Chemicals
Agency’s databases informed the suggestions for inclusion of additional pollutants within the
E-PRTR.
5. CONSULTATIONS
a. Open public consultation (OPC)
The shared IED and E-PRTR online OPC offered the opportunity for interested individuals
from any type of stakeholder groups to give their opinion on the revision of the IED and E-
PRTR Regulation. The OPC was launched on the Commission’s website.24
The questionnaire included 24 questions, of which four were specific to the E-PRTR.
Submissions to the OPC were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. All multiple-choice
questions were summarised for results by stakeholder group.
b. Targeted stakeholder engagement: online survey
To gather more in-depth information from those stakeholders already possessing a good
understanding of the E-PRTR and it implementation, a combination of targeted stakeholder
consultation methods was used. A targeted online survey was utilised to gather the views of
key groups of stakeholders, including Member States’ authorities (at any level of
administration and E-PRTR implementation), industry sector (individual companies or trade
associations) or other types of organisations (e.g. environmental or civil society NGOs,
research bodies, etc).
c. Interviews
Targeted telephone interviews to complement the online survey took place with
representatives of regional and national competent authorities, European institutions,
representatives of non-EU PRTRs, representatives of the Kyiv Bureau, industry associations,
civil society, and other key stakeholders.
d. Focus groups
Focus group discussions were held to complement the online survey and interviews.
Representatives of Member State authorities, industry associations and the NGO community
took part in the discussion. Attendance at the focus group was by invitation only. Two focus
groups were organised to tackle different problem areas.
24
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1913-Evaluation-of-the-
Industrial-Emissions-Directive/public-consultation_it
134
e. Stakeholder workshops
Two workshops were held online prior to commencing the consultation process, and after the
OPC and the TSS had closed.
6. ROBUSTNESS OF THE EVIDENCE
a. Overview
The level of credibility varies with regard to each source of information that has been used
for the assessment. In principle, sources of information that are based on measured or
reported information are believed to be quite certain. However, even in these cases the
robustness depends on the correct measuring and reporting of the parameter concerned. It is
assumed that even if there are errors, these are not systematic and there is not concerted
manipulation.
In other cases, literature may draw itself on a lot of stakeholder opinion, or be based on a
small sample or have other features that weaken its robustness.
Literature which originates from stakeholders with a particular vested interest are treated with
greater caution. Such literature may selectively present information or present it in a certain
manner to support an argument that the interested party may wish to pursue.
Stakeholder opinion presents similar risks to stakeholder-sourced literature. In their opinions,
stakeholders may be seeking to manipulate the results to support their preferred outcome.
In the case of this assessment, industry holds opposite views to researchers and NGOs on
many of the problem areas identified. In general, industry opposes drastic changes to the
scope of the Regulation, pointing to the potential for significant increases in the
administrative burden. Conversely, researchers and NGOs would like to see a significant
revision of the Regulation. It seems relatively likely that authorities’ opinions might be more
objective, although individual Member States may also have specific outcomes in mind. It is
therefore not surprising to find that Member States’ opinions largely lie between those of
NGOs/ researchers and industry.
To deal with the above issues, stakeholder opinions have been compared across the different
stakeholder groups and in view of their different interests, a more robust composite
stakeholder overview has been derived.
b. Levels of confidence
The level of confidence in the assessment is a result of the robustness of each of the
individual information sources used and the degree to which the different sources could be
used to corroborate each other.
The weakest confidence level is considered to be associated with answers where the only
information available is stakeholder opinion. Since, in this case, most questions have been
answered by all stakeholder groups, there is reasonably high degree of certainty that these
answers have not been corrupted by a concerted effort to manipulate the findings. Where the
135
different stakeholder opinions are largely convergent, we can more likely have a higher
confidence level that they are less biased.
For many issues, the pure opinion expressed in the surveys can be supported and contrasted
with the opinions expressed in interviews or focus groups.
Where it is possible to compare findings from literature with stakeholder opinions, a much
higher degree of confidence can be placed in the findings.
The highest degree of confidence is provided where multiple sources of information
corroborate one another, taken together with multiple stakeholder opinions.
In the case of the assessment of the administrative burden, it has not been always possible to
isolate completely the burden attributable to the E-PRTR Regulation from that attributable to
the IED completely. Even the stakeholders involved in the implementation of these two legal
instruments found it difficult to clearly separate the tasks, and, as such, the associated
respective administrative burdens incurred by the IED and the E-PRTR Regulation.
136
Annex 5: Detailed baseline
INTRODUCTION
Consistent with tools #12 and #27 of the Better Regulation Toolbox, the baseline option
represents a ‘no policy change’ scenario. That is, the baseline assumes that the current EU-
level and national policies and measures continue in force and that the sectors are affected by
the baseline economic expectations driven by the market context (Section 5.1.1).
In more detail for the IED, the baseline is the continuation of the existing legal framework
and scope coupled with the continuation of any further development of BAT reference
documents and BAT conclusions in the context of the information exchange under IED
Article 13 led by the EIPPCB (section 5.1.1.3). The problems that have been identified with
the implementation of the IED are assumed to remain, although their evolution will be
subject to the ongoing market context developments.
1. MARKET CONTEXT
The expected evolution of the market context for the IED sectors is assumed to follow the
projections modelled for the ‘Fit for 55’ climate package by DG CLIMA and DG ENER,
which considers the impact of policies associated with achieving a net 55% reduction in GHG
emissions by 2030 for the EU compared with 1990 levels.
These projections were developed using the PRIMES and GEM-E3 models by E3Modelling,
as well as supporting work by IIASA using the GAINS model, and have been adopted as the
baseline against which to assess the policy options for the revision of the IED.
The projections consist of a reference or “REF” scenario that is based on current policy
framework, and a “MIX” scenario that is consistent with the policy packages proposed to
achieve the 55% net reduction target by 2030. Both of these scenarios take into account the
effects of and expected recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Up to and including 2030 therefore, there are assumed to be implementation tools in place –
from the Fit for 55 package – driving transformation change. After this point, post 2030, the
baseline assumes that the energy system continues to decarbonise, with associated GHG
emissions reduced by ~80% by 2050.
1.1. WHAT DO THE BASELINE PROJECTIONS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FOR SECTORAL
TRANSFORMATIONS
The GEM-E3 model which underpins the baseline projections is a macroeconomic
computable general equilibrium model. The baseline projections take into account the
structure of economic growth (consumption vs investment led growth), the policies that affect
the energy system, the contribution of each sector in total GDP and insights from selected
sectoral industrial outlooks.
137
The key trend in the sectoral economic outlook is that the EU economy dematerialises and
becomes even more service oriented. That is, the services sector dominates, generating
slightly over 76% of gross value added in the EU by 2050, while the shares in total GDP of
industry is projected to decline slightly by 2030 and more so by 2050.
The baseline assumes the economy becomes more open to trade, i.e. the total share of imports
and exports of GDP increases. Lower value added products such as textiles or ceramics are
imported and trade is mostly focused on higher value added products such as equipment
manufacturing. Construction and the demand for non-metallic minerals follows the pattern of
investment growth, with the share of investment to GDP increasing over time.
Further, energy-related industries and, in particular, fossil fuel-based energy industries are
assumed to be affected by the EU’s existing climate and energy policies. Oil, gas and coke
production is reduced over the projection period and, hence, their share in total value added is
reduced over time. Specifically, as the fossil-based industries (coal mines in the short term
and oil in the medium term) are forecast to decline, clean energy sectors are assumed to
expand in the baseline, such as batteries, electric vehicles, photovoltaic and wind energy
generation. The share of the total energy sector in total gross value added is expected to
remain broadly unchanged as the substitution from imported fossil-fuels to higher-valued
added domestic electricity production is expected to continue.
A full description of the PRIMES modelling is provided in supporting studies for the impact
assessments of policy packages led by DG CLIMA. The sector classifications in PRIMES do
not correspond precisely with those of the IED activities, and do not include all IED
activities, but can be used to provide a high-level indication of the development of some of
the industrial sectors and power generation.
Detailed projections for the industrial sectors in the baseline are provided covering sectoral
added value, energy consumption (total), energy consumption by fuel type, energy intensity,
carbon emissions and carbon intensity. Specific remarks are made on the embodied
assumptions for the three spotlight sectors covered in the case studies, as well as on the
context of the industrial transformation.
138
1.2. QUANTITATIVE OUTPUTS OF THE BASELINE
Sectoral added value is estimated to steadily increase in both the REF and MIX scenarios
for most sectors from 2020 to 2050, although the textiles sector is expected to decline in
value added from 2025, returning to levels closer to 2020 by 2040 but continuing to decline
thereafter (Figure A5-1).
Figure A5-1: Sectoral added value of industry sectors in MIX scenario from 2010 to 2050
(2020=100)
Source: PRIMES
Energy consumption for most industry sectors is expected to increase or stay relatively
constant from 2020 but only in the short-term, and final energy consumption will generally
decline thereafter to 2040, until remaining relatively level to 2050 (Figure A5-2). There are
some notable exceptions. For example, energy consumed in the textiles industry will decline
from 2020 and over the period. The iron and steel industry, however, will consume more
energy than in 2020 in the shorter term to 2025, although this consumption is expected to
decline to 2020 levels by 2035. Thereafter, final energy consumption for this sector would,
once again, rise. The chemicals sector is also expected to have a slightly different energy
consumption pattern. The sector’s consumption of energy would decrease to 2030 and stay
broadly constant to 2040.
The iron and steel sector is expected to experience a reduction in energy intensity from 2020
to 2035 but return to 2020 levels by 2040. The sector’s energy consumption is expected to
decline up to 2035, but rise thereafter. However, carbon intensity does not. This is due to the
assumed adoption of new production processes in the iron and steel industry of higher energy
intensity and lower carbon intensity – specifically the adoption of hydrogen for direct
reduction of iron replacing the process of blast furnace and basic oxygen furnace
steelmaking. This result appears surprising but it is not that the hydrogen is less energy
139
efficient but it is the accounting rules for reporting energy balances from Eurostat that leads
to this result.25
Figure A5-2: Energy consumption of industry sectors in MIX scenario from 2010 to 2050
(2020=100)
Source: PRIMES
The electricity generation mix by fuel types is expected to show significant expansion of
renewable generation (from a range of sources, dominated by wind) to 2040, with
commensurate reductions in fossil derived sources (Figure A5-3). The decline in use of fossil
fuels for power generation is particularly marked for solid fuels, which drops to 3.5% by
2030 and projected to decline to less than 1% by 2035. Natural gas is assumed to remain
present in the electricity mix in 2050 to the tune of 9 to 10%. This will come with a
commensurate carbon reduction for those IED sectors using electricity to power their
processes.
25
Specifically, it means that the input used to the blast furnace process is not reported as the final energy
consumption of Iron and Steel but reported separately as transformation input in blast furnace plants. The
majority of the emissions in the Iron and Steel sector come from the blast furnace and the coke plant. The
coke plant produces coking coal, which is used in the blast furnace both as a heat source and to reduce iron.
The energy input used in the blast furnace to reduce iron are not reported in the final energy consumption of
Iron and Steel but the emissions include these processes. The hydrogen used to reduce iron is reported on the
Iron and Steel final energy consumption. Overall there is an increase in final energy consumption and a
decrease in emissions as the carbon intensive process of BF-BOF is replaced by a clean process H2-DRI.
140
Figure A5-3: Gross Electricity generation by fuel type in MIX scenario from 2010 to 2050 (%)
Source: PRIMES
The forecast of energy consumed by fuel for all industry sectors in PRIMES suggests that
solid fossil fuels and oil will decline sharply over the period when compared to 2020 levels,
with solids dropping to near-zero or zero from 2040, and oil down by 90% compared to 2020
levels by 2045. Gas consumption is expected to drop more slowly over the period, whilst
consumption of other fuels, such as biomass, waste and hydrogen, is forecast to stagnate in
the short-term, even suffer a slight decline in the early 2030s and rise sharply from 2035
onwards (Figure A5-4). This analysis excludes electricity and heat from Combined Heat and
Power sources.
Broadly speaking, the reduction in consumption of fossil-derived energy sources for IED
sectors would be expected to be commensurate with reduction in combustion related products
such as SO2, NOx and PM10. Where sectors’ energy needs switch to being fulfilled by other
energy sources (biomass, waste, hydrogen), the relationship is not quite as clear. For those
cases where hydrogen, a clean burning fuel, is expected to be used, such as in the steel sector,
associated air pollutant emission reductions would also be expected. Where the switch is to
biomass, some pollutant emissions deriving from fuel impurities such as heavy metals or
sulphur would be expected to decline, whilst others forming over combustion conditions such
as NOx would continue.
141
Figure A5-4: Energy consumption by fuel of industry sectors in MIX scenario from 2010 to 2050
(2020=100)
Source: PRIMES
The energy intensity, calculated as energy consumed per unit of gross value added per
sector, is forecast to decline for most sectors over the period, reaching in the MIX scenario
between 50% and 70% of 2020 levels, with the exception of the iron and steel sector as noted
above (Figure A5-5).
Figure A5-5: Energy intensity of industry sectors in MIX scenario from 2010 to 2050 (2020=100)
Source: PRIMES
Building on this and the expected fuel mix, the associated carbon emissions of the industry
sectors, is forecast to drop significantly and steadily from 2025 to 2045 after which it is
projected to plateau at 3% to 14% of 2020 levels (Figure A5-6).
142
Figure A5-6: Carbon emissions of industry sectors in MIX scenario from 2010 to 2050
(2020=100)
Source: PRIMES
The associated carbon intensity of the industry sectors, calculated as tonnes of carbon
dioxide equivalent emissions for each tonne of oil equivalent energy consumed per sector, is
forecast to drop in both the REF and MIX scenarios, reaching in the MIX scenario between
70% and 80% of 2020 levels by 2030, and 1% to 10% of 2020 levels by 2045/2050 (Figure
A5-7).
Figure A5-7: Carbon intensity of industry sectors in MIX scenario from 2010 to 2050
(2020=100)
Source: PRIMES
1.3. BASELINE ASSUMPTIONS FOR SPOTLIGHT SECTORS
For the iron and steel sector, the key change assumed in the MIX scenario related to the
transformation changes to this sector is the switching away from the carbon-intensive process
of steelmaking through the blast furnace / basic oxygen furnace route to a clean process using
hydrogen for direction reduction of iron. This is assumed to occur after 2030.
143
The cement industry is expected to reduce emissions significantly when progressing towards
2050 both in terms of energy and process emissions. In the short term period the main options
are fuel switching and efficiency improvements. For the medium to long term the following
process are envisaged and included in the policy scenario:
 Fuel switch: use of alternative fuels (e.g. refuse-derived fuel, industrial waste,
biomass waste) instead of fossil fuels; biomass is already being increasingly used)
 Reduced carbon intensity of processes: process replacement (dry instead of wet),
material replacement (use of decarbonised raw material for clinker production and
clinker substitution in cement production and reduction of clinker-to-cement ratio)
 Carbon Capture and Storage/Utilisation (chemical absorption, oxyfuel technology,
calcium looping) is an option, particularly for remaining process emissions
 Electrification for process heat is challenging (high flame temperature 2 000°C),
while plasma technology is under research; expected to occur only at the end of the
time period
 Hydrogen is an option under study for use to fire kilns producing clinker
Regarding the oil refining industry, in the longer term demand for petroleum based products
is assumed to decrease considerably reducing the need for refineries. Hence the number of
refineries is expected to reduce over time and remaining refineries to shift their production
processes. For the shorter time period waste heat recovery and overall horizontal process
efficiency is the main option assumed to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions from
refineries. For the medium to long term, the measures assumed include:
 Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage/Utilisation (oxyfuel combustion)
 Fuel substitution: furnace electrification (under study), hydrogen fuel for combustion
in furnaces
 Use of biomass, hydrogen for feedstock substitution
1.4. INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION
At a high level, the graphs in the previous sections suggest that economic growth in all but
the textiles sector is expected to rise from 2025, and that this is against a backdrop of declines
in energy consumption, energy intensity, carbon emissions and carbon intensity that begin in
the 2020s, continue through the 2030s, and largely plateau to projected minimum values in
2040 (energy consumption and intensity) or 2045 (carbon emissions and intensity). Clearly,
to continue to achieve sustained sectoral growth but with stark and significant reductions in
carbon emissions, transformation changes across these sectors will be needed. This suggests
that transformation change for IED industrial sectors that will begin during the 2020s to reach
the Fit For 55 ambition targets of 2030 will need to continue along similar trajectories to
achieve the overarching 2050 ambition level, and with these elements being achieved from an
outcome perspective (GHG emissions) by 2045.
The IED could play a role in helping to cement and continue this transformation, and it has
been noted how trends in reducing pollutant emissions would be expected to be correlated
with such decarbonisation trends related to the use of fossil fuels, typically affecting NOx,
SOx, PM10 and heavy metals (e.g. mercury). And it is not just related to fuel switches. The
144
innovative techniques needed to decarbonise would be expected to also impact on pollutant
emissions, further aligning decarbonisation and zero pollution ambitions.
The three case studies described above in section 3 on the iron and steel, cement and refining
industries make it clear how innovative and breakthrough decarbonisation techniques in these
three energy intensive industries will also in many cases deliver dramatic reductions of
overall pollutant emissions to air. Consequently, in the future iterations of BREFs and BAT
conclusions of sectors where substantial breakthroughs of decarbonisation techniques have
occurred which impact on IED scope (e.g. with effect on air pollutants, water releases,
resource consumption etc.), Technical Working Groups (TWGs) may need to set BAT-AELs
for pollutant emissions on the basis using those decarbonisation techniques as a reference. If
this occurs, the usual IED permit review within four years of BATc publication would occur,
potentially triggering the need for investment by industrial operators in decarbonisation
techniques that have substantial co-benefits in terms of pollutant emissions or other
environmental issues. This means that even if GHG emissions within the ETS scope remain
unregulated by the IED, the obligation to apply BAT (i.e., to optimise overall pollution
control) would drive investments into what could be considered primarily as breakthrough
‘decarbonisation’ techniques. In other cases, decarbonisation techniques may have overall
negative impacts on pollutant emission and require definition of BAT to address those
negative impacts. As one example, several sectors are considering the potential for how
carbon capture techniques could be utilised for their decarbonisation pathways. This will
consequently require the definition of BAT to address potential environmental issues such as
potential leakage.
2. CURRENT STATUS, SCOPE, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IED, AND EXPECTED
EVOLUTION
The latest analysis of IED implementation reporting (2018) confirmed the recent status and
trends (Ricardo, 2021). The IED implementation reporting is the key source of data and
evidence employed to develop our understanding of the baseline for industry sectors at the
level of granularity covered by the IED framework (Annex I).
On the number of installations within scope of the IED:
There are around 52,000 installations that fall within the scope of the IED (Table A5-1), of
which ~50 300 are in operation. The number of IED installations increased slightly from
2015 to 2017 but declined from 2017 to 2018. The decline in number of IED installations was
driven by the following sectors:
 Oil and gas refining installations (10% reduction between 2017 and 2018)
 Ceramic manufacturing (28% reduction between 2015 and 2017)
 Disposal of hazardous waste (19% reduction between 2015 and 2017)
 Landfills (10% reduction between 2015 and 2017)
 Combustion installations (1% reduction between 2015 and 2017 and 2% reduction
between 2017 and 2018).
145
The largest number of installations is reported for ‘other activities’ owing to the large number
of installations for rearing of poultry or pigs (IRPP) – making up around 40% of all the IED
installations in the EU.
The changes observed in the total number of IED installations over recent years has not been
significant at the EU level.
Table A5-1: Number of IED installations reported by EU27 (except Slovakia) to the EU registry
(2018)
IED activity 2018
1 Energy industries 3 494
1.1 Combustion 3 193
1.2 Refining 261
1.3 Production of coke 29
1.4 Gasification or liquefaction 11
2 Metals production and processing 5 683
2.1 Metal ore 31
2.2 Pig iron or steel 239
2.3 Processing of ferrous metals 824
2.4 Ferrous metals foundries 580
2.5 Non-ferrous metals 1 171
2.6 Surface treatment of metals or plastic 2 838
3 Mineral industries 2 411
3.1 Cement, lime and magnesium oxide 544
3.2 Asbestos 0
3.3 Glass 363
3.4 Mineral fibres 79
3.5 Ceramic products 1 425
4 Chemicals industries 4 983
4.1 Organic 3 012
4.2 Inorganic 1 087
4.3 Phosphorus-, nitrogen- or potassium-based fertilisers 154
4.4 Plant protection products 124
4.5 Pharmaceutical products 552
4.6 Explosives 54
5 Waste industries 11 374
5.1 Disposal or recovery of hazardous waste 2 368
5.2 (Co-) incineration of waste 754
5.3 Disposal/recovery of non-hazardous waste 2 796
5.4 Landfills 2944
5.5 Temporary storage of hazardous waste 2506
5.6 Underground storage of hazardous waste 6
6 Other activities 28 262
6.1 Pulp, paper, or wood-based products 920
146
IED activity 2018
6.2 Textiles pre-treatment or dyeing 276
6.3 Tanning 29
6.4 Slaughterhouses, food products and milk 3 875
6.5 Disposal of animal carcasses 364
6.6 Rearing of poultry or pigs 21 309
6.7 Surface treatment 1084
6.8 Production of carbon 61
6.9 Capture of CO2 streams 7
6.10 Preservation of wood and wood products 104
6.11 Independently operated treatment of waste water 233
Total all activities 56 207
Source: EEA Registry Industrial Reporting Database v4 – version March 2021.
Possible future changes in the number of installations could be forecast to trend with the
sectoral gross value added as per Figure A5-1. The number of installations in the baseline of
the EU Registry have been projected forward based on their sectoral added value in most
cases (source: PRIMES), using the most relevant indicator to each IED activity. The
indicators used for this projection are shown below in Table A5-2.
Table A5-2: Indicator used to project number of installations (source: PRIMES)
PRIMES sector Indicator from PRIMES MIX scenario
Thermal power generation Fuel input in thermal power plants (in ktoe)
Refineries Fuel input in refineries
Iron and steel Iron and steel sectoral added value
Other transformation processes Fuel input in other transformation processes - others
Non ferrous metals Non ferrous metals sectoral added value
Other industries Other industries sectoral added value
Non metallic minerals Non metallic minerals sectoral added value
Chemicals Chemicals sectoral added value
Paper and pulp Pulp and paper sectoral added value
Textiles Textiles sectoral added value
Food, drink and tobacco Food, drink and tobacco sectoral added value
Market services Market services sectoral added value
Agriculture Agriculture sectoral added value
147
Figure A5-8: Indicators used to project number of installations, 2018=100 (source: PRIMES)
The results of projecting the installation numbers from the EU Registry to future years are
shown in the table below.
Table A5-3: Projected number of installations
IED activity
group
2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
1 3 117 3 494 3 124 2 740 2 191 2 180 2 025
2 5 567 5 683 5 629 6 233 6 457 6 662 6 858
3 2 241 2 411 2 451 2 757 2 884 2 992 3 104
4 4 903 4 983 5 208 5 699 5 973 6 288 6 616
5 11 058 11 374 11 305 12 859 13 506 14 165 14 916
6 27 194 28 262 28 339 29 678 30 303 30 907 31 535
TOTAL 54 080 56 207 56 055 59 966 61 316 63 194 65 054
On the BREF process and development of BAT Conclusions
The European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (EIPPCB) has led the
development of BREFs and BAT Conclusions for the last decade, leading to the publication
of around two BAT Conclusions documents each year on average since the inception of the
IED. The evaluation of the IED found the ‘BREF process’ to be largely working well, with
previous deficiencies having been addressed through the programme of continuous
improvement that the EIPPCB has been running since 2014. It would be expected that the
BREF process would continue in this way, with further minor improvements and
development of new BAT Conclusions for the remaining IED activities not yet with BAT
Conclusions (1st
BREF review cycle) and would begin the process of revising BAT
Conclusions already published (2nd
BREF review cycle).
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
1,20
1,40
1,60
1,80
2,00
2015scaled
2020scaled
2025scaled
2030scaled
2035scaled
2040scaled
2045scaled
2050scaled
2018=100
Fuel input in thermal power
plants (in ktoe)
fuel input in refineries
Iron and steel sectoral added
value
fuel input in other
transformation processes -
others
non ferrous metals sectoral
added value
other industries sectoral added
value
non metallic minerals sectoral
added value
chemicals sectoral added value
148
For the baseline, the BREF process and BAT Conclusions would be expected in the future to
continue:
 Being coordinated by the EIPPCB, with Technical Working Groups numbering 60 to
250 people, comprised of the same mix of stakeholders as composed to date
(representatives of EU Member States, industry, environmental NGOs, the European
Commission, and the EEA and observer countries)
 Identifying the BAT that are most effective for achieving a high level of
environmental protection
 Producing BAT Conclusions with BAT-AELs expressed as ranges from lower to
upper levels, but with limited identification of which techniques can be used to
achieve the lower end of the BAT-AEL ranges
 Not including BAT-AELs on GHGs
 Identifying (but sometimes to a limited extent) BAT-AEPLs (Ricardo et al, 2020) –
though this is increasingly common for more recent BREFs e.g., increasingly setting
requirements to monitor/manage water resource efficiency. Noting that AEPLs would
continue to be viewed as non-binding by some Member States
 Accounting for cross media effects in a rather limited way (Ricardo et al, 2020)
 BREF cycle of 10 years (i.e. 60 BREF reviews to be completed in a period of 20
years)
 Being of the same average duration (3 to 5 years) for new BAT Conclusions,
although revisions to existing BAT Conclusions would be expected to be shorter
 Having administrative costs per BREF of around €8m per BREF (range: €3.6m to
€20.6m) as estimated in (Ricardo et al, 2020). With the advent of the COVID
pandemic, recently the TWG meetings have been online, which may continue to
some degree following easing of travel restrictions and which could be expected to
have had a minor impact on the administrative costs.
 With a focus on identifying BAT and less emphasis on identifying emerging
techniques
 Not quantifying human health and environment benefits of implementing BAT for
each BAT Conclusion
On permitting of IED installations:
The IED obligates the operational installations to be permitted. Based on information
reported by Member States, the statistics reported on the proportion of permits issued were:
 Around 87% of the total installations were reported as having a permit; these data
were available split by sector. The Commission is clarifying whether this reflects non-
compliance or under-reporting and will take appropriate action;
149
 The key gaps in permitting were, at a country level, in Germany, and at a sector level,
for IRPP. It would be expected that these gaps would diminish in the future baseline
with further implementation of the IED.
The most recent analysis of permitting under the IED was limited in the conclusions that
could be drawn on the timeliness of permit reconsidering / updating due to the data
reported. Based on the evidence available, it would be expected that the majority of permits
(perhaps around three quarters, although the evidence is not firm) would continue to be
reconsidered and, if necessary, updated within the four-year implementation window
following the adoption of the BATC.
The costs of permitting were estimated in the IED evaluation for large steelworks at €50 000
to €100 000 per installation (Ricardo et al, 2020, p. 135). The costs for permitting IRPP farm
installations was estimated (uplifted to 2020 EUR) to be €8 000 to €9 000 per
installation(Amec, 2012). The 2007 IED IA estimated total permit reconsideration costs of
€11-40 million/year if reconsiderations occurred every 10 years.
Based on updated information received during the consultation for this impact assessment,
the final assumptions on baseline costs for permitting are:
 One-off costs of issuing new permits -public authorities (2020 €):€3 250 - €35 000,
with a central estimate of €23 400
 One-off costs of issuing new permits -operators (2020 €): €10 000 - €62 250, with a
central estimate of €28 000
 One-off costs of permit reconsiderations and updates -public authorities (2020 €): €1
600 - €17 500, with a central estimate of €11 700
 One-off costs of permit reconsiderations and updates -operators (2020 €) : €1 500 -
€31 250, with a central estimate of €14 000
The following already-identified implementation issues regarding the conditions set in
permits would be assumed to continue leading to several instances of BAT-AELs continuing
to not being achieved:
 The majority of permit ELVs will continue to be set at the upper end of the BAT-AEL
range
 A negligible number of installations would have permit ELVs set to achieve greater
emission reductions than those achievable by the use of BAT in the adopted BATC
 Permit ELVs are sometimes set above BAT-AELs (Ricardo et al, 2020)
 There is variation among Member States in how flexibilities offered by the IED are
interpreted and taken up
 This includes derogations under Article 15(4). A proportion of installations would be
granted derogations under Article 15(4) - For the year 2018, 133 Article 15(4)
derogations were reported for 98 installations; this has increased in reporting year
2019 to 203 derogations for 130 installations. This increasing trend would continue as
150
BAT conclusions are implemented in permits. The following was observed for
reporting year 2018:
o Derogation durations extend up to 10 years, and with some granted seemingly
without end points
o The proportion of installations granted derogations will vary by BREF (e.g.,
83% of derogations reported in 2018 as granted were for two BREFs)
o The proportion of installations granted derogations will vary by country:
around half of Member States have granted derogations for selected cases, but
40% of derogations reported in 2018 as granted were for one Member State)
o The degree of public access to at least some information regarding derogations
would continue to be available for two thirds of Member States granting
derogations, and relatively limited number of Member States providing full
justification of their reasons for granting derogations
Access to information on permitting would continue to vary by Member State. Whilst the
evaluation of the IED concluded that central permit repositories have been developed and
used at national level for 19 Member States, for the remaining Member States the coverage is
either partial (e.g., provided at regional level for some regions) or missing. Where
information is provided publicly about installations, the ease of access to permits would
continue in the future to be hampered by (Ricardo, 2021):
 The format of the documentation sometimes being non-searchable scanned PDFs
 Having multiple permits and permit documents for each installation
 Being without standardised structure and content of the permit documentation, leading
to variation not only by Member State but also by region within a Member State.
The costs assumed in the baseline are:
 Annual costs for managing information and systems -public authorities (2020 €)
€100 - €3 000 with a central estimate of €2 000
On monitoring and reporting
All IED installations’ permits must include suitable emission monitoring requirements
(Article 14(1)c). All IED installation operators are obliged to supply the competent authority
regularly, and at least annually, with emissions monitoring results (Article 14(1)d).
In the IED evaluation, estimates of the costs of monitoring for installations ranged from €15
000 to €50 000 per year per installation (Ricardo et al, 2020). Based on evidence provided by
stakeholders engaged, lower costs than this are to be expected. The costs would be expected
to continue going forward on an annual basis.
The current access to monitoring data would be expected to continue without further action.
Based on 2018 reporting, around half of the Member States have made emissions monitoring
data available online for at least some installations, and in varying formats. Only two
Member States have, to date, used central permit repositories to publish emissions monitoring
data to help facilitate access to the reports at installation level, and only one Member State
151
uses a common report template to facilitate access. Other variation in implementation among
Member States that potentially hampers ease of access to monitoring data includes (Ricardo,
2021):
 Making data only available upon request (3 Member States)
 Publishing data on restricted webpages that are not publicly accessible (3 Member
States)
 Using a database for emissions monitoring data that is independent from other
installation documentation (2 Member States)
 Publishing reporting only for some regions in a Member State (2 Member States)
 Publishing annual reports on emissions monitoring data independently from other
installation documentation (1 Member State).
The costs in the baseline for monitoring and reporting have been assumed to be:
 Annual monitoring and reporting costs-operators (2020 €): €150 - €12 000 with a
central estimate of €8 000
On compliance and enforcement:
Regarding compliance assessment, there is variation among Member States in how
compliance assessment is carried out, leading to variation in the stringency of compliance
(e.g. if and how measurement uncertainty is accounted for when comparing monitoring
results to permit limit values). Without action to harmonise this variation, it would be
expected to continue.
Regarding inspections, on average, around half of installations receive an environmental
inspection each year (Ricardo, 2021). This would be expected to continue without action.
There is wide variation among Member States and among sectors as to the average frequency
of inspections, with some Member States inspecting every installation every year, and others
less frequently. (It isn’t possible to conclude with the information already reported on
whether the environmental risks posed by installations would require inspections more often
than every 3 years.26
). Inspection costs range from €15 000 to €30 000 each (Ricardo et al,
2020); lower costs were provided during this impact assessment study; the costs would be
expected to continue.
As to making public the information related to compliance and enforcement, the information
available online to the public regarding site visit reports would be expected to remain limited
in its relevance, and varying by Member State, as per the current status (Ricardo, 2021). The
information available online to the public regarding emission monitoring data will also
remain limited in its relevance, and varying by Member State (Ricardo, 2021).
26
IED Article 23(4): ‘The period between two site visits shall be based on a systematic appraisal of the
environmental risks of the installations concerned and shall not exceed 1 year for installations posing the
highest risks and 3 years for installations posing the lowest risks. If an inspection has identified an important
case of non-compliance with the permit conditions, an additional site visit shall be carried out within 6 months
of that inspection.’
152
The costs in the baseline for inspections have been assumed to be:
 Inspection costs every two years -public authorities (2020 €): €500 - €12 000 with a
central estimate of €9 600
 Inspection costs every two years -operators (2020 €): €125 - €5 000 with a central
estimate of €4 000
On contribution to emissions
The evaluation of the IED (Ricardo et al, 2020) confirmed that, under the IED, industrial
emissions to air and releases of water pollutants have generally decreased in recent years
(Figure A5-9). Furthermore, these reductions of key pollutants have been shown to have
occurred against a backdrop of economic growth (Ricardo et al, 2020).
Figure A5-9: Indexed emissions to air for industry (EU-28)
Note: The data emissions reported by NFR codes which do not include thresholds for reporting (whereas some IED activities
do). Source: (Ricardo et al, 2020) and originally from EEA (2020) [data source: CLRTAP]
Despite these declines, industrial sectors remain key sources of air pollutants. Based on the
UN-ECE’s Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP), national
emission inventory reporting (which doesn’t align precisely with the IED Annex I sectoral
scope), industrial sectors were responsible in 2017 for over half the emissions to air of CO2,
SOx, NMVOC and the heavy metals cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg) and lead (Pb) and were
key sources of NOx (32%) and PM10 (28%) (Ricardo et al, 2020). The IED currently
regulates about 5% of the total methane emissions in the EU-27, a fraction which mainly
originates from waste management (other than landfill sites), wastewater treatment and from
rearing of pigs. Overall for the whole of the EU economy, methane represents about 10% of
GHG emissions.
With the continued development of further BAT conclusions for IED sectors, and the
continued implementation of the IED with permit ELVs based on BAT, and the decoupled
nature between industrial sector gross value added and emissions, it would be expected for
the sectoral emissions from IED industries to decline further over time.
153
To try to estimate at a very high level the typical (or possible) emission reductions for a
sector as a whole associated with implementation of BATCs for key environmental issues
(KEI), specific analysis on three sectors has been conducted. This has focussed on three
sectors (pulp/paper, cement, glass) for which the sectors have completed the four year
implementation period following BAT Conclusions publication. Emissions data for three
pollutants identified as KEI for each of these sectors have been extracted from E-PRTR and
benchmarked against the activity (production) statistics reported for these sectors. The
findings of this analysis, shown in Figure A5-11, suggest that reductions in emissions
intensity (emissions per unit of production) dropped following implementation of the BATC
by 37% to 67% (average 47%), with annual average reductions of 7% to 14% (mean 10%).
Specifically, Figure A5-11 shows for the pulp and paper sector that most or all of the
emission reductions appeared to occur prior to the 4 year BATc implementation period
concluded. In contrast, for the glass sector, the figures suggests that a large proportion of the
emission reduction occurred after the 4 year implementation period concluded, which may be
consistent with the larger than average number of derogations granted for the glass sector,
which would have acted to delay the compliance date. For the cement sector, emission
reductions occurred both before and after the 4 year implementation period.
A second version of a BREF (and BAT conclusions) for a sector would not be expected to
have such significant impacts on emission reductions as the first BAT conclusions. Following
BATc implementation, it would be expected for there to be less divergence among
installations’ emissions performance. Hence the percentage emission reductions identified as
having occurred in the sector during the period of (first) BAT conclusions implementation
(averaging 47%) would be unlikely to be achieved for a subsequent (second) BAT
conclusions, unless transformational techniques (or processes) were identified as part of that
BREF process.
The projected continued decline of carbon emissions in the baseline would be expected to be
commensurate also with continued reductions in other key air pollutants, particularly for
those processes involving combustion of carbonaceous fuel.
However, as part of the Commission’s Fit for 55 policy package, NOx emission projections
were undertaken by IIASA using the GAINS model. Mapping the sectoral split from those
projections (reported against UNFCCC CRF sector) to the IED activity groups from Annex I
(energy, metals, minerals etc.), and excluding the emissions from sectors outside the IED
scope, has allowed the emissions projections shown in Figure A5-10 to be developed. It is
important to note that not all the IED activities are directly represented by CRF sectors on a
1:1 basis, and some smaller activities under IED activity group 6 are excluded. The results
nevertheless cover the majority of the larger polluting industries and show substantial
declines forecast in the MIX scenario from 2020 through to 2035, after which the decline
reverses and NOx emissions increase again, driven primarily by the energy industries,
suggesting the need for further longer-term policy action to have effect from the 2030s.
154
Figure A5-10: MIX scenario NOx emissions projected by the GAINS model to 2050 (2020=100)
Source: GAINS
Figure A5-11: Analysis of emissions intensity of key environmental issues of SO2, NOx and
PM10 emissions as (source: this report)
155
Estimating the future reductions in pollutant emissions has not been carried out, although the
estimated carbon intensity reduction has been estimated.
On the costs of air pollution from industrial facilities
These trends in the reductions in emissions are reflected in analysis conducted of the
aggregate damage costs of the air pollutants released from industrial facilities. Based on
emissions data from E-PRTR, for a consistent set of ~5 000 facilities over the period 2008 to
201727
, work by the EEA (Schucht, et al., 2021) has shown reductions in the total damage
costs by around 30% over this period, when aggregating the damage costs for main air
pollutants (NH3, NOx, PM10, SO2, NMVOCs), greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O), heavy
metals (As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb) and organic pollutants (benzene, dioxins and furans, PAHs).
This is shown in 12. Again, these trends would be expected to continue beyond 2017.
27
Note that these costs are for only 5000 facilities for which consistent time series are available. The overall
damage costs are higher when considering all installations reporting in one year.
156
Figure A5-12: Damage costs aggregated over the four pollutant groups from 2008 to 2017
(million €2019) – identical facilities reporting over the whole period
Source: (Schucht, et al., 2021)
Figure A5-13 shows these damage costs presented split by EEA sector for year 2017. The
largest contribution to damage costs arise from energy production, followed by heavy
industry, then smaller contributions from other sectors.
Figure A5-13: Damage costs by EEA sector aggregated over the four pollutant groups for 2017
(million €2019) – identical E-PRTR facilities reporting over the whole period
Source: (Schucht, et al., 2021)
551 092
339 490
310 387
222 702
-
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
million
€
2019
VSL VOLY
157
Further information on the split of total damage costs from all sources, split by sector and by
pollutant group are also presented in Schucht et al. (2021), and reproduced for years 2015-
2017 in Figure A5-14. This information suggests that the majority of the total damage would
appear to come from IED related activities, and that the dominant valuation comes from
GHG impacts (total ~€190-200 bn/year), followed by the impact of the main air pollutants
(~€65-70 bn/year), then heavy metals (~€11 bn/year) and finally from organic pollutants
(~€0.1-0.2 bn/year).
Figure A5-14: Damage costs for each of four pollutant groups from 2015 to 2017 (million €2019)
split by sector – note different scales for each panel chart
(a) Main air pollutants (b) Greenhouse gases
(c) heavy metals (d) organic pollutants
Source: (Schucht, et al., 2021)
Given that the largest component of the damage costs from industrial facilities is from GHG
emissions, and that the baseline projection of carbon emissions (Figure A5-6) is estimated to
fall significantly between 2020 and 2045, the overall damage costs from industrial facilities
would be expected to drop considerably in the baseline from the 2017 figures presented
158
above up to 2045. In addition to the baseline projection of carbon emissions, downwards
trends in main air pollutants would also be expected over this period.
3. EVOLUTION OF THE SECTORS NOT COVERED BY THE IED
Without action, the drivers behind the problems described would continue to be present.
Further information is provided here for those sectors not currently under scope of the IED,
but which are considered in problem area 5 as possible additional coverage.
Some agro-industrial activities that pollute the environment would remain outside the
IED and not subject to pollution control. The agro-industrial activities that are polluting
the environment, but which are not covered by the IED would continue with business as
usual. Specifically, the factors affecting the baseline of these activities in the absence of
change to the IED are listed in Table A5-4.
159
Table A5-4: Factors affecting future evolution of sectors considered for possible additional scope expansion of the IED
Activity currently
outside IED scope
Factors affecting baseline of these sectors in the absence of
IED policy action
Approximate
number of
installations
Key environmental issues
Cattle farming  The number of cattle farms has been declining over time in
most EU Member States28
whilst cattle production has
remained broadly static over the last 15 years29
.Hence an
intensification of the farming practices has occurred over
time and would be expected to continue.
 The size of milk-cows rearing installations is increasingly
growing with a large concentration of animals. The current
and future CAP does not and will not have impact on those
large animal rearing installations because they do not
receive the direct payments (as they do not have
agricultural land) and the conditionality cannot be applied
to them. Whereas the Member States can address
environmental, climate and animal welfare issues related
to those installations through other EU and national
legislation.
 The variation across Member States in regulating cattle
farming would continue (no level playing field).
 Some Member States may need to implement additional
measures addressing cattle farming emissions to meet
NECD obligations, as well as to address methane
emissions as part of climate targets and due to its
contribution to air pollution as ozone precursor.
 It may be more challenging (costly) to deliver the
objectives of the Methane Strategy30
at EU level without
EU wide control of methane from cattle farms.
 84 000 (>150
LSU)
 19 600 (>300
LSU)
 8 000 (>450
LSU)
 4 200 (>600
LSU)
 Climate: CH4 emissions and to a lesser extent N2O
emissions. agriculture makes up 13% of EU27 GHG
emissions; two major sources of methane, enteric
fermentation (livestock) and manure management
are the major components of this. Enteric
fermentation of feed in the stomachs of livestock
(particularly cattle) is the largest single source of
CH4 in the EU
 Air quality: NH3 emissions. Two thirds of EU27
total NH3 emissions are from livestock.
 Water quality: nutrient loading (nitrogen and
phosphorus from animal excreta); organic matter
(oxygen demanding substances such as livestock
excreta); pathogens (E coli etc); metals (selenium
etc) and emerging pollutants (drug residues,
hormones and feed additives).
28
Source: Eurostat table ef_olslsureg https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/ef_olslsureg
29
Source: Eurostat table apro_mt_lscatl http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=apro_mt_lscatl&lang=en
30
COM(2020) 663 final
160
Activity currently
outside IED scope
Factors affecting baseline of these sectors in the absence of
IED policy action
Approximate
number of
installations
Key environmental issues
Aquaculture  The EU supports developments in the sustainable
aquaculture sector through structural funds, e.g. European
Maritime and Fisheries Fund for the period 2014-2020. In
this most recent period, public funding per value of farmed
fish has doubled compared to 2000.
 The EU supports a more sustainable and competitive
aquaculture sector for the period 2021 to 2030 (EC
Communication COM(2021) 236 final of 21 May 2021).
This will be supported through the new European
Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF).
 EU production volume in 2016 was 8% lower than in
2008, yet the value of the farmed products rose by 39%.
Also, the gross value added of the sector to the economy,
number of enterprises and employment rose between 2008
and 2016 (Guillen et al., 2019)31
. The demand for seafood
is expected to increase and it is expected that European
aquaculture can help to meet that demand.
 At the same time, the sector contributes to nutrient
emissions (N and P). The share of the sector’s total
releases of nitrogen and phosphorous compared to the total
for sectors reporting under the E-PRTR is approximately
3% and 5%, respectively. Other environmental impacts
from the sector relate to the introduction of non-
indigenous species, organic matter, contaminants
including pesticides and litter, the disturbance to wildlife,
and the possibility for escape of farmed fish.
 55 to 250
installations of
production
capacity >1 000
tonnes/year
 Total of 15 000
installations
 Water quality: nutrient loading, caused by
excessive release of Nitrogen and Phosphorus into
the natural environment, leading to eutrophication
 Other: Introduction of non-indigenous species
Mining / quarrying
industries
 Waste from mining and quarrying is regulated by
Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from
 About 700-900
installations
 Air quality: dust emissions (c. 4.4% of total
industrial emissions covered by the IED in 2019 (E-
31
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X18309400
161
Activity currently
outside IED scope
Factors affecting baseline of these sectors in the absence of
IED policy action
Approximate
number of
installations
Key environmental issues
the extractive industries
 Demand for critical minerals and base metals is set to soar
over the next two decades as the world pursues carbon
neutrality goals; expected rise by as much as 6 times. It is
the clean energy transition that drives mineral demand
growth. Recycling will not be providing sufficient amount
of the secondary raw materials in the short to mid-term to
supply emerging applications that are needed for greening
the economy, therefore the supply of primary materials
will remain crucial, continuing to place demands on
specific mining from installations in the EU, and from
outside of the EU32
.
 Environmental pressures from mining and quarrying
activities relate to air emissions (dust), surface water
pollution, waste and emissions to soil and groundwater,
notably with regard to heavy metals, noise and vibrations.
Furthermore, the activities can have an impact on the
structural stability and biodiversity.
 Mining and quarrying installations may lead to substantial
emissions of PM10 equivalent to around 4.4% of total
industrial emissions covered by the IED (based on E-
PRTR data).
(metallic and
industrial
minerals)
PRTR, 2019), and to a lesser extent combustion
products (NOx and SOx, with a potential
contribution of c. 0.85% to 1% depending on the
year assessed (E-PRTR, 2017-2019).),
 Noise and vibration
 Water quality: suspended particles, metals,
metalloids, other dissolved substances
 Soil quality: releases to groundwater
 Resources: water consumption
 Other: Habitat degradation
Upstream oil and gas
industries (extraction)
 EU Methane Strategy was adopted in October 2020; as
part of fulfilling this strategy, an EC proposal is
forthcoming in 2021 to address methane leaks in the
energy sector.
 Several offshore installations would remain within the
scope of the E-PRTR, owing to the exceedance of capacity
 1 000 to 2 000
installations
 Climate: source of CH4 emissions (fugitive,
venting) and CO2 (flaring). OSPAR inventory
provided details of 12.7kt CH4 in 2017 from 133
installation, equivalent to ~1.6% of total CH4
reported to E-PRTR from IED sites.
 Air quality: source of PM2.5, NOx, SO2, NMVOC.
32
EU raw materials policy as expressed in COM (2020)474, COM (2021)350 final, SWD (2021) 352 final
162
Activity currently
outside IED scope
Factors affecting baseline of these sectors in the absence of
IED policy action
Approximate
number of
installations
Key environmental issues
thresholds for other activity definitions, such as thermal
combustion.
 The best practices in this largely international/multi-
national industry that have environmental benefits, but
which are driven by health and safety regulations, would
continue.
 Conventional offshore oil and gas extraction is contracting
as a sector, although potential for unconventional gas to
expand.
 Baseline scenario projections (REF) suggest that,
compared to 2020 levels, EU production of oil will be 10%
lower in 2030 and accelerating to 40% decrease in 2040.
For natural gas, the EU production is expected to drop by
20% by 2025 compared to 2020 levels, and then remain at
this level to 2040 (source: PRIMES).
 Emissions from the sector would drop in parallel to the
contraction of the sector.
LRTAP reported data for EU27 for year 2019 from
fugitive emissions as well as emissions from venting
and flaring of 0.2 kt of PM2.5, 8.1 kt of NOx, 18 kt
of SOx, and 102 kt of NMVOCs.
 Water quality: chemical and oil spills to water
 Soil quality: metals and sulphates, and other
chemical releases
 Resources: chemical consumption
 Waste: Extractive waste can contain chemical
residues including nitrates, cyanides, xanthates and
residues of caustic soda
Battery production  The use of batteries will be a major contributor to reducing
emissions in the mobility and energy storage sectors.
 Battery manufacturing is expanding significantly due to
increased demand from the electrification of road transport
primarily, but also due to increased use of batteries in
other transport modes, personal electronic devices and
home energy storage.
 The total production capacity in the EU ranges between
69.5 and 143.5 GWh. Plans have been revealed to build
more than 20 large-scale battery factories in the EU in the
coming years, with an expected production capacity of 600
GWh.
 The main environmental pressures from the sector are
 45-95 expected
future
installations of
production
capacity
>1GWh/year by
2040
 Water quality
 Soil quality
 Water consumption
 Waste generation
163
Activity currently
outside IED scope
Factors affecting baseline of these sectors in the absence of
IED policy action
Approximate
number of
installations
Key environmental issues
energy consumption, use of hazardous substances, water
pollution and waste management, use of raw materials /
circularity of the materials used and re-manufacturing of
products.
Ship building (other
than coating) and ship
dismantling
 Most of the world’s shipbuilding capacity is outside of the
EU. The largest ships worldwide are typically constructed
in shipyards in the Far East. Nevertheless, there are
shipyards in the EU, and the decarbonisation pathway for
the shipping industry is expecting to demand greater
uptake of efficiency measures in new ships, and alternative
designs to accommodate alternative fuels. This could
provide an increase in the rate of ship building in the EU,
but it is unclear whether this potential additional demand
would be met outside of the EU..
 175 to 325
installations (best
estimate: 275)
 Air quality: metal working activities, which
includes: thermal metal cutting (emissions of dust
and hazardous air pollutants associated with the
fumes); welding (emissions of GHG, toxic
chemicals, O3, dust, CO, NOx, SO2 and Pb); and,
grinding (emissions of harmful pollutants present in
the abrasive tools/materials and substrates).
 Water quality: from ship maintenance and repair
activities, such as bilge and tank cleaning. Similarly
for ship dismantling, as well as various pollutants
entering the environment: oils; toxic paint chips and
dust; and hazardous materials such as asbestos and
heavy metals.
 Waste: the management of waste water and waste
and accidental releases.
Downstream ferrous
metal processing
activities of forging
presses, cold rolling,
and wire drawing
 No specific information on the potential underlying trends
for demand in these specific processes
 These activities would continue to have an impact on
energy use, noise, emissions to air, GHG emissions, and
resource consumption.
 250-400
installations
 Air quality
 Water quality
 Water consumption
 Waste generation
164
4. CURRENT STATUS, SCOPE, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE E-PRTR, AND EXPECTED
EVOLUTION
1.
This section provides an overview of the information items required for the definition of
the baseline.
4.1. NUMBER OF REPORTING INSTALLATIONS BROKEN DOWN BY SECTOR, MEDIA AND
POLLUTANT
Figures 15 and 16 below present the current status of reporting to the E-PRTR. The
baseline numbers were sourced from V4 of the EEA’s industrial reporting database. The
number of reporting facilities is based on data reported to the EU Registry, which is not
impacted by pollutant thresholds, and where available, data reported for reporting year
2019 were used. However, 2019 data were not available for all countries, 2018 data were
used for Italy and 2017 data were used for Lithuania, Portugal and Slovakia. The number
of releases and transfers were based on data reported to the integrated E-PRTR/LCP
reporting and, as with the number of facilities, data from reporting year 2019 were used
where available. However, 2018 data were the latest available for Italy and 2017 data were
used for Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovakia.
Figure A5-15: Facilities reporting to the EU Registry / E-PRTR
165
Figure A5-16: Number of pollutant releases reported by medium
4.2. ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS
The administrative burdens associated with the requirements of the E-PRTR Regulation
derive from the following activities: data collection and reporting for the operators, quality
assurance and data management for Member States competent authorities and the EEA,
with the later bearing the costs for website maintenance too.
The EU Standard Cost Model estimates the costs of these tasks as:
Administrative cost = Σ P x Q
where P (for Price) = Tariff x Time;
and where Q (for Quantity) = Number of businesses x Frequency
In relation to the reporting under the E-PRTR, the costs elements are:
 Tariff = hour salary for relevant staff
 Time = hours to perform the reporting activity
 Number of businesses = number of facilities that have to report
 Frequency: once per year expect for measures/options including more frequent
reporting
At the generic level, reporting activities also comprise one-off costs, which relate to
adapting the data collection, calculation and reporting systems, training, instruction and
similar activities needed to enable the annual reporting. For one-off costs, the frequency is
one, otherwise the costs are estimated with the same formula used for recurrent reporting
costs.
Table A5-5 describes the assumptions and values used for the definition of the baseline and
the options assessment.
Element Value Reference
Salary rate 40 EUR/hour Rate for professionals - Eurostat data
Discount rate 4% Better Regulation Guidelines
Lifetime of one-off
activities
20 years (unless specified for a
particular activity)
Expert assumption – used for annualising one-
off costs.
The specific administrative costs include the following elements:
166
 Business: Reporting by facilities
 Member State CAs: Data checking and QA
 EEA
 Data checking
 Publishing new data or revising webpages by EEA
Reporting costs for business
To estimate the time required for reporting, results from the evaluation were used and this
points to around 22 hours per operator (facility) per year. Findings from the targeted
stakeholder survey (TSS) suggests resource use that is slightly higher than this estimate.
There are specific data from the Netherlands that have estimated the total costs for all
operators at €12m per year. As the Netherlands have about 3,400 facilities, the average
annual costs per facility is in the order of €3,500. This is somewhat higher and corresponds
on average to about 70 hours per facility per year.
It is therefore assumed that the average for an EU facility is somewhere between the 22
and 70 hours referenced above. Hence, 50 hours is assumed to be representative of a
medium complexity facility, where complexity for a reporting facility is determined at a
sector level, considering factors such as:
 Likely number of activities and processes per facility;
 Number of plants / installations;
 Number of stacks;
 Number of pollutants to be reported per environmental media; and
 Number of waste / waste water transfers.
It is assumed that a low level of complexity requires half the resources as the medium
level, while high complexity is double the hours used for medium complexity reporting.
The estimated hours per facility are therefore:
 Low complexity reporting: 0.5*50 hours = 25 hours
 Medium complexity reporting: 50 hours
 High complexity reporting: 2* 50 hours = 100 hours
Testing of cost assumption through stakeholder focus group
The estimated unit costs and supporting assumptions have been tested with a focus group.
Stakeholders generally felt that the order of magnitude seemed right. There could be very
complex installations where the reporting costs could be higher than that has been
estimated. It was also noted in the focus group discussion that, in addition to the level of
complexity of the facility, the degree of automated reporting IT infrastructure is important.
Gathering data manually can be very time consuming so the presence of automated
systems (often in the more complex facilities) reduces the reporting costs. There are no
data on which type of facilities has, or is more likely to have, such automated reporting
systems.
Data management by Member State CAs
Data from the TSS covers estimates from 12 Member States and provide a basis for
assessing the average costs. Though not all Member States are represented, the data cover
both small and large Member States, as well as the regions.
167
Based on these data, the average number of working days per facility has been calculated.
The estimate is 0.4 working day per installation, which is equivalent to about 2.8 hours per
installation. The resource use for CAs can be estimated using similar assumptions to those
used for operators: low level of complexity implies half the number of hours than for the
average facility and high level of complexity means twice the resource use.
Data management by EEA
The activities that the EEA performs in relation to the E-PRTR includes:
 Managing the IT systems
 Developing and maintaining the reporting tools
 QA/QC of the data reported by Member States
 Support to Member States
 Use of data and publication.
The estimates of resources and costs are presented in the table below.
Table A5-6: Unit costs for CAs for a new activity adding new facilities
Activity Resource use in FTE Costs in €
IT 1 100,000
Reporting tools 0.2 18,750
QA/QC 0.9 93,750
Support to MS 0.4 37,500
Use of data and publication 1.0 100,000
Total 3.5 350,000
4.3. DATA QUALITY BASED ON EEA VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES
ICF et al. (2020) assessed the quality of reported information and drew some
recommendations for improvements. There are three method classes (Measurement, “M”;
Calculation, “C”; or Estimation, “E”) used to categorise reported data. The type of release
quantification method used (method class) can have a significant impact on the quality of
values reported to the E-PRTR. Measurement and Calculation are usually more accurate
than Estimation. However, over 50% of Measurement and Calculation reports are not
transparent. Incompatible combinations of method class and methodology used are also
common. Variations in the methods used can also impact the quality of the E-PRTR data
time series and comparability between facilities. For the most commonly reported
pollutants, methods remain stable over time while for the least commonly reported
pollutants, methods vary over time, sectors and facilities.
ICF et al. (2020) also recommends improvements to the E-PRTR Guidance document and
reporting tools. Some of the recommended actions have been assumed to be part of the
baseline, as they would be / are being implemented even in the absence of new EU-level
action i.e.:
 Promote the use of sector-specific release factors for some activities;
 Provide guidance on methodology for calculating releases, especially indirect
releases to water;
 Add completeness checks for the reporting of which methodology is used;
 Add a description field for accidental releases;
168
 Develop guidance on how to report M/C/E for multiple release sources;
 Add an indication of whether the facility is registered under the EMAS Regulation.
4.4. USER STATISTICS FOR THE E-PRTR WEBSITE
The supporting study to the evaluation of the E-PRTR Regulation (Amec and IEEP, 2016)
analysed access to the E-PRTR website. Between July 2011 and January 2014, a total of
221,712 sessions33
were recorded, corresponding to an average of 242 sessions per day.
Over a quarter of these sessions were from new users, around 9% of sessions corresponded
to second visits and only around 2.4% of sessions to users visiting the site more than 200
times. Direct acquisition (sessions accessing the website by typing the URL or from a
previously saved bookmark) was the main acquisition channel, followed by referral from
other websites and organic search (via search engines). Sessions reaching the website from
social media were only a minimal fraction.
It should be noted that in June 2021, the EEA has launched a new Industrial Emissions
Portal and this now provides access to E-PRTR data in conjunction with IED information.
To date, there has been no assessment of user statistics for the Industrial Emissions Portal
but an initial quantification, using a different analytical method, estimated 160 website
visits per day.
4.5. E-PRTR POLLUTANTS
The E-PRTR’s Annex II lists 91 pollutants and the associated annual thresholds that
invoke a reporting obligation. The pollutant list reflects environmental concerns when the
Regulation was adopted and is therefore now rather outdated since the list has not been
updated in the intervening 15 years. Likewise, the Annex II reporting thresholds are
outdated as there have been significant emission reductions since the thresholds were
initially set to capture 90% of industrial arisings i.e. for some pollutants there is incomplete
reporting.
The E-PRTR pollutants cover a substantial proportion of pollutants listed in other EU
environmental protection initiatives. However, analysis of the IED and Best Available
Techniques (BAT) conclusions, European environmental legislation and international
recommendations, other PRTRs and the scientific literature identified a number of new
pollutants for potential addition to the E-PRTR (ICF et al, 2020). E-PRTR may also have
the potential to better align with controls set under the REACH Regulation (Registration,
Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, EC 1907/2006) and updates of the
Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC). This would help ensure that
the E-PRTR continues to be a relevant instrument that evolves to current needs such as
collecting data on industrial emissions of new interest e.g. PFAS.
5. FURTHER COMMISSION ACTION AS PART OF THE BASELINE ADDRESSING THE
PROBLEMS
The problems that have been identified with the implementation of the IED are assumed to
remain, although their evolution would be subject to action taken by the Commission to try
to limit the extent of the problems and their consequences. Such measures would be
issuing of guidance and encouragement of voluntary improvements of the existing
33
Amec and IEEP (2016): Google defines a session as “a period time a user is actively engaged with the
website” and as “the container for the actions a user takes on the site”. In practical terms a session is
equivalent to a user navigating the webpage until s/he leaves or becomes inactive.
169
processes. Whilst this could lead to some degree of improvement, it is expected to remain
marginal given the voluntary nature of the measures. Furthermore, it is likely that issuing
guidance on unclear legal provisions would be a complicated, lengthy and burdensome
process.
The Commission will look to implement a number of actions in collaboration with
Member States under business-as-usual to address the identified problems. The measures
that have been identified as existing activities that are already underway or planned by the
Commission to address the problems identified are shown below in Table A5-7.
Table A5-7: Measures incorporated in the Baseline
Measure Addresses problem
1 2 3 4 5
Provide guidance on the implementation of BAT conclusions in permits focussed
on establishing a more consistent approach across the EU
X
Provide guidance on the implementation of IED provisions concerning monitoring
requirements specifically for indirect releases to water and emissions to soil
(Articles 14, 15 and 16)
X
Provide guidance on how environmental inspections shall be carried out across the
EU (Article 23)
X
Facilitate peer to peer support among Member States Competent Authorities for
undertaking mutual/joint environmental inspections
X
to link and share their installations’ continuously monitored emissions data with
Member State Competent Authorities and making such information available to the
public on the Internet
X
Produce guidance on the compliance assessment relating to “effective operating
time” outlined in Annex VI, part 8, point 1.2 for installations subject to waste (co)-
incineration provisions
X
Produce guidance to address potential administrative overlaps between the IED, the
ELD and Seveso Directive
X
Produce guidance on the definitions of ‘combustion installation’, ’combustion
plant’, and ‘co-incineration’
X
Update guidance on information exchange to address issues associated with sharing
potentially confidential business information when setting BAT-AEPLs
X
Encourage the systematic inclusion of information on chemical substances of
concern developed under other legislation related to IED and the availability of
safer chemicals in the BREF process and BAT conclusions
X
Undertake systematic data collection on GHG emissions at the IED installation
level within the BREF process, for those installations and/or emissions covered by
the EU-ETS at an EU level
X
Develop BAT-AELs systematically for direct and indirect GHG emissions not
covered by the ETS. This would include emissions of non-ETS GHG by ETS
installations and emissions of any GHGs by non-ETS installations
X
Problems represented by each number are:
1. Insufficiently effective legislation: The IED is not as effective as it could be, in terms of ensuring reduced
pollutant emissions from industry, public access to information and participation, and coherence in
implementation.
2. Ineffective promotion of innovation: The IED is not dynamic enough and does not support the rapid
deployment of innovative technologies
3. Insufficient contribution to resource efficiency and less toxic production: The IED has not been effective at
addressing the use of hazardous chemicals, resource efficiency or the circular economy
4. Insufficient contribution to decarbonisation: The IED has not been effective at reducing greenhouse gas
emissions
170
5. IED sectoral scope coverage is too limited: The IED does not regulate some highly polluting (agro-)industrial
sectors.
171
Annex 6: Problems and drivers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 The problems - IED ..............................................................................................................171
1.1 The IED has not been as effective as it could be..................................................................171
1.1.1 BAT-AELs are not achieved.................................................................................................172
1.1.2 There are inconsistencies in the implementation of the IED across Member States ............173
1.1.3 Transboundary pollution that remains ineffectively addressed ............................................175
1.1.4 The IED does not sufficiently provide for access to environmental information,
participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice.................................176
1.1.5 There is incoherence between industrial emissions policy and related environmental
policies that has emerged over time, and some provisions may be obsolete, complicated
or represent unnecessary burden...........................................................................................179
1.2 The IED is not dynamic enough and doesn’t support the rapid deployment of innovative
technologies ..........................................................................................................................183
1.2.1 What is the problem?............................................................................................................183
1.2.2 What are the problem drivers?..............................................................................................185
1.2.3 How would the problem evolve?..........................................................................................186
1.3 The IED has not been effective at addressing the use of hazardous chemicals, resource
efficiency or the circular economy .......................................................................................186
1.3.1 IED has not been effective in addressing the use of hazardous chemicals...........................186
1.3.2 The IED has not been effective in addressing resource efficiency and circular economy....191
1.4 The contribution of the IED to reducing greenhouse gas emissions has been limited..........195
1.4.1 What is the problem?............................................................................................................195
1.4.2 What are the problem drivers?..............................................................................................199
1.4.3 How would the problem evolve?..........................................................................................200
1.5 The IED does not regulate some highly polluting (agro-) industrial sectors........................201
1.5.1 What is the problem?............................................................................................................201
1.5.2 What are the problem drivers?..............................................................................................202
1.5.3 How would the problem evolve?..........................................................................................204
2 The problems – E-PRTR.......................................................................................................204
2.1 Problem 1a: Current activity thresholds and definitions.......................................................207
2.2 Problem 1b: Missing activities and sub activities.................................................................208
2.3 Problem 2a: Existing pollutants and thresholds....................................................................209
2.4 Problem 2b: Additional pollutants........................................................................................210
172
2.5 Problem 3: Information to track progress towards the circular economy and
decarbonisation of industry...................................................................................................211
2.6 Problem 4a: Reporting modalities ........................................................................................213
2.7 Problem 4b: Time lag and data flows in reporting................................................................214
2.8 Problem 4c: Inconsistent and incorrect reporting.................................................................215
2.9 Problem 5: Access to E-PRTR information..........................................................................216
2.10 Problem 6: Releases from diffuse sources and releases from products ................................217
173
1 THE PROBLEMS - IED
The EU’s economy will undergo a major transformation to become climate neutral and
circular. This evolution requires an appropriate legal framework. The recent evaluation of
the IED has identified a number of broad areas where the operation of the legislative
framework might be improved to better contribute to those goals. The problems to be
addressed, the drivers of these problems and how these may evolve without any further
policy intervention are considered in the following sub-sections.
The IED was evaluated in 2020 to check how it was functioning (Ricardo et al, 2020).
Findings from this evaluation included:
 Pollution is still occurring across the EU from large (agro-)industrial plants
(including emissions to air, water and soil; and use of harmful substances)
 Member States are implementing EU IED requirements in a heterogeneous manner,
including the stricter BAT conclusions measures. The result is that the
environmental ambition varies across the EU’s Member States
 There is insufficient public access to information, participation in decision making
and access to justice with regard to permitting decisions and revisions
 Greater coherence and synergies with other EU legislation (e.g., the Emissions
Trading System, the Landfill Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive and others) could be exploited
 The IED may be able to promote new production processes, technologies and
innovation more proactively
 Large industrial and agricultural facilities could contribute more to a circular
economy, and their exploitation of natural resources could be reduced
 Further efforts could be made to support the decarbonisation efforts of large-scale
industries and agricultural activities as a whole
 Extending the IED to other sectors or activities could be appropriate, or thresholds
at which plants become subject to the IED might be changed, in order to reduce
significant pollution.
The problems and drivers are further analysed in more detail in the following sub-sections,
with a focus on description of the problem, the relevant drivers and how the problem may
evolve without any further policy intervention. Assumptions and the methodology
underlying the latter are detailed in the Annex 5.
1.1 The IED has not been as effective as it could be
The IED has not been as effective as it could be in terms of:
 Ensuring reduced pollutant emissions from industry, which includes issues such as
BAT-AELs not being achieved, inconsistencies in implementation, and
transboundary pollution remaining ineffectively addressed;
174
 Public access to information and participation;
 Coherence in implementation.
These problems are further elaborated below.
1.1.1 BAT-AELs are not achieved
1.1.1.1 What is the problem?
The European Green Deal aims to protect Europe’s citizens and ecosystems, by moving
towards a zero-pollution ambition, to better prevent and remedy pollution. As part of the
European Green Deal, the Commission has adopted an ‘EU Action Plan Towards a Zero
Pollution Ambition for air, water and soil’ in 2021. The Action Plan seeks to move towards
a zero-pollution ambition via:
 Focussing on measures to strengthen implementation and enforcement
 Considering the need to improve the existing health and environment legislation
 Seeking improvement to the governance of pollution policies.
The Action Plan Towards a Zero Pollution Ambition states that the Commission will
consider a need for improvements to industrial emissions legislation. Industrial emissions
continue to be a source of pollution, and therefore remain pertinent to the zero-pollution
ambition to be adopted.
The evaluation of the IED found that the IED has supported Member States in
implementing BAT-based permitting. It also noted that the tendency appears to have been
for permit emission limit values to be set on the basis of upper BAT-AELs more
commonly than lower BAT-AELs, which has been set out in national guidance in some
Member States. There is some evidence available that indicates variation across the EU as
to whether or not the BAT-AEPLs (i.e., other than BAT-AELs) from the BAT Conclusions
are included within permits although this is only known for some Member States. Article
15(4) derogations allow more cost-effective implementation. A limited proportion of
installations have been granted derogations, although there is some variability in
approaches across the EU. There is also evidence that very few permits have been set with
stricter conditions than those achievable by the use of BAT in order to achieve
Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) under Article 18.
1.1.1.2 What are the problem drivers?
The problem driver is the flexibilities allowed in setting permit conditions and granting
derogations.
(Agro-)industrial plants continue to pollute the environment. Whilst the IED has led to
reductions of pollution from (agro-)industrial plants, BAT and their associated emission
levels (BAT-AELs) may not always be achieved because:
 ELVs are often set in permits by default at the upper level of the BAT-AEL range,
without consideration of whether BAT could lead to lower emissions closer to the
lower end of the range
 Some industrial plants are granted Article 15(4) derogations from specific BAT-
AELs, which leads to higher levels of emissions than required by BAT
175
Conclusions. The use and approach to granting these derogations varies between
Member States.
 Varying interpretations of how to set permit conditions in accordance with:
o IED Article 15(1) flexibilities (when setting permit conditions for indirect
releases of polluting substances to water)
o IED Article 15(3) flexibilities (when setting different ELVs in permit
conditions in terms of values, periods of time and reference conditions)
In addition, regarding Article 18 of the IED, it is insufficiently clear what the ‘stricter
conditions’ than those achievable by the use of BAT should be, including what the
‘additional measures’ should be added to the permits to comply with EQS. This has led to
varying interpretation when setting permit conditions.
1.1.1.3 How would the problem evolve?
The table below outlines the expected development without intervention.
Table A6-1: Development without policy intervention for the problem “BAT-AELs are not
achieved”
(Sub) Problem Development without policy intervention
BAT-AELs are not achieved
Ongoing use of Article 15(4) derogations and
specific exemptions (and in some cases their
potentially increased use) resulting in industrial
processes which are exempt from certain
requirements of BATC
Ongoing risk of ELVs being set above the upper end
of the BAT-AEL range and inconsistent
implementation of the provisions across the EU
Member States
Ongoing risk that industrial releases continue to
contribute to exceedances of EQS because permit
conditions are not setting conditions stricter than
BAT where needed
1.1.2 There are inconsistencies in the implementation of the IED across Member States
1.1.2.1 What is the problem?
The evaluation of the IED identified potential inconsistencies in how Member States were
implementing the IED, more specifically with regards to the permitting process,
monitoring and reporting, and enforcement.
The evaluation concluded that Member States draw on the BREFs and BAT Conclusions
when setting monitoring requirements in permits. There is variation in implementation
across the EU, in particular in relation to compliance assessment. The evaluation noted that
more recent BAT Conclusions contain consistent approaches to specifying BAT for
monitoring. Member State reporting shows that monitoring frequencies are respected in
permit conditions. This has helped to improve transparency and consistency. There are
176
some data gaps in terms of whether the IED and BAT Conclusions monitoring and
reporting requirements have improved compliance. Information is typically not publicly
available via the internet in a lot of Member States, so it is unclear if it is being reported
consistently and used for compliance assessment. Based on the evidence that is available,
the differing application of compliance assessment rules risks creating distortions.
Although the evaluation also concluded that the IED has contributed to a more level
playing field when compared to the IPPCD, it noted that there remain variations in
implementation among Member States, particularly on compliance assessment, the
granting of derogations, and on setting permit ELVs at upper BAT-AELs versus lower
values within the AEL range. Some Member States appear to have granted a greater
number of derogations than others and some don’t allow them. Stricter permit conditions
than the BAT Conclusions appear to be rarely applied. Differences in the levels at which
permit conditions are set based on the BAT-AEL range can impact on company costs (and
benefits). Differences between Member State approaches to conducting inspections have
been improved under the IED with greater establishment of inspection plans.
Finally, the IED evaluation acknowledged that IED provisions are more explicit in relation
to environmental inspections than under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
Directive (IPPCD), and that provisions relating to environmental permits have indeed been
strengthened. However, it noted that it is unclear whether enforcement has really been
strengthened in practice.
1.1.2.2 What are the problem drivers?
The driver for this problem is lack of clarity and guidance on the permitting process and
monitoring and enforcement requirements. There are a number of sub-issues:
 Lack of clarity and guidance for permitting processes: Permitting practices differ
across the Member States. While the binding nature of BAT Conclusions has led to
an improved harmonisation in permitting across the EU compared to IPPC
Directive, there remains scope for different interpretation and implementation of
the requirements. Inconsistencies lead to a varying level of environmental
protection achieved through implementation of BAT Conclusions across the EU
Member States.
 Varied interpretation of enforcement and insufficient guidance: Practices related to
inspection and enforcement of environmental permits vary across the EU Member
States often owing to differing interpretation of the compliance assurance rules and
insufficient guidance at EU level on how inspection and enforcement should be
implemented.
 Varied interpretation and not using latest techniques for monitoring and reporting:
The IED and the BREFs have contributed to a further harmonisation of monitoring
provisions. However, practices related to monitoring of environmental permits
continue to vary across the EU Member States. Added to this, while the use of
latest available techniques to monitor emissions supports online reporting of real
time continuous monitoring data, the extent to which this is integrated in Member
State reporting is limited.
177
1.1.2.3 How would the problem evolve?
The table below outlines the expected development without intervention.
Table A6-2: Development without policy intervention for sub problems of the problem
“There are inconsistencies in the implementation of the IED across Member States”
(Sub) Problem Development without policy intervention
Lack of clarity and guidance for permitting processes The Commission would seek to provide clarity and
guidance given the shortcomings identified as part of
the evaluation of the IED. This guidance and
clarifications would reduce significantly the scope
for different interpretation and implementation of the
requirements. Inconsistencies driven by this sub-
problem would be likely reduced or addressed
Varied interpretation of enforcement and insufficient
guidance
Ongoing challenges with non-compliance
Varied interpretation and not using latest techniques
for monitoring and reporting
Heterogenous approaches to monitoring and
reporting emissions data, and to site visits and
checking compliance with permit condition.
1.1.3 Transboundary pollution that remains ineffectively addressed
1.1.3.1 What is the problem?
Long range transboundary pollution is an ongoing environmental concern. Under Article
26 of the IED, it is possible for Member State authorities to request information from a
neighbouring state if they believe a given facility is creating emissions that cross over
political borders. However, how effective Article 26 is in practice is debatable, particularly
for air emissions. For water emissions, bi-lateral initiatives have been set up for some of
Europe’s biggest river systems, such as the Danube34
and the Rhine (IPCR, 2021), but
communication and collaboration is less comprehensive on a more local level,
undermining the zero pollution aims. For instance, a number of inefficiencies with regards
to dealing with transboundary pollution have been raised in the TSS. These include non-
homogeneity of applications and permits, particularly where citizens of other Member
States try to consult the information, as well as bureaucracy, administrative barriers and
lack of established communication channels between the Members States. Moreover, a
number of reasons have been mentioned that may contribute to delayed notification of
transboundary pollution, including political, economic and conflict of interests as well as
the diversity in the EU and the international laws.
1.1.3.2 What are the problem drivers?
The problem driver is the lack of application in practice of taking into account of
transboundary effects during the permitting process, which may (but not necessarily) be
contributed to by the flexibilities allowed in setting permit conditions and granting
34 https://www.danubecommission.org/dc/en/
178
derogations. No evidence has been identified in IED implementation reporting by Member
States (i.e., (Ricardo, 2021), (Ricardo, 2019), (Amec, 2016)) that transboundary pollution
is taken into account in general when granting permits. That said, while no specific
questions have been targeted on this particular topic either in prior implementation
questionnaires, some evidence in (Amec, 2016) suggests some monitoring and modelling
is carried out by some Member States to check / assure transboundary effects
Whilst the IED has led to reductions of transboundary pollution from (agro-)industrial
plants, this continues to be relevant as Member States take limited action on IED Article
26.
1.1.3.3 How would the problem evolve?
The table below outlines the expected development without intervention.
Table A6-3: Development without policy intervention for sub the problem “Transboundary
pollution that remains ineffectively addressed”
(Sub) Problem Development without policy intervention
(Agro-)industrial activities continue to contribute to
transboundary pollution
Transboundary emissions continue, failure to meet
zero pollution targets
Transboundary damage to ecosystems and
biodiversity
Knock-on consequences for other ecosystems and
humans
1.1.4 The IED does not sufficiently provide for access to environmental information,
participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice
1.1.4.1 What is the problem?
A core element of the IED relates to public access to information on industrial installations
operating within each Member State, including details of permits and their environmental
performance. This is to enable effective public participation in decision-making, whereby
relevant opinions and concerns are factored into the decision-making process, leading to
greater accountability and transparency in the permitting process and contributing to
greater public awareness of environmental issues. Multiple provisions are set out in IED
Article 24 to ensure early and effective opportunities for public participation in the
permitting process (Article 24[1]) via information access (Article 24[2]).
Adding to this, IED Article 25 allows for public access to a review procedure before a
court of law or another independent and impartial body to challenge the legality of
decision-making. The IED specifically acknowledges environmental non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) as meeting these conditions and therefore able to access to this
review procedure. Article 25 constitutes the provisions of the IED concerned with access to
justice.
Further IED provisions requiring public access to information are:
179
 Requirement for the public to be consulted when an installation has applied for a
derogation from the BAT Conclusions under Article 15(4) of the Directive.
 Additional requirements for competent authorities to make available information on
the measures taken by the operator when an installation is closed (with reference to
Article 22 which covers site closure and soil and groundwater contamination).
 More specific requirements on the type of information that should be made
available to the public when a decision on granting, reconsidering, or updating of a
permit has been taken, including information on how permit conditions have been
determined.
The IED evaluation found that overall public access to information has improved under the
IED (compared to its predecessors). Most stakeholder groups consulted during the IED
evaluation, including industry and Member State competent authorities, considered that
access to information has improved with IED implementation. However, issues remain
where some permits are not publicly available online, some information is available online
but difficult to locate, or in some Member States authorities have requested fees for access
to permits. A key document that brought the provisions on access to information to the
attention of the Commission is the European Environmental Bureau (EEB)’s report,
‘Burning: The Evidence’, published in 2017 (EEB, 2017). The report focussed primarily
on permit access, rating the online systems of individual Member States against set criteria,
and identifying, in EEB’s view, systems where permit access was inadequate.
There are three aspects to this problem.
 Public access to information: There are heterogeneous approaches between and
within Member States when providing public access to information, with cases of
restricted access, information being made available only upon request, or for a fee,
appearing to go against the phrasing of Article 24(2) of the IED. In addition,
information is presented in complex formats, which makes it potentially
challenging to the public to identify relevant information, or to track changes in
permit content over time.
 Public access to information on the environmental impact of derogations: There is a
growing need to establish and understand the environmental impacts that the use of
derogations is having. Currently, there is insufficient information made publicly
available to monitor the impact of Art. 15(4) derogations.
 Public engagement: The current scope for public participation, as defined by IED
Article 24(1), does not cover all permitting procedures (e.g., there is no requirement
to invite the public to participate in cases where a permit is updated to reflect BAT
conclusions).
1.1.4.2 What are the problem drivers?
In summary, the driver for this problem is that EU industrial emissions legislation does not
sufficiently provide for access to environmental information, participation in
environmental decision making and access to justice (Aarhus rights).
Since the IED evaluation, an assessment of Member State reporting to the EU Registry on
Industrial Sites (hereafter the EU Registry) has been undertaken – including among other
180
things a review of Member State reporting on how information has been made available to
the public with respect to permits, Article 15(4) derogation decisions, site visit inspection
reports and emissions monitoring data. Initial findings from the assessment of Member
State reporting to the EU Registry (Ricardo, 2021) show that:
 Public access to permit documentation (including decisions on Article 15(4)
derogations) is widely provided via national permit repositories (19 Member
States), but gaps remain where relevant URLs have not been reported and permit
documentation is not available for IED permitted (agro-)industrial plants. Public
access to site visit reports and emissions monitoring data is more limited, with
relevant URLs reported by 15 Member States for the former and by 13 for the
latter.
 Ease of access to permit documentation is limited by several factors, including
format (particularly scanned permit documentation), publication of multiple permit
documents for one (agro-)industrial plant without indicating how the permit
conditions interact between the documents, and heterogenous approach between
(and within) Member States to structuring permit documentation.
Ongoing reporting to the EU Registry is expected to help to resolve the limitations
identified by the IED evaluation, although there are fundamental challenges at Member
State level, particularly as regards public access to information on emissions monitoring
data.
Regarding access to justice, the IED did not change the provisions on public access to
justice compared to IPPCD. The IED evaluation findings were that public access to justice
is working to some extent when new permits are considered, but limitations can occur in
challenging revisions to existing permits and interpretation of what constitutes ‘substantial
change’, and whether the public can challenge a decision that a change is determined as
‘non-substantial’. Other issues relate to the ability of the public and environmental NGOs
to challenge omissions to act by competent authorities, such as permits that have not been
issued for an installation.
In its findings in a legal case between the NGO, the International Institute for Law and the
Environment, and the EU (case ACCC/C/2014/121), the Aarhus Convention Compliance
Committee has expressed a view that the IED provisions on public participation in
permitting do not cover all cases where the Convention requires such participation, notably
in relation to reconsiderations and updates to permits within 4 years of the publication of
BAT Conclusions (ACCC, 2020). The IED is therefore not fully compliant with the
provisions of the Aarhus Convention.
1.1.4.3 How would the problem evolve35?
Without revision to the IED, changes to the availability of information via information
technologies (IT) could contribute to addressing aspects on availability of information.
Otherwise, the following are expected:
 Public Access to information: Heterogenous approaches will likely continue.
Ongoing efforts to expand access with the EU Registry will likely improve how the
35
See also Annex 5.
181
information is made available to the public and ease of access over time. Ongoing
assessment to clarify and simplify, where possible, Member State reporting will
help to improve the relevance of the EU Registry as a mechanism for providing
public access to information.
 Public access to information on the environmental impact of derogations: It is
anticipated that there would be ongoing use of Article 15(4) derogations (and in
some cases their potentially increased use) with limited information made available
to the public as to the impact such derogations are having on the environment.
 Public engagement: A heterogenous approach will continue between Member
States and within regions, which gives an issue with implementation and
compliance with IED.
1.1.5 There is incoherence between industrial emissions policy and related
environmental policies that has emerged over time, and some provisions may be
obsolete, complicated or represent unnecessary burden
1.1.5.1 What is the problem?
The recent evaluation found that the IED framework is not completely coherent, which has
led to differences in implementation within and between Member States (MS).
In the achievement of environmental objectives, the IED places burden on different aspects
of industry, ranging from the BREF and permitting process, to Member State authorities
and installation operators. One objective of the IED (compared to its predecessors) is to
reduce, where possible, administrative burden through simplification and removal of
unnecessary burden. However, the evaluation of the IED (Ricardo et al, 2020) found that,
compared to the IPPCD, some additional administrative costs have been incurred for
additional requirements under the IED. As part of the consultation activities undertaken for
the IED evaluation, more than half the respondents indicated that administrative costs to
Member States and operators have increased under the IED. The evaluation identified a
number of opportunities for the streamlining of administrative burden without
compromising the objectives of the Directive. These opportunities relate to a number of
themes:
 Variation among Member States in assessing compliance
 Internally conflicting provisions within the IED
 Incoherence between Industrial Emissions policy and related environmental
policies
 The definition of some activities is unclear
 Clarify thresholds for some (agro-)industrial activities.
These problems, therefore, relate to issues of efficiency and internal and external
coherence.
Variation among Member States in assessing compliance
For large combustion plants (LCPs), prior work undertaken by the Commission has
flagged that the current wording of IED Annex V Part 3 has not been implemented
182
consistently between Member States with regard to the subtraction of measurement
uncertainty in compliance assessment. This means that different methodologies have been
deployed by Member States for assessing compliance, with some interpretations/methods
being less stringent and others being more stringent. Hence, for those instances which are
interpreted less stringently, more could be done to reduce pollution if the more stringent
interpretation was applied. In the case where one company has multiple installations
operating in different countries, this variation in approaches may lead to a higher level of
administrative cost than could be the case if a standardised method was followed.
This problem described for LCPs also applies for the compliance assessment of waste
incineration plants. In this case, it is also due to variation in interpretation of the term
‘effective operating time’.
For installations governed under chapter II of the IED, there are currently no rules
provided in or related to chapter II for assessment of compliance with permit ELVs in the
same way that, for example, LCPs have the rules provided in Annex V part 3. This means
that there may be variation among Member States in the approaches adopted for assessing
compliance, potentially limiting the effectiveness of emission reductions, as well as
leading to an unlevel playing field.
Conflicting operating regimes internally within the IED leads to excessive burden
First, in addition to IED Annex II pollutants, relevant pollutants to an IED sector are
identified in a systematic manner through the BREF information exchange process. Thus,
BAT-AELs can be adopted by BAT Conclusions for additional pollutants to those set out
in IED Annex II. This raises the question of whether Annex II is still needed or should be
maintained as a comprehensive list of polluting substances. The existence of the Annex II
list in addition to the pollutants mentioned in BAT conclusions (where they differ) may
lead to excess administrative burden.
Second, the IED includes several requirements on combustion plants: chapter II of the IED
and Annex I activity 1.1 comprises combustion installations of at least 50 MWth; the LCP
BAT Conclusions set out BAT for LCPs under chapter II; and chapter III of the IED sets
special provisions for combustion plants of at least 50 MWth whilst referring to Annex V.
Due to this complicated set of rules, excess administrative burden may exist that could be
minimised through further clarity and guidance distinguishing between the terminology
used in the IED.
Similarly, the IED includes several requirements on waste incineration plants: chapter II of
the IED and Annex I activity 5.2; the BAT Conclusions on waste incineration under
chapter II; and dedicated special provisions for waste incineration plants in chapter IV and
the Annex VI to the IED. Chapter IV applies to all waste incineration plants while Chapter
II (BAT Conclusions) applies only above a capacity threshold.
It is further complicated for both LCPs and waste incineration plants because averaging
periods set out in Annex V and Annex VI to the IED differ from those under the BAT
Conclusions. In addition, some terminology is currently undefined at EU level related to
normal operating conditions. This difference leads to additional administrative cost for
operators and competent authorities.
183
Policy incoherence: Accidents Doctrine for the IED
In the event of any incident or accident significantly affecting the environment, IED
Article 7 requires that the operator informs the competent authority, takes measures to limit
the environmental impact, and prevents further incident or accident.
Under the Environmental Liability Directive, (agro-)industrial plants permitted under the
IED are liable for environmental damage. Accordingly, where environmental damage has
not yet occurred but there is an imminent threat of such damage occurring, the operator
shall, without delay, take the necessary preventive measures. In addition, where
environmental damage has occurred, the operator shall, without delay, inform the
competent authority of all relevant aspects of the situation and take remedial action.
The Seveso Directive sets out measures to control and prevent major-accident hazards
involving dangerous substances which might result from certain industrial activities, and
the limitation of their consequences for human health and the environment.
The interface of IED Article 7 provisions with both the Environmental Liability Directive
and the Seveso Directive is unclear, including with regard to land planning aspects, to align
requirements and streamline where possible.
The definition of some activities is unclear
The definition for some activities is unclear and has led to ambiguity in some cases as to
whether or not it is in scope of the IED. There is currently a lack of clarity regarding the
inclusion in the IED of certain advanced thermal waste treatment activities. Whilst both
gasification and pyrolysis plants are considered within the scope of Chapter IV (IED
Article 42), pyrolysis is not explicitly listed under Annex I activities. This results in
uncertainty regarding which activities are within the scope of the IED under different parts
of the IED (chapter II versus chapter VI).
Clarifying thresholds for some (agro-)industrial activities
Certain sub-activities within activity 4 ‘Chemical industry’, such as e.g., pharmaceuticals,
operate as relatively small capacity installations. The Annex I of the IED does not set
capacity thresholds for all activities, and this is not included specifically for the chemical
industry. Instead, a threshold for inclusion in Annex I is referred to as ‘industrial scale’.
There is potential unclarity about what installations would be included as these activities,
as well as the possible issue that the administrative costs and compliance costs of inclusion
within the IED for small installations may not warrant the benefits that could accrue.
1.1.5.2 What are the problem drivers?
In summary, the drivers for this problem are that: some provisions of EU law applying to
large (agro-)industrial plants may be obsolete, complicated or represent an unnecessary
burden; and that, in some cases, there is incoherence between IE policy and related
environmental policies (that have occurred as the policies have evolved).
In the waste incineration sector, it was found that there has been unnecessary burden for
competent authorities and operators caused by overlaps between Chapter II, the LCP BAT
Conclusions, and Chapter IV and the associated IED annexes, which require the
calculation of ELVs for different regimes, effective operating time and normal operating
conditions.
184
In the LCP sector, it was found that there has been unnecessary administrative burden
owing to monitoring and reporting requirements on pollutant emissions for both ELVs and
BAT-AELs that have led to a duplication of effort. In addition to this, these limits are
based on different averaging periods leading to further increased burden. There are also
issues relating to definition of scope of the Directive, namely with regard to combustion
plants and incineration plants. Firstly, the definitions of combustion plants and combustion
installations should be clarified to provide certainty for stakeholders. Additionally,
gasification and pyrolysis plants are included in Chapter IV of the IED but not listed in
Annex I activities.
Evidence available suggests that the IED has led to a high burden in the rearing of pigs and
poultry (IRPP) sector, which could also potentially be the case for cattle farms being
considered for inclusion in the Directive, especially due to the large number of installations
that these sectors have.
In the consideration of bringing new sectors within scope of the IED (Section 1.4),
assessing the additional burden will be important – particularly as regards interaction with
existing legislation. For example, in the case of the mining sector, it will be important to
consider interaction with the Extractive Waste Directive and how bringing this sector
within the scope of the IED may help to modernise and reduce burden. Similarly, burden
will be important when considering the interaction between the IED and the EU-ETS. In
addition, the extent to which inconsistency between the definitions of combustion plants in
the two Directives is a problem driver needs to be reviewed.
IED Article 7 sets out the need for operators in the event of incidents and accidents with
environmental consequences, to limit consequences and prevent further incidents. In
addition, under the Seveso Directive (Directive 2012/18/EU), installations carrying out
operations involving dangerous substances are required to comply with a range of actions,
including the deployment of major accident prevention policy and production of
emergency plans for “upper tier” installations of higher risk. Furthermore, IED Article 7
interacts with the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) (Directive 2004/35).
Streamlining these provisions will be important for ensuring coherence and minimising
administrative burden of the respective Directives.
An additional driver resulting in unnecessary administrative burden is the presence of
obsolete provisions in the IED. An example of this is Transitional National Plans for LCPs.
A list of obsolete provisions that have been identified for removal or amendment is
outlined in Annex 12. Similarly, legal analysis of the Asbestos Directive has determined
that certain aspects are obsolete, and the Commission has determined that the Directive
could be repealed without creating regulatory gaps (European Commission, 2015).
Consequently, production of asbestos (currently in IED Annex I as Activity 3.2) is now
banned under REACH and should be removed as an IED activity.
1.1.5.3 How would the problem evolve?
Without the revision to the IED, it is anticipated that the following would be the case.
 Internally conflicting provisions within the IED: Pollutants listed in Annex II will
continue to hold legal relevance despite conflicting with BAT Conclusions. LCP
and waste incineration operators will continue to undergo duplication of effort and
185
administrative burden resulting from duplicated burden. The list in Annex II is
creating confusion regarding the integrated nature of the IED. The IED by nature
looks at all relevant pollutants. As Annex II is a closed list, readers sometimes think
some substances are not covered, leading to suggestions to add substances.
 Policy incoherence: Any potential additional burden caused by the overlap of IED
Article 7 and Seveso and ELD provisions will continue in the absence of change. It
is, however, expected that the Commission will seek to address these issues in the
baseline through the production of guidance.
 The definition of some activities is unclear: Ambiguity of the definition of some
activities will continue, leading to continued uncertainty over whether or not some
activities are in the scope of the IED. Some novel (emerging) applications of
gasification, liquefaction and pyrolysis processes are providing new routes for the
extraction of greater amounts of energy from our resources, including the greater
utilisation of biomass and waste streams. The extraction of further value from our
biomass or waste streams forms an important step to an increasingly circular
economy. As such, further development of these processes, which may displace
more conventional systems (e.g., the combustion of dedicated planted biomass), is
to be expected. The trends towards the greater investigation and reliance on such
techniques is driven by the increasing emphasis on decarbonisation and the related
goal of achieving a more circular economy.
1.2 The IED is not dynamic enough and doesn’t support the rapid deployment of
innovative technologies
1.2.1 What is the problem?
Deployment of emerging and breakthrough technologies is needed to address the emission
of pollutants and GHGs. It is expected that the same innovative techniques will contribute
to reducing emissions of both pollutants and GHGs.
The evaluation of the IED concludes that the IED has not made a significant contribution
to the uptake of innovative techniques. This is driven by a number of factors, including: the
BREF review cycle is slow, i.e. 10 to 12 years; BAT-AELs are based on ‘backward-
looking’ information and are static; scarce information on innovative techniques is
included in BREFs and BAT Conclusions; there are few technology suppliers/developers
in the BREF Technical Working Groups; there is no evidence of effective action taken by
Member States under Art. 27 of the IED to promote development and application of
emerging techniques and no Commission guidance has been published; and Art 15(5)
derogation seems to be used in very limited occasions.
These lead to four fundamental sub-problems:
(i) The IED is not dynamic enough to support innovation or deployment of
breakthrough techniques
(ii) Decarbonisation breakthrough technologies will often generate environmental
co-benefits, e.g. reduced air emissions, and become BAT, and vice versa. If this
requires deep transformation, more than the 4 years allowed under the IED may
be needed for the entire sector to transform.
186
(iii) BREF reviews are slow, thus not compatible with quick turnarounds required to
adopt innovations
(iv) The IED can prevent innovation, or at least inadvertently promote “lock-in” of
existing good, but not best, practice.
The IED has to some degree stimulated innovation, in particular through provisions for
identifying and deploying BAT, expansion of markets for BAT, and identification of
emerging techniques. In this way, the main impact has been deployment of BAT. The
market for relevant techniques is larger in the EU than it would otherwise have been, and
the market outside the EU is also stimulated to the degree other jurisdictions copy aspects
of the IED or BREFs. However, BAT are inherently ‘backward-looking’ and their ability
to stimulate innovation has been limited. Emerging techniques are identified in the BREF
process, and work is ongoing to better identify them through a pilot scale project
(innovation observatory) as part of frontloading efforts for the BREF process. This is
expected to stimulate innovation further.
It is also acknowledged that the scope of the BREF reviews may limit their impact: the
BREFs focus on available techniques (the Sevilla process is backward-looking), leaving
aside those which are currently under development and not commercially available (so
called breakthroughs or cutting-edge techniques). The BAT-AELs effectively are
backward-looking, not forward-looking, as they reflect what has already been achieved in
industry to date (at least by some plants/installations).
However, some industrial sectors, such as cement, iron steel or oil and gas refineries, will
need to transform and introduce novel primary techniques to decarbonise. Recent studies
(Wood, 2021) show that the take-up of decarbonisation options could also deliver pollution
reduction benefits. However, this is not always the case. Although some BAT Conclusions
under the IED have derived BAT for primary techniques (conversion paths or options) in
the past, the focus for TWGs has been mainly on setting BAT for secondary, less
transformative techniques. The current IED framework however allows TWGs to address
this challenge, as illustrated by the case of the BAT conclusions on chlor-alkali that
concluded that the mercury-cell process was not BAT and thereby triggered the conversion
of the whole sector to mercury-free processes. However, without a clear and common
position across the EU and with diverging views across stakeholders, the implementation
of the IED may not contribute as effectively as it could to required transformation of
industry whilst pushing towards the EU’s zero-pollution and other ambitions. For example,
deriving BAT for primary techniques is perceived as not being technology neutral by
certain stakeholders that would, therefore, oppose such practice; however, as sectors seek
to transform over the coming decades some processes and technologies are likely to be
more optimal than others from an environmental and climate perspective. Annex 12
summarises three sectoral case studies that further delve into some of these challenges.
IED Article 15(5) allows derogations from BAT-AELs for the testing and use of emerging
techniques for a total period of time not exceeding 9 months. However, there are few cases
of derogations being granted according to this provision, suggesting that more could be
done to stimulate innovation through encouraging the testing of not-yet commercialised
techniques. Some Member States stated that the timescales concerned (e.g., in the Sevilla
process) were simply too long to be a driving force for innovation. On the other hand, this
resulted in a more universal application of abatement techniques which could be seen as a
187
form of innovation. Some stakeholders considered that the length of the BAT Conclusions
implementation period was often not long enough to test and implement emerging
techniques. This typically resulted in resorting to implementing techniques that had
previously been in place before instead.
The pilot innovation observatory (tested from 2018 to 2020) has delivered outputs
identifying emerging techniques to the kick-off meetings of the BREF reviews for the
textiles, and slaughterhouses and animals’ by-products industries, as well as identifying
potential candidates for BAT. Initial feedback suggests that the pilot observatory has
improved the process for identifying emerging techniques. Whether this has also
specifically stimulated innovation (i.e., encouraged additional innovative activity in the
design and development of techniques that wouldn’t have otherwise occurred) is unclear.
The pilot observatory also identified synergies between IED with the EU Environmental
Technology Verification (EU ETV) and the LIFE budget programme. The EU ETV is a
tool to help innovative environmental technologies reach the market (EcoAP, 2021),
providing cooperation opportunities to attract and secure funding, and signposting to EU
funding opportunities as provided by the LIFE budget programme, which can support pilot
projects to test and trial ‘close-to-market’ innovative demonstrative solutions expected to
achieve environmental and/ or climate benefits (EASME , 2021). LIFE funding is available
to projects launching solutions that could be implemented in close-to-market conditions (at
industrial or commercial scale) during the course of the project or shortly after its
completion.
1.2.2 What are the problem drivers?
The summary driver is that the static character (and backwards-looking nature) of the
BREF process restricts innovation.
The drivers for this problem area are generally common and cross-cutting to this problem
area (i.e. state of the art techniques cannot respond in a satisfactory manner to problems of
environmental pollution, the climate crisis and resource depletion). In addition, overlaps
with the drivers of other problem areas are identified (relevant to zero pollution ambition,
Section 1.5.2; and the depletion of natural resources, Section 1.3.2.2). In sum, key drivers
include:
 The BREF cycle is slow, very time-consuming (key driver preventing deep
transformation of industrial sectors) (cross-cutting to Problem 2 – the climate crisis;
and Problem 3 – the depletion of natural resources)
 BREFs primarily describe existing techniques already being used (key driver
inadvertently locking in good but not best practices)
 BREFs do not use life cycle assessment (LCA) to analyse the overall impact (of
each process), but focus mainly on abatement capabilities (key driver preventing
quick turnaround to adopt innovations, and inadvertently locking in good, but not
best practice, techniques) (cross-cutting to Problem 3 – the depletion of natural
resources)
 Technical working groups involved in BREF development do not contain
technology providers/ developers (cross-cutting to earlier problems).
188
The fact that the drivers are generally cross cutting means that the scale of the problem will
generally be derived from the extent of emerging techniques in BREF documents
(qualitative); and, where possible, from the emission reduction potential that could be
achieved with the application of emerging techniques (quantitative). In three cases, the
scale of the problem is simply based on the fact that there has been no evidence of activity:
no Article 15(5) derogations have been granted; no dedicated financial instruments to
support substantially emerging techniques (ETV and LIFE scheme are applicable but have
low impact to date in ET development) under the IED; and no guidance to support Member
States with the development and application of emerging techniques.
1.2.3 How would the problem evolve?
Without policy intervention, it is anticipated that the combined consequences of the drivers
will be that:
 Emissions (pollutants to air/ water as well as GHG emissions) from industry will
remain ongoing (limited improvement) if BAT conclusions focus mainly on
secondary (abatement) techniques.
 Improvements to resource consumption from industry will be limited
 New decarbonisation processes will still need emission abatement devices. End of
pipe systems (such as filters, scrubbers, etc) will be required to improve the overall
performance of these cleaner (decarbonisation) processes.
 Uneven playing field for operators where industrial plants have adopted emerging
techniques.
 The IED’s contribution to decarbonisation may be slow and/or limited as the
existing regulatory framework may only encourage the deployment of secondary
techniques or measures. This may be further exacerbated by uncertainty and lack of
clarity or common framework for TWGs to operate in a changing context where
deep transformation is required to achieve the EU’s decarbonisation objectives.
TWGs may consider using a phase-out approach in BREF (e.g., making “it is not
BAT” statements in the conclusions chapter) to accelerate the IED’s contribution to
decarbonisation. However, it is not clear whether, when and the extent to which this
will happen across the EU.
1.3 The IED has not been effective at addressing the use of hazardous chemicals,
resource efficiency or the circular economy
The IED has not been effective in addressing the use of hazardous chemicals, resource
efficiency and the circular economy. These problems are considered below.
1.3.1 IED has not been effective in addressing the use of hazardous chemicals
1.3.1.1 What is the problem?
The advance of technology and society means that European citizens make use of more
chemical substances within their daily lives than ever before. The European Chemicals
Agency’s (ECHA) classification and labelling (C&L) inventory has reported notifications
covering some 130,000 unique substances (ECHA, 2021). The European Commission
(2020) further commented that in 2018, Europe was the second biggest producer of
189
chemicals globally (accounting for 17% of all sales), with chemical manufacturing being
the fourth largest industry in the EU, directly employing 1.2 million people.
Within the European Union, the safe manufacture and use of chemicals is managed by the
chemicals’ acquis, which spans approximately 45 pieces of legislation (European
Commission, 2019). This includes both horizontal pieces of legislation that span thematic
topics such as REACH (European Commission 1907/2006) (ECHA, 2021) and the Water
Framework Directive (2000/60/European Commission), and vertical pieces of legislation
covering a specific set of applications such as the Plant Protection Products Regulation
(European Commission 1107/2009) and the Cosmetics Regulation (European Commission
1223/2009). The Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) has a central role within this
acquis to help manage and minimise the release of harmful chemicals to the environment.
This remit is broader than chemical manufacturing alone, covering additional and
unintentionally produced chemicals (such as dioxins and furans) and non-chemical
industrial sectors which still produce harmful chemicals that can be emitted (e.g., energy
production).
In October 2020, the Commission published its Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability
towards a toxic-free environment (European Comission, 2021). This has been followed by
the zero-pollution action plan, with the strategy and the action plan both underscoring the
importance of sustainability and the circular economy, including the material flow of
harmful chemicals. This includes the need for management of chemicals and chemical
emissions to the environment from the industrial emissions, which again, underscores the
role that the IED can play towards sustainability and the circular economy.
Based on the growing demand for chemicals, the evaluation of the IED identified some
areas for improvement.
 The first key example is where the REACH Regulation has proactively identified
‘substances of very high concern’, which are added into Annex XIV of REACH,
but have not necessarily translated into more environmental control and progress to
safer alternatives through the implementation of the IED. For example, the recent
IED ex-post evaluation highlights evidence to this effect, including that “some
stakeholders (Member States and industry)…stated that the [BREF] review cycle is
too long and the process is not dynamic enough to address emerging issues,
particularly around the use of specific chemicals”. In addition, an earlier report by
Ricardo into the IED’s contribution to the circular economy (also considered as
part of the ex-post evaluation) found that BATs on the use of hazardous chemicals
could be more systematically included across the BAT conclusions; and that greater
reference to hazardous chemicals identified under REACH and other related
chemicals legislation could be described within KEIs in the BREFs.
 The second example is the relationship between the implementation of the IED and
the Water Framework Directive. The EEA’s State of the Environment report (2018)
comments that 45% of EU surface water bodies were in poor chemical status,
primarily linked to a small handful of chemicals, particularly mercury and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The primary source of these emissions comes
from deposition of atmospheric emissions linked to combustion of fossil fuels both
from industrial facilities (covered by IED), but also from diffuse emissions from
190
transport. The EEA’s 2020 signals report (2020) goes further highlighting the
importance of releases to water from urban wastewater treatment works. This
reflects the complex picture for material flows of a range of substances released to
sewers that cannot effectively be treated at urban wastewater treatment works (i.e.,
Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)). While these are issues managed by
related legislation (environmental quality standards directive, and urban wastewater
treatment directive), there is an important role for the IED to play and greater
opportunity for the systematic inclusion of data from water policy into IED
processes. The integrated assessment of river basin management plans (2019)
commented that, while the IED and Water Framework Directive were well-aligned
‘on paper’, in practice the very different philosophical approaches and
terminologies between industrial and water representatives created a gap, and more
needs to be done to understand the downstream consequences for surface water.
 The final key example relates more widely towards the aims of the zero-pollution
action plan. The EU’s chemicals strategy for sustainability towards a toxic-free
environment, published in October 2020 (European Commissin, 2020), highlighted
the aims of the European Union to move away from use of hazardous chemicals
through substitution to safer alternatives, or innovation leading to new processes
that were less reliant upon hazardous chemicals. However, it is important to
recognise that as the scientific and industrial processes evolve, the way that
chemical substances are used becomes more complex, including supply chains that
extend beyond the borders of the European Union. As an illustration, ECHA have
provided direct support to the update of the BREF on ceramics (which commenced
in Spring 2021), by identifying a list of potential substances of high concern for
further review and possible substitution. Based on data submitted under REACH
and a screening process, this identified a subset of 70 substances, with a further
stakeholder engagement ongoing with industry parties to help refine things further.
The high number of chemical substances in use and complex supply chains
represents a challenge for identification of how substances are used and what the
potential is for substitution. This is an element where the IED (through the BREF
process) could add value to related legislation. A good example of this is the recent
update of the textiles BREF (December 2019) which posed the idea of a chemical
management system to help industry operators and national regulators better
understand how and where chemicals are used in specific processes.
Alongside the identified challenges with the implementation of the IED in a way that is
aligned with other closely related legislation, there are issues with reporting and
monitoring of key emission and environmental data to track and minimise emissions to the
environment. Given the goals of the chemical strategy published in October 2020,
particularly on sustainability and circular economy, greater understanding of how
chemicals are used within a wider circular economy and reporting of emissions data will be
key to meet the objectives set out. Data produced under the European Pollutant Release
and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) Regulation (European Commission 166/2006) illustrates a
downward trend for emissions to air and water from a wide array of the 91 pollutants
covered by E-PRTR. However, it should also be recognised that many emerging chemical
concerns and substances of very high concern (SVHCs) are not covered by the E-PRTR,
191
and the fitness check of the E-PRTR (European Commission., 2018) identified (much like
the IED evaluation) potentially missing key economic activities. It is worth noting that an
impact assessment for options to amend the E-PRTR (following the E-PRTR evaluation) is
also now in process.
1.3.1.2 What are the problem drivers?
The main drivers of this problem are:
 Market signals do not result in the use of safest chemicals by IED operators
because the cost of chemicals does reflect the environmental impacts of chemicals’
use.
 Coverage of chemicals of concern (such as substances of very high concern
(SVHC), POPs, and priority substances) in a less systematic way within BREFs and
BAT conclusions. The results of the Targeted Stakeholder Survey highlight that, in
part, this issue is exacerbated by the lack of a common definition for ‘hazardous
chemicals’, with different legislation using different terminology.
 Practical obstacles that impede the flow of data between different legislations. For
example, REACH takes a substance-by-substance approach, while the IED is
industry sector focussed. REACH does include consideration of uses and possible
emissions and exposure from the use of chemicals; however, the industry sector
indexing for REACH does not align or match the sectors defined by the IED. This
means that identifying data related to the relevant sector is challenging and not
transparent.
 The implementation of the IED could play a greater role in contributing to meeting
the Water Framework Directive objectives for priority hazardous substances.
 The development of BREF documents provides valuable information on best
practice for industry sectors covered by the IED, including detailed information on
processes. However, use of this information to support the circular economy and
transition to safer chemicals is limited due to the complexity of the topic. This
could represent a missed opportunity where IED could play a greater role in
supporting the EU’s chemicals strategy for sustainability.
In particular, as highlighted above, the IED sits centrally within a wider chemical acquis of
policy, which evolves around it and creates a pressure for the IED’s implementation to
keep up with policy developments in other areas.
The IED sets out the approach for prevention and control of pollution from industrial
activities. This includes (under Article 4) the need for environmental permitting and
identification of key chemical species that should be controlled. However, there are
challenges in implementing this. For example, the selection of key chemical species is
dictated, in part, by the understanding of the main chemical pressures under related
legislation and Conventions, and this is complex and dynamic. The lists of substances of
concern are long and complex, and new requirements emerge over time. For example,
 REACH (which contains 211 substances of very high concern)
 The priority substance list under the Water Framework Directive (45 substances)
192
 The POPs Regulation, which includes 30 regulated substances
 Other emerging issues that appear across these legislations and may be related with
the implementation of the IED. For example, the increased need for destruction of
brominated POPs leads to emissions of brominated dioxins and furans from IED
plants, the increasing concerns for pharmaceutical emissions from wastewater
treatment plants (leading to the proposed addition of pharmaceuticals in the list of
priority substances by 2024). The regrettable substitution of perfluoro-octane
sulfonate (PFOS) by ADONA36
and GenX37
chemicals with potential emissions
from IED plants in the textile sector amongst others.
The publication of the zero-pollution action plan sets a clear and loud precedent and set of
aims, with the IED having a clear role in supporting the transition to safer chemical
alternatives. The implementation of the IED has not so far contributed as effectively as it
potentially could. The challenge, therefore, is to maintain continuity and maximise the
effectiveness of the IED to help support the sustainability goals of the EU Chemical
Strategy.
Moreover, the Water Framework Directive (and its Daughter Directive on environmental
quality standards (EQSD, 2008/105/European Commission)) requires widespread
monitoring of surface water. This programme of monitoring within a receiving
environment provides the key evidence base for how policy instruments are impacting the
minimisation of emissions to the environment (or otherwise). This dataset, therefore,
represents a key resource, particularly for the IED, to help adjust and improve the role of
environmental permitting to limit emissions where needed. This is particularly true of
emerging chemicals of concern covered by instruments such as the Watch List (European
Commission, 2020) . However, it is far less clear how well these data sets are used, and
what the general awareness levels are of these datasets by representatives working in
different policy fields.
1.3.1.3 How would the problem evolve?
Both the IED and REACH set in place obligations for the safe management of chemicals
and minimisation of emissions. However, there is potential for activities to become siloed
and gaps to emerge between IED and REACH, particularly for SVHCs (211 substances,
with additional substances being targeted).
ECHA has increased its participation and support of the most recent two BREF updates
(textiles and ceramics). Based on discussions with ECHA, this engagement is still at a
stage where collaboration is developing and the support is being provided on a case-by-
case approach. This support provides an important step in sharing expertise and moving
towards a more systematic inclusion of data into IED processes. However, this could still
be strengthened further, especially as REACH continues to evolve at a rapid rate, with
further addition of SVHCs. Without further intervention, policy and implementation gaps
between REACH and the IED are likely to grow.
36
ADONA is the trade name for ammonium 4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoate
37
GenX chemicals are processing aids used in the production of fluoropolymers. Hexafluoro-propylene
oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) and its ammonium salt are the major GenX chemicals.
193
The Water Framework Directive, and in particular the EQSD for priority chemicals to
water, covers the aquatic environment as a receiving body. Failure to address these
pollutants through the implementation of the IED is likely to continue to add pressure to
EU water bodies.
Achieving the aims set out within the EU’s ‘Chemicals strategy for sustainability towards a
toxic-free environment’ are ambitious and will require significant efforts and input from all
relevant parties. Without seeding the themes of the strategy into the relevant legislation,
such as the IED, these aims may be more difficult to achieve.
1.3.2 The IED has not been effective in addressing resource efficiency and circular
economy
1.3.2.1 What is the problem?
The existing production and consumption systems are, to a large extent, linear. Natural
resources are used in industrial installations to manufacture products of which, at the end
of their use phase, only a fraction is reused, repaired, remanufactured, refurbished or
recycled. During production, a part of the natural resources is lost as waste or emissions to
the environment. On the other hand, in a circular economy, the materials contained in a
discarded product should be kept within the economy wherever possible, in order to be
productively used again and again, thereby creating further value.
The problem with this linear use of natural resources is two-fold:
1. Waste and industrial emissions pollute the environment or cause climate change
(covered by earlier problems)
2. Natural resources are being depleted
In order to address this, the Commission adopted, as part of the European Green Deal, a
new EU Circular Economy (CE) Action Plan (COM/2020/98 final). On the topic of
circularity in production processes, the CE Action Plan refers to (the review of) the IED
and the BREFs:
“Circularity is an essential part of a wider transformation of industry towards climate-
neutrality and long-term competitiveness. It can deliver substantial material savings
throughout value chains and production processes, generate extra value, and unlock
economic opportunities. In synergy with the objectives laid out in the Industrial Strategy,
the Commission will enable greater circularity in industry by…assessing options for
further promoting circularity in industrial processes in the context of the review of
the Industrial Emissions Directive, including the integration of circular economy practices
in upcoming Best Available Techniques reference documents;”
There are three aspects to this problem:
 The binding nature of resource efficiency BAT-AEPLs. In some BAT Conclusions,
resource efficiency BATs (aiming for efficient use of energy, water, and materials,
including the minimisation of waste generation) are expressed as quantitative BATs
(i.e. BAT-AEPLs), or are merely contained in narrative BATs. There are
indications of heterogeneous approaches between and within Member States when
implementing BAT-AEPLs in permits. Some Member States consider that the
194
resource efficiency BAT-AEPLs do not have a binding value. A general challenge
for the setting of environmental performance benchmarks and especially for
deriving quantitative resource efficiency BATs is that certain information (e.g.
production levels, process or product specifications, or the resource use per unit
produced) is considered by industry to be confidential business information
(‘CBI’).
 Obligations relating to resource efficiency and circular economy. According to the
IED evaluation, the IED has not been very effective in addressing resource
efficiency and circular economy aspects. Furthermore, BREFs & BAT Conclusions
do not systematically take into account (upstream or downstream) value chain
issues that could be addressed by the IED operator. Furthermore, BREFs currently
contain little information that supports the setting of End-of-Waste criteria by
European, national or regional bodies.
 Relation to industrial symbiosis. Industrial symbiosis (IS) refers to sharing
resources between firms to achieve a mutually beneficial competitive advantage,
involving physical exchange of materials, energy, water, and by-products. The
exchange of production residues is, however, considered recycling (waste
treatment) and not industrial symbiosis if a production residue that is categorised as
waste is reprocessed into products, materials, or substances. Industrial symbiosis
has clear advantages for resource efficiency and in promoting a more circular
economy, but there are few measures at present that support a wider overall uptake.
BREFs currently do not contain sufficient information to unlock the potential for
generating mutual benefits from cross-sectoral and cross-value chain collaboration
(thus fostering industrial symbiosis), which would create more resource efficient
value chains.
1.3.2.2 What are the problem drivers?
The summary driver is that whilst market signals do not result in optimised use of
resources by IED operators because the cost of chemicals does reflect the environmental
impacts of resource use, IED design and implementation have not prioritised resource
efficiency.
The contribution of the IED to the CE has been previously researched (Ricardo et al, 2019)
on the topic areas of energy use, materials use, waste generation, use of hazardous
chemicals and industrial symbiosis. The report looked at the contribution of IED sectors to
each topic and their trends over time, and at the untapped potential for the IED to
contribute further to the circular economy. A series of options to strengthen the IED’s
contribution to the circular economy was identified. An OECD report (OECD, 2019)
addressed the effectiveness of BAT policies to reduce industrial emissions. Another report
(European Commission., 2018) analysed the contribution of the IED to water policy.
Inversely, an unpublished report commissioned by the European Environment Agency
(ETC/WMGE, n.d.) tried to associate the effects of policies, actions and measures that are
proposed in CE strategies, with selected industrial sectors’ emissions levels and resource
use intensities. It was however found that most of the identified public initiatives are very
generic in scope − with mostly economy-wide quantitative pollution reduction goals − and
195
rarely with targets for a specific industrial sector or pollutant. In contrast, industry
practices on pollution control and reduction, as considered in the BREFs, refer to very
specific processes of which the prevalence and scale of application are difficult to judge or
quantify. Effective and successful circular economy strategies must identify the linkages
between single process, installation and sectoral emissions and global emission reduction
targets. In this context, it can be evidenced that macro-economic effects of CE initiatives
might be strengthened, weakened, or cancelled out due to other changes elsewhere in the
economy. For instance, the well-intended use in industrial activities of refurbished,
remanufactured, repaired or upgraded parts or products, or of recycled material feedstocks,
might negatively affect the sectoral emissions and waste generation figures, as a
consequence of the processing or usage of less homogeneous, more impure or less reliable
resources.
The above indicated reports and analyses allow the identification of particular problems
regarding the potential for improvement of the environmental performance of industrial
activities in the context of the IED and its current scope and objectives. The problems
relate to the role of the IED in promoting: (i) installation-level resource efficiency; (ii)
sector-specific strategies, and (iii) cross-sectoral cooperation.
 At the individual installation level, circular economy strategies primarily aim to
lower the use of natural resources in absolute terms, to avoid their depletion. From
an industry’s perspective, however, this means that, assuming constant production
capacity and added value generation, industrial activities must increase their
resource efficiency by lowering the energy, water and raw material consumption
per unit of industrial output, referring to either the total number of units produced,
or to their economic value or weight. A common challenge in setting targets for
industrial resource efficiency, is the difficulty of gathering and exchanging data and
contextual information, which is in some cases considered to be confidential
business information. The competitiveness concern is most often expressed about
data related to production processes and products, more than about emissions data.
It has been suggested that the requirement of throughput data could place an unfair
burden on facilities in terms of resources and their ability to remain competitive
(UNITAR, 2020). Furthermore, there are specific challenges for different types of
natural resources:
o Energy efficiency (specific energy consumption). The IED allows Member
States to choose not to impose requirements relating to energy efficiency in
respect of combustion units or other units emitting carbon dioxide on the
site (IED Article 9(2) of the IED).
o Material efficiency (specific materials consumption and specific waste
generation). BAT Conclusions focus primarily and highly on end-of-pipe
emissions and, to a lesser extent, waste generation, and not on resource
consumption per unit of output. Furthermore, heterogenous approaches
between and within Member States are observed on the implementation of
precisely those BAT-AEPL and indicative levels that refer to resource
consumption and waste generation levels. Some Member States consider
196
that such BAT-AEPLs are not binding, similar to the ‘indicative’ levels
sometimes included in the BAT conclusions.
o Water efficiency (specific water consumption and specific waste water
generation). Here, the considerations are analogous to those mentioned for
material efficiency.
 At the sector level, successful implementation of circular economy practices will
need ‘more than traditional R&D or a piecemeal approach to technologies: it
needs changes in entire systems and joint efforts by researchers, technology
centres, industry and SMEs, the primary sector, entrepreneurs, users, governments
and civil society’ (European Commission, 2017). However, according to responses
by some stakeholders in the IED evaluation, the IED has not been very effective in
addressing resource efficiency and circular economy aspects. BREFs & BAT
Conclusions do not systematically take into account value chain issues that could
be addressed by the IED operator. One of the possible reasons for this might be a
lack of monitoring and reporting of the results of in-house measures that contribute
to improved resource efficiency (see bullet above). On the other hand, knowledge
of and insights about the environmental effects that occur beyond the installation
boundaries as a consequence of the choices made by a plant’s operator might be
very limited. Choices in this context can refer to: (i) operator’s procurement
requirements, aiming at renewable, recycled or low-carbon feedstocks, (ii) specific
measures that avoid or limit the content of hazardous substances in the plant’s
waste or by-products to be treated or used by third parties, or (iii) measures such as
waste sorting or by-product pre-treatment. This lack of monitoring or knowledge
then leads to limited available information from and to operators on the range of
choices that might improve resource efficiency in-house or elsewhere in the plant’s
value chain.
 Finally, the realisation of net environmental benefits as a result of cross-sectoral
cooperation beyond installation boundaries, through collaboration with upstream
(secondary) material resource suppliers and downstream stakeholders, is not in the
scope of the IED. Although currently, there is a poor and fragmented evidence base
regarding the environmental and economic gains that can be realised by industrial
symbiosis (Technopolis Group, UCL et al., 2018), it is likely that there is an
untapped resource efficiency & CE potential that could originate from industrial
symbiosis initiatives.
1.3.2.3 How would the problem evolve?
Without policy intervention, the current variation in interpretation by Member States of
whether BAT-AEPL values are binding and thus included in permits will continue. On
exchange of information, limited change is expected by other policy frameworks. More
information could be made available through E-PRTR (e.g., on solid waste generation), but
this is often not at the necessary level of detail to be useful for BREFs. Currently, art 13.2
of the IED requires exchange of information on consumption and nature of natural
resources and generation of waste to be addressed.
197
On resource efficiency and circular economy, along with economic risks of short- or
medium-term scarcity (e.g., critical raw materials), policy instruments other than IED will
be main driver for improved resource efficiency and circular economy. At the EU level,
these include EU ETS legislation; waste and product legislation; European Green Deal
policy instruments; Chemical Strategy for Sustainability; REACH; E-PRTR; and
UWWTD.
On industrial symbiosis, sectoral, national or other initiatives could still function, but
would be less supported by a large-scale information exchange at EU level. The current
abundance and diversity of national End-of-Waste criteria would continue to hinder the
exchange of waste-based feedstocks between installations in different countries.
1.4 The contribution of the IED to reducing greenhouse gas emissions has been
limited
1.4.1 What is the problem?
(Agro-)industrial plants under the scope of the IED include energy-intensive plants that are
responsible for a significant share of EU greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and will
therefore be important in view of the European Green Deal and the Zero Pollution
ambition. In 2017, the industry and energy sectors (EU-28) accounted for a total of 2,195
Mt CO2e (EEA, 2020a), the majority of which will need to be cut by 2050 to meet the
targets of the Paris Agreement. The European Environment Agency (EEA) annual GHG
inventory report (EEA, 2020b), indicates that GHG emissions in the EU decreased in the
majority of sectors between 1990 and 2018.
Emission reductions for manufacturing industries, electricity, and heat production (as well
as for construction and residential combustion) are amongst the largest at aggregate level.
However, the current reduction rate will not be sufficient to deliver the savings needed to
achieve the EU's 2030 reduction target (40% compared with 1990 levels) (European
Commission, 2021b). Achieving the 2030 targets will require a focused effort across the
EU; and achieving the long-term goals of even greater levels of decarbonisation will
require faster rates of reduction than those currently projected.
Although industry is expected to continue the current trend of emissions reduction and
energy savings exhibited in the past few decades, to reduce its emissions further, especially
in line with Europe’s ambition for 2050 (European Commission, 2021c), major changes
need to be made in the way industry consumes energy and produces its products.
According to data from the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR)
(EIEP, 2021) IED installations account for approximately 40% of total EU GHG
emissions. Their CO2 emissions are mainly regulated under the EU Emissions Trading
System (ETS) and, as stipulated by the IED itself, their IED permit shall not include an
emission limit value for that gas. Nevertheless, there are a number of IED sectors that do
not fall within the scope of the ETS and, furthermore, there are other GHG not addressed
by the ETS that are emitted by IED installations. Altogether, it is estimated that around
10% of GHG emissions of IED plants are not covered by the ETS, representing around 4%
of total EU GHG emissions.
The Commission’s in-depth analysis (2018) in support of the long-term vision for a
prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy indicates that there is a
198
plethora of deep decarbonisation options for industry, but no single silver bullet for all
subsectors. In a recently completed report for the Commission (DG Environment)
(European Commission, 2021e), the main decarbonisation options for sectors covered by
the IED were identified. In particular, this report provides an overview of the wider
environmental impacts of these identified decarbonisation options. This is important as one
of the problems identified relates to potential knock-on impacts of decarbonisation options
on the environment (and vice versa, i.e. impacts of pollution abatement on energy
efficiency and GHG emissions), including resource use - both material and energy -
emissions to air, emissions to water and soil pollution. A key takeaway from this report is
shown in Figure A6-1below.
Figure A6-1: Assessment of the wider environmental impacts for the main decarbonisation
options and their potential for GHG emissions reductions across all sectors
Source: Service Request 21 under Framework Contract ENV.C4/FRA/2015/0042:
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/39928fd6-dcea-4fbc-b798-70e816bdecb0
199
The significant proportion of the green items in this figure reflects the fact that, frequently,
the techniques applied drive improvements in respect to GHG and other pollutants.
The IED aims to achieve a high level of protection of human health and the environment
taken as a whole by reducing harmful industrial emissions across the EU, in particular
through better application of BAT. The IED also applies to major GHG emitting
installations, thus making it relevant to energy and climate policy. The IED governs
installations that contribute to energy production or use energy for production purposes,
and information on the energy used in, or generated by, the installation must be included in
applications for permits (Article 12(1)(b)). Energy efficiency is also one of the general
principles governing the basic obligations of the operator (Article 11) and one of the
criteria for determining BAT (Annex III). Whilst ELVs are very rarely set for IED
installations for GHGs, due to the ETS, (non-binding), BAT-AEPLs are often set for
energy efficiency.
The problem defined here mainly relates to the coherence of the IED with energy and
climate policy (including EU ETS) as well as to the Directive’s role in contributing to the
GHG emissions reduction of the activities under its scope. The EU ETS is expected to
remain a key policy instrument for the reduction of industry’s GHG emissions through its
cap-and-trade system. Limitations to the existing cap and trade scheme are highlighted in
the “Masterplan for a Competitive Transformation of EU Energy-intensive Industries
Enabling a Climate-neutral, Circular Economy by 2050”, a report published by the High-
Level Group on Energy-intensive Industries (European Commission, 2019). This report
furthermore states that, in order to accelerate the uptake of disruptive solutions, there is a
need to consider complementary and/or alternative policy options to carbon pricing
(including potential alternative and complementary regulatory mechanisms).
By 2050, the EU will achieve net zero GHG emissions, with any remaining GHG
emissions compensated by an equivalent amount of removals (European Commission,
2020b). The IED could have the potential to complement the already existing policy efforts
and measures to reduce GHG emissions and increase energy efficiency through its
integrated permit and BAT approach. As part of the IED evaluation (Ricardo et al, 2020),
the issue of coherence between the IED and the EU ETS was analysed. A number of
important observations from the IED evaluation, illustrating the IED vs EU ETS coherence
issue as well as their (potential) contribution to GHG emission reductions, are as follows:
 Although some industry stakeholders viewed the IED and the EU ETS as coherent,
they emphasised the importance of avoiding “double regulation” and considered the
EU ETS to remain the most appropriate tool to control GHG emissions (until
2030). The contribution to a zero-carbon economy as such is not the primary
objective of the IED. Concerns were also raised regarding additional administrative
burdens for reporting on GHGs.
 A number of stakeholders indicated that climate and energy actions need to be dealt
with in an integrated way with other environmental issues which emphasises the
relevance of the IED in view of the need for industry to rapidly adapt to a zero-
carbon economy by 2050 (in combination with a range of other policies such as EU
ETS, circular economy policy, eco-design policy, energy policy etc.).
200
 Regarding the potential knock-on impacts of decarbonisation options on other
environmental media and vice versa, there is evidence that the IED requires certain
abatement measures and/or process changes, which can increase energy
consumption, countering the objectives of EU climate and energy efficiency
policies. In some circumstances, compliance with BAT-AELs may conflict with
techniques, which are more climate or energy efficiency friendly, such e.g.
perpetuating the use of coke together with pollutant emission abatement, rather than
move to using hydrogen, as a reducing agent to make steel. A better understanding
of such potential impacts of decarbonisation options and of pollution abatement
options can inform an assessment of the role of the IED in contributing to a zero-
carbon economy.
In summary, therefore, there are two main elements that need to be considered in this
assessment:
 For GHG emissions resulting from the operation of IED installations that are
addressed under the EU ETS, ways in which the present provisions of the IED may
be preventing the implementation of the Directive from contributing to the climate
objectives of the EU; and
 For GHG emissions resulting from the operation of IED installations that are not
addressed by the EU ETS, ways in which the present provisions of the IED as not
as effective as they could be in spurring further reductions of these emissions.
There is a fundamental need, therefore, to consider the integrated nature of the IED and the
wider impacts of decarbonisation whilst defining possible future policy measures.
Furthermore, the energy efficiency of IED installations plays a key role in addressing GHG
emissions and policy measures should not only concentrate on direct emissions of GHG to
the atmosphere.
To achieve the EU’s climate ambitions, IED installations will need to take action to
decarbonise, which will require a change in the way that BREF TWGs consider those
changes alongside the other key environmental issues addressed in BREF documents. For
example, the iron and steel sector has developed a roadmap that envisages a transformation
that require wholescale installation changes to their feedstocks and energy sources,
including replacement of coke with hydrogen and electrification of metal production
processes. In addition, the use of hydrogen direct reduction of iron has the potential to
reduce sectoral GHG emissions by over 70% and the electrification for the sector has the
potential to significantly reduce and, in some cases, eliminate emissions to air. However,
the costs involved in the application of such techniques is potentially very high (€900-€1
210/t for hydrogen reduction and a seven-fold increase in electricity use in the sector for
electrification).
Existing TWGs under the IED have limited experience of dealing with transformation
plans of the type that are now required. Alongside the urgent timescales for developing and
implementing these transformation plans, maintaining the BREF process in its current form
runs the risk of producing BREFs that quickly become outdated or even a barrier to the
transformations that are required.
201
Furthermore, there remains uncertainty with regard to the techniques that will be available
and thus employed to achieve the EU’s climate targets. In fact, generally, existing
transformation plans rely on techniques that currently have low Technology Readiness
Levels (TRL) and may reach TRL level 9 in the 2030s. A key challenge to address is,
therefore, to ensure that the BREF process can reflect on these uncertainties, can be
updated when the uncertainties are resolved and can be a positive tool to assist IED
operators and public authorities in enabling the transformation of industries whilst ensuring
the protection of the environment.
1.4.2 What are the problem drivers?
The summary driver is that the interactions between GHG emission reduction possibilities
and overall pollution emissions minimisation in the IED have, to date, not been sufficiently
taken into account. This is partly because Article 9(1) of the IED prevents the setting of
ELVs in IED permits for those GHG emissions that are covered by the EU ETS38
.
Article 9(1) of the IED states the following in relation to GHG: “Where emissions of a
greenhouse gas from an installation are specified in Annex I to Directive
2003/87/European Commission in relation to an activity carried out in that installation,
the permit shall not include an emission limit value for direct emissions of that gas, unless
necessary to ensure that no significant local pollution is caused.”
This means that in practice (i) almost no BAT-AELs are defined for GHG emissions in
BAT conclusions and (ii) the majority of IED installations do not have emission limits for
GHGs covered under the EU ETS due to the overlap in scope between the two instruments.
Emission limit values for GHGs within the scope of the EU ETS shall not be set in permits
under the IED unless to ensure that no significant local pollution is caused or where an
installation is excluded from the ETS. Nevertheless, IED implementation has, to some
extent, addressed GHG emissions, for example, through the setting of BAT and associated
performance levels (BAT-AEPLs) on energy efficiency or through BAT on the substitution
of fluorinated GHGs. In a few cases, BAT-AELs have been set for GHGs not covered by
Annex I of the ETS Directive.
The stated purpose of the provision is “to avoid duplication of regulation” (recital 9).
Though, in recital 10, it is stated that the IED does not prevent Member States from
maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures, for example greenhouse
gas emission requirements (in accordance with Article 193 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)).
Furthermore, Article 9(2) of the IED states “For activities listed in Annex I to Directive
2003/87/European Commission, Member States may choose not to impose requirements
relating to energy efficiency in respect of combustion units or other units emitting carbon
dioxide on the site.”
Added to this, some (agro-)industrial activities generating GHG emissions fall outside the
current scope of the IED or fall below the IED’s current production capacity thresholds.
Examples include farming (e.g. cattle farms), mining / quarrying industries and landfills.
These activities may also not be covered by the ETS.
The rationale behind this separation of tasks has, to date, mainly been the avoidance of
double regulation and a risk that ‘command and control’ under the IED may interfere with,
and damage, the working of the ETS carbon trading mechanism. However, these
frameworks operating in parallel, on many of the same activities and sectors, but by
definition almost completely separately, has the disadvantageous effect that any
38
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
202
decarbonisation and depollution interactions are not coherently taken into account, and, as
a result, synergistic optimising possibilities and investments are to date not being
identified.
However, it is increasingly clear that, in the EGD context and the wider, EU and indeed
global efforts towards tackling the climate and environmental degradation, deployment of
emerging techniques by energy-intensive industry sectors, e.g. using hydrogen rather than
coal to produce steel, will create an unprecedented interaction between decarbonisation and
depollution39
, which may result in new policy coherence challenges in the near to mid-term
future. Whilst climate-related interventions will remain the main driver of transforming
industrial techniques, principally via the ETS mechanism, the IED has to accompany and
optimise this process by taking fully into account the co-benefits and trade-offs of
decarbonisation and depollution. This has two aspects:
1. Where decarbonisation techniques have strong co-benefits in terms in reducing
emission of pollutants, it may become impossible to avoid the IED impacting more the
carbon market in the future. When such techniques will become economically viable
and practicable, they will qualify as BAT within the meaning of the IED and become
the reference for establishing mandatory environmental performance levels for all
relevant IED plants. Consequently, command and control under IED would drive
investment in the techniques and affect the carbon market, whilst also contributing to
the decarbonisation efforts. This is likely to increasingly occur in the run-up to the
2030 decarbonisation milestone, as emerging cleaner techniques become available in a
number of sectors;
2. There is a need to avoid that investment cycles triggered separately by the IED and the
ETS may increase costs for society in respect of pollution and climate objectives:
a. Obligations to implement existing (backward-looking) BAT may hinder
deployment of emerging decarbonisation techniques;
b. The deployment of decarbonisation techniques may entail a need for a later and
costly retrofitting to abate pollutant emissions if maximum synergies between
decarbonisation and depollution are not stimulated at innovation technologies
level, and through BREFs.
The IED and ETS frameworks operating in parallel, on many of the same activities and
sectors, but by definition almost completely separately, has the disadvantageous effect that
any decarbonisation and depollution interactions are not coherently taken into account,
and, as a result, synergistic optimising possibilities and investments are to date not being
identified.
Two specific examples of this dissonance between the two instruments, rather than mutual
reinforcement, are the current optional nature of energy efficiency performance
benchmarks in the IED, and the current IED provision not to set emission limit values for
GHGs covered by the ETS. Both of these provisions are elements that currently limit the
IED’s contribution to decarbonisation objectives.
1.4.3 How would the problem evolve?
Without any policy intervention, IED installations will continue to be confronted with
potential trade-offs and impacts of investment (and timing thereof) in decarbonisation vs
pollution abatement options. In addition, the IED will continue to have a limited, direct
contribution to the reduction of GHG emissions from IED installations and, therefore, the
decarbonisation objectives underpinning the European Green Deal.
39
Wood, Deloitte, IEEP (2021). Wider environmental impacts of industry decarbonisation.
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/39928fd6-dcea-4fbc-b798-70e816bdecb0
203
Furthermore, in the longer term between 2030 and 2050, and as a result of both legislative
and policy action at EU and national level, it is likely that a large proportion of EU-based
industrial operators will have already converted to low-carbon or carbon-neutral
techniques. This will require increasing attention on the question of whether and how a
level playing field should be established through the IED, so that the use of such cleaner
techniques is generalised across the EU. The interaction between depollution and
decarbonisation may have mutually-supporting or dissonant effects.
1.5 The IED does not regulate some highly polluting (agro-) industrial sectors
1.5.1 What is the problem?
The IED evaluation found that the IED has been effective at reducing emissions from
industrial installations covered within its scope, and their related impacts on human health
and the environment. This contribution is most notable for emissions to air, with reductions
in several key pollutants since implementation. Implementation progress is ongoing with
the continuous adoption of BAT Conclusions and updating of permit conditions to account
for this.
Nevertheless, an earlier report by Amec (2014) concluded that agro-industrial activities not
regulated under the IED can have a considerable share of the total EU emissions to air and
water, although the exact shares vary depending on the pollutant. While emissions from
installations that have been regulated under the IED to date have reduced over time, there
is no information to suggest a similar trend for installations outside the scope of the IED.
Any reductions in emissions from these installations depend on the national and/or regional
level measures and legislative framework in each Member State.
The impact of emissions to water from agro-industrial activities not regulated by the IED is
also apparent in the 2nd
round of Member State reporting on the River Basin Management
Plans (EEA, 2018). The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/European Commission)
requires Member States to identify significant pressures on surface water bodies from point
and diffuse sources of pollution. Out of all surface water bodies under pressure from point
source pollution, 15% were reported to be under pressure due to pollution from IED plants
and 14% due to pollution from non-IED plants. The largest source of pressure on water
bodies from point sources continues to be urban waste water treatment plants (UWWTP)
(67% of surface water bodies have been reported under pressure from UWWTPs). On the
basis of that evidence, a report by the EEA (EEA, 2018b) found that industrial point
sources not regulated by the IED may exert greater pressure on the quality of water than
the IED installations themselves (e.g. in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Portugal,
Slovenia and Spain). Although this may suggest that the IED regulatory process has been
effective in controlling industrial pollution, it also suggests that measures to control
pollution from smaller industry (often introduced at national level) may have been less
effective.
Emissions to air from agro-industrial activities not regulated by the IED can also be
significant as illustrated by data on key environmental issues assembled for the baseline.
Examples of emissions to air from sectors not regulated by the IED include for cattle
farming and for upstream oil and gas. Enteric fermentation of feed in the stomachs of
livestock (particularly cattle) is the largest single source of CH4 in the EU and two thirds of
204
EU27 total NH3 emissions are from livestock. Upstream oil and gas activities are a source
of CH4 and CO2. The OSPAR inventory provided details of 12.7kt CH4 in 2017, equivalent
to ~1.6% of total CH4 reported to E-PRTR from IED sites. Further emissions from
upstream oil and gas are of PM2.5, NOx, SOx and NMVOC.
1.5.2 What are the problem drivers?
The problem driver is that the scope of the IED excludes polluting (agro-)industrial
activities.
There are two aspects to this driver:
1.5.2.1 Potentially highly polluting sectors not within the scope of the IED
While the IED evaluation found that the IED addresses the most polluting sectors, there
remain several potentially highly polluting activities not within the scope of the IED,
including:
 Farming (cattle farms and mixed livestock farms, aquaculture)
 Mining / quarrying industries (currently regulated by the Directive
2006/21/European Commission of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the management of waste from the extractive industries and within the scope of the
E-PRTR Regulation (European Commission) No 166/2006 (activity 3a))
 Upstream oil and gas industries (extraction) (currently subject of BAT Guidance
Document on upstream hydrocarbon exploration and production, voluntary).
In addition, there are other (agro-)industrial activities (not identified by the IED evaluation
or set out in the inception impact assessment) that are polluting and that could be
considered for inclusion under the IED:
 Battery production (including manufacturing of industrial, automotive, electric
vehicle and portable batteries regardless of their shape, volume, weight, design,
material composition, use or purpose), while also recognising battery compound
production (i.e. chemicals) is already covered within the IED’s present scope, and
battery disposal and recovery (to the extent not already covered by activity 5.1).
The rapidly changing scale of battery production, disposal and recovery is a key
driver in determining whether this sector should be regulated under the IED or not
 Ship building (other than coating) and ship dismantling – shipyards are partly
covered under IED Activity 6.7 (for the coating activity) but ship building
processes (other than coating) and dismantling activities are not covered
 Certain downstream ferrous metal processing activities: to consider inclusion under
IED (e.g. under activity 2.3) of forging presses, cold rolling and wire drawing
(above certain thresholds).
1.5.2.2 Some activities polluting the environment fall below current production capacity
thresholds set in the IED
There remain several industrial activities polluting the environment which are currently
outside the scope of the IED owing to production capacity thresholds defined in Annex I of
the IED. These include:
205
 Recovery of non-hazardous waste from biological treatment (IED activity 5.3
(b)(i)) (to include certain activities with a capacity of less than 75 tonnes per day
with increased risk for emissions to soils, such as biogas production or manure
processing plants). The ongoing Commission report ‘Impact of the biogas plants
and of gasification, liquefaction and pyrolysis of wastes on the environment’ has
estimated that between 35% and 98% of biogas plants fall under the threshold,
varying between Member States, and that plants falling under the threshold
contribute approximately 27% of emissions to air of the sector, with ammonia and
NOx, and greenhouse gas methane being the most important impacts.
 Textiles: Pre-treatment or dyeing of textile fibres or textiles (IED activity 6.2), to
include textile finishing as well as activities below the current limit of treatment
capacity (10 tonnes per day) to encompass a larger proportion of the sector’s
emissions and impacts, particularly from waste water impacts. Limited data is
currently available regarding the environmental performance of functional finishing
processes. However, these processes account for 8% of the total EU textile
manufacturing and are considered to be the most polluting aspect of textiles. The
amount of polluted water discharged, and the hazardous properties of the chemicals
released, as well as the high rates of energy, water and chemical consumption are
the main environmental concerns for this sector40
.
 Smitheries: Reduction of IED capacity threshold for smitheries (IED activity 2.3b)
from the current limit of 50 kilojoule per hammer and where the calorific power
used exceeds 20 MW. This will encompass a larger proportion of the sector’s
emissions and impacts, particularly for releases to air. Limited data is currently
available with regard to the environmental performance of smitheries and
particularly hammers with capacities of lower than those stated in the IED.
However, given the proportion of the production of forged materials that are
produced by hammering (estimated to be 1.2 million tonnes across the EU for
201941
), it is estimated that only 25 out of 400-500 plants are currently being
regulated under the IED.
 Medium Combustion Plants: Examine the scope of Chapter III - Large Combustion
Plants (LCP), detailed under IED Article 28 and consider moving the 20-50 MWth
capacity band from the Medium Combustion Plant Directive (MCPD) (Directive
(EU) 2015/2193) to LCP. The main driver for this revision is to align with the EU
ETS scope threshold. There are more than 140 000 MCPs operating in the EU
compared with around 3 500 LCPs. Emission factors (concentration at flue gas
streams) for MCPs and LCPs are similar. MCPs are important sources of emissions
of SO2, NOx and PM. Latest estimates42
suggest circa 550 kt/y of NOx, 300 kt/y
SOx and 100 kt/y PM.
 Landfills - to allow adoption of BAT conclusions for landfills covered by the IED
(IED Annex I activity 5.4) - BAT conclusions would cover the key environmental
40
From ongoing study ‘Gathering of complementary evidence for assessing the impacts of extending the
scope of the IED to additional sectors’ draft report for the Commission.
41
ibid.
42
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/Revised%20Final%20Report.pdf
206
issues for which BAT has evolved since the 1990s, including with regard to
methane capture – and to reduce the threshold for inclusion of landfills within the
IED scope. Landfill remains an important source of environmental pressures in the
EU, not least as a key source of methane emissions: in 2019, the waste sector
comprised 20%-26% of all EU anthropogenic methane emissions (104 MtCO2e)43
,
with landfill sites covered by the E-PRTR registering around 11.9 MtCO2e of
emissions in 2019 (down from 16.1 MtCO2e in 2017).
1.5.3 How would the problem evolve44?
Development without policy intervention is in Table A6-4.
Table A6-4: Development without policy intervention for sub problems of the problem
“There are agro-industrial activities that are polluting and yet are not covered by IED”
(Sub) Problem Development without policy intervention
Not all agro-industrial activities that are polluting the
environment are covered by the IED
Continued potential for pollution from (agro-)
industrial installations not covered by the IED to
reduce more slowly than for those covered by the
IED
2 THE PROBLEMS – E-PRTR
Evaluation of the E-PRTR Regulation
In 2016-2017 the E-PRTR Regulation was evaluated as part of the Regulatory Fitness and
Performance (REFIT) programme45, 46, 47
. The E-PRTR was determined to be an effective
instrument for providing a comprehensive and detailed dataset on industrial releases and
transfers. Information beyond the requirements of the Kyiv Protocol was determined to be
efficiently collected. Concerns were raised about coherence of the E-PRTR with data
reported under related environmental legislation, such as the IED and waste legislation.
The E-PRTR has particular relevance by providing a publicly available dataset that aids
transparency and public participation in setting environmental policy. Finally, the
evaluation determined that the E-PRTR provides added value for the public, operators and
policymakers as it ensures consistent implementation of the Kyiv Protocol, enabling
comparative assessments between Member States.
The E-PRTR evaluation identified the following areas for refinement:
 Updating the existing EU-level guidance to aid consistent interpretation of
reporting requirements.
43
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer
44
See details in Annex 3, Chapter 3
45 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/f80de80b-a5bc-4c2b-b0fc-9c597dde0e42/library/f2f2de66-2d30-
453a-adaf-0a0c51a67ffe?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC
46 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1513176768325&uri=SWD:2017:710:FIN and
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1513176822493&uri=SWD:2017:711:FIN
47 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1513173747248&uri=COM:2017:810:FIN
207
 Further harmonisation with closely related environmental reporting.
 Addressing areas of weakness in reporting such as waste transfers, diffuse
emissions and releases in products
 Simplifying the triennial obligation for Member States to report on E-PRTR
implementation.
 Providing more contextual data to improve the E-PRTR’s effectiveness as a
comprehensive source of environmental information, including on
environmental performance.
 Raising awareness of the E-PRTR and increasing user numbers.
Review of E-PRTR implementation and related guidance
A subsequent Commission study ‘Review of E-PRTR implementation and related
guidance’48
reviewed the completeness of the E-PRTR activities, pollutants and thresholds
compared with the IED, with the needs of other European environmental legislation, with
recent work by the OECD to harmonise international PRTR definitions of sectors and
pollutant lists, and with emerging evidence on new activities and pollutants of concern.
The work identified and suggested the inclusion of additional activities and pollutants to
improve the E-PRTR’s alignment with the IED, other European Union medium-specific
legislation and emerging environmental concerns.
Suggested revisions to the list of E-PRTR activities included adding magnesium oxide
production, carbon capture and storage and a new metal-working activity; revising E-
PRTR sub-activity definitions to align with the IED for cement and lime production and
hazardous waste management; lowering the capacity threshold for combustion plants to 20
MW to include larger facilities covered by the Medium Combustion Plant Directive
(MCPD); and lowering the capacity threshold from 100,000 population equivalents (p.e.)
to 15,000 p.e. to capture 90% of releases from plants covered by the Urban Waste Water
Treatment Directive (UWWTD). A top-down approach to estimating releases to air and
water from cattle rearing was also elaborated.
Relevant pollutants not currently in the E-PRTR but which are covered by a number of
initiatives focussed on environmental protection were identified by reviewing:
 Annex II of the IED;
 Pollutants with associated emission levels in BAT conclusions;
 The Water Framework Directive (WFD) priority substances and watch lists;
 The Stockholm Convention and Gothenburg Protocol;
 The OECD short list of PRTR pollutants; and
 Substances of concern in other scientific literature.
A total of 38 pollutants were suggested for addition to the E-PRTR pollutant list to enable
more comprehensive tracking of environmental initiatives. Twenty-four of the pollutants
listed in the E-PRTR Regulation Annex II have been banned or severely restricted and
have been reported in low quantities in recent years. However, their retention was advised
48 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/f80de80b-a5bc-4c2b-b0fc-9c597dde0e42/library/b4eacd6d-4425-
479a-a225-77306de6b060?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC
208
since their removal would impact historical time series as well as international
comparisons of environmental pressures.
The degree of capture of industrial releases by the current E-PRTR lists of activities and
pollutant reporting thresholds was also evaluated to assess whether the target 90% capture
of all industrial releases was being achieved by the E-PRTR. The work concluded that for
some pollutants less than 90% of releases were being captured. Lowering the reporting
threshold for 11 pollutants to air and 14 pollutants to water would enable 90% capture of
all industrial releases of these pollutants. The work also concluded that reducing activity
capacity thresholds to capture smaller facilities would not necessarily increase the amount
of release reported. Numerous smaller facilities individually release smaller amounts of
substances and may therefore be below the pollutant reporting thresholds. The current E-
PRTR annexes (I and II) do not set activity-pollutant reporting thresholds that would
enable the E-PRTR reporting to be more targeted and complete.
The project also proposed possible revisions to the E-PRTR Guidance document that aim
at improving the consistency, coherence and quality of data reported to the E-PRTR by
Member States. This work was based on reviews of national facility reporting guidance
and consultation with industry trade associations. The recommendations were designed to
help operators and competent authorities to allocate resources to quantifying and reviewing
releases more effectively and included a sector-specific approach to E-PRTR reporting
requirements (e.g. prescribing or permitting different quantification methods such as use of
continuous monitoring or top-down versus bottom-up approach, defining pollutants that
should be present in significant quantities and different release thresholds).
Problems to be tackled
Based on this evaluation and wider implementation feedback, six overarching problem
areas, and an additional seven sub-problem areas, have been identified, namely:
1) Activities and activity thresholds:
a) Updating activity thresholds to capture 90% of releases and transfers for existing
activities,
b) Adding additional activities and or sub activities (and thresholds to be defined) to
be consistent with IED and other media-specific issue monitoring
2) Pollutants and their thresholds
a) Updating pollutant thresholds to capture 90% of releases and transfers for existing
and newly identified activities
b) Adding additional pollutants (and thresholds to be defined) to be consistent with
IED and other media specific issue monitoring
3) Adding detail to reports to support the tracking progress of industry towards circular
economy
4) Reporting modalities and data flow:
a) Efficiency and interoperability of reporting
b) Reporting timeframes and the time lag of reported data
c) Quality of reporting
5) Quality of reports and the accessibility of the E-PRTR data for the public
209
6) Releases from diffuse sources and products.
These problems are outlined in more detail below, with a focus on description of the
problem, the relevant drivers, how the problem may evolve without any further policy
intervention and who is impacted.
2.1 Problem 1a: Current activity thresholds and definitions
Summary
There is a lack of completeness in the reporting under identified activities in the E-PRTR.
The E-PRTR is not capturing the targeted percentage (90%) of releases from industrial
activities currently defined in the reporting requirements (Section 2.1.2). The original aim
of the E-PRTR was to capture 90% of industrial releases for each pollutant. In addition, the
definitions and thresholds of some activities are inconsistent with the IED and other
legislation such as the MCPD and UWWTD. Industrial activities operating in Europe have
evolved since the E-PRTR came into force and therefore the thresholds for the activity list
in Annex I needs to be reviewed and updated to ensure 90% data capture today. The
reporting thresholds do not guarantee capture of 90% of releases and transfers from
industrial facilities.
Is there a problem?
Some activity thresholds do not guarantee capture of 90% of releases and transfers from
industrial activities within Europe (Section 2.1.2). There are also inconsistencies in
thresholds and activity descriptions between the IED and E-PRTR activity lists.
Additionally, medium combustion plants, and the majority of urban waste water treatment
plants within scope of the UWWTD legislation, are not within the scope of the E-PRTR
activity list. There is currently limited data collection under the UWWTD and MCPD. This
will create under reporting and an incomplete picture of industrial impacts for existing
activities across Europe.
Why is it a problem and what are the main drivers?
Under-reporting, resulting from thresholds for reporting being too high, will result in poor
understanding of the releases from industrial activities. Under-reporting along with
misalignment with related EU legislation, e.g. IED, MCPD, UWWTD, results in an
inability to monitor progress for these policies, or inform decision making effectively. The
current E-PRTR does not provide flexibility for ensuring thresholds capture sufficient
reported transfers and releases.
What is the scale and trend of the problem?
Six activities, 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 3(c), 1(b) and 5(g), are misaligned with the IED activity list,
either in capacity threshold or activity description. The IED Impact Assessment is
additionally proposing the lowering of thresholds for further activities that could
potentially increase the misalignment between the E-PRTR and IED activity lists.
Additionally, activities 1(c) and 5(f) have capacity thresholds that could be lowered to
210
capture releases and transfers from sites under the MCPD or a higher proportion of those
under the UWWTD legislation. For example, lowering the capacity threshold for
combustion plants to 20 MW to include larger facilities covered by the MCPD. This would
add approximately 9% of additional NOx releases to air through adding around 6,300
facilities but would also require lowering of the pollutant reporting threshold (see Section
2.2.3).
Who is impacted by the problem and how?
All stakeholders are impacted by an incomplete capture of releases and transfers from
industrial sectors due to outdated activity thresholds and descriptions. The incomplete
dataset could lead to a lack of visibility of new and emerging environmental problems
resulting from industrialised activity and inability to plan for or head off future problems,
e.g. policies and or private sector investment that do not effectively address the problem.
2.2 Problem 1b: Missing activities and sub activities
Summary
As previously stated the original aim of the E-PRTR was to capture 90% of industrial
releases for each pollutant. Industry in Europe has changed since the E-PRTR came into
force in 2006 with new activities becoming more widespread. Therefore, the activity list in
Annex I needs to be updated. Missing activities mean that the E-PRTR does not provide a
complete picture of releases and transfers and cannot be used as a tool to fully understand
impacts and ensure coherent environmental policy.
Is there a problem?
The E-PRTR provides an incomplete picture of the important European industrial
activities. There are a range of emerging sectors with significant releases of pollutants,
which are not yet included in the E-PRTR Annex I activity list. Importantly, there are
inconsistencies between the IED and E-PRTR activity lists meaning that some IED
activities that are not reported in the E-PRTR. This will be providing an incomplete picture
of industrial impacts across Europe.
Why is it a problem and what are the main drivers?
New and emerging sources with increasingly significant impacts are not in the list of
reporting activities and therefore not reporting to E-PRTR. Several new industrial sources,
that were not producing a significant amount of pollution when the legislation was
originally introduced, could be important now because of changes in processes (e.g. CO2
storage), increased activity (e.g. battery production) and/or identification of new pollutants
of interest. Additionally, there are some activities not included in the E-PRTR that are
included in the IED, and therefore an inability to monitor progress for this policy
completely. Another driver is changes in industrial process, development and importation
of new products and/or increasing intensity of production.
211
What is the scale and trend of the problem?
Fourteen new activities and sub activities have been so far identified for inclusion (Section
3.2.2). Some examples are:
1) Adding magnesium oxide production to the E-PRTR activity list would enhance
coherence with the IED and add some 14 facilities. Likewise, adding carbon
capture and storage to the E-PRTR would also increase IED coherence although the
additional number of facilities is uncertain as only pilot-scale plants currently
operate in the EU.
2) Adding a new metal-working activity would ensure a more complete E-PRTR
coverage of the manufacture of motor vehicles, computer, electrical, transport and
other equipment. Comparison with international PRTRs shows high releases of
metals to air and water from these sectors, for which further investigation of source
processes is needed.
 Who is impacted by the problem and how?
All stakeholders are impacted through an incomplete and skewed perspective of the
important releases and transfers from industrial activities due to missing activities of
importance. The incomplete dataset could lead to a lack of visibility of new and emerging
environmental problems resulting from industrialised activity and inability to plan for or
head off future problems, e.g. policies and or private sector investment that do not
effectively address the problem.
2.3 Problem 2a: Existing pollutants and thresholds
Summary
The Annex II pollutant list is out of date. Reporting thresholds require adjusting for
existing pollutants or groups of pollutants to improve the capture of industrial releases, as
some reporting thresholds do not guarantee capture of 90% of releases from industrial
facilities.
Is there a problem?
The E-PRTR dataset is incomplete as some pollutant reporting thresholds do not guarantee
capture of 90% of releases from industrial activities (Section 2.1.2). There are also no
provisions for updating the thresholds when new evidence emerges. .
Why is it a problem and what are the main drivers?
The incomplete capture for some important pollutant releases in the E-PRTR (through
inadequate thresholds) leads to a partial and skewed perspective of the most important
pollutants and industrial activities. This results in poorly focused policies to reduce
releases and undermines the credibility of the E-PRTR dataset for decision making. There
is currently no provision for dynamic adaptation or updating of annexes to respond to
recent scientific findings on new or existing pollutant impacts. The current E-PRTR
212
Regulation also does not provide flexibility for ensuring thresholds capture sufficient
reported transfers and releases.
What is the scale and trend of the problem?
Previous analysis identified that lowering the reporting threshold for 11 pollutants to air
and 14 pollutants to water would enable 90% capture of all industrial releases of these
pollutants. Analysis indicated that there is already 90% capture of all industrial releases for
30 pollutants to air and 35 pollutants to water.
Who is impacted by the problem and how?
All stakeholders are impacted through an incomplete and skewed perspective of the
important releases and transfers from industrial activities due to inappropriate pollutant
thresholds. The incomplete dataset could result in a lack of visibility of new and emerging
environmental problems resulting from industrialised activity and inability to plan for or
head off future problems, e.g. policy options and or private sector investment that do not
effectively address the problem.
2.4 Problem 2b: Additional pollutants
Summary
Resent analysis of science and emerging environmental and health issues (including media
specific policies and legislation) have identified new pollutants of concern emitted by
industrial activities that are not in the E-PRTR Annex II list. It is important that industry
reports on these pollutants and the pollutants are assigned appropriate thresholds.
Is there a problem?
Yes, the E-PRTR does not include some emerging pollutants considered important and
does not include some pollutants of concern that are covered by other EU legislation.
Why is it a problem and what are the main drivers?
The current E-PRTR reflects 2006 understanding of the main environmental issues
associated with Annex I activities and related processes and pollutants. New pollutants and
environmental issues have risen in prominence since then. Additionally, there is currently
no provision for dynamic adaptation or updating of annexes to respond to recent scientific
findings on new pollutant impacts.
What is the scale and trend of the problem?
Adding the 38 pollutants identified in previous analysis to the E-PRTR pollutant list would
improve alignment with the IED, European media-specific legislation, and other PRTRs,
enabling more comprehensive tracking of environmental initiatives.
213
Who is impacted by the problem and how?
All stakeholders are impacted by lack of visibility of new and emerging environmental
problems resulting from industrialised activity and inability to plan for or head off future
problems, e.g. policies and or private sector investment that do not effectively address the
problem.
2.5 Problem 3: Information to track progress towards the circular economy and
decarbonisation of industry
Summary
The European Green Deal commits the Commission to revise EU measures to address
industrial pollution to make them more consistent with climate, energy and circular
economy policies. This will contribute towards the zero-pollution agenda. The Green Deal
commits, inter alia:
 Adopting an action plan towards a zero pollution ambition.
 Revising EU measures to address pollution from large industrial plants, including both
the IED and the E-PRTR.
The E-PRTR, in combination with related legislation such as the IED, has untapped
potential for contributing to the EU’s circular economy objectives by providing
transparency on industrial performance:
 There is a benefit in the reporting of additional data on resource consumption,
e.g. use of energy, water, raw materials. This also has linkages with options
under consideration in the IED revision, e.g. mandatory application of BAT-
AEPLs related to resource consumption.
 There is also no transparency around the transfer of pollutants in the data
reported to the E-PRTR. The E-PRTR needs proper tracking of pollutants in
transfers and their storage, export or final release (particularly waste and waste
water).
Additionally, the European Union has committed to reach net GHG emissions of 55% of
1990 levels by 2030. The E-PRTR offers a mechanism to efficiently track progress with
the reduction of GHG emissions from a range of GHG intensive activities. Transparent
integration between E-PRTR and EU-ETS reporting is needed to provide stakeholders with
sufficiently transparent information for decision making. Although the verified emissions
under EU ETS are publicly available, any underlying background information on activity
levels is not. Such information forms part of the confidential verification reports and is not
available for public scrutiny. With suitable provisions the E-PRTR could provide relevant
background data for benchmarking and assessing industrial environmental performance
within and across sectors.
Is there a problem?
The E-PRTR does not currently provide information that would help stakeholders (citizens,
NGOs, competent authorities, Member States, the Commission) track the performance of
214
industry in contributing to the Green Deal, energy or circular economy commitments. Data
on the composition of waste transfers and data on resource consumption (e.g. energy, raw
materials and water) are currently not included or only partly included. It is important to
note however, production volume will be a mandatory field under the integrated E-
PRTR/LCP reporting from the 2021 reporting year (to be reported in 2022), although
individual data points won’t be made publicly available. This additional information could
be an important contribution to realising the circular economy objectives, although this
will be limited for the public and external data users. Additionally, evaluation of this
information and releases reported under the E-PRTR and EU-ETS, can inform the IED’s
BAT information exchange process and the identification of installations with good
environmental performance and energy efficiency. There are however gaps and difficulties
in linking the datasets.
The current E-PRTR reporting requirements also do not facilitate transparency around
releases of GHGs and other pollutants from EU-ETS facilities by linking EU ETS
installations to E-PRTR facilities. The EU Registry collects installation EU-ETS IDs, thus
potentially allowing correlation with IED installations and their parent E-PRTR facilities.
This will allow comparison with emissions reported under the EU-ETS with those reported
to the E-PRTR.
Why is it a problem and what are the main drivers?
Industry plays a critical role in delivering commitments to the Green Deal, climate, energy
and circular economy policies. However, the E-PRTR does not provide sufficiently
transparent information (resource use and production data and activity (e.g.
technologies/practices used/waste compositions etc.). Neither does it provide pollutant
breakdown (e.g. hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) which have
different global warming potentials (GWPs)) for decision making around priorities,
potential synergies and conflicts for GHG emission reductions and other environmental
issues and impacts (e.g. circular economy; air, water and soil pollution). It also does not
provide transparency on the role played by EU-ETS as a targeted policy on large industrial
activities responsible for significant greenhouse gases that can also have an impact on air
pollutant emissions as well as other pressures on health and the environment (e.g. water
and resource use and soil and water contamination). . Reporting already exists for the EU-
ETS but it is not consistent with E-PRTR reporting. There are differences in scope (e.g.
reporting on biomass burning is excluded from EU ETS and EU ETS is focussed on a
much narrower range of industries) and detail (e.g. EU ETS reports at a more granular
installation level rather than E-PRTR facility level) of reporting, reporting frequencies
(where updates on EU ETS and E-PRTR are not in sync) and modalities (where datasets
are difficult to align with missing linking IDs) which increase burden and reduce
transparency.
What is the scale and trend of the problem?
There is poor transparency in the E-PRTR data with the majority of reports lacking in
relevant voluntary activity data reporting. In addition, the composition of waste transfers
and data on resource consumption (e.g. energy, raw materials and water) are currently not
215
included or only partly included in the E-PRTR. There is no noticeable trend in
improvement to the voluntary reporting. The lack of completeness and poor detail (in
activity and pollutant breakdown) means that environmental performance benchmarking
cannot be done for any groups of activity or for the E-PRTR dataset as a whole. The E-
PRTR is therefore not able to contribute to driving the circular economy objectives or
assessing the carbon or resource efficiency of different industrial activities.
Who is impacted by the problem and how?
Industry, competent authorities and government policy makers are impacted by a lack of
ability to benchmark performance of facilities for individual and groups of activities in the
E-PRTR. If industry and policy makers do not have access to information that can
highlight good and bad performers there is more limited scope to understand and drive
environmental performance in support of Green Deal, climate, energy and circular
economy objectives. Ultimately, the public are impacted through ineffective action to
improve the quality of the air, water and soil. Industry also risk poorly formed investment
strategies and government policies risk unforeseen negative impacts, poor public
engagement and levels of trust.
2.6 Problem 4a: Reporting modalities
Summary
For some categories of activity, in particular farming, reporting releases can be a
significant burden on reporters due to the number of facilities and difficulties in
quantifying releases accurately. Estimates using a top-down approach for some diffuse
industrial sectors (where there is a large number of smaller operators such as in farming or
in gas distribution) may reduce the reporting burden and improve data quality.
Is there a problem?
Yes. A large number of small diffuse facilities (e.g. farming) face a disproportionally
higher burden of reporting (effort per unit of release reported) and consequently there is a
risk to data quality.
Why is it a problem and what are the main drivers?
Activities with a large number of diffuse facilities with relatively low releases per facility
and little or no trained expertise in estimating releases face a disproportionate burden on
their reporting. These industries consist of relatively few personnel with the time or
training to engage in accurate reporting. Facilities are often unable to dedicate the time
needed to develop and generate accurate estimates for the relatively complex activities.
What is the scale and trend of the problem?
For accurate reporting across a large number of small facilities the burden (person days) of
reporting is considerable per data point provided in reports. As an example, in 2017, 8,157
(20%) of the E-PRTR facilities reported were farms. For each of these facilities to be able
216
to collect data and manage reporting is a burden on the sector. The possibility of including
cattle farms in the E-PRTR activity list would increase the number of diffuse small
facilities further, increasing the burden on operators of reporting per data point reported. If
the E-PRTR is to capture more diffuse facilities with a large number of operators, then the
burden of reporting will continue to increase disproportionately.
Who is impacted by the problem and how?
Small operators e.g. livestock farms through time needed to compile reports. Awareness
raising, data gathering, verification and processing along with basic training for reporting
of this number of small and transient entities is also an added challenge for competent
authorities.
2.7 Problem 4b: Time lag and data flows in reporting
Summary
The time lag (reporting every in reporting means decision making is based on data that are
over two years old once it has been compiled, reported verified by competent authorities
and submitted to the EEA. The current data flow could be modernised, making use of
advances in CEMs, tele-monitoring technology and automated verification and machine
learning approaches to improve the speed and quality of reporting and availability of data
for decision making.
Is there a problem?
Yes: The time lag in reporting inhibits timely flows of information to citizens and decision
makers.
Why is it a problem and what are the main drivers?
Current data reporting and collection approaches and tools create significant time lags in
data becoming available to inform the public and do not optimise opportunities for the
capture of good quality data. Drivers for this problem include out-dated non-automated
reporting systems in some Member States and a significant manual burden and therefore
time-lag in submitting reports by facility operators, processing, aggregating, checking and
submitting data by competent authorities to EEA and verification of data by the EEA.
What is the scale and trend of the problem?
The scale relates to the whole E-PRTR dataset and creates a lack of transparency on
releases and transfers that have occurred in the most recent year. The E-PRTR dataset is
less useful for modelling pollution releases due to this time lag. The problem could get
worse if more data from many more facilities are included in the E-PRTR and conventional
data collection and verification methods continue to be used. If the data flow can be more
standardised and automated with automatic verification and rejection procedures, then the
time-lag could be reduced to just over a year (because facilities reports for the years
operation previous will be processes quickly).
217
Who is impacted by the problem and how?
All users of the E-PRTR data are impacted by slow visibility of new and emerging
environmental problems resulting from industrialised activity and inability to plan for or
head off future problems, e.g. policies and or private sector investment that do not
effectively address the problem.
2.8 Problem 4c: Inconsistent and incorrect reporting
Summary
There are inconsistencies and potential issues with the reported E-PRTR data resulting in
poor accuracy, incomplete and in-transparent data, including:
Inconsistent pollutant reporting and quantification methods used by facilities in the same
sector.
A lack of clarity on whether data is absent due to incomplete reporting or non-applicability
or below threshold for a particular facility.
Poor administrative information on location, methodology used and tagging of release or
transfer.
Is there a problem?
Yes. Problems include:
 Reporting in incorrect units or with typos in the numerical information creating.
 Incorrect co-ordinates (located outside of Europe).
 Incorrect methodology reporting applied.
 Potential missing releases and transfers.
 Pollutant releases to water being reported as pollutant transfers and vice versa.
 Inconsistencies in measurement or calculation methodologies between
reporters.
Why is it a problem and what are the main drivers?
This problem affects the accuracy, completeness and transparency of the E-PRTR and
undermines its credibility and usefulness to decision makers and the public. It is hard for
competent authorities and users to distinguish if data are missing or just below threshold.
Drivers include a lack of clarity in the E-PRTR guidance and poorly trained and under
resourced operator reporting functions at facilities.
These issues also restrict the use of the data, often when using the data in analyses then
erroneous data must be removed or corrected49
.
49 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/costs-of-air-pollution-2008-2012
218
What is the scale and trend of the problem?
A range of studies and reports about the E-PRTR points to discrepancies between countries
and sectors for many data fields. The new EU Registry and Integrated E-PRTR/LCP
reporting flows, with more vigorous online QA, has to some extent improved the data
quality. However, a number of issues such as potential missing releases and transfers and
incorrect methodology reporting have not been improved by the new reporting flows. The
problem will continue with added facilities and pollutants.
Who is impacted by the problem and how?
All stakeholders are impacted by the quality of the data. Poor quality data being used by
decision makers could lead to policies and or private sector investment that do not
effectively address environmental problems from industrial activities.
2.9 Problem 5: Access to E-PRTR information
Summary
Public awareness and usage of the E-PRTR could be improved to increase participation in
decision making and understanding of the environmental impacts of large industrial
installations. The E-PRTR is currently a complicated dataset that requires explanation of
its structure to most data users, such as members of the public, academics and NGOs, and
is only available in English. There is a lack of contextual information for comparing
environmental performance and relationship to regulatory requirements for researchers. It
does not allow engagement with interested groups in seeking options for improving the
environment.
Is there a problem?
While the evaluation concluded that many different stakeholders use the E-PRTR, there is
always a possibility to increase its use. In particular, the E-PRTR website is only available
in English. This may be reducing engagement and/or interest in the E-PRTR data.
Why is it a problem and what are the main drivers?
If the E-PRTR is not accessible and relevant to the public, it is not serving its core purpose.
Lack of contextual information has been suggested as one factor limiting the usefulness for
the public, e.g. data on production volumes to enable some degree of benchmarking of
facilities.
What is the scale and trend of the problem?
The scale of the problem is partially defined by the number of times the E-PRTR is
accessed and then information is used by the public and other stakeholders to engage with
environmental decision-making processes. The scale of the problem is additionally defined
by how, and how often, E-PRTR data are used in analysis and studies on environmental
concerns within Europe by academia and NGOs.
219
Who is impacted by the problem and how?
Citizens and NGOs by lack of visibility of current, new and emerging environmental
problems resulting from industrialised activity and inability to plan for and/or address
future problems.
2.10 Problem 6: Releases from diffuse sources and releases from products
Summary
Citizens, NGOs, competent authorities and the Commission need information on releases
from smaller installations within (agro-)industrial activities that are collectively significant
(small farms, diffuse energy extraction) but individually below current capacity thresholds.
Additionally, many new and emerging products contain pollutants that are released once
these products have left the factory and are then used or disposed of. The Aarhus
Convention also includes that releases from diffuse sources such as transport and
residential combustion should be incorporated.
Is there a problem?
Yes: As there are activity thresholds, small installations do not report to the E-PRTR.
While releases from these smaller installations are low, collectively these could be
significant for some sectors. Excluding these will give an incomplete picture of releases
from industrial activities within Europe. Additionally, releases from products can affect the
environment after they have left the factory. In addition, to note, the Aarhus Convention
also requires releases from diffuse sources such as transport and domestic combustion to
be calculated.
Why is it a problem and what are the main drivers?
As well as a pollutant and release transfer register the E-PRTR is seen as an inventory of
releases and transfers from industrial sectors within Europe. Omitting smaller installations
below the activity thresholds and products that release pollutants would provide an
underestimate of releases from the industrial sector within Europe. Additionally, a
significant driver is the Aarhus Convention, which includes a requirement to calculate
releases from diffuse sources such as transport and domestic combustion.
What is the scale and trend of the problem?
The scale of the problem is currently unknown.
Who is impacted by the problem and how?
All stakeholders are impacted by lack of visibility of new and emerging environmental
problems resulting from industrialised activity and inability to plan for or head off future
problems, e.g. policies and or private sector investment that do not effectively address the
problem.
220
Annex 7: Definition of options
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. POLICY OPTION 1 – MORE EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION ..............................................................219
2. POLICY OPTION 2: ACCELERATING INNOVATION ....................................................................223
2.1.PO2-a: frontrunners...................................................................................................................223
2.2.PO2-b: stimulate innovation......................................................................................................223
2.3.PO2-c: Supporting transformation...........................................................................................224
3. POLICY OPTION 3: CONTRIBUTING TO A NON-TOXIC AND RESOURCE EFFICIENT CIRCULAR
ECONOMY ...........................................................................................................................................225
3.1.PO3-a-performance levels..........................................................................................................225
3.2.PO3-b: EMS................................................................................................................................226
3.3.PO3-c: Symbiosis plans..............................................................................................................226
3.4.PO3-d: Pollutant list...................................................................................................................226
3.5.PO3-e: Report on resource use..................................................................................................226
3.6.PO3-f: Tracking waste transfers...............................................................................................226
3.7.PO3-g: Report on products........................................................................................................227
4. POLICY OPTION 4: ADDRESSING DECARBONISATION OF INDUSTRY .......................................228
4.1.PO4-a: Energy efficiency ...........................................................................................................228
4.2.PO4-b: IED/ETS interface.........................................................................................................228
4.3.PO4-c: Disaggregated reporting ...............................................................................................228
4.4.PO4-d: CO2 equivalent reporting .............................................................................................229
5. POLICY OPTION 5: SECTORAL SCOPE........................................................................................230
5.1.PO5-a: Cattle and tailored permitting......................................................................................230
5.2.PO5-b: Expand existing IED activities.....................................................................................231
5.3.PO5-c: Landfills..........................................................................................................................231
5.4.PO5-d: Minerals extraction activities.......................................................................................231
5.5.PO5-e: Aquaculture ...................................................................................................................232
5.6.PO5-f: Oil & gas .........................................................................................................................232
5.7.PO5-g: Align E-PRTR to IED ...................................................................................................232
5.8.PO5-h: Align E-PRTR to other law..........................................................................................232
5.9.PO5-i: Watch mechanism..........................................................................................................232
221
1. POLICY OPTION 1 – MORE EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION
Twenty-four measures have been retained after screening as relevant for addressing the
general effectiveness of the current legal acts.
PO1 groups the 24 individual measures (IED#1-16 and E-PRTR#1-6 and #8-#9), into the
following 4 policy sub-options addressing the action needed to resolve a variety of issues
across the two pieces of legislation.
PO1- More effective legislation
PO1-a-achieving BAT-AELs (IED#1-#5):
Alternative 1 clarify flexibilities: (IED#1#-#4 ). Clarify the rules on derogations, indirect releases of pollutants
to water and on taking environmental quality standards into account, and ensure transparent monitoring of
related impacts on air and water quality
Alternative 2 full BAT potential: (IED#1-#4 AND IED#5). Clarify the rules on derogations, indirect releases
of pollutants to water and on taking environmental quality standards into account, and ensure transparent
monitoring of related impacts on air and water quality AND require consideration of the full BAT-AEL range
when setting ELVs in permits.
PO1-b-implementation and enforcement (IED#6-#9): Empower competent authorities to suspend the
operation of non-compliant plants, harmonise the rules to assess plants’ compliance with their permits, make
the provisions on penalties more stringent and improve transboundary cooperation in permitting.
PO1-c-rights of the public (IED#10-#13 and E-PRTR#1-#4):
Alternative 1 public rights: (IED#10-#13 and E-PRTR#1, 3 & 4). Improve and expand the public’s access to
information, participation and access to justice (including effective redress) by making clear permit summaries
publicly and digitally available and requiring systematic public participation in permit reviews.
Alternative 2 enhanced public rights: (IED#10-#13, E-PRTR#1, 3 & 4 AND E-PRTR#2) improve and
expand the public’s access to information, participation and access to justice (including effective redress) by
making clear permit summaries publicly and digitally available, requiring systematic public participation in
permit reviews AND more granular reporting of emissions to E-PRTR in an INSPIRE-compliant manner.
PO1-d- simplification (IED #14-#16 and E-PRTR #5-#6 and #8-#9): clarify certain definitions and activity
descriptions, delete the indicative list of pollutants in Annex II, compliance assessment rules under Chapter II
of IED to take precedence over rules in other chapters and top-down reporting for livestock farms and
aquaculture.
Measures included in Option PO1 sub-options are outlined in the table below.
Ensuring that BAT-AELs are achieved
IED #1 Introduce a time limit for derogations granted under Article 15(4). Article 15(4) of the IED allows
derogations from paragraph 3 of Article 15 of the IED, allowing competent authorities to issue less stringent
permit limit values than BAT-AELs for operators meeting certain criteria. The IED does not indicate whether
derogations can be provided indefinitely nor does it indicate if there is an upper limit on a derogation period.
Evidence has been identified suggesting that some derogations have been granted without specifying an end
date of the derogation, and thus the date from which BAT-AELs would apply. This measure would seek to
address this.
IED#2 Mandate the application of a standardised methodology for assessing the (dis)proportionality between
costs of implementation of BAT conclusions and the potential environmental benefits for assessing
applications for derogations under Article 15(4). Article 15(4) of the IED permits a derogation from where
achievement of emission levels associated with BAT would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared
to the environmental benefits due to (a) the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of
the installation, or (b) the technical characteristics of the installation. The measure will aim to standardise
the approach to assessing disproportionality between costs and benefits for derogations under the IED,
raising standards in the Member States where this is currently underdeveloped.
IED#3 Amend Article 15(1) to introduce an explicit requirement that indirect releases of polluting substances
to water shall be assessed and evidence must be provided to demonstrate that such releases would not lead to
222
an increased load of pollutants in receiving waters when compared to a scenario where the IED installation
applies BAT and meets AELs for direct releases. Article 15(1) states that emission limit values apply at the
point when the pollution leaves the installation and clarifies that the effect of any processes which dilute the
final emission should be disregarded. There is an exception for indirect releases to water. This measure
would adjust the exception for indirect water pollution to ensure that it is clear that, at a minimum, any
indirect release to water (i.e. from a waste water treatment plant) would be no more polluting than if treated
at the installation employing BAT.
IED#4 Amend Article 18 to require that stricter ELVs are set in permit conditions in the case that
environmental quality standards cannot be met by implementing existing BAT conclusions. As part of the
IED evaluation, some stakeholders suggested that the current wording of Article 18 is not specific enough
with regard to concrete actions that must be carried out (the Article 18 currently refers to ‘additional
measures’).
IED#5 Clarify Article 15(3)(a) by specifying that when setting emission limit values that do not exceed the
BAT-AELs, the starting point is the lower limit of the BAT-AEL range, unless the operator demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the competent authority that applying BAT techniques as described in BAT conclusions
only allows meeting a higher ELV within the BAT-AEL range. The measure would seek to encourage a
tightening of the emission limit values in permit conditions for installations across the EU employing a
relatively harmonised approach. It is not foreseen as a means to make lower BAT-AELs mandatory.
Competent Authorities will be able to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, continuing to account for local
environmental conditions and the technical characteristics of the installation, i.e. allowing for the possibility
to set ELVs higher in the BAT-AEL range. The emphasis however is to begin the considerations at the lower
end of the BAT-AEL range.
Homogenizing and enhancing enforcement
IED#6 Allow Member State Competent Authorities to suspend non-compliant installations in cases where
non-compliance (Article 8) causes significant environmental degradation until compliance is restored.
IED#7 Introduce common rules for assessing compliance with emission limit values under Chapter II of the
IED. The measure intends to improve legal certainty and eliminate varied interpretation of compliance. Some
areas where a common approach to the assessment rules would be beneficial have been identified in previous
studies (Ricardo, 2020). These include the clarification on the role of measurement uncertainties in
determining compliance with ELVs and a more structured approach towards compliance with ELVs for
combined waste water streams from different processes or installations.
IED#8 Require Member States, in determining the penalties under Article 79, to give due regard to the
nature, gravity, extent and duration of the infringement as well as the impact of the infringement on
achieving a high level of protection of the environment. There is currently no monitoring or register of
penalties imposed on non-compliant installations. Therefore, a system for monitoring the penalties/new
requirements would need to be set up by the EC as part of implementing this measure. The monitoring and
enforcement responsibilities would also be on the EC.
Tackling transboundary pollution
IED#9 Add a new provision in, or linked to, Article 26 for requiring effective multidisciplinary cooperation
among competent national administrative, law enforcement and judicial authorities in cases of transboundary
pollution, and for Member States receiving a request for cooperation to respond within three months of
receipt. The measure aims to increase the cooperation between the relevant competent authorities in order to
limit the impact of transboundary emissions.
Improving and expanding the public’s access to information
IED#10 Require that information from Member States’ monitoring of the impact of Article 15(4) derogations
is made publicly available. Currently, the IED does not require public authorities to publish the
environmental impact of granted derogations. Therefore, this measure would address this to ensure that the
public has access to information related to the impact that these derogations have on the environment.
IED#11 Widen scope of public participation under the permitting procedures based on the recommendations
by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. This measure would align public participation in
permitting procedures with the recommendations by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC),
made under case ACCC/C/2014/121.
223
IED#12 Introduce a requirement for a uniform permit summary to be made public. The ‘uniform permit
summary’ shall include an overview of the ELVs regulated and monitoring frequency and the timings for
permit reconsideration or reviews. Add a template of the ‘uniform permit summary’ to the IED provision
covering at least the format and content requirements. This measure would improve the accessibility of
information for the purposes of public engagement activities under Article 24(2) of the IED.
IED#13 Amend the legislation to state that ‘the competent authority shall make available to the public by
publishing open-access on the internet’ the information requirements listed in Article 24 (2) free of charge
and without restricting access to registered users. The existing legislation requires competent authorities to
publish information when a decision on granting, reconsideration or updating of a permit has been taken,
but does not specify how the public should be able to access the information. Public access to information
across Member States is, therefore, inconsistent at present. This measure would clarify that information
should be open access, for example, removing the possibility that competent authorities require some form of
payment to access the data.
E-PRTR#1 Reduce reporting thresholds for some existing pollutants to better meet the aim of 90% capture.
As a result of better environmental controls, mainly under the IED, the releases of some pollutants have
reduced to such an extent that the Annex II reporting thresholds no longer fulfil the original aim of capturing
90% of releases from industrial facilities. For these pollutants, there is an incomplete picture of where the
main releases occur. This measure would re-calibrate reporting thresholds to, once again, ensure 90%
capture of industrial releases.
E-PRTR#2 Introduce sub-facility reporting. Whilst E-PRTR reporting is at the level of ‘facility’, the IED sets
regulatory controls at sub-facility level i.e. for ‘installations’. Since there may be several IED installations in
an E-PRTR facility, this restricts the extent to which E-PRTR data can support the IED. This measure would
entail reporting releases/transfers on an installation basis rather than aggregating to the facility level. The
benefits of reporting at this level would be greater data granularity thus enabling better matching to
individual activities.
E-PRTR#3 Add active operator confirmation that releases are below the reporting threshold. Currently,
operators submit release data when the release of a pollutant exceeds a reporting threshold. In the absence
of an operator return, it is presumed that releases are below the threshold but this is not always the case.
This measure would require positive operator confirmation that releases are below reporting thresholds and
therefore avoid the ambiguity of missing values. This would improve the overall clarity and quality of E-
PRTR data.
E-PRTR#4 Mandate the monitoring/calculation/estimation (M/C/E) hierarchy. E-PRTR currently allows for
releases/transfers to be quantified by either measurement, calculation or estimation (M/C/E). Measurement
is preferable as it usually provides the most accurate data but it also costs more. Data comparisons are
difficult where different facilities have used different approaches. This measure would mandate the M/C/E
hierarchy for reporting i.e. releases/transfers should be measured where possible and calculation should
take precedent over estimation. This will improve overall data quality and comparability.
Clarifying and simplifying existing legal requirements
IED#14 Amend the legislation to clarify the scope of coverage of the IED pertaining to gasification,
liquefaction, and pyrolysis plants as well as to biogas plants.
IED#15 Delete Annex II of the IED “List of polluting substances”. The list of polluting substances in Annex
II of the IED can be limiting and become outdated in the consideration of key environmental issues (KEI)
addressed in the BREF review process. This measure would delete Annex II because it is already the
requirement for the BREF process to consider all KEIs, including any new and emerging, environmental
issues and pollutants.
IED#16 Introduce a provision in Chapter II of the IED setting out that the compliance assessment rules for
Chapter II installations take precedent over other compliance assessment provisions for those installations.
There are currently issues caused by discrepancies in emission limit values set out for combustion plants and
waste incineration plants in the IED under Annex V and VI, and requirements set out in the LCP BATC. This
includes differences in averaging periods, leading to operators and competent authorities needing to assess
compliance for the same pollutants and processes multiple times, which causes unnecessary administrative
burden. However, Annex V ELVs can be an important environmental backstop for combustion plants that
224
have received an Article 15(4) derogation and as would not be required to comply with BAT-AELs. The
measure would, therefore, introduce a new provision in Chapter II for compliance assessment that takes
precedence over other provisions for those installations and is linked directly to the BAT conclusions, whilst
Annex V ELVs are retained as a safety net.
E-PRTR#5 Establish a ‘sunset list’ to remove pollutants that are no longer of concern. The E-PRTR’s list of
pollutants was established in 2006 and includes substances that are banned and are therefore not released
from EU facilities. This measure would create a more dynamic mechanism to identify a list of pollutants for
future removal due to them being no longer relevant (a ‘sunset list’).
E-PRTR#6 Clarify that activity 3(a) covers upstream oil and gas facilities. Whilst activity 3(a) (‘underground
mining and related operations’) was always intended to cover the extraction of crude oil and natural gas,
there has been inconsistent MS reporting despite Commission guidance. This measure would explicitly
mention upstream oil and gas industries in the Annex I activity list. This will reflect current interpretation.
E-PRTR#8 Reword 5(d) landfills activity description to include flaring of vent gas. This measure would
clarify the current interpretation that activity 5(d) includes pollutant releases arising from the flaring of
landfill vent gases.
E-PRTR#9 Add an option for top-down reporting for activity 7 (livestock production and aquaculture). For
some categories of activity, in particular farming, reporting releases can be a significant burden on
operators due to the number of facilities and difficulties in quantifying releases accurately. This measure
would introduce the option for using a top-down approach to estimating releases for sectors where there is a
large number of smaller operators. This would reduce the reporting burden and improve data quality.
225
2. POLICY OPTION 2: ACCELERATING INNOVATION
2- Accelerating innovation
Measures IED #17-#22 are structured into three policy sub-options that would seek to improve the IED’s
dynamism and support the uptake of innovative technologies and techniques.
PO2-a-frontrunners: Facilitate the development and testing of emerging techniques AND allow more time
for implementing these more innovative technologies and techniques
PO2-b-stimulate innovation: Establish shorter BREF revision cycles (shorter BREFs cycle) OR an
INnovation Centre for Industrial Transformation & Emissions documenting innovation and recommending
BREF revisions (INCITE)
PO2-c-supporting transformation: Allow more time to implement BATC if deep industrial transformation
is required (time) OR establish a permit review obligation and require transformation plans (plans)
2.1. PO2-a: frontrunners
Policy option PO2-a focuses on facilitating the development and testing of more innovative
and emerging technologies and techniques. PO2-a comprises two policy measures as outlined
in the table below.
IED#17 Introduce legislative amendments to facilitate the development and testing of emerging techniques over a
longer period. In particular, this measure would seek to introduce a longer period, e.g. 24-36 months, during which
operators are exempt from meeting BAT-AELs for pertinent sources of emissions whilst testing and/or developing
emerging techniques. This would be an amendment of the 9 months currently referred to in Article 15(5).
IED#18 Amend requirements to allow more time (6 to 8 years) for operators to implement emerging techniques
with Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 8-9 or to enable the setting of stricter long-term Emerging Techniques
Associated Emission Levels (ET-AELs), reflecting the expected environmental performance of emerging
techniques, instead of just complying with BAT-AELs. Applicable to Key Environmental Issues only. The measure
will aim to promote [operationally] disruptive or significant achievements on environmental protection (rather than
marginal improvements). This measure will, therefore, contribute to the general objective of stimulating a deep
industrial and agro-industrial transformation through deployment of emerging techniques and, more specifically,
ensure that the IED is fit for permitting and reviewing of permits of large industrial and agro-industrial
installations for the upcoming transformation.
2.2. PO2-b: stimulate innovation
Policy option PO2-b focusses on improving the flexibility of the BREF process to keep up
with the latest technological advances, whilst maintaining the robustness and standards of the
existing processes. PO2-b comprises two policy measure alternatives as outlined below.
IED#19 Establish shorter, up to 5-year, BREF cycles focused on defining stricter BAT-AELs based on recent
innovations. The measure would target innovations that could apply to new installations and major refurbishments
but would not trigger a mandatory permit review for existing installations.
IED#20 Establish the INnovation Centre for Industrial Transformation & Emissions (INCITE) to monitor the
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and environmental performance) of emerging and breakthrough techniques.
Recognition by INCITE of advanced techniques with TRL 8-9 (or improved environmental protection) would
suggest to trigger an update of BAT conclusions. This means that INCITE would consider advanced techniques with
TRL 8-9 (or improved environmental protection) and suggest to trigger, where pertinent, an update (e.g. for specific
sections) of BAT conclusions. The measure would also provide INCITE with some powers to recommend a BREF
review or update of BAT conclusions as pertinent.
226
2.3. PO2-c: Supporting transformation
Policy option PO2-c focusses on facilitating sectoral transformation that is aligned with
longer-term EU objectives. PO2-c comprises three policy measure alternatives as outlined
below, the aims of which is that operators should retain their focus on contributing to the
EU’s long-term objectives, even if this may mean that they cannot keep up with short-term
BAT conclusions.
IED#21 Amend requirements to allow operators to have more time to implement BAT conclusions where deep
transformation of industrial sectors is required. ‘Deep transformation' would refer to the adoption of completely
different process routes and/or primary process techniques that facilitate a significant reduction in pollutant
emissions and/or the use of energy, raw materials (i.e. secondary, or ‘end-of-pipe’ techniques would not qualify as
‘deep transformation’).
IED#22A Establish a permit review obligation by 2030 that focusses on the capacity of the installations to operate
in accordance with the EU’s general zero-pollution, circular economy and climate objectives. This measure
comprises a requirement for installations to produce ‘Transformation Plans’ for review as part of this process and
write results into the permit. Contents of Transformation Plans would be clarified in a Commission Decision at a
future date.
IED#22B Requirement for installations to produce ‘Transformation Plans’ and integrate them in the environmental
Management System. Contents of Transformation Plans would be clarified in a Commission Decision at a future
date.
227
3. POLICY OPTION 3: CONTRIBUTING TO A NON-TOXIC AND RESOURCE EFFICIENT
CIRCULAR ECONOMY
3- Contributing to a non-toxic and resource efficient circular economy
Measures IED #23-#26 (PO3-a, b and c below) and E-PRTR #10-#17 (PO3-d to g below) are structured
into seven policy sub-options that would seek to contribute towards the use of safer chemicals, improved
resource efficiency and the circular economy.
PO3-a-performance levels (IED #23, 24): Introduce option for BREF Technical Working
Groups (TWGs) to set binding environmental performance levels (so-called BAT-AEPLs)
including for resource efficiency, water use efficiency and reuse, and waste generation)
(binding), OR introduce both binding BAT-AEPLs AND performance benchmarks to be used in
the Environmental Management System (EMS) (binding and benchmarks)
PO3-b-EMS (IED #25): Require operators to address Resource Efficiency, Circular Economy
and Chemicals Management in their EMS
PO3-c-symbiosis plans (IED #26): Require Member States to produce national plans to
promote industrial symbiosis
PO3-d-pollutants list (E-PRTR #10): Dynamically updating the list of pollutants to be reported
PO3-e-report resource use (E-PRTR #11, 12, 13): Require information to track progress in
resource efficiency (including energy, materials and water)
PO3-f-tracking waste transfers (E-PRTR #14, 15, 16): Require information to better track the
nature and destination of waste transfers between installations (mainly concerns transfers
between installations located within a Member State)
PO3-g-report on products (E-PRTR #17): Require reporting releases from products
The following sub-sections provide a more detailed outline of the measures.
3.1. PO3-a-performance levels
This policy option (PO3-a) focuses on updating the status of BAT-AEPLs, to improve their
effectiveness in encouraging energy, water and materials efficiency and the substitution of
primary or fossil materials or fuels by secondary materials and renewables. PO3-a comprises
two, alternative policy measures as outlined in the table below.
IED#23 Introduce the possibility to set binding resource efficiency and circular economy BAT-AEPLs. This
measure would intend to bring the status of BAT-AEPLs in line with that of BAT-AELs. Existing BAT-AEPLs
would not become binding. Only a new, or review of a, BREF and its BAT conclusions would render the
BAT-AEPL binding, where applicable.
IED#24 Introduce an option to set either:
 Resource efficiency and circular economy BAT-AEPLs, which would be binding through permit
conditions or general binding rules;
 Benchmark levels (associated with BAT), for which the inclusion in the EMS is obligatory. These
can be chosen e.g. when there is large variability in the data due to important differences in products
manufactured, or when one KEI is much more important than another.
The introduction of benchmark levels creates an opportunity to improve implementation of past BAT-AEPLs
derived under the IED, or possibly even under the IPPCD. They can, retroactively, be assigned the status of
benchmark levels, meaning it would become obligatory to address them in the EMS. Any review of a BREF
and its BAT conclusions could then either review and update the benchmark levels or convert them into
228
binding BAT-AEPLs if this is deemed preferable by the TWG.
3.2. PO3-b: EMS
IED#25 Require operators to incorporate a ‘Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Plan’ and a
‘Chemical Management System’ at the installation level as separate sections of their Environmental
Management System (EMS). Expand the scope of monitoring and reporting to cover resource efficiency
techniques, indicators and performance levels, as well as the use of hazardous chemicals and the level of
substitution for safer alternatives.
3.3. PO3-c: Symbiosis plans
IED#26 Require Member States’ national authorities (or delegated competent authorities) to establish a
national plan to promote industrial symbiosis. This option acknowledges that industrial symbiosis is a cross-
cutting, cross-sectoral activity and may require interactions and collaboration between actors beyond those
regulated by the IED.
3.4. PO3-d: Pollutant list
E-PRTR#10 Dynamically updating the list of pollutants to be reported. Some pollutants of concern emitted by
industrial activities are not in the E-PRTR Annex II pollutant list. It is important that industry reports on
these pollutants. This measure would include a more dynamic mechanism to identify and include emerging
pollutants of concern (“sunrise list”) within the E-PRTR Regulation e.g. enabling the Commission to identify
and include new pollutants in the future via delegated acts. This could include pollutants which have the
potential to become important for environmental issues in Europe.
3.5. PO3-e: Report on resource use
E-PRTR#11 Require the reporting of energy use. This measure would require operators to report energy use
in their facilities. This would allow the assessment of energy efficiency and benchmarking of facilities across
the EU (within a sector), particularly when combined with production volume data which will soon be
required under E-PRTR.
E-PRTR#12 Require the reporting of water use. This measure would require the reporting of water use to
allow for better assessment of the impacts of industry on the environment beyond pollution. This would allow
the assessment of water use efficiency and benchmarking of facilities across the EU (within a sector),
particularly when combined with production volume data which will soon be required under E-PRTR.
E-PRTR#13 Require the reporting of raw material use. This measure would require the reporting of raw
material use to better assess energy and carbon efficiencies. This would allow the assessment of resource
efficiency and benchmarking of facilities across the EU (within a sector), particularly when combined with
production volume data which will soon be required under E-PRTR.
3.6. PO3-f: Tracking waste transfers
E-PRTR#14 Reporting waste composition of waste transfers. This measure would require reporting of the
composition of waste transfers using the Waste Framework Directive waste codes (EWC waste code). This
would improve transparency on waste transfers and facilitate the reuse of waste streams.
E-PRTR#15 Improve tracking of waste transfers. This measure would require the reporting of
waste receivers for all waste transfers (as currently done for transboundary hazardous waste
transfers). This would improve transparency on waste transfers and facilitate the reuse of waste
streams.
E-PRTR#16 Improve tracking of waste water transfers. This measure would require the reporting of the
229
receivers of waste water transfers (as currently done for transboundary hazardous waste transfers). This
would improve transparency on waste water transfers and facilitate the reuse of waste streams.
3.7. PO3-g: Report on products
E-PRTR#17 Require the reporting of releases from products. Many new and emerging products contain
pollutants that are released once these products have left the factory and are then used or disposed of.
Article 5(9) of the Aarhus Convention suggests that such releases should be incorporated in a PRTR. This
measure is to provide data on product releases by making use of other reporting streams and/or carry out a
specific Commission study for the calculation of releases from products during consumer use.
230
4. POLICY OPTION 4: ADDRESSING DECARBONISATION OF INDUSTRY
4- Addressing decarbonisation of industry
Measures IED #27-#30 (PO4-a and b below) and E-PRTR #18 and#19 (PO4-c and d below) are structured
into four policy sub-options, which could contribute towards the decarbonisation of the agro-industrial
activities.
PO4-a-energy efficiency (IED #27): Delete Article 9(2) with exemptions from setting energy
efficiency requirements in IED permits
PO4-b-IED/ETS interface (IED #28, 29, 30): Plan a future review by 2028 to maximise
coherence and synergies between the IED and the ETS in light of the dynamics of innovation
(review), OR introduce a sunset date on Article 9(1) (sunset), OR immediately delete Article 9(1)
(delete)
PO4-c-disaggregated reporting (E-PRTR #18): Require more granular reporting for some GHG,
in particular refrigerants
PO4-d- CO2 eq. reporting (E-PRTR #19): Require GHG releases to be also reported as CO2
equivalent
4.1. PO4-a: Energy efficiency
IED#27 Delete Article 9(2) that exempts agro-industrial installations from setting requirements relating to
energy efficiency in respect of combustion units or other units emitting carbon dioxide on the site. This
measure widen to all IED operators the requirements of BAT conclusions containing energy efficiency
requirements.
4.2. PO4-b: IED/ETS interface
IED#28 Plan a future review by 2028 to maximise coherence and synergies between the IED and the ETS in
light of the dynamics of innovation. This measure would ensure that the functioning of the IED, including the
exemption from setting GHG emission or concentration limits within the IED, would be reviewed, in light of
the dynamics of innovation, with a view to maximise coherence and synergies between the concerned
instruments. Such review should take place prior by 2028, which is both prior to a the major FF55 milestone
and the approximate time by which breakthrough decarbonisation techniques are expected to start becoming
available.
IED#29 Introduce a limit of 2035 (‘sunset date’) beyond which the exemption for agro-industrial plants from
setting GHG ELVs requirements in permit conditions if they are regulated by the EU ETS will not apply.
This measure would allow the introduction of ELVs for GHG into permit conditions for IED installations
from 2035. Consequently, BREFs and BATC would set BAT-AELs for GHG emissions from this date. 2035
was chosen as a milestone between the 2030 target of 55% emissions reduction and 2050 carbon neutrality
goal. This would provide industry with time to review and adjust their course of action so they can contribute
to the EU’s journey towards climate neutrality.
IED#30 Delete Article 9(1) that exempts agro-industrial plants from setting GHG ELVs requirements in
permit conditions if they are regulated by the EU ETS. This measure would allow IED permits to contain
GHG ELVs. Consequently, BREFs and BATC would set BAT-AELs for GHG emissions covered by the ETS.
4.3. PO4-c: Disaggregated reporting
E-PRTR#18 Disaggregation of some currently reported GHGs. This measure would require the reporting of
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) as individual pollutants instead of the current
231
aggregated groups. This would provide a better understanding of the GHG contributions since HFC and
PFC species have different GWPs.
4.4. PO4-d: CO2 equivalent reporting
E-PRTR#19 Require GHG releases to be also reported as CO2 equivalent. This measure would require the
reporting of HFCs and PFCs in mass of CO2 thus giving a more accurate picture of their GHG contribution.
232
5. POLICY OPTION 5: SECTORAL SCOPE
5.1. PO5-a: Cattle and tailored permitting
This policy option (PO5-a) focusses on further addressing pollution associated with the
rearing of certain animals by expanding the scope whilst limiting additional administrative
burden. PO5-a comprises five complementary policy measures as outlined in the table below.
IED#31 and E-PRTR#20 - Include cattle farming within the scope of the IED and the E-PRTR. This measure
identifies the need to address the environmental significance of cattle farming. The measure defines a
capacity threshold, of 100 livestock units (LSUs) for cattle, a reference unit that facilitates the aggregation of
livestock from various species and age.
IED#32 and E-PRTR#21 - Amend the capacity thresholds for the rearing of pigs and poultry (IRPP). This
measure seeks to consider lowering the current capacity thresholds to include the environmental impacts of
5- Industrial scope
Measures IED #31-#44 (PO5-a to f, and i below) and E-PRTR #20-#31 (PO5-g and h below) are structured
into nine policy sub-options, which would contribute towards addressing, as efficiently as possible, the
environmental impacts of agro-industry installations currently not regulated.
PO5-a-cattle and tailored permitting (IED #31, 32, 33; E-PRTR #20, 21) : Broaden current
sectoral coverage of the IED and E-PRTR Regulation in rearing of animals (include cattle farming,
expand coverage of rearing of pigs and poultry AND a tailored permitting process for the rearing
of animals)
PO5-b-expand existing IED activities (IED #34, 36, 37, 38; E-PRTR # 22, 24, 25, 26):
Extension of IED and E-PRTR current sectoral scope by closing loopholes for smaller smitheries,
regulating the associated activities of textiles finishing, forging presses, cold rolling and
wiredrawing; and better coverage of the battery value chain by including the rapidly growing
batteries gigafactories
PO5-c-landfills (IED #39, 40; E-PRTR # 27): Landfills: Adoption of BAT conclusions for
landfills OR adoption of BAT conclusions for activity 5.4 landfills AND revise the capacity
threshold
PO5-d-mining (IED #41): Include non-energy minerals extraction industry in the IED scope
PO5-e-aquaculture (IED #42): Include acquaculture in the IED scope
PO5-f-oil and gas (IED #43): Include upstream oil and gas extraction in the IED scope
PO5-g-align E-PRTR to IED (E-PRTR #28): Align E-PRTR activity descriptions to IED activity
descriptions
PO5-h- align E-PRTR to other EU laws (E-PRTR #29,#30): Revise E-PRTR activity
descriptions by aligning to the Medium Combustion Plants Directive (MCPD) AND the Urban
Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) (fully) OR expand the E-PRTR scope to cover
(MCPs between 20 and 50 MW AND UWWTPs between 20 000 and 100 000 person equivalents
(partially)
PO5-i-watch mechanism (IED #44; E-PRTR #31): Establish a dynamic system to identify and
include emerging activities/sectors of concern, according to significance of production and
attendant (already occurring, or risk of) pollutant emissions, and the IED’s potential to address
these issues
233
slightly smaller farms. The thresholds could be set at 125 LSUs.
IED#33 Introduce a tailored regulatory framework for installations carrying out rearing of animals. Around
40% of all existing IED installations are related to rearing of animals. The IED’s scope expansion would
include cattle farming and more poultry and pig farms, leading to more than tripling of the number of
installations that would be regulated by the IED. This would translate into significant additional
administrative and operational burden for businesses and public authorities and, therefore, a lighter
administrative process is proposed for all installations rearing animals with this tailored regulatory
framework.
5.2. PO5-b: Expand existing IED activities
This policy option (PO5-b) focusses on extending coverage for specific sectors already partly
regulated by the IED and E-PRTR. As a general principle, activities will be added to the E-
PRTR’s scope if added to the IED. PO5-b comprises five complementary policy measures as
outlined in the table below.
IED#34 and E-PRTR#22 - Extend the current IED and E-PRTR sectoral coverage to also include battery
production. The legislation currently regulates a number of activities related to battery production. Battery
production (specifically of lithium-ion batteries) is expected to grow in the EU.
IED#36 and E-PRTR#24 - Extend the current sectoral coverage to also include forging presses, cold rolling,
with capacity exceeding 10 t/h, and wire drawing, with capacity exceeding 2 t/h.
IED#37 and E-PRTR#25 - Extend the current sectoral coverage to also include textile finishing activities
with the existing capacity thresholds in activity 6.2 (pre-treatment or dyeing of textile fibres or textiles)..
IED#38 and E-PRTR#26 - Extend the current sectoral coverage to also include smitheries of 20 kilojoule per
hammer with no threshold for the calorific power or reduce the capacity threshold for the calorific value to >
5 MW (from the current limit of 50 kilojoule per hammer and where the calorific power used exceeds 20
MW).
5.3. PO5-c: Landfills
IED#39 Facilitate the adoption of BAT conclusions for activity 5.4 landfills. No BAT conclusions exist for
landfills owing to the coverage of this activity under the Landfill Directive. An updated BREF and BAT
conclusions would lead to the implementation of more up to date techniques for protecting the environment.
IED#40 and E-PRTR#27 - Revise the capacity threshold for landfills. Landfills with smaller capacity would
be brought under the scope although the number is uncertain.
5.4. PO5-d: Minerals extraction activities
IED#41 Include non-energy minerals extraction activities, i.e., extraction and treatment of metallic and
industrial minerals (E-PRTR Annex I activities 3a and 3b) within the scope of the IED.
Revised scope: following the assessment of impacts, the scope of the measure was revised to 'include
minerals extraction activities within the scope of the IED'. The revised measure covers the extraction and
treatment of metallic and industrial minerals (but excludes the extraction of construction materials and
aggregates). The environmental issues linked to the extractive activities within scope are significant, with
higher pollution potentials. Furthermore, the revised scope of the measure ensures that IED/BAT
requirements and their implementation in permits focus on the most significant sources of emission of
pollutants.
234
5.5. PO5-e: Aquaculture
IED#42 Include aquaculture within the scope of the IED (E-PRTR Annex I activity 7b).
5.6. PO5-f: Oil & gas
IED#43 Include upstream oil and gas extraction within the scope of the IED.
5.7. PO5-g: Align E-PRTR to IED
E-PRTR#28 Align E-PRTR activity descriptions to IED activity descriptions. This concerns the following E-
PRTR activities: 1(b) installations for gasification and liquefaction; 1(c) thermal power stations; 5(a) &
5(b) waste treatments; 5(g) independently operated industrial waste water treatment plants; 8(b) production
of food and beverage products; AND including an additional activity capture of CO2 streams for geological
storage with no threshold (IED activity 6.9).
5.8. PO5-h: Align E-PRTR to other law
E-PRTR#29 Revise E-PRTR activity descriptions by fully aligning to the scopes of the MCPD AND the
UWWTPD.
E-PRTR#30 expand the E-PRTR scope to cover MCPs between 20 and 50 MW AND UWWTP between 20
000 and 100 000 p.e.
5.9. PO5-i: Watch mechanism
IED#44 and E-PRTR#31 - Establish a dynamic system to identify and include emerging activities of concern.
This option seeks to recognise that over time other existing activities or new activities may become relevant
for regulating by the IED and reporting under the E-PRTR. This would be when such activities become a
significant source of emissions of pollutants of concern, there is a significant potential for improvement of
environmental performance, the IED’s BAT approach is suitable for regulating those activities in a
proportionate manner, and there is a range of environmental performance within the activity or between
Member States.


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Strasbourg, 5.4.2022
SWD(2022) 111 final
PART 5/5
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the documents
Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November
2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council
Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste
and
Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on reporting of environmental data from industrial installations and establishing an
Industrial Emissions Portal
{COM(2022) 156 final} - {SEC(2022) 169 final} - {SWD(2022) 110 final} -
{SWD(2022) 112 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0156 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
584
Table of Contents
2 PO1: Effectiveness, information access and simplification.................................................. 599
E-PRTR problem area 1a: Current activity thresholds and definitions .......................................599
E-PRTR problem area 2a: Existing pollutants and thresholds.....................................................602
E-PRTR problem area 4a: Reporting modalities..........................................................................607
E-PRTR problem area 4c: Inconsistent and incorrect reporting .................................................608
3 PO2: Innovation................................................................................................................ 613
4 PO3: Circular Economy, Resource Efficiency and Safer Chemicals ....................................... 614
E-PRTR problem area 2b: Additional pollutants .........................................................................614
E-PRTR problem area 3: Information to track progress towards the circular economy and
decarbonisation of industry................................................................................................................622
E-PRTR problem area 6: Releases from diffuse sources and releases from products................629
5 PO4: Decarbonisation....................................................................................................... 631
E-PRTR problem area 3: Information to track progress towards the circular economy and
decarbonisation of industry................................................................................................................631
6 PO5: Industrial scope........................................................................................................ 634
E-PRTR problem area 1a: Current activity thresholds and definitions .......................................634
E-PRTR problem area 1b: Missing activities and sub-activities ..................................................646
Annex 9: Impacts of retained measures - E-PRTR
Regulation
585
Overview
This annex contains the impacts of each measure across specific impact categories structured
by overall problem area.
All key economic, environmental, and social impacts of the policy measures across the core
stakeholders – public authorities (including Member State competent authorities, the EEA
and European Commission), industry (large and smaller businesses) and citizens and workers
– have been identified, mapped, and screened. A rapid assessment of the expected absolute
and relative magnitude of the impacts and their likelihood was carried out in line with Tool
19 of the Better Regulation Toolbox1
. When selecting the most relevant and significant
impacts, we have taken into consideration the following criteria:
 The relevance of the impact within the intervention logic developed for the
evaluation: this assesses whether the impact is relevant to assess the direct
contribution of the measures to the objectives for amending the E-PRTR
Regulation.
 The expected absolute magnitude of the expected impacts.
 The relative size of expected impacts for specific stakeholders: this considers
whether any of the impacts will be particularly relevant and significant for specific
stakeholder groups, even if the impact overall may be small. In particular, this
considers whether impacts will be concentrated on specific Member States or
industry and whether it will add to the existing regulatory burden for any specific
stakeholder group. Given the characteristics of the sectors involved in reporting to
the E-PRTR, impacts on SMEs are not expected to be significant. However this
will be further investigated and may be particularly relevant in the context of
inclusion of any additional sectors e.g. cattle farms.
 The importance for Commission’s horizontal objectives and policies: this
considers whether the impact is relevant to determine any trade-offs between the
objectives for amending the E-PRTR Regulation and other EU objectives and
policies.
The outcome of this step is the final list of impacts that have been examined, indicating
whether they are likely to be positive or negative (using the following signs: ++, +, o, -, --)
and which stakeholder groups they are most likely to affect. The result of this screening is
that the ten economic, environmental, and social impact categories were selected for in-depth
impact assessment.
1
European Commission. TOOL #19 Identification-screening of impacts (europa.eu)
586
Table A9-1: Significant impacts for in-depth assessment and those that have been screened out
Impact
category
Significance Impact on key
stakeholder groups
Justification for inclusion / exclusion
Economic impacts included
Administrative
burdens on
businesses
-- Industrial operators The E-PRTR and any potential revisions have cost
implications for industrial operators related to the
monitoring and reporting of environmental data.
They may increase for existing operators if new
pollutants/parameters and/or lower reporting
thresholds are adopted. However, there may also
be some benefits with more advanced digital
technologies and/or top-down reporting for the
livestock / aquaculture sector. In addition, many of
the E-PRTR administrative data (e.g. name,
location) are already collected under IED
reporting.
Operation /
conduct of
SMEs
- / O SMEs are not a
significant part of
the affected sectors.
The impact is not expected to be significant as the
E-PRTR activity and reporting thresholds typically
exclude smaller operations. This was also
confirmed as part of the IED evaluation
(recognising that there is significant alignment on
activities between the two instruments). However,
as some of the measures may consider revising or
removing reporting thresholds as well as including
new activities (e.g. cattle) this impact has been
retained in the assessment where relevant for
specific options.
Public
authorities:
Change in costs
to authorities
for
administrative,
compliance and
enforcement
activities
- Member State
competent
authorities (at local,
regional and/or
national levels
depending on PRTR
responsibilities).
Changes to the scope and focus of the E-PRTR
will have impacts for Member State authorities in
terms of data collection, verification, management,
reporting and enforcement activities.
Public
authorities:
Change in costs
to the
Commission /
EEA
- European
Commission / EEA
Changes to the scope and focus of the E-PRTR
will have impacts for the EEA primarily in terms
of data collection, reviews, management and
website activities.
Environmental impacts included
The climate + No specific group is
impacted
One of the policy measures assessed considers the
refinement of reporting of GHG releases to the E-
PRTR. Furthermore, the potential for reporting on
resource use (e.g. energy) has also been assessed.
Whilst such options will not directly affect
emissions of GHG and energy use, indirectly they
provide an incentive to improve performance as
the data will be publicly available enabling
587
Impact
category
Significance Impact on key
stakeholder groups
Justification for inclusion / exclusion
benchmarking across sectors / Member States.
Efficient use of
resources
+ No specific group is
impacted
Some of the policy measures assessed include
improvements for reporting on waste data and
potential for reporting on resource use. Whilst such
options will not directly affect resource use,
indirectly they provide an incentive to improve
performance as the data will be publicly available
enabling benchmarking across sectors / Member
States.
Quality of
natural
resources /
fighting
pollution
(water, soil, air
etc.)
++ No specific group is
impacted
Whilst the E-PRTR in its current form, as well as
with any of the potential revisions to be assessed,
does not directly cause industrial facilities to
reduce pollution, indirectly it provides an incentive
to improve performance as the data is / will be
publicly available enabling benchmarking across
sectors / Member States.
Reducing and
managing
waste
+ No specific group is
impacted
One of the measures for assessment includes
improvements for reporting on waste data. Whilst
such options will not directly affect resource use,
indirectly they provide an incentive to improve
performance as the data will be publicly available
enabling benchmarking across sectors / Member
States.
Social impacts included
Reduced health
impacts due to
lower pollutant
emissions
+ Public Improved public data on plant performance should
provide incentive to reduce emissions and improve
compliance with existing permitting requirements.
Governance,
participation
and good
administration:
Improved
public access to
information
++ Public The fundamental objective of the E-PRTR is to
make available to the public data on the
environmental performance of industrial facilities
across the EU. Any potential revisions would only
improve the quality and quantity of data available.
Impacts excluded
International
environmental
impacts
O No specific group is
impacted
Whilst the E-PRTR and any potential measures for
assessment do not require direct reductions in
releases, indirectly the data can provide an
incentive for facilities to improve performance.
This is true within the EU but may also provide an
incentive for operators outside of the EU as they
can see how European plants perform and what
level of environmental protection is possible.
However, the impacts on operators outside of the
EU are expected to be minimal.
Functioning of
the internal
market and
competition
O Industrial operators Whilst the E-PRTR and any potential revisions in
scope and focus would have cost implications for
industrial operators, these are expected to be
minimal relative to overall operating costs and
588
Impact
category
Significance Impact on key
stakeholder groups
Justification for inclusion / exclusion
would therefore have very limited, if any, impacts
on overall competition.
Macroeconomic
environment
O Industrial operators
primarily
Whilst the E-PRTR and any potential revisions in
scope and focus would have cost implications for
industrial operators, these are expected to be
minimal relative to overall operating costs and
would therefore have very limited, if any, impacts
on employment and overall profitability.
Innovation and
research
+ Industrial operators,
Member State
authorities,
monitoring
equipment suppliers,
EEA
Potential improvements in reporting modalities
could help drive innovation in the collection,
management and reporting of environmental data
under the E-PRTR. However, such impacts are
unlikely to be significant. Potential efficiency
gains have been considered under administrative
burdens.
Technological
development /
digital economy
+ Industrial operators,
Member State
authorities,
monitoring
equipment suppliers,
EEA
Potential improvements in reporting modalities
could help drive innovation in the collection,
management and reporting of environmental data
under the E-PRTR. However, such impacts are
unlikely to be significant. Potential efficiency
gains have been considered under administrative
burdens.
Operating costs
and conduct of
business
- Industrial operators The E-PRTR Regulation and any potential
revisions have cost implications for industrial
operators related to the monitoring and reporting
of environmental data. These have been shown to
be low relative to overall operating costs. They
have been assessed under administrative burdens
hence why this specific impact is excluded.
Across each of these specific categories, a range of costs and benefits have been considered
and, where possible, quantified. For E-PRTR, the most important impacts relate to
administrative costs and the benefits associated with access to information (including
improvements in the data being reported, greater coverage of activities, pollutants and other
parameters). These have been considered relative to the baseline.
The following sections outline the analysis structured by policy option and measures within
each problem area. The table below summarises how the E-PRTR policy measures correlate
to the E-PRTR problem areas and overall measures.
589
Table A9-2: Mapping of policy options, E-PRTR problem areas and E-PRTR policy measures
Policy option
E-PRTR problem
areas
E-PRTR policy measures [#measure ID]
Baseline
1a: Current activity
thresholds and
definitions
Provide guidance on aggregating 1(c) thermal power stations to
align with IED aggregation rules [#12b] = SWD Baseline
4b - Time lag and
data flows in
reporting
Incrementally improve the EEA reporting system [#51] = SWD
Baseline
4c - Inconsistent and
incorrect reporting
Promote the use of sector-specific release factors for some
activities [#53] = SWD Baseline
Provide guidance on methodology for calculating releases,
especially indirect releases to water [#56] = SWD Baseline
Add completeness checks for the reporting of which
methodology is used [#59] = SWD Baseline
Add a description field for accidental releases [#60] = SWD
Baseline
Develop guidance on how to report M/C/E for multiple release
sources [#61] = SWD Baseline
Add an indication of whether the facility is registered under the
EMAS Regulation [#62] = SWD Baseline
5 - Access to
EPRTR information
Improve promotion of availability of the E-PRTR [#65] =
SWD Baseline
Enhance website design and content, better links to national
PRTRs [#66] = SWD Baseline
Provide more guidance on how to access and use the data [#67]
= SWD Baseline
Case studies/fact sheets on E-PRTR uses [#68] = SWD
Baseline
6 - Releases from
diffuse sources and
releases from
products
Deliver Article 8 requirements by cross-referencing to other
existing data sources on diffuse releases [#69 & 71] = SWD
Baseline
PO1
Effectiveness
1a: Current activity
thresholds and
definitions
Clarify that activity 3(b) covers upstream oil and gas facilities
[#16] = SWD E-PRTR#6
Reword 5(d) landfills activity description to include flaring of
vent gas [#11] = SWD E-PRTR#8
2a: Existing
pollutants and
thresholds
Reduce reporting thresholds for some existing pollutants to
better meet the aim of 90% capture [#33a-x / n=24] = SWD E-
PRTR#1
Establish a ‘sunset list’ to remove pollutants that are no longer
of concern [#32] = SWD E-PRTR#5
4a: Reporting
modalities
Add an option for top-down reporting for activity 7 (livestock
production and aquaculture) [#46] = SWD E-PRTR#9
4c: Inconsistent and
incorrect reporting
Introduce sub-facility reporting [#45] = SWD E-PRTR#2
Add active operator confirmation that releases are below the
reporting threshold [#52] = SWD E-PRTR#3
Mandate the M/C/E hierarchy [#58] = SWD E-PRTR#4
PO2 Innovation N/A No measures retained
PO3 Circular 2b: Additional Establish a mechanism for dynamic updating to include
590
Policy option
E-PRTR problem
areas
E-PRTR policy measures [#measure ID]
Economy,
Resource
Efficiency and
Safer Chemicals
pollutants additional pollutants of immediate interest [#36] and future
interest (sunrise list) [#37] = SWD E-PRTR#10
3: Information to
track progress
towards the circular
economy and
decarbonisation of
industry
Require the reporting of energy use [#38] = SWD E-PRTR#11
Require the reporting of water use [#39] = SWD E-PRTR#12
Require the reporting of raw material use [#40] = SWD E-
PRTR#13
Reporting waste composition of waste transfers [#41] = SWD
E-PRTR#14
Improve tracking of waste transfers [#42] = SWD E-PRTR#15
Improve tracking of waste water transfers [#43] = SWD E-
PRTR#16
6 - Releases from
diffuse sources and
releases from
products
Reporting releases from products [#70] = SWD E-PRTR#17
PO4
Decarbonisation
3: Information to
track progress
towards the circular
economy and
decarbonisation of
industry
Disaggregation of some currently reported GHGs (e.g. HFCs,
PFCs) [#44a] = SWD E-PRTR#18
Require GHG releases to be also reported as CO2 equivalent
[#44b] = SWD E-PRTR#19
PO5 Industrial
scope
1a: Current activity
thresholds and
definitions
Revise capacity thresholds for 7(a) IRPP [#1] = SWD E-
PRTR#21
Revise capacity threshold for 5(d) landfills [#3] = SWD E-
PRTR#27
Revise capacity threshold for 2(c)(ii) smitheries [#5 – sub-
options consider no calorific power threshold or a calorific
power threshold of 5 MW] = SWD E-PRTR#26
Revised thresholds for specific sub-sectors of activity 4
chemical industry [#6] = SWD E-PRTR#28
Revise capacity threshold of 5(g) independently operated
industrial waste water treatment plants to align with the IED
activity description [#8] = SWD E-PRTR#28
Include sub-categories for 1(b) installations for gasification and
liquefaction to include coal and "other fuels" to better align
with the IED sub-categories [#9] = SWD E-PRTR#28
Include product sub-categories for 3(c) cement production
[#10] = SWD E-PRTR#28
Align activity description for 1(c) thermal power stations with
IED aggregation rules [#12a] = SWD E-PRTR#28
Reword 8(b) production of food and beverage products activity
description to include feed products to align with the IED
activity description [#72] = SWD E-PRTR#28
Revise capacity thresholds for 1(c) combustion plants [2 – sub-
options consider thresholds of (a) 20-50 MWth and (b) 5-50
MWth] = SWD E-PRTR#29 and #30
Revise capacity thresholds for 5(f) UWWTPs [#13 – sub-
options consider thresholds of 2,000, 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 and
50,000 p.e.] = SWD E-PRTR#29 and #30
591
Policy option
E-PRTR problem
areas
E-PRTR policy measures [#measure ID]
1b: Missing
activities and sub-
activities
Expand activity scope of mining and quarrying activities (3(a)
&3(b)) to align with potential IED revision [#14] = SWD E-
PRTR#28
Add cattle farming [#15] = SWD E-PRTR#20
Include battery production, disposal and recovery [#18] = SWD
E-PRTR#22
Include an additional sub-sector for cold rolling & wire
drawing [#20] = SWD E-PRTR#24
Inclusion of an additional 9(a) sub-sector for textile finishing
[#21] = SWD E-PRTR#25
Include an additional 9(d) sub-activity for ship yards /
dismantling [#23] = SWD E-PRTR#28
Add MgO production in kilns with a threshold of 50 t/day to
3(c) so as to align with IED activity 3.1(c) [#27] = SWD E-
PRTR#28
Include capture of CO2 streams for geological storage with no
threshold so as to align with IED activity 6.9 [#28] = SWD E-
PRTR#28
Add additional sub-categories and improved descriptions for
5(a) & 5(b) waste treatments to align with the IED activity
descriptions and ensure reporters know that disposal includes
incineration/co-incineration. Additionally, include recovery in
the activity definition [#29] = SWD E-PRTR#28
Add an additional hazardous waste sub-category for temporary
storage so as to align with IED activity 5.6 temporary storage
of hazardous waste [#30] = SWD E-PRTR#28
Establish a dynamic mechanism to identify and include
emerging activities of concern (‘sunrise list’ for activities)
[#31] = SWD E-PRTR#31
Common economic impact assumptions
The main economic impacts related to policy measures for the revision of the E-PRTR
Regulation relate to administrative burden i.e. data collection, reporting and Quality
Assurance (plus EEA data management and website maintenance).
The EU Standard Cost Model applies to administrative costs such as reporting costs. It
estimates costs of a given reporting provision as:
Administrative cost = Σ P x Q
where P (for Price) = Tariff x Time;
and where Q (for Quantity) = Number of businesses x Frequency
In relation to the reporting under the E-PRTR, the costs elements are:
 Tariff=hour salary for relevant staff
592
 Time=hours to perform the reporting activity
 Number of business=number of facilities that have to report
 Frequency: once per year expect for measures/options including more frequent
reporting
We have assessed the reporting activities and, at the generic level, they comprise one-off
costs. The one-off costs relate to adapting the data collection, calculation and reporting
systems, training, instruction and similar activities that are needed to enable the annual
reporting. For one-off costs, the frequency is one, otherwise the costs are estimated similar to
the recurrent reporting costs.
Below we describe the assumptions and data used for the assessment. These are presented in
this section to avoid repetition for each of the individual measures in later sections.
Table A9-3: General assumptions for economic impacts
Element Value Reference
Salary rate 40 EUR/hour2 Rate for professional, Eurostat data
Discount rate 4% Better Regulation Guidelines
Lifetime of one-off
activities
10 years (unless specified for a
particular activity)
Expert assumption – used for annualising one-off
costs.
For annualisation of one-off costs, the technical or economic lifetime of the investment
typically provides the guiding value. For changes to data collection and reporting
requirements, there is no simple lifetime to use as a basis for the annualisation. Changes to
reporting systems will last for as long as the system is applied. If a company changes its IT
system used for the reporting, it is unlikely that the costs will be significantly affected by the
number of pollutants or parameters that are being reported. This would suggest that a long
“life time” should be applied. On the other hand, staff turnover could mean that one-off costs
should be repeated within a shorter time period. The assumption of ten years is a medium-
term lifetime and intended to balance the different factors.
The specific administrative costs include the following elements:
 Business: Reporting by facilities
 Member State CAs: Data checking and QA
 EEA
Data checking
Publishing new data or revising webpages by EEA
The data and approach for each stakeholder type is presented below.
2
40 EUR/h salary rate is applied in this Annex only. For the sake of aligning the calculations of admin burden
with the one-in-one-out calculator and with assumptions behind the IED burden calculations, a 29 EUR/h rate
is applied in Annexes 3, 10, the main body of the SWD and its executive summary. Therefore totals provided in
this annex are not matching those presented in Annexes 3, 10, the SWD and the summary.
593
Reporting costs for business
The changes to the reporting costs for facilities depend on the specific measure. There are the
following generic types of changes:
 A facility comes under scope of the E-PRTR for the first time and has to start
reporting.
 Existing facilities have to report additional pollutants.
 Existing facilities have to report new parameters.
For each of the situations, the unit costs of reporting for a facility has been estimated.
New facilities have to report
The time required for reporting for a facility that is under the E-PRTR is estimated based on
the time required for the current scope of the Regulation. Review of the results from the
evaluation points to around 22 hours per operator (facility) per year. Findings from the
targeted stakeholder survey (TSS) suggests resource use that is slightly higher than this
estimate.
There are specific data from the Netherlands that have estimated the total costs for all
operators at €12m per year. As the Netherlands have about 3,400 facilities, the average
annual costs per facility is in the order of €3,500. This is somewhat higher and corresponds
on average to about 70 hours per facility per year.
We assume that the average for an EU facility is somewhere between the 22 and 70 hours
referenced above. Hence, we apply 50 hours as representing a medium complexity facility,
where complexity for a reporting facility is determined at a sector level considering factors
such as likely number of activities and processes per facility, number of plants / installations,
number of stacks, number of pollutants to be reported per environmental media and number
of waste / waste water transfers. We have assumed that low level of complexity requires half
the resources as the medium level, while high complexity is double the hours used for
medium complexity reporting. The estimated hours per facility is therefore:
 Low complexity reporting: 0.5*50 hours = 25 hours
 Medium complexity reporting: 50 hours
 High complexity reporting: 2* 50 hours = 100 hours
There is limited evidence on the start-up costs for new facilities/activities. We assume that
the start-up costs (one-off costs) are 3 times the annual costs.
Based on these assumptions we estimate the follow unit costs for a new facility being brought
into the scope of the E-PRTR. These unit costs are applied to assess changes in activity
thresholds and adding new activities, both leading to new facilities having to report.
594
Table A9-4: Unit costs for new facilities in €
Level of
complexity
One-off costs in € Recurrent costs in € per year Total annual costs in €
Low 3,000 990 1,360
Medium 5,900 1,980 2,710
High 11,900 3,950 5,420
The unit costs are used to estimate the reporting costs which are administrative costs. Given that the
reporting is beyond what is “normal” business operation, the administrative costs can be
categorised as an administrative burden. The terms reporting costs, administrative costs and
administrative burden are used to express the economic impact on business and all express
the same costs.
Existing facilities have to report new pollutant/pollutant threshold changes
The above unit costs are applied to new facilities coming into scope. For additional
pollutants, the reporting costs will also increase for the existing facilities that might have to
report an additional pollutant. There are two categories:
 Existing activity and existing pollutant where the reporting threshold is changed
 Existing activity where a new pollutant has to be reported
When changing reporting thresholds for existing pollutants, we assume only a very marginal
increase in the annual reporting costs. Existing facilities have to check whether they emit
above or below the threshold so they should have the data already: the additional cost is in
adding one more data point to the annual report. Hence, we assume that there are no one-off
costs but only the annual burden of reporting the existing pollutant(s). We assume that this
requires one additional hour of work per year.
In case of a new pollutant, the assumptions are different as the facility operator will not
already be assessing releases of that pollutant for the E-PRTR. In total, there are about
100,000 data points on individual releases and transfers being reported annually3
which
means that each facility on average reports only two values. Operators will have to consider
additional pollutants to those currently reported to verify whether these are below the
reporting thresholds. For the majority of pollutants, this verification may be a one-off
exercise and may not have to be repeated every year. Only when a facility reports for the first
time, the operator may have to consider most or all pollutants. Only if the activity changes
significantly (either in nature or volume), the operator may have to reconsider a longer list of
pollutants. We assume that, on average, facility operators consider 10 pollutants every year
for reporting. This is based on a review of the Spanish PRTR which has no reporting
thresholds. Facilities report, on average, on 5 air and 5 water pollutants, so 10 in total.
It means that the annual reporting cost per pollutant is about 5 hours (50 hours in total and 10
pollutants). The pollutants that are being considered for inclusion are typically related to
other legislation. It is therefore likely that facilities already monitor or calculate these
3
Extracts from the E-PRTR database. Sum of pollution releases, pollution transfers and waste transfers.
595
emissions. However, it is assumed that some changes to existing data collection, calculation
and reporting systems may be required initially upfront to enable annual reporting. Evidence
on how much time is required for these upfront changes is very limited. It is assumed, based
on expert judgement, that these one-off changes equate to 3 times the annual recurrent time
and costs for reporting.
Table A9-5: Costs for new pollutants or new thresholds for existing pollutants
Type of change One-off Recurrent
Hours Costs in € Hours Costs in € per year
Existing pollutant with new threshold 0 0 1 40
New pollutant 15 600 5 200
Cost for new parameters – water use, energy, raw materials etc. – and changes to reporting of GHGs
and at activity level
The last type of change relevant for industry include the reporting of other parameters. They
include use of energy, water and raw materials, as well as a set of minor changes to the
reporting of waste releases and transfers and reporting at activity level.
The costs of reporting these parameters have been assessed relative to the costs of reporting
pollutants covered by the current scope. Energy and water use are assumed to be similar to
the current pollutants and therefore, the additional reporting costs will be equivalent to
including a new pollutant. For other raw materials, their reporting is assumed to be more
complex. There are multiple raw materials, potentially used across multiple processes and
activities so collecting data on their use and reporting it is assumed to be more onerous than
the other parameters.
The table below presents the assumptions used for the assessment.
Table A9-6: Costs for new parameters, changes to reporting of GHGs and reporting at activity
level
Parameter Scaling factor (relative to
new pollutant estimates)
Justification
Energy use 1 Assumed to be equivalent to having to
report a new pollutant - all data should
already be collated and easy to report
Water use 1
Other raw materials
5
Will vary in complexity significantly
between and within different sectors
depending on number of factors e.g.
products, processes etc.
Waste composition
0.5
Already reporting on waste transfer - this
would just add waste composition
information which should be readily
available.
Waste transfer tracking
improvements 0.5
Already reporting on waste transfer - this
would just add where transfer goes.
596
Parameter Scaling factor (relative to
new pollutant estimates)
Justification
Pollutant transfer (waste water)
tracking improvement 0.5
Already reporting on waste transfer - this
would just add where transfer goes.
Reporting GHGs like HFCs and
PFCs as specific pollutants
instead of as a group.
0.25
Already being reported – this would just
require some additional time for reporting
the data at a more disaggregated level.
Reporting GHGs like HFCs and
PFCs in mass of CO2e. 0.25
Already being reported – this would just
require some additional time for reporting
the data in different units.
Reporting releases/transfers and
other applicable fields on an
activity basis instead of
aggregation to the facility level.
2
Already likely to be calculated / measured
at this level but adding more complexity in
terms of reporting.
Data management by Member State CAs:
The cost drivers for changes in the costs for Member State CAs are also:
 Changes in the number of reporting facilities.
 Changes to the number of pollutants being reported.
Costs incurred due to changes in the number of reporting facilities
Data from the TSS covers estimates from 12 Member States. They provide a basis for
assessing the average costs. Though not all Member States are represented, the data cover
both small and large Member States as well as the regions.
Based on these data, the average number of working days per facility has been calculated as
0.4 working days per installation (equivalent to about 2.8 hours per installation).4
The
resource use for CAs can be estimated using similar assumptions to those used for operators:
low level of complexity implies half the number of hours than for the average facility
and high level of complexity means twice the resource use. For one-off costs, it is assumed
that these are three times the annual costs. These unit costs are applied to estimate the CA
burden when new facilities within an existing activity start E-PRTR reporting e.g. if the activity
threshold is reduced.
Table A9-7: Unit costs for CAs when new facilities within an existing activity are reporting
Level of complexity One-off costs in € Recurrent costs in € per year Total annual costs in €
Low 170 60 80
Medium 330 110 150
High 660 220 300
Where a new activity is to be added – for example cattle farming – the one-off costs for CAs
are expected to be higher than for an existing activity as more changes will be required to
4
Derived applying the average number of working hours in EU of 36.2 hours per week.
597
existing data flows and to set up the relevant QA tools etc. Here it is assumed that the one-off
costs are two times higher (Table A9-8).
Table A9-8: Unit costs for CAs for a new activity adding new facilities
Level of complexity One-off costs in € Recurrent costs in € per year Total annual costs in €
Low 330 60 100
Medium 660 110 190
High 1,320 220 380
The change of reporting thresholds for pollutants implies that more facilities may have to
report emissions and therefore additional time would be needed by CAs to check data. The
inclusion of new pollutants to Annex II implies that there may be one-off costs for CAs to
establish how they will check reported data for new pollutants as well as recurring annual
costs for checking new pollutants.
Specific cost estimates are derived in the following way: based on the average costs for CAs
per facility and upscaling to the total number of around 50,000 facilities, the total CA costs
for the 27 Member States can be estimated at €5.5m per year. Currently 91 pollutants and
around 100,000 data points are reported, resulting in annual costs of €60,000 per pollutant
and of €55 per data point.
For the inclusion of new pollutants, the costs for CAs will depend how many facilities are
likely to report emissions of the added pollutants. Also, if in one revision several new
pollutants are added, the costs will not be proportional to the number of new pollutants. It is
assumed that the costs of adding new pollutants will be €6,000 per pollutant per year5
.
Furthermore, for adding a new pollutant, it is assumed that there will be a one-off cost which
is estimated as three times the annual costs.
Table A9-9: Unit costs for CAs for existing pollutant with new threshold and new pollutant
One-off costs Recurrent costs
Unit Costs in € Unit Costs in € per year
Existing pollutant
with new threshold
No one-off costs 0 Cost per facility reporting 55
New pollutant Cost per pollutant 18,000 Cost per pollutant 6,000
Data management by EEA
The activities that the EEA performs in relation to the E-PRTR includes:
 Managing the IT systems
 Developing and maintaining the reporting tools
 QA/QC of the data reported by Member States
 Support to Member States
5
This assumption will be subject to further validation.
598
 Use of data and publication.
The estimates of resources and costs are presented in the table below.6
Table A9-10: Unit costs for CAs for a new activity adding new facilities
Activity Resource use in FTE Costs in €
IT 1 100,000
Reporting tools 0.2 18,750
QA/QC 0.9 93,750
Support to MS 0.4 37,500
Use of data and publication 1.0 100,000
Total 3.5 350,000
While managing the IT systems is not affected by any of the considered measures, the other activities
might be affected. The costs are defined for the same type of changes assessed for the
industries and Member State CAs.
Given that the EEA does not check data from individual installations, we assume that
adding facilities will not increase the EEA costs. Only if new pollutants / activities are added,
will there be minor costs for adapting the database, etc. This cost is estimated at around
€2,800. It is based on the costs for IT, reporting tools, support to MS and use of data.
It is assumed that the inclusion of new activities, new pollutants and new parameters may
require some one-off costs. These are estimated in the following way: the resource used for
all the activities are added excluding only the costs of the QA/QC process, as this is
automated. The total costs of the other activities are €256,250 per year. There are 91
pollutants being reported and it is assumed that the costs of adding a new activity, pollutant
or parameter will require costs in the order of €256,250 divided by 91. The assumptions
for the EEA are presented in Table A9-11.
Table A9-11: Unit costs EEA
Type of change One-off costs in €
More facilities reporting No additional costs
Changing activity thresholds No additional costs
Changing thresholds for pollutants No additional costs
Adding new activity 2,816
Adding new pollutants 2,816
Adding new parameters 2,816
6
The assessment of the EEA costs will be updated based on detailed information and data recently provided
by the EEA. Data presented in the table and for individual measures in this annex are only preliminary
estimates.
599
2 PO1: Effectiveness, information access and simplification
1.1 E-PRTR problem area 1a: Current activity thresholds and definitions
The definitions of some activities require clarification to improve reporting.
Clarify that activity 3b covers upstream oil and gas facilities [#16] = = SWD E-PRTR#6
Description of the measure
This measure would entail the addition of upstream oil and gas industries to the Annex I
activity list. Whilst guidance provided by the Commission in 2011 stated that extraction of
crude oil and natural gas fell under the activity of ‘underground mining and related
operations’ this measure would create an explicit activity definition for this activity. It would
also align with the potential expansion in scope of the IED.
Economic impacts
Three specific categories of economic impacts were selected for an in-depth assessment of
the policy measures for the revision of the E-PRTR Regulation. These include impacts on
administrative burdens on businesses, operation / conduct of SMEs and public authorities
(broken down into impacts for authorities for administrative, compliance and enforcement
activities and for the European Commission / EEA). Overall, this measure is likely to have
weakly negative economic impacts as it primarily relates to a clarification of the existing
scope of the Regulation. No impacts for SMEs are expected as a result of this measure.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be weakly
negative.
Around 1,300 additional facilities may be captured by this measure and required to report to
the E-PRTR. This is expected to be the maximum potential number affected as some of these
facilities are likely to fall below the existing reporting thresholds although exactly how many
this may affect is unclear. The number of additional facilities was calculated using the
number of oil and gas fields within Germany and extrapolating to the EU27 using European
production of primary energy statistics7
. While Member States have previously been advised
to report facilities extracting oil under activity 3(a), analysis of the data reported to the E-
PRTR shows only 121 facilities have done so (these have been removed from the
extrapolated figure).
7
EU27 production data: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=File:Energy_production,_2008_and_2018.png DE oil/gas exploration fields in
2018:https://www.lbeg.niedersachsen.de/download/144280/Erdoel_und_Erdgas_in_der_Bundesrepublik_
Deutschland_2018.pdf
600
Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions described in
Section 1.2, the total additional one-off costs are expected to be around €7.8m and recurrent
costs of €2.6m per year leading to total annualised costs of around €3.6m per year for
operators.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities are expected to be weakly negative. This includes
additional time for QA for both Member State public authorities and the EEA although this is
expected to be limited as some facilities already report.
Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions described in
Section 1.3, the total additional one-off costs for public authorities are expected to be
around €0.44m and recurrent costs of €0.15m per year leading to total annualised costs of
around €0.2m per year.
Impacts for the EEA are expected to be minimal considering that some facilities already
report data so minimal changes would be required to the data and QA flows or website.
Environmental impacts
Four specific categories of environmental impacts were selected for an in-depth assessment
of the policy measures for the revision of the E-PRTR Regulation. These include impacts on
the climate, efficient use of resources, quality of natural resources / fighting pollution and
reducing and managing waste. Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive
environmental impacts as, whilst it primarily relates to a clarification of the existing scope
of the Regulation, a large number of additional facilities are expected to report.
Increasing the number of facilities reporting will improve the level of data on emissions
available within the E-PRTR, potentially helping to improve environmental performance of
the sector as it enables better comparison of performance of the sector across the EU as well
as greater engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to
information). This would primarily impact on emissions of air and water pollutants and
potentially GHGs. Limited or no impacts would be expected for resource use or waste.
Additional emissions of up to 100kt of NOx and 50kt of NMVOCs could potentially be
captured within E-PRTR based on a rough approximation of emissions per facility8
.
Social impacts
Two specific categories of social impacts were selected for an in-depth assessment of the
policy measures for the revision of the E-PRTR Regulation. These include reduced health
impacts due to lower pollutant emissions and governance, participation and good
administration (as a result of improved public access to information). Overall, this measure is
likely to have weakly positive social impacts as, whilst it primarily relates to a clarification
8
Emissions per facility based on information provided in the IED Impact Assessment
601
of the existing scope of the Regulation, a large number of additional facilities are expected to
report.
As discussed above, increasing the number of facilities reporting could potentially help to
improve environmental performance of the sector which would have positive impacts for
health. Furthermore, increasing the level of data available on performance of the sector
improves public access to information potentially enabling greater participation in
environmental decision-making.
Reword 5(d) landfills activity description to include flaring of vent gas [#11] = SWD E-
PRTR#8
Description of the measure
Include flaring of vent gas in the description to ensure reporters understand this should be
included.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have no or limited economic impacts. Although it will lead
to a greater number of facilities (estimated to be 742) having to report emissions data for the
air pollutants where the reporting thresholds could be reduced, the additional costs are
limited. Facilities of this activity should already be reporting to the E-PRTR, therefore only
existing facilities would have to report additional releases. The number of facilities affected
has been determined to be the current number of facilities reporting releases/transfers and
activity 5(d) (either as main or other activity). However, it is uncertain how many may
already be reporting flaring of vent gas within their estimates or may be below the relevant
reporting thresholds. Therefore, this number is expected to be the maximum likely number
affected (and associated impacts discussed below). No impacts for SMEs are foreseen with
this measure as all facilities that may be impacted are likely to be already reporting to E-
PRTR and the existing reporting and activity thresholds should ensure that SMEs are not
captured.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be limited. Based
on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions described in Section
1.2, recurrent costs are estimated at around €0.15m per year and there are no one-off costs (as
it existing facilities). Costs are relatively limited as all facilities that would have to report
additional data should already be reporting to E-PRTR.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities and the EEA are expected to be limited. The
additional costs for the CAs are estimated at €56,000 as there may be a very slight increase in
QA time for Member State public authorities. No additional costs are expected for the EEA.
602
Environmental impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have limited or weakly positive environmental impacts as
it will increase the coverage of reported emissions data for the activity (air pollutants and
greenhouse gases). Refining the activity definition should improve the level and overall
completeness of data on releases available within the E-PRTR for landfills, potentially
helping to improve environmental performance of the sector as it enables better comparison
of performance across the EU as well as greater engagement of citizens in environmental
decision-making (as a result of access to information). Limited or no impacts would be
expected for resource use or waste.
Social impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have limited or weakly positive social impacts as emissions
coverage for the activity will be expanded. As discussed above, improving data coverage for
the activity could potentially help to improve environmental performance of the sector which
would have positive impacts for health. Furthermore, increasing the level of data available for
the activity improves public access to information potentially enabling greater participation in
environmental decision-making.
1.2 E-PRTR problem area 2a: Existing pollutants and thresholds
The Annex II pollutant list is out of date. Reporting thresholds require adjusting for existing
pollutants or groups of pollutants to improve the capture of industrial releases as some
reporting thresholds do not guarantee capture of 90% of releases from industrial facilities.
Reduce reporting thresholds for some existing pollutants to better meet the aim of 90%
capture [#33a-x / n=24] = SWD E-PRTR#1
Description of the measure
11 pollutants to air and 14 to water were identified (presented below in Table A9-12), in the
E-PRTR implementation review report9
, as having a threshold too high to capture 90% of
releases. The threshold for these pollutants can be lowered to achieve this.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts as it will lead to a
greater number of facilities having to report emissions data for the air and water pollutants
where the reporting thresholds could be reduced. The pollutants where thresholds could be
reduced and the likely number of facilities that could be impacted (i.e. required to report) is
presented below in Table A9-12. These estimates are based primarily on the analysis
undertaken as part of the E-PRTR implementation review report.
9
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/b4eacd6d-4425-479a-a225-77306de6b060
603
Table A9-12: Pollutants where thresholds could be reduced and number of facilities that could
be affected
# Pollutant Description
# facilities
impacted
34a As and
compounds
As and compounds releases to air was identified as having a threshold
that did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The
threshold for these pollutants can be lowered to 12 kg to achieve this.
63
34b Cu and
compounds
Cu and compounds releases to air was identified as having a threshold
that did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The
threshold for these pollutants can be lowered to 38 kg to achieve this.
121
34c F and
inorganic
compounds
F and inorganic compounds releases to air was identified as having a
threshold that did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis).
The threshold for these pollutants can be lowered to 3942 kg to achieve
this.
13
34d NMVOC NMVOC releases to air was identified as having a threshold that did not
cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold for these
pollutants can be lowered to 49590 kg to achieve this.
564
34e NH3 NH3 releases to air was identified as having a threshold that did not
cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold for these
pollutants can be lowered to 447 kg to achieve this.
11138
34f Cd and
compounds
Cd and compounds releases to air was identified as having a threshold
that did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The
threshold for these pollutants can be lowered to 7 kg to achieve this.
20
34g PM10 PM10 releases to air was identified as having a threshold that did not
cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold for these
pollutants can be lowered to 17309 kg to achieve this.
330
34h 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroet
hane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane releases to air was identified as having a
threshold that did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis).
The threshold for these pollutants can be lowered to 1 kg to achieve this.
265
34i Cr and
compounds
Cr and compounds releases to air was identified as having a threshold
that did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The
threshold for these pollutants can be lowered to 57 kg to achieve this.
18
34j DEHP DEHP releases to air was identified as having a threshold that did not
cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold for these
pollutants can be lowered to 4 kg to achieve this.
31
34k Vinyl
Chloride
Vinyl Chloride releases to air was identified as having a threshold that
did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold
for these pollutants can be lowered to 1289 kg to achieve this.
40
34l Total
Phosphorous
Total Phosphorous releases to water was identified as having a threshold
that did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The
threshold for these pollutants can be lowered to 2042 kg to achieve this.
1566
34m Pb and
compounds
Pb and compounds releases to water was identified as having a threshold
that did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The
threshold for these pollutants can be lowered to 11 kg to achieve this.
329
34n TOC TOC releases to water was identified as having a threshold that did not
cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold for these
pollutants can be lowered to 41381 kg to achieve this.
1085
34o Cu and
compounds
Cu and compounds releases to water was identified as having a threshold
that did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The
threshold for these pollutants can be lowered to 48 kg to achieve this.
50
604
# Pollutant Description
# facilities
impacted
34p Total
Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen releases to water was identified as having a threshold that
did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold
for these pollutants can be lowered to 26233 kg to achieve this.
764
34q Zn and
compounds
Zn and compounds releases to water was identified as having a threshold
that did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The
threshold for these pollutants can be lowered to 86 kg to achieve this.
818
34r HCH HCH releases to water was identified as having a threshold that did not
cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold for these
pollutants can be lowered to 0.7 kg to achieve this.
4
34s Aldrin Aldrin releases to water was identified as having a threshold that did not
cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold for these
pollutants can be lowered to 0.9 kg to achieve this.
3
34t Anthracene Anthracene releases to water was identified as having a threshold that
did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold
for these pollutants can be lowered to 0.4 kg to achieve this.
67
34u Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos releases to water was identified as having a threshold that
did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold
for these pollutants can be lowered to 0.1 kg to achieve this.
40
34v Diuron Diuron releases to water was identified as having a threshold that did not
cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold for these
pollutants can be lowered to 0.004 kg to achieve this.
990
34w Isoproturon Isoproturon releases to water was identified as having a threshold that
did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The threshold
for these pollutants can be lowered to 0.1 kg to achieve this.
87
34x Trichloroeth
ylene
Trichloroethylene releases to water was identified as having a threshold
that did not cover 90% of emissions (using Weibull analysis). The
threshold for these pollutants can be lowered to 5 kg to achieve this.
18
34 ALL Total number of facilities that would have to report an additional
pollutant
18,424
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be weakly
negative. Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions
described in Section 1.2, the total recurrent costs are expected to be around €0.7m per year.
Costs are relatively limited as all facilities that would have to report with changes in reporting
thresholds should already be measuring or calculating emissions of these pollutants to
determine if they are above or below the existing reporting thresholds.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall impacts on SMEs are expected to be very limited. A reduction in reporting
thresholds for these pollutants could result in some smaller facilities having to report
although the existing activity thresholds should ensure that it is minimal.
Public authorities
605
Overall impacts on public authorities are expected to be between strongly or weakly
negative. This includes additional time for QA for Member State public authorities.
Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions described in
Section 1.3, the total recurrent costs are expected to be around €1m per year for Member
State public authorities. Costs are moderate as no new activities would be reporting and the
pollutants are all already captured within the data flows and tools but the additional data
being reported will increase costs.
Impacts for the EEA are expected to be minimal considering that these pollutants are already
captured under E-PRTR so no (or limited) changes would be required to the data and QA
flows or website. The only difference would be a larger volume of data to process and QA
although the tools for this are automated.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts as it will
increase the coverage of reported emissions data for a number of air and water pollutants.
Reducing the reporting thresholds so that more facilities report will improve the level of data
on emissions available within the E-PRTR for the specific pollutants described above (90%
capture), potentially helping to improve environmental performance of the sector as it enables
better comparison of performance of the sector across the EU as well as greater engagement
of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to information). Limited
or no impacts would be expected for climate (GHG emissions), resource use or waste.
Social impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts as a large number of
additional facilities are expected to report and emissions coverage for a number of air and
water pollutants will be expanded. As discussed above, increasing the number of facilities
reporting and improving data coverage for some pollutants could potentially help to improve
environmental performance of the sector which would have positive impacts for health.
Furthermore, increasing the level of data available for specific pollutants improves public
access to information potentially enabling greater participation in environmental decision-
making.
Establish a ‘Sunset list’ to remove pollutants that are no longer of concern [#32] = SWD
E-PRTR#5
Description of the measure
Creating a more dynamic mechanism to identify a list of pollutants for future removal due to
them being longer relevant (“sunset list”). No pollutants were suggested for removal in the E-
PRTR implementation review report. However, 24 substances included in the pollutant list
are no longer permitted to be used in Europe and therefore could potentially be removed in
the future.
606
Economic impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have limited or weakly positive economic impacts as it
will remove pollutants that are no longer relevant potentially simplifying to a limited extent
the review and reporting processes for operators and Member State authorities. No impacts
on SMEs are expected with this measure.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be limited or
weakly positive. If the removal of these pollutants leads to a small time saving (maximum of
0.5 hours per facility) for operators each year (i.e. due to not having to consider if they are
relevant for the facility) then savings of around €1m per year could be realised. In practice, it
is unlikely to be this high as operators know which pollutants are relevant for their facility
and therefore will not need to check each year.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities are expected to be very limited. This includes some
potential time savings for Member State public authorities and some costs for the EEA and/or
European Commission for reviewing / maintaining the sunset list.
For Member State public authorities the savings are likely to be very limited, perhaps a
maximum of 1 hour per year per authority through not having to consider these pollutants
(equating to a reduction of around €1,000 per year overall).
Impacts for the EEA and/or European Commission are expected to be minimal related to
the time and costs to review, maintain and implement the sunset list with some potential
limited savings through not having to include the pollutants in their data flows. Overall net
time impacts are estimated to be around 5 additional man-days of effort equating to only
around €2,250 per year (assuming one FTE has a cost of €100,00010
).
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have no environmental impacts as it only involves the
removal of pollutants and no change to the overall level of data reported.
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have no social impacts as it only involves the removal of
pollutants and no change to the overall level of data reported.
10
Taken from the E-PRTR Evaluation.
607
1.3 E-PRTR problem area 4a: Reporting modalities
For some categories of activity, in particular farming, reporting releases can be a significant
burden on reporters due to the number of facilities and difficulties in quantifying releases
accurately. Estimates using a top-down approach for some diffuse industrial sectors (where
there is a large number of smaller operators such as in farming) may reduce the reporting
burden and improve data quality.
Option for top-down reporting for activity 7 (livestock production and aquaculture) [#46] =
SWD E-PRTR#9
Description of the measure
Allowing a top-down calculation approach for activity 7 (livestock production and
aquaculture) should help to reduce administrative burdens for operators, some of which may
be SMEs. This could be implemented using four methods (some of which could be
combined):
 Member States reporting for the sector at a national level (mindful of the overlaps
with LRTAP inventories)
 Competent Authorities using a top-down approach and reporting an average release
(per head or per LSU) for every facility.
 Operators and Competent Authorities reporting livestock numbers / aquaculture
capacity only (via the productionVolume field) and emission calculations being done
by the EEA. NB - this would require a change to data ownership rules since the legal
responsibility to report is with MS competent authorities (and ultimately operators).
Any EEA calculations would still require MS verification, thus reducing the scope for
savings in administrative burden.
 Operators reporting livestock numbers / aquaculture capacity to Competent
Authorities and emission calculations being completed by the Competent Authorities.
This is probably the most feasible method as livestock numbers are already reported
for other purposes. However, different LRTAP emission factors are used by different
countries.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have strongly positive economic impacts as it will
significantly reduce the reporting burden on facilities in some sectors. There are currently
16,882 facilities captured under activity 7 (i.e. IRPP and aquaculture) based on the latest
available E-PRTR data for each MS.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be strongly
positive. In order to estimate the potential impacts of the measure it was necessary to first
estimate the current burden associated with reporting to the E-PRTR before then estimating
608
the costs associated with a top-down approach. Based on the estimated number of facilities
impacted (16,882) and the cost assumptions described in Section 1.2, the current annualised
costs are estimated to be around €22.8m per year. Assuming that operators would still need to
report some limited information each year (e.g. on activity levels to enable a top-down
calculation) then these costs would fall to around €3.4m per year, a saving of around €19.5m
(overall reduction of 85%). A similar saving (%) would be anticipated if top-down reporting
were to be applied to other activities, e.g. if cattle were to be included within E-PRTR. In
addition, many of the E-PRTR administrative data (e.g. name, location) are already collected
under IED reporting.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall impacts on SMEs are expected to be weakly positive. Whilst the activity and
reporting thresholds help to ensure that most SMEs are not captured under the E-PRTR
Regulation or required to report, some may still be captured within activity 7 and would
benefit from a top-down reporting approach.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities are expected to be limited. There would be some
additional burden to undertake the top-down estimation but also savings through not having
to QA release data for individual facilities. Overall these would be likely to cancel each other
out with no net increase or decrease in burden.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited or no environmental impacts as it only
impacts on the calculation and reporting mechanism rather than the overall level of data
reported.
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have no social impacts as it only impacts on the calculation
and reporting mechanism rather than the overall level of data reported.
1.4 E-PRTR problem area 4c: Inconsistent and incorrect reporting
There are inconsistencies and potential issues with the reported E-PRTR data resulting in
poor accuracy, incomplete and in-transparent data, including:
 Inconsistent pollutant reporting and quantification methods used by facilities in the
same sector.
 A lack of clarity on whether data is absent due to incomplete reporting or non-
applicability or below threshold for a particular facility.
 Poor administrative information on location, methodology used and tagging of
release or transfer.
609
Sub-facility reporting [#45] = SWD E-PRTR#2
Description of the measure
This measure would entail reporting releases/transfers on an activity basis instead of
aggregating to the facility level. The benefits of reporting at this level would be greater
granularity of data enabling better matching to individual activities, e.g. for assessing impacts
of different BAT conclusions for specific sectors.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts as the measure
would entail some additional effort by operators and Member State competent authorities to
report and check data at this granularity. However, these are expected to be limited as it is
likely releases are already measured, calculated or estimated at this level. No impacts on
operation / conduct of SMEs are anticipated as existing activity and reporting thresholds
would still apply.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be weakly
negative. Only facilities reporting waste transfers, pollutant transfers and pollutant releases
(latest year) that also have at least one additional activity to the main activity are likely to be
impacted by this measure. Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted (1,025) and
the cost assumptions described in Section 1.2, the additional recurrent costs are estimated to
be around €81,000 per year.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities are expected to be weakly negative as some additional
QA would be required due to an increase in the level of data being reported. Based on the
estimated number of facilities impacted (1,025) and the cost assumptions described in Section
1.2, the additional recurrent costs are estimated to be around €114,000 per year.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts as it will
increase the granularity of reported data for a number of facilities. This enables better
matching of data to individual activities e.g. for assessing impacts of different BAT
conclusions for specific sectors. This could potentially help to improve environmental
performance of some activities as it enables better comparison of performance of activities
across the EU (including relative to BAT conclusions) as well as greater engagement of
citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to information).
610
Social impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts. As discussed above,
increasing the granularity of data for some facilities could potentially help to improve
environmental performance of some sectors which would have positive impacts for health.
Furthermore, increasing the granularity of data available improves public access to
information potentially enabling greater participation in environmental decision-making.
Add active operator confirmation that releases are below the reporting threshold [#52] =
SWD E-PRTR#3
Description of the measure
Require affirmation that expected pollutants for a sector are below the reporting threshold or
not present at all and avoid the ambiguity of missing values. This would improve the overall
clarity and quality of the data within the register.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited or weakly negative economic impacts as the
measure would entail some additional effort by operators to report. However, these are
expected to be limited as operators should already be checking if their releases of pollutants
are above or below the reporting thresholds.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be weakly
negative. As described above, operators should already be checking if they are above or
below reporting thresholds for each pollutant thus the only additional burden would be to
specify this within their annual reporting.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall impacts on SMEs are expected to be limited. Some SMEs may be required to
confirm that releases are below the reporting threshold although how many this may affect is
uncertain (the existing activity thresholds typically exclude the majority of SMEs within
individual sectors.
Public authorities
No impacts on public authorities are expected.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited environmental impacts as it will increase the
overall clarity and quality of data available. This enables better use of the data for e.g.
assessment of performance of different facilities and/or sectors. This could potentially help to
611
improve environmental performance of some activities as it enables better comparison of
performance of activities across the EU (including relative to BAT conclusions) as well as
greater engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to
information).
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited social impacts. As discussed above, increasing
the granularity of data for some facilities could potentially help to improve environmental
performance of some sectors which would have positive impacts for health. Furthermore,
increasing the granularity of data available improves public access to information potentially
enabling greater participation in environmental decision-making.
Mandate the M/C/E hierarchy [#58] = SWD E-PRTR#4
Description of the measure
Mandate the MCE hierarchy for reporting releases, e.g. releases should be measured where
possible and calculation should take precedent over estimation.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited or weakly negative economic impacts as the
measure would entail some additional effort for those operators that may not already be
measuring or calculating their releases for reporting to E-PRTR. However, the overall
impacts of the measure are highly uncertain. No impacts on the operation / conduct of SMEs
are anticipated.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be weakly
negative. As described above, it would only impact on those operators that may not already
be measuring or calculating their releases. It is uncertain how many facilities this may impact.
Public authorities
No impacts on public authorities are expected.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited environmental impacts as it will increase the
overall quality of data available. This enables better use of the data for e.g. assessment of
performance of different facilities and/or sectors. This could potentially help to improve
environmental performance of some activities as it enables better comparison of performance
of activities across the EU (including relative to BAT conclusions) as well as greater
engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to
information).
612
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited social impacts. As discussed above, increasing
the quality of data for some facilities could potentially help to improve environmental
performance of some sectors which would have positive impacts for health. Furthermore,
increasing the granularity of data available improves public access to information potentially
enabling greater participation in environmental decision-making.
613
3 PO2: Innovation
All measures of relevance to PO2 Innovation were screened out.
614
4 PO3: Circular Economy, Resource Efficiency and Safer
Chemicals
1.1 E-PRTR problem area 2b: Additional pollutants
Recent analysis of science and emerging environmental and health issues (including media
specific policies and legislation) have identified new pollutants of concern emitted by
industrial activities that are not in the E-PRTR Annex II list. It is important that industry
reports on these pollutants and the pollutants are assigned appropriate reporting thresholds.
Establish a mechanism for dynamic updating to include additional pollutants of immediate
interest [#36] and future interest (sunrise list [#37]) = SWD E-PRTR#10
Description of the measure
This measure would entail the inclusion of a more dynamic mechanism to identify and
include emerging pollutants of concern (“sunrise list”) within the Regulation e.g. enabling the
Commission to identify and include new pollutants in the future via delegated acts. This
could include pollutants that have the potential to become important for environmental issues
in Europe. This would be similar to the WFD watch-list process. An additional 48 pollutants
of immediate interest have already been identified as part of the E-PRTR analysis report and
suggested by the Water Framework Directive as priority (hazardous) substances.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts as it will lead to a
greater number of facilities having to report emissions data for the air and water pollutants
that would be added now or in the future. The pollutants which could be added now and the
likely number of facilities that could be impacted (i.e. required to report) is presented below
in Table A9-13. These estimates are based on a range of sources, as described in the description field
for each case.
Table A9-13: Pollutants which could be added to Annex II pollutant list now and number of
facilities that could be affected
# Pollutant Description
# facilities
impacted
36a
2-
Ethoxyethan
ol / ethylene
glycol
monoethyl
ether
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
3
36b
Acetaldehyd
e
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
369
615
# Pollutant Description
# facilities
impacted
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
36c Aclonifen
This pollutant is a herbicide and therefore it was assumed only facilities
under activity 4(d) could potentially release this pollutant. The number
of facilities reporting these releases was therefore determined using
facilities currently reporting releases/transfers. Only those reporting
releases/transfers were included as it was assumed if they weren't
reporting any other releases/transfers it was unlikely to be reporting
releases/transfers of this pollutant.
20
36d Acrolein
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
75
36e Acrylamide
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
11
36f
Acrylic acid
and its
water-
soluble salts
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
44
36g Acrylonitrile
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
23
36h
Antimony
and
compounds
(as Sb)
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
73
36i
Beryllium
and
compounds
(as Be)
Analysis of the NRW PRTR shows releases of beryllium are mainly
from sectors 5(b) and 2(e). The number of facilities that would be
reporting releases of beryllium has therefore been calculated to be the
number of facilities reporting releases to the current reporting flow from
these sectors.
355
36j Bifenox
This pollutant is a plant health product and therefore it was assumed only
facilities under activity 4(d) could potentially release this pollutant. The
number of facilities reporting these releases was therefore determined
using facilities currently reporting releases/transfers. Only those
reporting releases/transfers were included as it was assumed if they
weren't reporting any other releases/transfers it was unlikely to be
reporting releases/transfers of this pollutant.
20
36k Bisphenol-A
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
69
36l
Carbamazepi
ne
This is a pharmaceutical and therefore the most likely potential source is
UWWTP. The number of facilities reporting this pollutant was therefore
determined to be UWWTP reporting releases and transfers. Only the
UWWTP reporting releases/transfers have been included as it was
assumed only those reporting other releases would also reported releases
of this.
892
616
# Pollutant Description
# facilities
impacted
36m
Black
carbon (BC)
The sectors identified as most important to black carbon emissions were
determined to be: 1(a)-(f), 2(a)-(e), 3(g), 5(b), 6(a), 9(d). The number of
facilities that would be reporting releases of black carbon has therefore
been calculated to be the number of facilities reporting releases to the
current reporting flow from these sectors.
2,410
36n
Carbon
disulphide
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
129
36o
Chromium
(VI)
compounds
(as Cr)
Analysis of the BREFs identified the following sectors as most
applicable to emissions of chromium (VI): 2(e), 5(a), 3(e), 3(f), 6(c),
9(c), 5(g), 9(a), 2(c)(i), 2(c)(iii), 2(f), 3(g), 2(f), 4(b). The number of
facilities that would be reporting releases of Cr(VI) has therefore been
calculated to be the number of facilities reporting releases to the current
reporting flow from these sectors.
1,248
36p
Cobalt and
compounds
(as Co)
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
124
36q Cybutryne
The sectors identified as most applicable to this pollutant were
determined to be: 4(d) & 9(e). The number of facilities that would be
reporting releases of Cr(VI) has therefore been calculated to be the
number of facilities reporting releases to the current reporting flow from
these sectors. Source: https://chemicalwatch.com/65602/un-agency-
considering-international-ban-on-antifouling-cybutryne
28
36r
Cypermethri
n
This pollutant is a plant health product and therefore it was assumed only
facilities under activity 4(d) could potentially release this pollutant. The
number of facilities reporting these releases was therefore determined
using facilities currently reporting releases/transfers. Only those
reporting releases/transfers were included as it was assumed if they
weren't reporting any other releases/transfers it was unlikely to be
reporting releases/transfers of this pollutant.
20
36s Dichlorvos
This pollutant is a plant health product and therefore it was assumed only
facilities under activity 4(d) could potentially release this pollutant. The
number of facilities reporting these releases was therefore determined
using facilities currently reporting releases/transfers. Only those
reporting releases/transfers were included as it was assumed if they
weren't reporting any other releases/transfers it was unlikely to be
reporting releases/transfers of this pollutant.
20
36t Dicofol
This pollutant is a plant health product and therefore it was assumed only
facilities under activity 4(d) could potentially release this pollutant. The
number of facilities reporting these releases was therefore determined
using facilities currently reporting releases/transfers. Only those
reporting releases/transfers were included as it was assumed if they
weren't reporting any other releases/transfers it was unlikely to be
reporting releases/transfers of this pollutant.
20
36v
Formaldehy
de
(formalin)
Analysis of the NRW PRTR identified the sectors most applicable to
formaldehyde releases as: 1(c), 3(e), 3(f), 4(a)(ii), 6(b). The number of
facilities that would be reporting releases of this pollutant has therefore
been calculated to be the number of facilities reporting releases to the
1,652
617
# Pollutant Description
# facilities
impacted
current reporting flow from these sectors.
36w Glyphosate
This pollutant is a plant health product and therefore it was assumed only
facilities under activity 4(d) could potentially release this pollutant. The
number of facilities reporting these releases was therefore determined
using facilities currently reporting releases/transfers. Only those
reporting releases/transfers were included as it was assumed if they
weren't reporting any other releases/transfers it was unlikely to be
reporting releases/transfers of this pollutant.
20
36x
Hexabromoc
yclododecan
e (HBCDD)
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
1
36y
Hydrogen
sulphide
Analysis of the NRW PRTR shows the sectors most applicable to
releases of H2S are: 1(d), 3(f), 2(e). The number of facilities that would
be reporting releases of this pollutant has therefore been calculated to be
the number of facilities reporting releases to the current reporting flow
from these sectors.
239
36z
Macrolide
antibiotics
(azithromyci
n,
clarithroymy
cin,
erythromyci
n)
These are pharmaceuticals and therefore the most likely potential source
is UWWTP. The number of facilities reporting this pollutant was
therefore determined to be UWWTP reporting releases and transfers.
Only the UWWTP reporting releases/transfers have been included as it
was assumed only those reporting other releases would also reported
releases of this.
892
36aa
Manganese
and
compounds
(as Mn)
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
892
36ac n-Hexane
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
480
36ad
Neonicotinoi
ds
(Imidaclopri
d,
Thiacloprid,
Thiamethoxa
m,
Acetamiprid,
Clothianidin
)
These pollutants are active substances in plant health products and
therefore it was assumed only facilities under activity 4(d) could
potentially release this pollutant. The number of facilities reporting these
releases was therefore determined using facilities currently reporting
releases/transfers. Only those reporting releases/transfers were included
as it was assumed if they weren't reporting any other releases/transfers it
was unlikely to be reporting releases/transfers of this pollutant.
20
36af
Nicosulfuron
(herbicide)
This pollutant is an active substance in plant health product and therefore
it was assumed only facilities under activity 4(d) could potentially
release this pollutant. The number of facilities reporting these releases
was therefore determined using facilities currently reporting
releases/transfers. Only those reporting releases/transfers were included
as it was assumed if they weren't reporting any other releases/transfers it
was unlikely to be reporting releases/transfers of this pollutant.
20
618
# Pollutant Description
# facilities
impacted
36ag
Per- and
Polyfluoroal
kyl
Substances
(PFAS) all
PFAS as a
group, or
The only sector found to be applicable for this pollutant is activity 9(a)
due to its inclusion in the textile (TXT) BREF. The number of facilities
that would be reporting releases of this pollutant has therefore been
calculated to be the number of facilities reporting releases to the current
reporting flow from this sector.
68
36ah
Perfluorohex
ane sulfonic
acid
(PFHxS), its
salts and
PFHxS-
related
compounds
The only sector found to be applicable for this pollutant is activity 9(a)
due to its inclusion in the textile (TXT) BREF. The number of facilities
that would be reporting releases of this pollutant has therefore been
calculated to be the number of facilities reporting releases to the current
reporting flow from this sector.
68
36ai
Perfluorooct
ane sulfonic
acid (PFOS),
its salts and
perfluorooct
ane sulfonyl
fluoride
(PFOSF)
The only sector found to be applicable for this pollutant is activity 9(a)
due to its inclusion in the textile (TXT) BREF. The number of facilities
that would be reporting releases of this pollutant has therefore been
calculated to be the number of facilities reporting releases to the current
reporting flow from this sector.
68
36aj
Perfluorooct
anoic acid
(PFOA), its
salts and
PFOA-
related
compounds
The only sector found to be applicable for this pollutant is activity 9(a)
due to its inclusion in the textile (TXT) BREF. The number of facilities
that would be reporting releases of this pollutant has therefore been
calculated to be the number of facilities reporting releases to the current
reporting flow from this sector.
68
36ak PM2.5
It was assumed that facilities reporting PM10 would also report PM2.5
and therefore the number of facilities reporting PM10 was used as a
proxy for the number of facilities anticipated to report PM2.5.
338
36al
Polychlorina
ted
naphthalenes
The sectors identified as applicable for releases of this pollutant are: 1(c),
5(b), 2(a), 2(b), 2(e), 4(a). The number of facilities that would be
reporting releases of this pollutant has therefore been calculated to be the
number of facilities reporting releases to the current reporting flow from
these sectors.
1,609
36am
Pyrethroids
(Bifenthrin,
Deltamethrin
,
Esfenvalerat
e,
Permethrin)
This pollutant is a plant health product and therefore it was assumed only
facilities under activity 4(d) could potentially release this pollutant. The
number of facilities reporting these releases was therefore determined
using facilities currently reporting releases/transfers. Only those
reporting releases/transfers were included as it was assumed if they
weren't reporting any other releases/transfers it was unlikely to be
reporting releases/transfers of this pollutant.
20
36an Quinoxyfen
This pollutant is an active substance in plant health products and
therefore it was assumed only facilities under activity 4(d) could
potentially release this pollutant. The number of facilities reporting these
releases was therefore determined using facilities currently reporting
releases/transfers. Only those reporting releases/transfers were included
20
619
# Pollutant Description
# facilities
impacted
as it was assumed if they weren't reporting any other releases/transfers it
was unlikely to be reporting releases/transfers of this pollutant.
36ao
Selenium
and
compounds
(as Se)
Analysis of BREFs identified the sectors most relevant for this pollutant
as: 3(e), 3(f) and 3(g). The number of facilities that would be reporting
releases of this pollutant has therefore been calculated to be the number
of facilities reporting releases to the current reporting flow from these
sectors.
298
36aq
Silver
(biocide)
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
62
36ar
Sulfamethox
azole
This is a pharmaceutical and therefore the most likely potential source is
UWWTP. The number of facilities reporting this pollutant was therefore
determined to be UWWTP reporting releases and transfers. Only the
UWWTP reporting releases/transfers have been included as it was
assumed only those reporting other releases would also report releases of
this.
892
36as Sulphates
1(c), 3(e), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 4(b)(iv), 4(b)(v) identified as the relevant
sectors from BREFs. This is the number of facilities reporting emissions
to the current reporting flow from these sectors.
2,138
36at Terbutryn
This pollutant is an active substance in plant health products and
therefore it was assumed only facilities under activity 4(d) could
potentially release this pollutant. The number of facilities reporting these
releases was therefore determined using facilities currently reporting
releases/transfers. Only those reporting releases/transfers were included
as it was assumed if they weren't reporting any other releases/transfers it
was unlikely to be reporting releases/transfers of this pollutant.
20
36au
Thallium
and
compounds
(as Tl)
Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
12
36av
Tin and tin
compounds
(as Sn)
Analysis of BREFs identified the sectors most relevant for this pollutant
as sectors: 3(e), 3(f), 2(c)(i), 2(c)(iii), 2(f), 3(g). The number of facilities
that would be reporting releases of this pollutant has therefore been
calculated to be the number of facilities reporting releases to the current
reporting flow from these sectors.
599
36ax
Total
suspended
solids (TSS)
Analysis of BREFs identified the sectors most applicable to this pollutant
as: 1(c), 1(a), 3(e), 4(a), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 6(a), 6(b), 6(c),
8(a), 9(c), 5(g), 2(c)(i), 2(c)(iii), 2(f), 8(b)(i), 2(c)(ii), 2(d), 2(e)(ii),
4(b)(iv), 4(b)(v). The number of facilities that would be reporting
releases of this pollutant has therefore been calculated to be the number
of facilities reporting releases to the current reporting flow from these
sectors.
3,419
36ay Triclosan
This is a biocide used in consumer products and therefore the most likely
potential source is UWWTP. The number of facilities reporting this
pollutant was therefore determined to be UWWTP reporting releases and
transfers. Only the UWWTP reporting releases/transfers have been
included as it was assumed only those reporting other releases would
also reported releases of this.
892
36az Vanadium Numbers of additional facilities and existing facilities reporting 285
620
# Pollutant Description
# facilities
impacted
and
compounds
(as V)
additional releases was determined using TRI data and extrapolated to
EU27. While the TRI data includes additional sectors to the E-PRTR
only sectors within scope of the E-PRTR, were included in the analysis.
36aaa
17-beta-
Estradiol
(E2); 17-
alpha-
Ethinylestra
diol (EE2);
Estrone (E1)
These substances are in consumer products and therefore the most likely
potential source is UWWTP. The number of facilities reporting this
pollutant was therefore determined to be UWWTP reporting releases and
transfers. Only the UWWTP reporting releases/transfers have been
included as it was assumed only those reporting other releases would
also reported releases of this.
892
36 ALL Total number of facilities that would have to report one or more new
pollutant (Note 1)
21,937
Note 1: In reality, the total number of facilities that would be impacted by the inclusion of the pollutants listed
in the table would be far less as some facilities and sectors would be impacted more than others i.e. have to
report more than one additional pollutant. However, the likely changes in burden would be similar overall as
costs have been estimated based on unit costs/burden per additional pollutant that a facility has to report.
In addition to additional data collection and reporting for operators, there would also be time
required for the European Commission and/or EEA to maintain the sunrise list and identify
pollutants of emerging concern.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be weakly
negative. Operators will have to check whether their facilities are likely to release any of the
pollutants and, If so, measure, calculate and/or estimate releases to see whether they are
above or below the reporting thresholds (to be specified). If they are above the threshold then
the data would need to be reported. Some initial time would be required to set up the
appropriate data capture, calculation and reporting mechanisms up front. Based on the
estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions described in Section 1.2,
the one-off costs are estimated to be €13.2m and recurrent costs are expected to be around
€4.4m per year. Total annualised costs are €6.0m per year. Additional costs would be
incurred by operators in the future if the sunrise list were to lead to the inclusion of additional
pollutants.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall impacts on SMEs are expected to be very limited. The existing activity thresholds
already help to exclude smaller facilities where there may be SMEs. Appropriate reporting
thresholds would also need to be established for any new pollutants to ensure that smaller
facilities (potentially including SMEs) would not be required to report.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities are expected to be weakly negative. This includes
additional time for QA for both Member State public authorities and the EEA as well as some
621
initial upfront time to amend the existing data flow and QA systems to incorporate new
pollutants.
Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted by the new pollutants to be included
and the cost assumptions described in Section 1.3, the one-off costs are expected to be around
€0.9m and total recurrent costs around €0.3m per year for Member State public authorities.
Total annualised costs are around €04m per year.
Impacts for the EEA are expected to be limited and primarily relate to some initial upfront
time to update the data and QA flows and website to accommodate the new pollutants. These
costs are estimated to be around €135,000 (annualised costs of around €17,000 per year). The
EEA and/or European Commission would also incur some additional costs for maintaining
the sunrise list and identifying and reviewing potential emerging pollutants. This is assumed
to cost around €15,000 per year (assuming consultants are used to assess specific pollutants)
with a further 30 person days every 5 years to develop and agree a proposal for new
pollutant(s) (equating to annualised costs of around €2,600 per year).
Environmental impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts as it will
increase the coverage of air and water pollutants that are reported to the E-PRTR. It will also
ensure that the E-PRTR pollutant list can be updated as and when emerging pollutants are
identified helping to support the objectives of wider environmental policies such as IED,
WFD, UWWTD etc.
Increasing the pollutant coverage will improve the level of data on emissions available within
the E-PRTR, potentially helping to improve environmental performance of the sector as it
enables better comparison of performance of the sector across the EU as well as greater
engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to
information). Limited or no impacts would be expected for resource use or waste.
Economic costs for operators would partly be offset by synergies and avoided costs related to
monitoring efforts for surface water pollutants under EU water legislation and reduced need
for reporting the same data under various instruments, as well as promotion of digital
solutions. Significant benefits would also accrue via better aligning the E-PRTR with up-to-
date information needs, thus better supporting associated policies such as the EU water
legislation.
Social impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts as a large number of
additional facilities are expected to report on these new pollutants and emissions coverage
within E-PRTR will be expanded. As discussed above, increasing the number of pollutants
reported could potentially help to improve environmental performance of those sectors
impacted which would have positive impacts for health. Furthermore, including new
622
pollutants improves public access to information potentially enabling greater participation in
environmental decision-making.
1.2 E-PRTR problem area 3: Information to track progress towards the circular
economy and decarbonisation of industry
The European Green Deal commits the Commission to revise EU measures to address
industrial pollution to make them more consistent with climate, energy and circular economy
policies. This will contribute towards the zero-pollution agenda. The Green Deal commits,
inter alia:
 Adopting an action plan towards a zero-pollution ambition.
 Revising EU measures to address pollution from large industrial plants, including
both the IED and the E-PRTR.
 The E-PRTR, in combination with related legislation such as the IED, has untapped
potential for contributing to the EU’s circular economy objectives by providing
transparency on industrial performance:
 There is a benefit in the reporting of additional data on resource consumption, e.g. use
of energy, water, raw materials. This also has linkages with options under
consideration in the IED revision, e.g. mandatory application of BAT-AEPLs related
to resource consumption.
 There is also no transparency around the transfer of pollutants in the data reported to
the E-PRTR. The E-PRTR needs proper tracking of pollutants in transfers and their
storage, export or final release (particularly waste and waste water).
Additionally, the European Union has committed to reach net GHG emissions of 55% of
1990 levels by 2030. The E-PRTR offers a mechanism to efficiently track progress with the
reduction of GHG emissions from a range of GHG intensive activities. Coherence between E-
PRTR and EU-ETS reporting is needed to provide stakeholders with sufficiently transparent
information for decision-making. Although the verified emissions under EU ETS are publicly
available, any underlying background information on activity levels is not. Such information
forms part of the confidential verification reports and is not available for public scrutiny.
With suitable provisions, the E-PRTR could provide relevant background data for
benchmarking and assessing industrial environmental performance within and across sectors.
Require the reporting of energy use [#38] = SWD E-PRTR#11
Description of the measure
This measure would require operators to report energy use of their facilities. This would
allow the assessment of energy efficiency and benchmarking of facilities across the EU
(within a sector), particularly when combined with production volume data which will soon
be required under E-PRTR. A reporting threshold could be developed to exclude smaller
facilities from having to report.
623
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts. The number of
facilities that would be required to report this additional data has been assumed to be the
number of facilities reporting releases or transfers in the latest year, which is 28,268.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens on businesses are expected to be weakly negative.
Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions described in
Section 1.2, the total one-off costs are expected to be around €17m and the recurrent costs are
expected to be around €5.6m per year, giving overall annualised costs of around €7.7m. Costs
are relatively limited as all facilities are likely to have this information readily available.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall impacts on SMEs are expected to be very limited. All facilities, including SMEs, are
likely to have this information readily available and the existing reporting and activity
thresholds help to exclude most SMEs from reporting.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities and the EEA are expected to be limited. Whilst there
may be a very slight increase in QA time for both Member State public authorities and the
EEA, it is expected to be very limited and less than €10,000 per year in total (annualised
costs).
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts as it may
enable benchmarking of the environmental performance of different industrial activities and
facilities, more precisely allowing the assessment of energy efficiency. It may facilitate
authorities in assessing progress against Sustainable Development Goals, EU Green Deal and
circular economy goals and in identifying activities for further action. It may also improve
corporate accountability on environmental management and ultimately result in an
improvement in environmental performance.
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts as it will improve
transparency and access to environmental information enabling effective public participation
in environmental decision-making. As the measure could lead to an improvement in the
environmental performance of facilities and of the industrial activities overall, it may also
have positive impacts for health.
624
Require the reporting of water use [#39] = SWD E-PRTR#12
Description of the measure
Require the reporting of water use to allow for better assessment of the impacts of industry on
the environment beyond pollution. This would allow the assessment of water use efficiency
and benchmarking of facilities across the EU (within a sector), particularly when combined
with production volume data which will soon be required under E-PRTR. A reporting
threshold could be developed to exclude smaller facilities from having to report.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts. The number of
facilities that would be required to report this additional data has been assumed to be the
number of facilities reporting releases or transfers in the latest year, which is 28,268.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens on businesses are expected to be weakly negative.
Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions described in
Section 1.2, the total one-off costs are expected to be around €17m and the recurrent costs are
expected to be around €5.6m per year, giving overall annualised costs of around €7.7m. Costs
are relatively limited as all facilities are likely to have this information readily available.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall impacts on SMEs are expected to be very limited. All facilities, including SMEs, are
likely to have this information readily available and the existing activity thresholds help to
exclude most SMEs from reporting.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities and the EEA are expected to be limited. Whilst there
may be a very slight increase in QA time for both Member State public authorities and the
EEA, it is expected to be very limited and less than €10,000 per year in total (annualised
costs).
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts as it may
enable benchmarking of the environmental performance of different industrial activities and
facilities, more precisely allowing the assessment of water consumption. It may facilitate
authorities in assessing the progress against Sustainable Development Goals, EU Green Deal
and circular economy goals and in identifying activities for further action. It may also
improve corporate accountability on environmental management and ultimately result in an
improvement in environmental performance.
625
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts as it will improve
transparency and access to environmental information enabling effective public participation
in environmental decision-making. As the measure could lead to an improvement in the
environmental performance of facilities and of the industrial activities overall, it may also
have positive impacts for health.
Require the reporting of raw material use [#40] = SWD E-PRTR#13
Description of the measure
Require the reporting of raw material use to be better able to assess energy and carbon
efficiencies. This would allow the assessment of resource efficiency and benchmarking of
facilities across the EU (within a sector), particularly when combined with production
volume data which will soon be required under E-PRTR. A reporting threshold could be
developed to exclude smaller facilities from having to report.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have strongly negative economic impacts. The number of
facilities that would be required to report this additional data has been assumed to be the
number of facilities reporting releases or transfers in the latest year, which is 28,268.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens on businesses are expected to be strongly
negative. Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions
described in Section 1.2, the total one-off costs are expected to be around €84.8m and the
recurrent costs are expected to be around €28.3m per year, giving overall annualised costs of
around €38.7m. Costs are higher than collecting and reporting for other contextual
information as the gathering of data about raw material use will depend on a number of
factors such as types of products and processes, presence of multiple installations, etc. The
complexity will vary significantly between and within sectors.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall impacts on SMEs are expected to be limited, as the complexity (in terms of types of
products and processes, installations, etc.) of the facilities that may have to report is likely to
be lower than for large companies. Furthermore, the existing activity thresholds help to
exclude most SMEs from reporting.
626
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities and the EEA are expected to be limited11. Whilst
there may be a slight increase in QA time for both Member State public authorities and the
EEA, it is expected to be limited, although higher than for other contextual information. The
estimated one-off costs for competent authorities are in the order of €0.09m and the recurrent
costs are expected to be around €0.03m, giving overall annualised costs of around €0.04m.
Costs for the EEA are expected to be limited.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts as it may
enable benchmarking of the environmental performance of different industrial activities and
facilities. It may facilitate authorities in assessing the progress against Sustainable
Development Goals, EU Green Deal and circular economy goals and in identifying activities
for further action. It may also improve corporate accountability on environmental
management and ultimately result in an improvement in environmental performance.
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts as it will improve
transparency and access to environmental information enabling effective public participation
in environmental decision-making. As the measure could lead to an improvement in the
environmental performance of facilities and of the industrial activities overall, it may also
have positive impacts for health.
Reporting waste composition of waste transfers [#41] = SWD E-PRTR#14
Description of the measure
Require reporting of the composition of waste transfers using the Waste Framework Directive
waste codes (EWC waste code).
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts. It is expected that
around 21,455 facilities will be impacted by this measure, i.e. all facilities in the industrial
reporting database currently reporting waste transfers.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens on businesses are expected to be limited. Based
on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions described in Section
1.2, the recurrent costs are expected to be around €0.4m per year.
11
This assessment is uncertain and will be further validated. It is likely that there could be higher costs for
Member State CAs in checking the reported data.
627
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall impacts on SMEs are expected to be limited.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities and the EEA are expected to be limited. Whilst there
may be a slight increase in QA time for both Member State public authorities and the EEA, it
is expected to be limited. The estimated recurrent costs are expected to be around €0.6m.
Costs for the EEA are expected to be very limited.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts as it may
enable a better understanding of waste flows. It may facilitate authorities in assessing the
progress against Sustainable Development Goals, EU Green Deal and circular economy
goals. It may also improve corporate accountability on environmental management and waste
management more in general, ultimately resulting in an improvement in environmental
performance.
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts as it will improve
transparency and access to environmental information enabling effective public participation
in environmental decision-making. As the measure could lead to an improvement in the
environmental performance of facilities and of the industrial activities overall, it may also
have positive impacts for health.
Improve tracking of waste transfers [#42] = SWD E-PRTR#15
Description of the measure
Require the reporting of waste receivers for all waste transfers, not just transboundary
hazardous waste transfers.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts. It is expected that
around 21,398 facilities will be impacted by this measure, i.e. all facilities in the industrial
reporting database currently reporting non-transboundary transfers.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens on businesses are expected to be weakly negative.
Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions described in
Section 1.2, the recurrent costs are expected to be around €0.4m per year.
628
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall impacts on SMEs are expected to be limited.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities and the EEA are expected to be limited. Whilst there
may be a slight increase in QA time for both Member State public authorities and the EEA, it
is expected to be limited. The estimated recurrent costs are expected to be around €0.6m.
Costs for the EEA are expected to be very limited.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts as it may
enable a better understanding of waste flows. It may facilitate authorities in assessing the
progress against Sustainable Development Goals, EU Green Deal and circular economy
goals. It may also improve corporate accountability on environmental management and waste
management more in general, ultimately resulting in an improvement in environmental
performance.
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts as it will improve
transparency and access to environmental information enabling effective public participation
in environmental decision-making. As the measure could lead to an improvement in the
environmental performance of facilities and of the industrial activities overall, it may also
have positive impacts for health.
Improve tracking of waste water transfers [#43] = SWD E-PRTR#16
Description of the measure
Require the reporting of the receivers of waste water transfers (as currently done for
transboundary hazardous waste transfers).
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts. It is expected that
around 1,496 facilities will be impacted by this measure, i.e. all facilities in the industrial
reporting database currently reporting waste water transfers.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens on businesses are expected to be weakly negative.
Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions described in
Section 1.2, the recurrent costs are expected to be negligible (around €0.03m per year) as
operators should have this information available already.
629
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall impacts on SMEs are expected to be very limited.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities and the EEA are expected to be limited. Whilst there
may be a slight increase in QA time for both Member State public authorities and the EEA, it
is expected to be very limited. The estimated recurrent costs for both public authorities and
the EEA are expected to be negligible.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts as it may
enable a better understanding of waste water flows and reduce potential double-counting. It
may facilitate authorities in assessing the progress against Sustainable Development Goals,
EU Green Deal and circular economy goals. It may also improve corporate accountability on
environmental management and waste management more in general, ultimately resulting in
an improvement in environmental performance.
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts as it will improve
transparency and access to environmental information enabling effective public participation
in environmental decision-making. As the measure could lead to an improvement in the
environmental performance of facilities and of the industrial activities overall, it may also
have positive impacts for health.
1.3 E-PRTR problem area 6: Releases from diffuse sources and releases from
products
Many new and emerging products contain pollutants that are released once these products
have left the factory and are then used or disposed of. The Aarhus Convention also includes
that releases from diffuse sources such as transport and residential combustion should be
incorporated.
Reporting releases from products [#70] = SWD E-PRTR#17
Description of the measure
Make use of other reporting streams, such as for the NECD and WISE, and/or carry out a
specific Commission study for the calculation of releases from products during consumer use,
as advocated in Article 5(9) of the Aarhus Convention. This exercise could be required every
few years.
630
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have no or limited impacts. The burden falls on the
Commission and/or EEA, who would have to calculate releases using available data or
outsource the calculations to an external contractor.
Administrative burdens on businesses
The measure would not have any impact on businesses.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
No impacts on SMEs.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on the Commission are expected to be limited. Costs have not been
assessed but would mainly derive from the Commission initiating a dedicated study to
quantify product releases.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts as it may
complement environmental footprint information relating to industrial activities’ outputs
(products). It may facilitate authorities in assessing the progress against EU Green Deal and
circular economy goals. It may also improve corporate accountability on environmental
management and waste management, ultimately resulting in an improvement in
environmental performance.
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts as it will improve
transparency and access to environmental information enabling effective public participation
in environmental decision-making. As the measure could lead to an improvement in the
environmental performance of facilities and of the industrial activities overall, it may also
have positive impacts for health.
631
5 PO4: Decarbonisation
5.1 E-PRTR problem area 3: Information to track progress towards
the circular economy and decarbonisation of industry
Currently, operators have to report releases of HFCs and PFCs as groups but reporting
releases of individual compounds of these groups would provide better information, as the
global warming potential varies greatly between compounds. The quality and completeness
of information could also be improved by requiring GHG releases to be also reported as CO2
equivalent.
Disaggregation of some currently reported GHGs (e.g. HFCs, PFCs) [#44a] = SWD E-
PRTR#18
Description of the measure
This measure would require the reporting of GHGs like HFCs and PFCs as specific,
individual pollutants instead of as a group.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited economic impacts as it would only result in a
slight increase in the level of information that would be required to be reported which should
be available to operators already. No impacts for SMEs are expected as a result of this
measure.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be limited. This
measure has been assumed to only impact facilities currently reporting HFCs and PFCs.
Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted (326) and the cost assumptions
described in Section 1.2, the additional recurrent costs are expected to be around €3,200 per
year for operators. This is based on the assumption that the data is already available to
operators so just requires a small amount of additional time to report the data disaggregated.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities are expected to be limited. This includes some very
limited additional time for QA for both Member State public authorities and the EEA
although this is expected to be minimal as the data is already reported but at an aggregated
level.
Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions described in
Section 1.3, the total additional recurrent costs for public authorities are expected to be
around €4,500 per year.
632
Impacts for the EEA are expected to be minimal considering that the data is already reported
but at a more aggregated level so minimal changes would be required to the data and QA
flows or website.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited environmental impacts as it only provides
similar data but in a more disaggregated format. Reporting GHG data disaggregated by
pollutant should indirectly support better comparison of performance of the sector across the
EU as well as greater engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of
access to information). However, such a change would only affect a small number of
facilities so the additional data provided would be limited.
Social impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have limited social impacts for the same reasons as
discussed above under environmental impacts.
Require GHG releases to be also reported as CO2 equivalent [#44b] = SWD E-PRTR#19
Description of the measure
This measure would require the reporting of GHGs like HFCs and PFCs in mass of CO2e.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited economic impacts as it would only result in a
slight increase in the steps that operators would have to take to be able to report data to the E-
PRTR i.e. after measuring, calculating or estimating GHG releases, operators would have to
estimate CO2e using relevant factors before reporting. No impacts for SMEs are expected as a
result of this measure.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be limited. This
measure has been assumed to only impact facilities currently reporting HFCs and PFCs and
to a limited extent. Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted (326) and the cost
assumptions described in Section 1.2, the additional recurrent costs are expected to be around
€3,200 per year for operators. This is based on the assumption that the data is already
available to operators so just requires a small amount of additional time to apply CO2e
factors.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities are expected to be limited. This includes some very
limited additional time for QA for both Member State public authorities and the EEA
633
although this is expected to be minimal as the data is already reported but at an aggregated
level.
Based on the estimated number of facilities impacted and the cost assumptions described in
Section 1.3, the total additional recurrent costs for public authorities are expected to be
around €4,500 per year.
Impacts for the EEA are expected to be minimal considering that the data is already reported
but in different units so minimal changes would be required to the data and QA flows or
website.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have limited environmental impacts as it only provides
similar data but in a different, more comparable format. Reporting GHG data in CO2e should
indirectly support better comparison of performance of the sector across the EU as well as
greater engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to
information). However, such a change would only affect a small number of facilities so the
additional data provided would be limited.
Social impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have limited social impacts for the same reasons as
discussed above under environmental impacts.
634
6 PO5: Industrial scope
1.1 E-PRTR problem area 1a: Current activity thresholds and
definitions
There is a lack of completeness in the reporting under identified activities in the E-PRTR.
The E-PRTR is not capturing the targeted percentage (90%) of releases from industrial
activities currently defined in the reporting requirements. The original aim of the E-PRTR
was to capture 90% of industrial releases for each pollutant. In addition, the definitions and
thresholds of some activities are inconsistent with the IED and other legislation such as the
MCPD and UWWTD. Industrial activities operating in Europe have evolved since the E-
PRTR came into force and therefore the thresholds for the activity list in Annex I needs to be
reviewed and updated to ensure 90% data capture today. The reporting thresholds do not
guarantee capture of 90% of releases and transfers from industrial facilities.
Revise capacity thresholds for 7(a) IRPP [#1 – sub-options consider thresholds of 50, 100,
125, 150, 300 and 450 LSU] = SWD E-PRTR#21
Description of the measure
Reduce activity thresholds of poultry and pig farming in order to capture a higher proportion
of pollutant releases from this activity. A revision in the activity threshold for this activity
under the IED is also under consideration so it will be important to maintain coherence. The
thresholds being assessed in detail are 150, 300 and 450 LSU (livestock units). As the current
E-PRTR reporting thresholds for individual pollutants mean that there is no reporting under
300 LSU, it can be safely presumed that there would be no E-PRTR reporting for the sub-150
LSU options (i.e. 50, 100 and 125).
It is important to note that thresholds in LSU could result in mixed livestock farms also being
within scope of the E-PRTR if the thresholds applied to pig and poultry farms rather than
individually.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have negative economic impacts as it means that more
facilities will have to report. The total economic impacts have been estimated to comprise
additional costs of between €11m and €20m per year.
Administrative burdens on businesses
The overall impact on the administrative burdens on businesses is assessed as negative.
The administrative costs for business are presented in the table. It is builds on the unit costs
presented in Section 1.2. The administrative costs are calculated as the unit costs times the
estimated number facilities that will have to report.
635
It can be seen that for the lowest thresholds – 50 LSU – none of the facilities between 50 and
300 LSU is assessed to have emissions above the pollution thresholds. Hence, they will not
have to report any data. If pollution thresholds are lowered so that all facilities above the
activity thresholds will have to report, the reporting costs could be significantly higher.
Table A9-14: Administrative costs for business from revised capacity thresholds for IRPP in €m
Alternative capacity
thresholds for IRRP
No of additional
facilities above
activity threshold
Share
that will
report
Additional
number of
facilities
reporting *
One off
costs*
Recurrent
costs *
Total annual
costs*
Threshold >450 LSU 8,647 100% 8,647 25.6 8.5 11.7
Threshold >300 LSU 19,007 80% 15,206 45.0 15.0 20.6
Threshold >150 LSU 40,064 38% 15,206 45.0 15.0 20.6
* The values for options below 150 LSU (i.e. 50, 100, and 125 LSU) are considered equivalent to the values for
>300 LSU
It should be noted that measure #46 on the use of top-down reporting would reduce the
administrative burden significantly (by around 85% or more depending on the mechanism
applied).
Operation / conduct of SMEs
The impact on the operation/conduct of SMEs is assessed as weakly negative. The majority
of facilities in the IRPP sector are SMEs and probably a large share of those that could come
within scope under a revised lower activity threshold will be small or micro-companies. With
the current thresholds for pollutants, relatively few of the smallest farms would have to
report. The reporting costs per facility is moderate so the operation of the farms is unlikely to
be significantly affected. However, some negative impacts can still be expected. It should be
noted that measure 46 on the use of top-down reporting would reduce the effects on the
operation of the SMEs significantly.
Public authorities
Overall, the impacts on public authorities are weakly negative. For public authorities the
economic impacts include the additional costs related to managing the data reported from the
facilities. With lowered activity thresholds for IRRP, there would be more facilities reported
as presented above. The additional costs for CAs have been estimated using the unit costs per
facility times the number of reporting facilities; see Section 1.2 for details on the approach
and assumptions. The administrative costs are estimated to the be in order of €1m to €2m per year.
Table A9-15: Administrative costs for CAs from revised capacity thresholds for IRPP in €m
636
Alternative
capacity thresholds
for IRRP
No of additional
facilities above
activity threshold
Share that
will report
Additional number
of facilities
reporting
One off
costs
Recurrent
costs
Total
annual
costs
Threshold >450
LSU
8,647 100% 8,647 2.9 1.0 1.3
Threshold >300
LSU
19,007 80% 15,206 5.0 1.7 2.3
Threshold >150
LSU
40,064 38% 15,206 5.0 1.7 2.3
No impacts for the EEA are expected as the checking of data is fully automated and therefore
independent of the number of facilities reporting for an existing activity.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts. Increasing
the number of facilities reporting will improve the level of data on emissions available within
the E-PRTR, potentially helping to improve environmental performance of the sector as it
enables better comparison of performance of the sector across the EU as well as greater
engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to
information).
Social impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts. As discussed above,
increasing the number of facilities reporting could potentially help to improve environmental
performance of the sector which would have positive impacts for health. Furthermore,
increasing the level of data available on performance of the sector improves public access to
information potentially enabling greater participation in environmental decision-making.
Revise capacity threshold for 5(d) landfills [#3] = SWD E-PRTR#27
Description of the measure
Increase the coverage of landfill sites by decreasing the activity threshold to less than 10
tonnes per day. This policy measure is being considered as part of the IED revision and
therefore in order to ensure coherence between reporting the threshold(s) to be considered
will be consistent.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have no or limited negative economic impacts as it is not
expected to increase the number of reporting facilities with any significant number. No
impacts for SMEs are expected as a result of this measure.
Administrative burdens on businesses
637
The number of additional facilities that might have to report has not been possible to quantify
at this stage. It is expected to be very limited and therefore leading to limited additional
administrative costs.
The impact on the administrative burden is assessed as no or limited impact.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
The affected number of SMEs have not been assessed. Given that impact on the
administrative cost is estimated to be very limited, we assess that there will be no or limited
impacts on the conduct of SMEs.
Public authorities
The impact on public authorities is assessed to be no or limited impact. Given that only a
few additional facilities could be reporting, the additional costs of checking data and
preparing the data submission will be very low.
Environmental impacts
The environmental impacts are assessed to be no or limited impacts. Given that only a few
additional facilities could be reporting, the additional data will not change the coverage of the
emissions and therefore not improve the decisions basis.
Social impacts
The social impacts are assessed to be no or limited impacts. Given that only a few additional
facilities could be reporting, the additional data will not change the coverage of the emissions
and therefore not improve the decisions basis.
Revise capacity threshold for 2(c)(ii) smitheries [#5 – sub-options consider no calorific
power threshold or a calorific power threshold of 5 MW] = SWD E-PRTR#26
Description of the measure
Reduce the activity threshold for activity 2(c)(ii) to 20 kj and with either no calorific power
threshold or where the calorific power exceeds 5MW. The current threshold is 50 kj per
hammer, where the calorific power exceeds 20 MW. This measure will help to cover a larger
proportion of the sector’s emissions, especially to air. This measure is being considered by
the IED Impact Assessment and is therefore considered under for consistency.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts. It is expected to
increase the number of reporting facilities with around 700 facilities (assuming no capacity
threshold) although it is unclear how many would be required to report with current pollutant
reporting thresholds. This is potentially a large increase compared to the current number of
638
smitheries reporting. Some of the additional facilities might be SMEs and therefore, there is a
risk of negative impacts on the SMEs.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall, the impact on administrative costs is weakly negative. The impact on administrative
burden is estimated using the approach and assumptions presented in Section 1.2 and
summarised in the table below.
Table A9-16: Administrative costs for business from revised capacity thresholds for smitheries
in €M
No of additional
facilities above
activity threshold
Share that will
report
Additional number of
facilities reporting
One off
costs
Recurrent
costs
Total
annual
costs
Revise capacity
threshold for
2(c)(ii) smitheries
733 100% 733 4.3 1.4 2.0
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall, the impacts on the operation/conduct of SMEs are assessed as weakly negative.
Some of the facilities that could come under scope with the changed activity threshold would
be SMEs. They will face additional administrative costs although a number of these may be
operating below the pollutant reporting thresholds so may not be required to report. The level
of the administrative burden from reporting is moderate. Though the facilities will experience
additional costs of the order estimated above, these costs are not expected to affect the
operation or conduct of the SMEs in the industry.
Public authorities
Overall, this measure is assessed to have no or limited impacts on public authorities. The
additional costs for CAs have been estimated using the unit costs per facility times the
number of reporting facilities; see Section 1.2 for details on the approach and assumptions.
The administrative costs are estimated at only €0.1m per year.
Table A9-17: Administrative costs for CAs from revised capacity thresholds for smitheries in
€M
No of additional
facilities above
activity threshold
Share
that will
report
Additional number
of facilities
reporting
One off
costs
Recurrent
costs
Total annual
costs
Revise capacity
threshold for
2(c)(ii) smitheries
733 100% 733 0.2 0.1 0.1
No impacts for the EEA are expected as the checking of data is fully automated and therefore
independent of the number of facilities reporting for an existing activity.
639
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts. Increasing
the number of facilities reporting will improve the level of data on emissions available within
the E-PRTR, potentially helping to improve environmental performance of the sector as it
enables better comparison of performance of the sector across the EU as well as greater
engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to
information). Given that, currently, only few smitheries are above the activity threshold, the
change will significantly improve the coverage of the reporting from the sector.
Social impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts. As discussed above,
increasing the number of facilities reporting could potentially help to improve environmental
performance of the sector which would have positive impacts for health. Furthermore,
increasing the level of data available on performance of the sector improves public access to
information potentially enabling greater participation in environmental decision-making.
Various other capacity threshold/definitions changes with limited impacts
Description of the measure
There are a number of additional measures which are about changing various activity
definitions and/or thresholds but which are not expected to have any significant impacts; they
are listed below. The overall purpose of these changes is to increase the alignment with the
IED.
Table A9-18: List of measures with revised capacity thresholds and definitions
# Name Description #
of facilities
impacted
Align
with
potential
revised
IED scope
6 Revise thresholds for
specific sub-sectors of
activity 4 chemical industry
Addition of thresholds for some sub-sectors of the
chemical industry. For example, pharmaceutical
production to exclude the very small-scale facilities.
0
Align
with
current
potent
IED scope
8 Revise capacity threshold
for activity 5(g)
Remove the 10,000 m3/day capacity threshold for
activity 5(g) independently operated industrial waste
water treatment plants to align with the IED activity
description
42112
9 Include sub-categories for
1(b) installations for
gasification and
liquefaction
Add sub-categories to include coal and "other fuels" to
better align with the IED subcategories.
0
12
Of the 421 impacted facilities, it is estimated that 90 are new facilities, while the 331 are existing facilities
that may have to report water pollutants.
640
# Name Description #
of facilities
impacted
10 Include product sub-
categories for 3(c) cement
production
Re assign the sub categories for cement production to
be product categorised as done in the IED, e.g.
production of cement in rotary kilns and other kilns,
production of lime in kilns etc. This may cause some
time-series consistency issues for historical data.
0
12a Align activity description
for 1(c) with aggregation
rules of IED (legislative
option)
The IED contains aggregation rules for the definition of
LCPs (E-PRTR activity 1(c)). The E-PRTR activity
description would be updated to explicitly include the
same rules for aggregation.
0
72 Reword 8(b) production of
food and beverage products
activity description to
include feed products [#72]
Update the 8(b) activity description to include feed
production in order to align with the activity description
under the IED
0
Total 421
Economic impacts
Overall, these measures are likely to have no or limited economic impacts. They are only
expected to increase the number of reporting facilities marginally.
Administrative burdens on businesses
The impact on the administrative burdens is assessed as weakly negative. Given that in most
cases, the measures do not lead to any new facilities having to report, the administrative costs
are limited. Only of the measures will potentially lead to an additional 90 new facilities
having to report. This measure also impacts about 331 existing facilities that will have to
report a few more pollutants. The total administrative costs are estimated at around €0.3m per
year.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall, the measures are assessed to have no or limited impacts on the operation of SMEs.
Given the very limited additional administrative costs, the measures will not impact SMEs.
Firstly, few SMEs are expected to be affected by the measures and secondly, where there
could be SMEs affected, the additional costs are very limited.
Public authorities
Overall, the measures will have no or limited impacts on public authorities. The additional
costs for public authorities will be very limited. As there are only few additional facilities that
may have to report and that the checking of the data in relation to the revised definitions is
also only requiring few additional resources. The additional costs for CAs are estimated at
around €13,000 per year.
Environmental impacts
641
The environmental impacts are assessed to be no or limited impacts. Given that only a few
additional facilities could be reporting, the additional data will not change the coverage of the
emissions and therefore not improve the decisions basis. The changes to definitions etc. will
also only very marginally change the quality of the reported data but will ensure coherence
with the IED.
Social impacts
The social impacts are assessed to be no or limited impacts. Given that only a few additional
facilities could be reporting, the additional data will not change the coverage of the emissions
and therefore not improve the decisions basis.
Revise capacity thresholds for 1(c) combustion plants [#2 – sub-options consider thresholds
of (a) 20-50MWth and (b) 5-50MWth] = SWD E-PRTR#29 and #30
Description of the measure
This measure considers a revision of the capacity thresholds for combustion plants:
 Measure 2a: Include combustion plants between 20 MW and 50 MW
 Measure 2b: Include combustion plants between 5 MW and 50 MW
This should include the aggregation rules of the MCPD (aggregate if waste gases go through
a common stack or the competent authority judges them to). A further measure to include full
alignment with the MCPD (i.e. 1-50MWth plants) was screened out due to the significant
number of plants in the 1-5MWth category and potential impacts on SMEs.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts. Changes to the
capacity threshold for combustion plants could potentially increase the number of reporting
facilities quite significantly. However, with the current reporting thresholds for pollutants, not
all facilities passing the capacity threshold will actually have to report. The number of MCPs
that will have to report is uncertain as the plants often have low emissions. There are a large
number of back-up plants and/or plants which only run for a small number of hours each
year.
The total economic impacts covering the costs for business and public authorities comprise
between €1,8m and €3m as total annual costs.
Administrative burdens on businesses
This measure is assessed to have a weakly negative impact on the administrative burden for
business. The administrative costs for business are presented in the table below. It builds on
642
the unit costs presented in the Section 1.2 and is calculated as the unit costs multiplied by the
estimated number of facilities that will have to report13
.
Table A9-19: Administrative costs for business from revised capacity thresholds for combustion
in €M
Alternative
capacity thresholds
for combustion
No of additional
facilities above
activity threshold
Share
that will
report
Additional number
of facilities
reporting
One off
costs
Recurrent
costs
Total
annual
costs
20-50MWth 4,946 25% 1,236 3.7 1.2 1.7
5-50MWth 21,590 10% 2,159 6.4 2.1 2.9
The administrative costs depend on the number of facilities that will have to report. Assessing
the emissions from different sized plants has shown that only a small percentage of the MCPs
above the revised thresholds will have to report. The estimated administrative costs are
therefore only in the order of €2m to €3m per year. Should some of the relevant pollutant
thresholds be lowered then the number of facilities would increase, and the administrative
costs would increase proportionally.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Though some of the MCPs considered for inclusion could be small, they are typically owned
and managed by larger entities. Therefore, few of the operators will be SMEs and the impact
on the operation of SMEs can be assessed as limited.
Public authorities
The impacts on public authorities can therefore be assessed as weakly negative. The
additional costs for CAs have been estimated using the unit costs per facility multiplied by
the number of reporting facilities; see Section 1.2 for details on the approach and
assumptions. The administrative costs for CAs are estimated at €0.1m and €0.16m.
Table A9-20: Administrative costs for CAs from revised capacity thresholds for combustion in
€M
Alternative capacity
thresholds for
combustion
No of additional
facilities above activity
threshold
Share that
will report
Additional number
of facilities
reporting
One off
costs
Recurrent
costs
Total
annual
costs
20-50MWth 4,946 25% 1,236 0.2 0.07 0.09
5-50MWth 21,590 10% 2,159 0.4 0.1 0.16
No impacts for the EEA are expected as the checking of data is fully automated and therefore
independent of the number of facilities reporting for an existing activity.
13
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/clean_air/index.htm
643
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts. Increasing
the number of facilities reporting will improve the level of data on emissions available within
the E-PRTR, potentially helping to improve environmental performance of the sector as it
enables better comparison of performance of the sector across the EU as well as greater
engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to
information).
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts. As discussed above,
increasing the number of facilities reporting could potentially help to improve environmental
performance of the sector which would have positive impacts for health. Furthermore,
increasing the level of data available on performance of the sector improves public access to
information potentially enabling greater participation in environmental decision-making.
Revise capacity thresholds for 5(f) UWWTPs [#13 – sub-options consider thresholds of
2,000, 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 and 50,000 p.e.] = SWD E-PRTR#29 and #30
Description of the measure
The measure includes a change of the capacity thresholds for urban wastewater treatment
plants. Currently, the threshold is set at 100,000 p.e. and the measure includes five alternative
thresholds:
 Change capacity thresholds for UWWTP from 100,000 p.e. to 50,000 p.e.
 Change capacity thresholds for UWWTP from 100,000 p.e. to 20,000 p.e.
 Change capacity thresholds for UWWTP from 100,000 p.e. to 10,000 p.e.
 Change capacity thresholds for UWWTP from 100,000 p.e. to 5,000 p.e.
 Change capacity thresholds for UWWTP from 100,000 p.e. to 2,000 p.e.
Changing the threshold will increase the coverage of emissions from UWWTPs and bring the
E-PRTR closer to the definitions of the UWWTD. The UWWTD currently defines treatment
standards and emission limit values for UWWTPs above 2,000 p.e.
Economic impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts, the scale of these
would depend on the threshold selected. Changes to the capacity threshold for UWWTPs
would increase the number of reporting facilities. However, with the current reporting
thresholds for pollutants, not all facilities passing the capacity threshold will have to report.
The total economic impacts covering the costs for business and public authorities comprise
between €1.8 m and €5.8m as total annual costs.
Administrative burdens on businesses
644
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly negative impacts on the administrative
burdens. The administrative costs for business are presented in the table. It is builds on the
unit costs presented in the Section 1.2. The administrative costs are calculated as the unit
costs multiplied by the estimated number facilities that will have to report14
.
With the current reporting thresholds for pollutants, it is unlikely that all facilities will have to
report. A rough assessment has been done focused on the reporting of nitrogen and
phosphorus. The share that is likely to have to report has been assessed for the different size
ranges.
Table A9-21: Estimated share of facilities having to report
Size band for
UWWTPs
# of facilities Share that is estimated to have to
report
Resulting number of facilities
2000-5000 10,210 0% 0
5000-10000 5,543 10% 554
10000-20000 3,591 20% 718
20,000-50,000 3,043 50% 1,522
50,000-100,000 1,234 100% 1,234
Based on the estimated number of facilities reporting the number of facilities for each alternative
threshold definition can be estimated. Results and the costs assessment are presented in the table
below.
Table A9-22: Administrative costs for business from revised capacity thresholds for UWWTPs
in €M
Alternative capacity
thresholds for UWWTP
No of additional
facilities above
activity threshold
Share
that will
report
Additional number
of facilities
reporting
One off
costs
Recurrent
costs
Total
annual
costs
Change capacity thresholds
for UWWTP from 100,000
p.e. to 50,000 p.e.
1,234 100% 1,234 3.7 1.2 1.7
Change capacity thresholds
for UWWTP from 100,000
p.e. to 20,000 p.e.
4,277 64% 2,756 8.2 2.7 3.7
Change capacity thresholds
for UWWTP from 100,000
p.e. to 10,000 p.e.
7,868 44% 3,474 10.3 3.4 4.7
Change capacity thresholds
for UWWTP from 100,000
p.e. to 5,000 p.e.
13,411 30% 4,028 11.9 4.0 5.4
Change capacity thresholds
for UWWTP from 100,000
23,621 17% 4,028 11.9 4.0 5.4
14
Number of facilities estimated based on the Waterbase-UWWTD https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/data/waterbase-uwwtd-urban-waste-water-treatment-directive-7
645
Alternative capacity
thresholds for UWWTP
No of additional
facilities above
activity threshold
Share
that will
report
Additional number
of facilities
reporting
One off
costs
Recurrent
costs
Total
annual
costs
p.e. to 2,000 p.e.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Though some of the UWWTPs considered for inclusion could be small, they are typically
owned and managed by larger entities. Most UWWTPs are municipal so they are publicly
owned and if there are private operations, it is typically large companies. Therefore, it is
assessed that there will be no or limited impact on the operation of SMEs.
Public authorities
Overall, the impacts on public authorities can therefore be assessed as weakly negative. The
additional costs for CAs have been estimated using the unit costs per facility multiplied by
the number of reporting facilities; see Section 1.2 for details on the approach and
assumptions.
The measure will potentially add a large number of additional facilities although not all are
likely to have to report based on the current pollutant reporting thresholds. The administrative
costs for CAs are estimated at between €0.1m and €0.3m.
Table A9-23: Administrative costs for CAs from revised capacity thresholds for UWWTPs in
€m
Alternative capacity
thresholds for UWWTP
No of additional
facilities above
activity
threshold
Share
that will
report
Additional number
of facilities
reporting
One off
costs
Recurrent
costs
Total
annual
costs
Change capacity thresholds
for UWWTP from 100,000
p.e. to 50,000 p.e.
1,234 100% 1,234 0.2 0.1 0.1
Change capacity thresholds
for UWWTP from 100,000
p.e. to 20,000 p.e.
4,277 64% 2,756 0.5 0.2 0.2
Change capacity thresholds
for UWWTP from 100,000
p.e. to 10,000 p.e.
7,868 44% 3,474 0.6 0.2 0.3
Change capacity thresholds
for UWWTP from 100,000
p.e. to 5,000 p.e.
13,411 30% 4,028 0.7 0.2 0.3
Change capacity thresholds
for UWWTP from 100,000
p.e. to 2,000 p.e.
23,621 17% 4,028 0.7 0.2 0.3
No impacts for the EEA are expected as the checking of data is fully automated and therefore
independent of the number of facilities reporting.
646
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts. Increasing
the number of facilities reporting will improve the level of data on water releases available
within the E-PRTR, potentially helping to improve environmental performance of the sector
as it enables better comparison of performance of the sector across the EU as well as greater
engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to
information). It would also improve alignment with the UWWTD.
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have positive social impacts. As discussed above,
increasing the number of facilities reporting could potentially help to improve environmental
performance of the sector which would have positive impacts for health. Furthermore,
increasing the level of data available on performance of the sector improves public access to
information potentially enabling greater participation in environmental decision-making.
1.2 E-PRTR problem area 1b: Missing activities and sub-activities
The original aim of the E-PRTR was to capture 90% of industrial releases for each pollutant.
Industry in Europe has changed since the E-PRTR came into force in 2006 with new
activities becoming more widespread. Therefore, the activity list in Annex I needs to be
updated. Missing activities mean that the E-PRTR does not provide a complete picture of
releases and transfers and cannot be used as a tool to fully understand impacts and ensure
coherent environmental policy. Furthermore, the IED is being revised so it will be important
to maintain coherence with any future scope.
Include cattle rearing farms [#15 – sub-options consider thresholds of 50, 100, 125, 150,
300 and 450 LSU] = SWD E-PRTR#20
Description of the measure
There is no activity covering cattle and it is proposed to include an additional activity in
Annex I of the E-PRTR covering these farms. This measure has been proposed for inclusion
within the IED and therefore in order to ensure coherence between reporting the exact
threshold(s) and activity definition to be considered will be informed by that process. There
are alternative activity thresholds being considered. They all relate to the number of livestock
units (LSU).
In line with the IED revision, the following thresholds were assessed: 50, 100, 125, 150 LSU,
300 LSU and 450 LSU. As the current E-PRTR reporting thresholds for individual pollutants
mean that there would be no reporting under 300 LSU, it can be safely presumed that there
would be no E-PRTR reporting for the sub-150 LSU options (i.e. 50, 100 and 125).
647
Economic impacts
Overall, the economic impacts are negative. The measure will increase the number of
reporting facilities and potentially with a large number. The annual costs have been estimated
to be in the order of €11 – 23m, primarily for operators but also MS CAs. This based on the
estimated number of additional facilities would be required to report which is estimated to
vary between around 9,000 up to 18,000 facilities.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall, the impacts on the administrative burden for business are negative. The
administrative costs for business are presented in the table below. It builds on the unit costs
presented in Section 1.2. The administrative costs are calculated as the unit costs multiplied
by the estimated number of facilities that will have to report15
.
Table A9-24: Administrative costs for business from alternative capacity thresholds for cattle in
€m
Alternative
capacity thresholds
for cattle
No of additional
facilities above
activity threshold
Share that
will report
Additional number
of facilities
reporting*
One off
costs*
Recurrent
costs*
Total annual
costs*
Threshold >450
LSU
8,523 100% 8,523 25.2 8.4 11.5
Threshold >300
LSU
26,624 66% 17,574 52.1 17.4 23.8
Threshold >150
LSU
120,727 15% 17,574 52.1 17.4 23.8
* The values for options below 150 LSU (i.e. 50, 100, and 125 LSU) are considered equivalent to the values for
>300 LSU
The alternative thresholds could potentially lead to a significant number of additional
facilities being captured. However, an assessment of likely emissions from farms of different
sizes has shown that no or few facilities below 300 LSU are expected to have to report under
current NH3 and CH4 reporting thresholds, and only around 66% above 300 LSU (based on a
worst case assessment of likely emissions i.e. using the highest emission factors to estimate
farm level emissions).
It should be noted that if NH3 and/or CH4 reporting thresholds are reduced, then the total
number of facilities could increase. As a result the administrative costs would increase
proportionally with the number of facilities.
In contrast, if measure #46 on the use of top-down reporting were to be applied to cattle then
this would reduce the administrative burden significantly (by around 85% or more depending
on the mechanism applied).
15
Data on number of facilities are based on Ricardo (2021) Updating of available information for undertaking
the assessment of impacts for a possible modification of the IED with regard to aspects of intensive agriculture
648
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall, the impact on the operation/conduct of SMEs is assessed as weakly negative. The
majority of facilities in the cattle sector are SMEs and probably a large share of those that
could come within scope would be small or micro-companies. With the current thresholds for
pollutants, relative few of the smallest farms would have to report. The reporting costs per
facility is moderate so the operation of the farms is unlikely to be significantly affected. Still
some negative impacts can be expected.
It should be noted that measure 46 on the use of top-down reporting would reduce the effects
on the operation of the SMEs significantly.
Public authorities
The impacts on public authorities are assessed as strongly negative. For public authorities
the economic impacts include the additional costs related to managing the data reported from
the facilities. With adding cattle farms to the scope of the E-PRTR, there would be
significantly more facilities reported as presented above. The additional costs for CAs have
been estimated using the unit costs per facility multiplied by the number of reporting
facilities; see Section 1.2 for details on the approach and assumptions.
The administrative costs are estimated to be in order of €1m to €2m per year.
Table A9-25: Administrative costs for CAs from alternative capacity thresholds for cattle in €m
Alternative capacity
thresholds for cattle
No of additional
facilities above
activity threshold
Share that
will report
Additional number
of facilities
reporting*
One off
costs *
Recurrent
costs *
Total
annual
costs*
Threshold >450 LSU 8,523 100% 8,523 2.8 0.5 0.8
Threshold >300 LSU 26,624 66% 17,574 5.8 1.0 1.7
Threshold >150 LSU 120,727 15% 17,574 5.8 1.0 1.7
* The values for options below 150 LSU (i.e. 50, 100, and 125 LSU) are considered equivalent to the values for
>300 LSU
The impact on the EEA is estimated to be relatively limited16. The additional annual costs
are estimated at less than 1,000 EUR. This includes costs associated with adding a new
activity to the database and reporting tools. As QA/QC of data is automated, the additional
facilities and additional data being reported should not add to the costs.
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts. Including
cattle and increasing the number of facilities reporting will improve the level of data on
16
EEA costs associated with some measures are under revision in collaboration with the EEA and may be
revised.
649
emissions available within the E-PRTR, potentially helping to improve environmental
performance of the cattle sector as it enables better comparison of performance of the sector
across the EU as well as greater engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as
a result of access to information).
It should be noted that with the current pollutant thresholds, only a proportion of emissions
from the cattle sector will be reported.
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts. As discussed above,
the inclusion of the cattle sector in E-PRTR could potentially help to improve environmental
performance of the sector which would have positive impacts for health. Furthermore,
increasing the level of data available on performance of the sector improves public access to
information potentially enabling greater participation in environmental decision-making.
Similar to the case for the environmental impacts, adding reporting from only the largest
cattle farms means that not all the emissions are covered by the reporting.
Various other measures with limited impacts
Description of the measures
There are several additional measures to change various definitions and adding activities in
order to achieve better alignment and coherence with the IED – both in its current version and
the changes proposed for a revised IED. They are listed below and they are not expected to
have any significant impacts on costs and benefits.
Table A9-26: List of measures with revised capacity thresholds and definitions
Category # Measure Description # of
facilities
impacted
Align
with
potential
revised
IED
scope
14 Expand activity
scope of mining
and quarrying
activities (3(a)
&3(b))
The IED revision is looking to include these activities
and considering how to also bring into line with
matching the scope of Directive 2006/21/EC and/or
the MWEI BREF. This measure will ensure the E-
PRTR activities are in line with any adjustments
made.
0
18 Include battery
production,
disposal and
recovery
Include battery production, disposal and recovery in
activity list. This measure is being considered as part
of the IED revision and therefore in order to ensure
coherence between reporting the exact threshold(s)
and activity definition to be considered will be
informed by that process.
70
20 Include an
additional sub-
sector for cold
rolling & wire
drawing
Include an additional sub-sector for cold rolling, with
a capacity threshold of 10 t/h, and wire drawing, with
a capacity threshold of 2 t/h, under activity 2. This
measure is being considered as part of the IED
revision.
53
650
Category # Measure Description # of
facilities
impacted
21 Inclusion of an
additional sub-
sector for textile
finishing
Inclusion of textile finishing in the activity list under
activity 9 (Other activities). Rename the current
activity 9(a) to activity 9(a)(i) - Plants for the pre-
treatment (operations such as washing, bleaching,
mercerisation) or dyeing of fibres or textiles (a
current activity) and include an additional sub
activity of 9(a)(ii) Textile finishing with the same
threshold as the current 9(a) activity. This measure is
being considered as part of the IED revision.
76
23 Include an
additional sub-
activity for ship
yards /
dismantling
Include an additional sub-activity under 9 - Other
activities for ship yards / dismantling. Currently only
building of and painting or removal of paint from
ships is included in the activity list (9(e)). This
measure is being considered as part of the IED
revision.
6
Align
with
current
IED
scope
27 Include MgO
production
Include MgO production in kilns with a threshold of
50 t/day to align with IED activity 3.1(c).
25
28 Include CO2
capture
Include capture of CO2 streams for geological storage
with no threshold to align with IED activity 6.9.
9
29 Additional sub-
categories and
improved
descriptions for
5(a) & 5(b)
Align these categories with the IED activity
descriptions to ensure reporters know that disposal
includes incineration/co-incineration (sub categories
to match IED activities 5.1 and 5.2(b). Additionally,
include recovery in the activity definition.
0
30 Additional
hazardous waste
sub-category for
temporary storage
IED activity 5.6 - temporary storage of hazardous
waste is not included in the E-PRTR activities list
and should be considered for inclusion.
9
All 248
Economic impacts
Overall, these measures are likely to have no or limited economic impacts. They are only
expected to increase the number of reporting facilities marginally.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall, the measures are assessed to have no or limited impacts on administrative burdens.
Given that in most cases, the measures only lead to a small number of new facilities having to
report, the administrative costs are limited. Only the measures which potentially could lead to
an additional 70-80 new facilities having to report would increase reporting costs. Still the
reporting costs are very limited. The total administrative costs for all the measures are
estimated at around €0.7m per year.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
651
Overall, the measures are assessed to have no or limited impacts on the operation of SMEs.
Given the very limited additional administrative costs, the measures will not impact the
operation of SMEs. Firstly, few SMEs are expected to be affected by the measures and
secondly, where there could be SMEs affected, the additional costs are very limited.
Public authorities
Overall, the measures will have no or limited impacts on public authorities. The additional
costs for public authorities will be very limited and they are estimated at €37,000 per year. As
there are only a limited number of additional facilities that may have to report and the
checking of the data in relation to the revised definitions is also only requiring few additional
resources.
Environmental impacts
The environmental impacts are assessed to be no or limited impacts. Given that only a few
additional facilities could be reporting, the additional data will not change the coverage of the
emissions and therefore not improve the decisions basis. The changes to definitions of
included activities will also only very marginally change the quality of the reported data but
will ensure coherence with the IED.
Social impacts
The social impacts are assessed to be no or limited impacts. Given that only a few additional
facilities could be reporting, the additional data will not change the coverage of the emissions
and therefore not improve the decisions basis.
Establish a dynamic mechanism to identify and include emerging activities of concern
(‘sunrise list’ for activities) [#31] = SWD E-PRTR#31
Description of the measure
This measure would entail the inclusion of a more dynamic mechanism to identify and
include emerging activities of concern (“sunrise list”) within the Regulation e.g. enabling the
Commission to identify and include new activities in the future via delegated acts.
Economic impacts
Overall this measure is likely to have weakly negative economic impacts as it will lead to a
greater number of activities being captured under E-PRTR in the future and more facilities
having to report release and transfer data. Some additional activities for inclusion and
existing activities with revised thresholds and/or definitions have already been identified and
included under other measures (with associated assessment of impacts). It is unknown what
further activities may be included in the future and thus it is not possible to assess the impacts
that may be incurred.
652
In addition to additional data collection and reporting for operators, there would also be time
required for the European Commission and/or EEA to maintain the sunrise list and identify
activities of emerging concern.
Administrative burdens on businesses
Overall impacts on administrative burdens for businesses are expected to be weakly negative
for any new activities included in the future although the scale of such impacts are unclear at
this stage. Operators in any new activities will have to measure, calculate and/or estimate
releases to see whether they are above or below the reporting thresholds. If they are above the
threshold then the data would need to be reported. Some initial time would also be required to
set up the appropriate data capture, calculation and reporting mechanisms up front.
Operation / conduct of SMEs
Overall impacts on SMEs are expected to be very limited. Appropriate activity thresholds
would need to be established for any new activities to ensure that smaller facilities
(potentially including SMEs) would not be required to report.
Public authorities
Overall impacts on public authorities are expected to be weakly negative. This includes
additional time for QA of data for any new activities for both Member State public authorities
and the EEA as well as some initial upfront time to amend the existing data flow and QA
systems to incorporate new activities.
The EEA and/or European Commission would incur some additional costs for maintaining
the sunrise list and identifying and reviewing potential emerging activities. This is assumed to
cost around €15,000 per year (assuming consultants are used to assess specific activities) with
a further 30 person days every 5 years to develop and agree a proposal for new activity(ies)
(equating to annualised costs of around €2,600 per year).
Environmental impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive environmental impacts as it will
increase the coverage of activities that are reporting to the E-PRTR. It will ensure that the E-
PRTR activity list can be updated as and when emerging activities are identified helping to
support the objectives of wider environmental policies such as IED, WFD, UWWTD etc.
Increasing the activity coverage will improve the level of data on emissions available within
the E-PRTR, potentially helping to improve environmental performance of those activities
being included as it enables better comparison of performance across the EU as well as
greater engagement of citizens in environmental decision-making (as a result of access to
information).
653
Social impacts
Overall, this measure is likely to have weakly positive social impacts as the emissions
coverage within E-PRTR will be expanded. As discussed above, increasing the number of
activities and facilities reporting could potentially help to improve environmental
performance of those activities included which would have positive impacts for health.
Furthermore, including new activities improves public access to information potentially
enabling greater participation in environmental decision-making.
654
Annex 10: Supporting information to Section 6 of the SWD
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................651
Information supporting the assessment of Option PO1 ................................................................652
Box 1: Summary of the impacts of measure IED#5.......................................................................652
Table A10-1: Administrative burden from PO1 ............................................................................654
2. Information supporting the assessment of Option PO2..........................................................655
Box 2: Comparison of the two measures contained in PO2-b.......................................................655
Box 3: Comparison of the two measures contained in PO2-c .......................................................656
Table A10-2: Administrative burden from PO2-a, PO2-b, and PO2-c........................................658
3. Information supporting the assessment of Option PO3..........................................................658
Box 4: Comparison of the two measures contained in PO3-a.......................................................658
Table A10-3: Administrative burdens for PO3-a to PO3-g ..........................................................659
4. Information supporting the assessment of Option PO4..........................................................660
Box 5: Comparison of the three measures contained in PO4-b....................................................660
Table A10-4: Administrative burden from PO4-a and PO4-b .....................................................661
5. Information supporting the assessment of Option PO5..........................................................661
Box 6: Summary of the impacts of the three measures included in PO5-a..................................662
Table A10-5: Synthesis of impacts of IED scope expansion measures included in PO5 a to f...668
Table A10-6: Administrative burden from PO5-a to PO5-i..........................................................676
655
INTRODUCTION
Through a series of boxes and tables, this annex summarises key information underpinning
section 6 of the SWD i.e. assessment of the impacts of the options. It brings together the
information presented in fuller detail in Annexes 8 and 9 i.e. the detailed impact assessment
of each individual measure included in the policy options assessment.
The boxes and tables in this annex cover the following:
1. Impacts of individual measures that dominate in the impact assessment of options
2. Comparison of impacts of alternative measures contained in certain sub-options
3. Summary information on impacts of options PO5-a to PO5-i
4. Administrative costs breakdown per measure, for each option.
656
1. Information supporting the assessment of Option PO1
Boxes 1 and 2 provide a summary of the impacts of measures IED#5 and E-PRTR#2 that
dominate the assessment of policy option PO1.
Box 1: Summary of the impacts of measure IED#5
Although all policy measures will have relevant contributions as noted, measure IED#5 presents a
particularly significant opportunity to enhance the environmental benefits from the IED’s
implementation, and overall makes a significant contribution to the policy option total impacts. This
measure would specify that when setting ELVs, the starting point is the lower end of the BAT-AEL
range, unless the operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the competent authority that applying
BAT as described in BAT Conclusions only allows meeting a higher level within the BAT-AEL
range.
The measure would seek to encourage a tightening of the ELVs in permit conditions for installations
across the EU employing a relatively harmonised approach. It is not foreseen as a means to make
lower BAT-AELs mandatory. Competent Authorities will be able to make decisions on a case-by-case
basis, continuing to account for local environmental conditions and the technical characteristics of the
installation, i.e., allowing for the possibility to set ELVs higher in the BAT-AEL range. The emphasis
however is to begin the considerations at the lower end of the BAT-AEL range. For the assessment of
this measure, an assumption has been needed as to the proportion of installations that would be
affected by this measure. Considering its non-mandatory nature, it is not appropriate to assume that all
installations currently with ELVs set at upper BAT-AELs would be affected by the measure. We
assumed that around 5% of ‘new permits’ (of 500 per annum) and 10% of existing permits (of 52 000)
could be ‘affected’ by this measure in the process of setting up a permit and or reconsidering/updating
a permit. This has been informed from the evidence below.
For example, a 2019 study by Eunomia, An Assessment of IED Permitting Stringency, examines the
emission limit values for 117 permits for European cement installations and 24 electric arc furnaces
(Eunomia, 2019). The results from both these sectors in aggregate indicate that most ELVs are set in
line with the upper BAT-AEL (80%), while a minority are above the upper BAT-AEL (12%, e.g.
have derogations) or were set at the lower BAT-AEL (9%). This indicates that most cement works
and electric arc furnaces (82%) would need to change or upgrade their practices to comply with the
lower BAT-AEL. Overall, this report would suggest that there is a significant opportunity to further
environmental protection by setting ELVs closer to the lower end of the BAT-AEL ranges.
Pre-final information from an ongoing contract on “Assessment of BAT conclusions implementation
in IED Permits"17
, which builds on the experience of previous pilot projects and focusses on four IED
sectors (glass, pulp and paper, non-ferrous metals and wood based panels) ,confirms that 75-85% of
ELVs in permits are based on the upper level of BAT-AEL range (or above). The distribution differs
in case of sectors and pollutants.
The extent to which this may happen and, therefore, result in the reduction of pollutant emissions is
highly uncertain. It is expected that this measure may lead to significant and additional substantive
compliance costs for businesses that would reduce pollutant emissions to air especially, as well as
water and soil in a significant way, when compared to the baseline.
For example, a detailed study of the possible impacts of BAT conclusions was carried out for selected
17
Terms of reference available at: Circabc (europa.eu)
657
plants under scope of the LCP BAT Conclusions (Ricardo, 2018). This found that, for the largest
plants (>300 MWth) firing solid fuels, there was an appreciable increase in the expected compliance
costs to comply with lower BAT-AELs for SO2, NOX, dust and Hg compared to when the upper BAT-
AEL was met (Ricardo, 2017). The estimates from that study suggested total annualised substantive
compliance costs of €0.6bn/year for meeting upper BAT-AELs, rising 10 times to €5.7bn/year for
meeting lower BAT-AELs (two thirds of this higher cost was estimated to be due to fitting high
efficiency SO2 reduction measures). The monetised benefits in that study were estimated to outweigh
the costs – and that this conclusion held true at the lower BAT-AEL level as well as upper BAT-AEL:
€3.4bn/year for upper BAT-AELs, rising to €14.2bn/year for lower BAT-AELs.
These estimates are not representative of the likely impact across all sectors. Nevertheless, they
highlight the potential order of magnitude of the potential requirements associated with tightening of
ELVs towards the lower end of BAT-AEL ranges. To clarify, in this example, existing LCPs would
have needed to comply with lower BAT-AELs, as well as the fact that for this sector (LCPs)
minimum standards already had to have been met (IED Annex V ELVs) prior to achieving BATC
compliance (and this existing compliance was accounted for in the estimation of costs), which leads to
increases in estimated compliance costs.
To inform the potential scale of emission reductions that could occur when applying this measure,
analysis of the Commission’s BAT-AEL tool (European Commission, 2020) listing all BAT-AELs
from BATC was carried out. This used, for an illustrative pollutant of NOx emissions, the average %
of potential reduction from the upper to the lower end of BAT-AEL ranges across CLM, GLS, LCP,
PP and REF BATC, together with the assumed proportion of installations that would be affected by
the measure (assumed to be 10%), the NOx emissions by sector, and the average EU NOx damage
cost to generate, at a high level, the possible illustrative NOx benefit for these five sectors from this
measure. These illustrative NOx benefits were estimated to be between €0.9bn and €2.8bn per year.
The total benefits of this measure would sum the impacts across all environmental issues, which
would be expected to be tens of €billions per year overall.
The economic impacts can also be illustrated using a similar example. Let there be around 10% of the
installations affected by this measure IED#5 so that each of these installations may require to invest at
least €0.5 million additional or earlier than in the baseline. This would mean that capital costs could
be around €2 850 million over the 20-year period or an equivalent annual cost of around €210 million
per year. When summed with the administrative burden on operators and public authorities, the costs
would be at least €225 million per year (central estimate), which are significantly lower than the
potential benefits for this one pollutant (NOx) illustration.
Box 2: Summary of the impacts of measure E-PRTR#2
Whilst E-PRTR reporting is at the level of ‘facility’, the IED sets regulatory controls at sub-facility
level i.e. for ‘installations’. Since there may be several IED installations in an E-PRTR facility, this
restricts the extent to which E-PRTR data can support the IED. This measure would entail reporting
releases/transfers on an installation basis rather than aggregating to the facility level. The benefits of
reporting at this level would be greater data granularity thus enabling better matching to individual
activities.
A major implication of this measure would be a significant increase in the number of reports that will
need to be submitted – increasing from circa 34,000 facilities at present, to circa 210 000 installations
when considering the current, and proposed, IED scope. However, this translates in little increase of
burden for operators as currently that data is already collected by the operator and has to be
658
aggregated per facility for reporting under to the E-PRTR.
Changes in administrative burden on businesses and public authorities have been estimated to
the extent that is possible and are summarised in the Table A10-1. Positive estimates refer to
additional costs and negative estimates refer to potential savings.
Table A10-1: Administrative burden from PO1
Policy options Additional administrative
burden on businesses,
M€2020 annual average
over 20 years
Additional administrative
burden on public authorities,
M€2020 annual average over
20 years
PO1-a – More effective legislation
IED#1 0.6 0.4
IED#2 0.2 0.09
IED#3 0.6 0.4
IED#4 None/Limited None/Limited
IED#5 – (“out” in Alternative 1, “in” in
Alternative 2)
8 7
PO1-b Implementation and enforcement
IED#6 None/Limited 0.2
IED#7 18
4 5
IED#8 None/Limited 0.05
IED#9 0.6 0.4
PO1-c Rights of the public
IED#10 None/Limited None/Limited
IED#11 None/Limited Baseline obligations
IED#12 None/Limited 2
IED#13 None/Limited 0.2
E-PRTR#1 0.5 0.7
E-PRTR#2 – (“out” in Alternative 1,
“in” in Alternative 2)
0.06 0.08
E-PRTR#3 - -
E-PRTR#4 - -
PO1-d Simplification
IED#14 None/Limited None/Limited
IED#15 -0.6 -0.5
IED#16 -0.1 -0.3
E-PRTR#5 -0.7 -
E-PRTR#6 1.9 0.13
E-PRTR#8 0 M€ -
E-PRTR#9 -12.5 -
Sub-total IED measures (alternative
1, without IED#5)
4.3 7.94
Sub-total IED measures (alternative
2, incl. IED#5))
12.3 14.94
Sub-total E-PRTR measures
(Alternative 1, without #2)
(-10.314) 0.882
Sub-total E-PRTR measures
(Alternative 1, incl. E-PRTR#2)
(-10.255) 0.962
18
A report for the European Commission into common rules for assessing compliance is underway and may
feed into this assessment.
659
Policy options Additional administrative
burden on businesses,
M€2020 annual average
over 20 years
Additional administrative
burden on public authorities,
M€2020 annual average over
20 years
Total - all PO1 measures
(Alternatives 1)
-6.014 8.372
Total - all PO1 measures
(Alternatives 2)
2.045 15.902
2. Information supporting the assessment of Option PO2
Box 3 compares the two measures contained in PO2-b.
Box 3: Comparison of the two measures contained in PO2-b
PO2-b puts forward alternative measures for improving the flexibility of the BREF process in an
attempt to keep up with the latest technological advances, whilst maintaining the robustness and
standards of the existing processes.
These alternatives include (IED#19) establishing shorter, up to 5-year BREF cycles focussed on
defining stricter BAT-AELs based on recent innovations or (IED#20) establishing the INnovation
Centre for Industrial Transformation & Emissions (INCITE) to monitor the Technology
Readiness Level (TRL) and environmental performance (BAT-AEPLs) of emerging and
breakthrough techniques, which would also recommend a BREF review and/or update of the BAT
conclusions when identified as pertinent (IED#20).
At this stage, it is envisaged that measures would target new installations and/or major
refurbishments or retrofits but would not trigger a permit reconsideration and update for all
existing installations, unless recent transformative techniques have been made available that
would be applicable to all existing installations. More frequent BREF reviews and/or BAT
conclusion updates would likely affect a minority of installations at least in the shorter term, until
innovation leads to the availability of transformative techniques.
The ambition of these measures is similar, and both would address issues surrounding the lack of
frequency of the BREF review process and/or updates of BAT conclusions, which affect the
ability to keep up with exogenous technological progress. That said, the key advantages and
disadvantages of these measures vary, as shown below.
Policy measure Advantages Disadvantages
IED#19 Shorter
BREF cycles
-Certainty within the adjusted
framework could help businesses
adapt and plan their investments
accordingly (for new plants or
major retrofits only).
-More frequent updates of best
environmental performance
standards (BAT-AEPLs) are
-Managing a strictly more
frequent BREF process
complementary to the baseline,
without a strategic understanding
or identification of opportunities
driven by technological progress,
could increase inefficiencies.
-The rigidity of the process
would be retained, also
660
performed systematically. contributing to inefficiencies
(e.g., spending resources on a
BREF review of there were not
many novel techniques nor lower
performance levels available)
and/or missed opportunities.
IED#20 INCITE
-Potential to be an efficient tool
to identify opportunities linked
to technological progress across
sectors and respond flexibly,
e.g., the triggering of a BREF
review and/or proposing updates
to BAT conclusions only
happens once opportunities are
identified.
-Could introduce some
regulatory uncertainty (i.e.,
unclear timing of reviews and
updates of BAT conclusions,
etc.), which could affect business
investment negatively.
-Efficiency might depends upon
the ability of INCITE (resources
will be limited requiring
priorities) to monitor a wide
range of complex sectors and
their technologies.
Experts from Ricardo and other stakeholders were also consulted. Their expert opinion is that
could be a more effective and efficient approach to address some of the shortcomings identified in
the IED evaluation in relation to the BREF process, especially when compared to introducing new
and systematic (rigid) homogenous shorter BREF cycles.
Stakeholders attending focus groups indicated that INCITE (IED#20) could become an effective
and efficient platform for triggering BREF reviews, once novel techniques or better performance
levels have been identified for key environmental issues. Stakeholders attending a workshop
stated that measure IED#19 (shorter BREF cycles) is likely to be technically challenging and
difficult to implement in practice, if the principles and rigour of current BREF process are
maintained.
Box 4 compares the two measures contained in PO2-c.
Box 4: Comparison of the two measures contained in PO2-c
PO2-c includes alternative measures that would seek to facilitate sectoral transformation in line
with longer term EU objectives, by allowing operators to retain focus on contributing to the EU’s
long-term objectives even if these may mean that they cannot keep up with the implementation of
BAT conclusions in the shorter term.
These alternatives include amending requirements to allow operators to have more time to
implement BAT conclusions where deep transformation of industrial sectors is required (IED#21)
versus establishing a Transformation Plan and either a permit review obligation by 2030 that
focusses on the capacity of the installations to operate in accordance with the EU’s general zero-
pollution, circular economy and climate objectives; including a requirement for installations to
661
produce Transformation Plans or integrating the Transformation Plan in the EMS (IED#22).
All measures would encourage IED operators to align their investments with longer term,
transformation needs. However, their approach and, thus, their key advantages and disadvantages
are likely to vary.
Policy measure Advantages Disadvantages
IED#21 ‘Derogation’
from implementing
BAT conclusions due
to a requirement for
deep transformation
-Focussed on sectors that require
‘deep transformation’
-Could have limited
administrative burden since
similar to existing (familiar)
derogation process.
- Tool to promote deeper
transformation with benefits for
operator (and no significant
additional costs/ investments).
-Lack of ability to build a
holistic understanding and
monitoring of transformation
efforts by IED operators.
-Some of the transformation and
decarbonisation pathways may
not be win/win options for every
environmental aspect.
IED#22 Permit review
obligation &
preparation of
Transformation Plan
Alternative:
Transformation Plans
integrated in the EMS
-All IED operators would be
encouraged to reflect on their
transformation needs and
demonstrate how their plans may
or may not align with BAT
conclusions and general EU
objectives
-Integrated into the permitting
process and degree of
sophistication could be adjusted
to the sector and/or plant size
(same as EMS do now in
BREFs).
The alternative solution offers
the same advantages as above at
lower costs.
-Could be inefficient, especially
where there are sectors that may
require limited transformation or
have already undergone
significant transformation.
-Could be burdensome for public
authorities to manage rapidly;
therefore causing delays. This
can be mitigated by ntegratong
Plans in EMS.
Experts from Ricardo and other stakeholders were also consulted. Their expert opinion is that the
permit review obligation requiring Transformation Plans (IED#22) is likely to gain more traction,
and improve the collective understanding of industry’s transformation needs and overall
preparedness for industry sectors to accelerate implementation, to increase transparency and
provide confidence that specific actions will be taken forward. The alternative (EMS integration)
which offers the same advantages looks even more promising given that it’s delivered at much
lower costs.
During the focus groups held, some industry stakeholders were supportive of measure IED#21,
while Member State representatives noted that a clearer EU process and/or guidelines would be
needed to implement these derogations. Stakeholders attending a second workshop, especially
Member States’ representatives, were supportive of measure IED#22, whilst some (e.g., DE)
662
raised concerns on the timings of the permit review obligation, considering that the
Transformation Plans should ideally be required for implementation before 2030.
Additional administrative have been estimated to the extent that is possible and are
summarised in Table A10-2 below.
Table A10-2: Administrative burden from PO2-a, PO2-b, and PO2-c
Policy options
Additional administrative
burden on businesses,
annual average over 20
years (M€2020 p.a.)
Additional administrative
burden on public authorities,
annual average over 20 years
(M€2020 p.a.)
PO2-a
IED#17 0.4 0.2
IED#18 0.6 0.3
PO2-b
IED#19 3 5
IED#20 3 4
PO2-c
IED#21 0.6 0.3
IED#22 50 50
IED#22 (alternative) 20 0
Total IED measures19
#21 7.6 9.8
Total IED measures20
#22 57
59.5
Total IED measures21
#22
(alternative)
27 9.5
3. Information supporting the assessment of Option PO3
Box 5 compares the two measures contained in PO3-a.
Box 5: Comparison of the two measures contained in PO3-a
PO3-a (Better setting of BAT-AEPLs) includes alternative measures that would improve the
determination of BAT-AEPLs and their implementation, by updating their status through
legislation.
These alternatives include introducing explicit options for Technical Working Groups (TWG) to
set: i) either binding resource efficiency and circular economy BAT-AEPLs or indicative
performance levels (IED#23), or ii) also include an explicit option to set benchmark levels
associated with BAT, for which the inclusion in the Environmental Management System is
19
option IED#21 and #22 are exclusive
20
option IED#21 and #22 are exclusive
21
option IED#21 and #22 are exclusive
663
obligatory (IED#24).
Both measures would bring the status of BAT-AEPLs in line with that of BAT-AELs.
Similar to emission KEIs covered by BREFs, there would be a possibility to set indicative
resource efficiency and circular economy levels, e.g., when there is large variability in the data
due to important differences in products manufactured, or when one KEI is much more important
than another (like in the case for NOx and CO emissions in many processes). This would be a
decision of the TWG on an individual KEI basis. Under measure IED#23, existing BAT-AEPLs
would not become binding in the same manner as BAT-AELs. Under measure IED#24, existing
BAT-AEPLs would become benchmarks for inclusion in the EMS. Only a new or review of a
BREF and its BAT conclusions would render the BAT-AEPL binding in line with BAT-AELs,
where applicable.
The introduction of benchmark levels (IED #24) would create an opportunity to improve
implementation of past BAT-AEPLs derived under the IED, or possibly even under the
IPPCD. They can, retroactively, be assigned the status of benchmark levels, meaning that
operators would be obliged to address them in the EMS. Any review of a BREF and its BAT
conclusions would consider and update the benchmark levels or convert them into binding BAT-
AEPLs if this is deemed preferable by the TWG.
Experts from Ricardo and other stakeholders were also consulted. Their expert opinion is that
benchmark levels would provide a more ambitious yet practical option for TWG (measure
IED#24), which could likely result in a more efficient and practical approach when compared to
the “all or nothing”, that is, “binding”, option put forward by measure IED#23.
The scale of the benefits, however, would depend on the uptake of the binding BAT-AEPL
and/or the benchmark-setting options when compared to the baseline. Evidence suggests that
having a more pragmatic option for TWG (IED#24) is likely to have more impact in practice,
since it is not expected that binding BAT-AEPLs would be preferred or possible in most cases.
Additional administrative costs are summarised in Table A10-3 below.
Table A10-3: Administrative burdens for PO3-a to PO3-g
Policy options
Additional
administrative burden on
businesses, annual
average over 20 years
(M€2020 p.a.)
Additional administrative
burden on public authorities,
annual average over 20 years
(M€2020 p.a.)
PO3-a
IED#23 7 6
IED#24 16 12
PO3-b
IED#25 46 23
PO3-c
IED#26 None/ Limited None/Limited
664
Policy options
Additional
administrative burden on
businesses, annual
average over 20 years
(M€2020 p.a.)
Additional administrative
burden on public authorities,
annual average over 20 years
(M€2020 p.a.)
PO3-d
E-PRTR#10 3.9 0.3
PO3-e
E-PRTR#11 5.0 -
E-PRTR#12 5.0 -
E-PRTR#13 25.0 0.03
PO3-f
E-PRTR#14 0.3 0.4
E-PRTR#15 0.3 0.4
E-PRTR#16 0.02 0.03
PO3-g
E-PRTR#17 - -
Sub-total IED measures #23 53 29
Sub-total IED measures #24 62 35
Sub-total E-PRTR measures 39.55 1.201
Total - all PO3 measures 92.50
101.5
30.2
36.2
4. Information supporting the assessment of Option PO4
Box 6 compares the three measures contained in PO4-b.
Box 6: Comparison of the three measures contained in PO4-b
PO4-b includes alternative measures that would review or allow the BREF and IED
permitting processes to consider and set emission limit values for GHG for IED
installations, even where these emissions are addressed under the EU ETS framework.
The legislation that transposes the IED in the majority of Member States (21 out of
27) does not include emission or concentration limits for GHG. This option would,
therefore, review and/or change this. The alternatives considered have similar ambitions,
albeit the proposed timing and approach is very different. Whereas one alternative
(IED#28) suggests that a formal review of the IED and ETS interface is carried out,
another (IED#29) would introduce a ‘sunset date’ beyond which this exemption is no
longer applicable or delete this exemption (Article 9(1)) immediately (IED#30).
Available evidence regarding the PO4-b-IED/ETS interface measures that delete Article
9(1) later (IED#29) or immediately (IED#30) suggest that these measures will also lead to
an increase in CAPEX and OPEX for IED operators, who would be required to increase
decarbonisation and energy efficiency efforts. This, however, could lead to more carbon
allowances becoming available for trading in the ETS, which could impact the carbon
665
price and affect incentives for emissions reductions in other ETS sectors. The scale of
impact will depend on whether are measures are taken to address potential impacts on the
carbon price, e.g. through the Market Stability Reserve, the timing of measures,
derogations allowed, speed of technological advancement, technology cost curves, and
energy efficiency gains achieved. Subsequent to the initial investment, operators’ life
cycle costs would diminish. Given the evidence available and significant uncertainties, it
has not been possible to quantify these impacts.
Introducing a review of the interface between the IED and the ETS (IED#28) or a
sunset (IED#29) clause into Article 9(1), or deleting Article 9(1) (IED#30) could have
a wide range of impacts, depending on the selected alternative. Immediate deletion would
likely result in GHG emission reductions at the specific installations, depending on the
stringency of GHG emission limits derived under IED. This may also have other positive
environmental impacts, such as on air quality and resource use, as decarbonisation
techniques may have also positive impacts on overall depollution, and hence
environmental protection. This, however, could lead to more carbon allowances
becoming available for trading in the ETS, which could impact the carbon price and
affect incentives for emissions reductions in other ETS sectors. The scale of impact will
depend on whether measures are taken to address potential impacts on the carbon price,
e.g. through the Market Stability Reserve, the timing of measures, derogations allowed,
speed of technological advancement, technology cost curves, and energy efficiency gains
achieved. Introducing a review (IED#28) or sunset (IED#29) clause into Article 9(1) may
delay potential impacts.
Additional administrative costs are summarised in Table A10-4 below.
Table A10-4: Administrative burden from PO4-a and PO4-b
Policy options
Additional administrative
burden on businesses,
M€2020 annual average
over 20 years
Additional administrative
burden on public authorities,
M€2020 annual average over
20 years
PO4-a
IED#27 29 21
PO4-b
IED#28 None/Limited None/Limited
IED#29 15 11
IED#30 56 40
PO4-c
E-PRTR#18 0.002 0.003
PO4-d
E-PRTR#19 0.002 0.003
sub-total IED measures 100 76
sub-total E-PRTR measures 0.004 0.006
666
Policy options
Additional administrative
burden on businesses,
M€2020 annual average
over 20 years
Additional administrative
burden on public authorities,
M€2020 annual average over
20 years
Total - all PO4 measures 100 76
5. Information supporting the assessment of Option PO5
Box 7 provides a detailed summary of the impacts of measures included in PO5-a, that
dominate the assessment of policy option PO5. An overview of the main parameters, such as
number of farms, animals, emissions, costs and benefits, for the various LSU thresholds
considered for cattle, pigs and poultry farms (50-150 LSU) is provided in Box 8.
667
Box 7: Summary of the impacts of the three measures included in PO5-a
PO5-a includes three policy measures on cattle-farming and IRPP: expanding the current IRPP scope,
bringing cattle farms within the scope and applying a tailored permitting/registration system.
Analysis carried out suggests that including cattle-farming at a threshold between 50-150 LSU or
more and expanding the capacity thresholds for IRPP to a threshold level between 50-150 LSU or
more could introduce ~161 000-517 000 farms across the EU under the IED’s regulatory
framework (84 000-330 000 cattle farms and 77 000-187 000 additional IRPP farms). This would
mean a significant increase in the number of sites regulated by the IED, covering in total as a result of
the scope increase (i.e. including the farms already covered) however only less than the 10-40% larger
farms, out of the c.1.5 million of cattle, pigs and poultry farms with more than 10 LSU existing in the
EU.
Pigs farms Poultry farms Cattle farms Total
Total farms in
EU incl.
subsistence (<
10 LSU)
1 955 640 3 972 880 1 927 650 7 856 170
Total farms in
EU > 10 LSU
275 210 318 610 869 400 1 463 220
Farms currently
covered by IED
11 100 12 000 0 23 100
Farms newly
brought into IED
scope
77 000-187 000 84 000-330 000 161 000-517 000
Administrative burden on businesses and public authorities
As a result of these measures, farm operators would need to further engage with applying for permits
and implementing BAT based requirement, as defined in a Commission implementing act and, if
already regulated, addressing permit reconsideration and updates.
Under full IED permitting, additional administrative costs for businesses is estimated at €182
million per year for cattle, pigs and poultry farms of 50 LSU or more, and at €596 million per year
for farms at 150 LSU or more over 20 years from adoption of these policies. Public authorities would
face a similar annual burden.
Sectoral expansion
Administrative burden
on businesses
(per year on average)
Administrative burden
on public authorities
(per year on average)
Cattle farming
(50-150 LSU or more)
€102-401 million €102-401 million
668
Rearing of pigs (50-150
LSU or more)
€39-95 million €39-95 million
Rearing of poultry (50-
150 LSU or more)
€41-100 million €41-100 million
Total €182-596 million €18222-596 million
Source: Ricardo analysis
The introduction of a more tailored regulatory framework seeks to minimise the impact on the
already established Member State permitting systems. This framework would define the minimum
BAT-based requirements that Member States could implement within their national permitting
systems and, therefore, mitigate the additional administrative and compliance burden. The tailored
framework could also be employed for the existing IED IRPP installations at the discretion of
Member States.
The possible reduction of impacts on administrative burden could be achieved by:
1. Reducing IED requirements specific to the livestock sector.
2. Aligning with existing permitting systems.
Firstly, reducing overall requirements (pillar 1) may include:
 Removal of the need for baseline reports under Article 22.
 Reduction in the frequency of inspections to, e.g., every 5 years as a default, or being
triggered by complaints or compliance.
 Stepwise BAT requirements that are dependent on farm-size (rather than one farm size
threshold), thereby reducing BAT requirements for smaller farms.
 Inclusion of minimum ELVs in a Commission implementing decision.
This is expected to yield a reduction in administrative burden by up to 20%, while still achieving a
significant environmental gain.
Secondly, aligning with the existing permitting systems (pillar 2) could achieve between 5% – 40%
additional reductions in burden when compared to a full permitting scenario. This can be achieved by
the Member States that already deploy environmental permits or apply general binding rules that
mean that non-IRPP farms have to apply BAT or comply with certain ELVs, in practice.
The table below explores the possible cumulative reduction in administrative burden associated with
tailored approach when compared to the full-permitting baseline scenario.
Base
reduction in
tailored
approach
from Pillar
1: Reduction
in
requirements
First additional reduction
based on existing permitting
system
Second additional
reduction based on
existing permitting
system with full
implementation of
BAT
Cumulative level of
reduction in
administrative
burdens achieved
for different
baseline situations.
20% for all
operators and
permitting
0% (no evidence of a
permitting system. Registration
systems are not considered
N/A 20%
669
authorities valid)
5% (evidence of a permitting
system but no evidence of
BAT)
N/A 25%
20% (evidence of a permitting
system with some level of
BAT, but with confirmation
from the MS that BAT
requirements are more limited
than likely required under the
IL BREF)
20% (evidence of a
permitting system with
full implementation of
BAT)
40% - 60%
Source: Ricardo analysis based on engagement with stakeholders
Therefore, the cumulative reduction in administrative burden associated with the tailored
approach could range from 20% - 60%, when compared to a full permitting baseline and
depending on the Member States’ status quo.
A consultation was carried out to gather additional evidence and confirm which of these possibilities
would be most appropriate for each Member State. From this, we estimate that the measure could
reduce the overall administrative burden for these sectors by 30%-40% across the EU. The
largest efficiencies would appear for Member States with strict existing environmental requirements.
PO5-a would, therefore, have a resulting administrative burden on businesses between €110-394
million per year, depending on the specific threshold between 50-150 LSU, if the tailored approach to
regulating farms was taken forward. Public authorities would likely face a similar annual burden.
Sectoral expansion
Administrative burden on
businesses
(per year on average)
Administrative burden on
public authorities
(per year on average)
Cattle farming
(50-150 LSU or more)
€63-281 million €63-281 million
Rearing of pigs (50-150
LSU or more)
€23-55 million €23-55 million
Rearing of poultry (50-150
LSU or more)
€24-58 million €24-58 million
Total (50-150 LSU or more) €110-394 million €110-394 million
Source: Ricardo analysis
In addition, further administrative savings could be introduced if the tailored framework were adopted
by Member States for the existing IRPP installations (~20 500).
Operating costs and conduct of business (substantive compliance costs)
PO5-a would also require farm operators to adjust and/or implement new techniques to target the
reduction of their environmental impacts as identified through a Commission implementing act based
670
on BAT. The stringency of the BAT requirements cannot be defined with precision at this stage.
These would target in particular two key environmental issues for the sector: emissions to air of
ammonia, NH3, and methane, CH4. Substantial compliance costs to introduce abatement
techniques for these pollutants only could reach an annual €265-813 million across the EU,
depending on the specific threshold between 50-150 LSU. This is a central estimate based on
existing practices of emission reduction in Member States who already apply reduction technologies.
The BAT based Commission implementing act may however require a higher share of highly
effective technologies to achieve stricter ELVs.
Sectoral expansion Substantive Compliance Costs for
Abatement of NH3 and CH4 emissions
(per year on average)
Cattle farming
(50-150 LSU or more)
Around €112-441 million
Rearing of pigs (50-150 LSU or
more)
Around €91-222 million
Rearing of poultry (50-150
LSU or more)
Around €62-150 million
Total (50-150 LSU or more) Around €265-813 million
Source: Ricardo analysis based on the GAINS model
Environmental benefits
The environmental benefits associated with these measures could be significant. For example, the
introduction of cattle and the expansion of IRPP coverage within the IED could result in significant
reductions in the emissions to air of NH3 and CH4. As illustration of the relevance of the widened
scope, a large part of emissions of ammonia from livestock farms under the IED legal framework:
Proportion (%) of ammonia emissions of the sector regulated under the existing and the
widened IED scope
Pigs farms Poultry
farms
IRPP total Cattle
farms
IRPP and
cattle total
Existing IED scope 39.4% 42.0% 40.4% 0.0% 17.6%
Widened IED
scope (50-150
LSU)
82-86% 86-97% 84-97% 41-81% 70-92%
Furthermore, by expanding the scope to include cattle farms as well as smaller pigs and poultry farms,
the fraction of methane emissions from livestock that is regulated by the IED as such increases from
around 3% to 43-80% (c. 2,650-4,900 kt CH4 per year) . This includes emissions from enteric
fermentation and manure management, representing c. 82% and 18% of the EU livestock methane
emissions in 2018, respectively. There is therefore a high potential for the IED to contribute to
methane emission reductions, as technologically feasible mitigation practices do exist.
671
NH3 and CH4 emission reductions benefits are valued at around €5 450-9 240 million per year,
depending on the specific threshold between 50-150 LSU. This is a central estimate based on
existing practices of emission reduction in Member States who already apply reduction technologies.
The BAT based Commission implementing act may however require stricter ELVs and hence result
larger emission reductions.
Sectoral expansion Monetised benefits of NH3
abatement
(per year on average)
Monetised benefits of CH4
abatement
(per year on average)
Cattle farming
(50-150 LSU or more)
Around €2 100-3 980 million Around €1 299-2 653 million
Rearing of pigs (50-150 LSU
or more)
Around €524-690 million Around €551-719 million
Rearing of poultry (50-150
LSU or more)
Around €974-1 195 million -
Total (50-150 LSU or more)
Around €3 598-5 865
million
Around €1 850-3 372
million
Source: Ricardo analysis based on the GAINS model
Reductions in other air pollutants, as well as emissions to soil and water, both directly (e.g., PM) and
indirectly (e.g., PM, ozone) would lead to further benefits which have not been quantified for this
report.
Box 8: Main parameters for each LSU threshold (50-150 LSU) considered in PO5-a
The values below present the number of farms, animals as well as the reduction of CH4 and NH3
emissions corresponding to a specific threshold in the range of 50-150 LSU. The percentage of farms
and animals per LSU threshold are relative to the total number of non-subsistence farms in the EU-27
per livestock category. Furthermore, costs (administrative and compliance), monetised benefits and
the resulting benefit-cost ratio is presented for each LSU threshold considered.
The emissions of CH4 and NH3 covered by each LSU threshold are directly in proportion of the
number of animals covered by that LSU threshold. In the case of CH4 emission reduction from cattle
farms, the assessment has assumed a technique (nutrition based) can be applied that reduces emissions
from enteric fermentation by up to 10%, which is currently an accepted value and which is in line
with academic research on various feed modifications. However, it is acknowledged that this is a
conservative estimate as some scientific publications report significantly higher emission reduction
potential (c. 36-50%). Detailed assessment of specific feeding techniques is required to validate such
potential. This would take place as part of the preparation of the BAT requirements for these
activities.
672
Farms Animal heads
CH4
reduction
NH3
reduction
Number % Number (x1000) % kt kt
CATTLE
> 50 LSU 330,346 39% 64,008 81% 359 115
> 100 LSU 162,736 19% 48,986 62% 275 88
> 125 LSU 123,437 14% 40,899 52% 229 74
> 150 LSU 84,000 10% 32,811 41% 184 59
PIGS*
> 50 LSU 102,120 37% 98,947 94% 159 39
> 100 LSU 69,660 25% 93,288 89% 150 37
> 125 LSU 59,080 21% 88,681 85% 143 35
> 150 LSU 48,500 18% 84,073 80% 135 33
POULTRY*
> 50 LSU 107,770 32% 1,198,810 98% 71
> 100 LSU 71,700 21% 1,153,920 95% 68
> 125 LSU 61,700 18% 1,105,910 91% 65
> 150 LSU 51,700 15% 1,057,900 87% 63
* total values for pigs and poultry, i.e. including the values for the existing IRPP farms under the IED.
Admin
costs for
business
Admin
costs for
business -
TA
Admin costs
for public
authorities
Admin costs
for public
authorities -
TA
Compliance
costs for
business Benefits BCR
€m/year €m/year €m/year €m/year €m/year €m/year
CATTLE
> 50 LSU 401 249 - 281 401 249 - 281 441 6,633 6.9
> 100 LSU 198 123 - 139 198 123 - 139 217 5,076 10.8
> 125 LSU 150 93 - 105 150 93 - 105 165 4,238 11.9
> 150 LSU 102 63 - 70 102 63 - 70 112 3,399 14.0
PIGS
> 50 LSU 94.6 55.1 94.6 55.1 222 1,409 4.3
> 100 LSU 60.9 35.4 60.9 35.4 143 1,282 6.0
> 125 LSU 49.9 29 49.9 29 117 1,179 6.7
> 150 LSU 38.9 22.6 38.9 22.6 91 1,075 7.9
POULTRY
> 50 LSU 99.6 57.9 99.6 57.9 150 1,195 4.5
> 100 LSU 62.1 36.1 62.1 36.1 93 1,125 6.8
> 125 LSU 51.6 30.1 51.6 30.1 78 1,050 7.6
> 150 LSU 41.3 24 41.3 24 62 974 8.9
TA: Tailored Approach; BCR: benefit-cost ratio
673
Table A10-5 provides a detailed summary of the assessment of impacts of the measures that
dominate the impact assessment of options PO5 a to f. These are the measures that concern
IED scope expansion for which full detail is available in Annex 8. Measures concerning E-
PRTR scope expansion have limited impacts in the form of administrative burden, which are
provided in Table A10-6.
Table A10-5: Synthesis of impacts of IED scope expansion measures included in PO5 a to f
Option
N°
Policy measure Key impacts of the activities Summary of evidence
PO5-a Expand the
current sectoral
coverage of the
rearing of
animals:
cattle farming
(IED#31),
expand IRPP
(IED#32)
AND
a tailored
permitting
process for the
rearing of
animals
(IED#33)
 Agriculture emissions of 463Mt
CO2e represent 13% of the total EU-
27 GHG emissions. The activities
regulated under this option
currently represent about 21% of
the 463Mt CO2eq of GHG (mainly
methane) emitted each year by the
agricultural sector.
 Livestock farming contributes to the
presence of surplus nitrogen in
European aquatic environments
while also being a principal emitter
of ammonia, leading to considerable
environmental damage, such as
eutrophication.
 EU27 total NH3 emissions were 3.6
Mt in 2018, of which 2.4 Mt/year
were from livestock. The NH3
emissions from pigs represent
approximately 45% of NH3
emissions relative to the scope of
the IED, and the corresponding
value for poultry is 28%.
 The activities regulated under this
option currently represent about
37% of total EU ammonia
emissions to air.
 The processes and emissions patterns
from the cattle sector (and widened
scope for IRPP) are relatively simple
in comparison with other IED
activities. Agro-industrial activities
may not require the full extent of the
IED regime as laid out in
2010/75/EU. Therefore, for such
activities a specific tailored approach
(TA) is considered.
Include cattle farming (IED#31 and
#33)
 This covers approximately 84 000-
330 000 cattle farms (>50-150
LSU).
 The total EU27 compliance costs
for bringing cattle farms larger than
50-150 LSU (equivalent to 69-207
animal places or heads) into the
IED are estimated to be € 112-441
m/ year for applying abatement
measures tackling NH3 and CH4
emissions.
 The associated administrative costs
are estimated to be € 102-401
m/year leading to a total cost of €
214-842 m/year. The adoption of a
TA for implementing cattle
farming in the IED could represent
a cost reduction of c. 30%.
 The costs are smaller than the
monetised benefits of NH3 and
CH4 emissions reductions which
are estimated to be
c. € 3 400-6 600m/year. The
benefit-cost ratio is
approximately between 7-14.
 It is assumed that the majority of
the cattle farms will be SMEs,
particularly sizes 50 to 300 LSU.
 With a threshold within the range
of 50-150 LSU, approximately
185-360 kt of CH4 and 60-115 kt of
NH3 could be mitigated per year.
These reductions in CH4 emissions
would contribute to the EU
Methane Strategy.
 The fraction of methane emissions
from cattle that is regulated by the
IED as such would increase from
674
Option
N°
Policy measure Key impacts of the activities Summary of evidence
0% to around 80%.
Amend the capacity thresholds of
IRPP (IED#32 and #33)
 This covers an additional 77 000-
187 000 pigs and poultry farms
under the IED (c. 37 400-91 000
pigs and 39 700-95 800 poultry
farms).
 The total EU27 compliance costs
for reducing the IED thresholds to
a threshold within the range of 50-
150 LSU for pigs (170-500
production pigs, 65-195 sows) and
poultry (~2 400-7 200 animals) are
estimated to be € 91-222 m/year
and € 62-150 m/year, respectively,
for applying abatement techniques
tackling NH3 and CH4 emissions.
 The associated administrative costs
are estimated to be € 39-95 m/year
for pigs and € 41-100 m/year for
poultry, leading to a total cost of €
130-317 m/year for pigs and € 103-
250 m/year for poultry.
 The costs are smaller than the
monetised benefits of NH3 and CH4
emissions reductions which are
estimated to be € 1 075-1 409
m/year for pigs and € 974-1 195
m/year for poultry. The adoption
of a TA for IRPP in the IED
could see the permitting costs
drop by c. 30%, per year.
 The benefit-cost ratio is
approximately 4-8 for pigs and 5-
9 for poultry (depending on the
specific threshold within 50-150
LSU).
 With a threshold within the range
of 50-150 LSU, approx. 77-101 kt
of CH4 could be mitigated per year
(pigs), as well as approx. 19-25 kt
and 37-45 kt of NH3 emissions per
year for pigs and poultry
respectively.
Introduce a tailored regulatory
framework (TA)
 The TA, even when not combined
with the scope extensions, could be
beneficial and lead to similar
675
Option
N°
Policy measure Key impacts of the activities Summary of evidence
environmental performance with
lower administrative burden. A TA
would lead to a reduced
administrative cost for businesses
(farms) as compared to
implementing full IED chapter II
requirements. The amount this
would be reduced will depend on
which requirements are placed on
installations in the TA.
 It is expected that the TA via its
Pillar 1 (reducing requirements)
could reduce cost up to 20%. If
Member State competent
authorities chose to implement a
TA for those already regulated,
then costs for existing IRPP
operators would be lowered for
these farms in the EU27 by
around € 20 m/year.
 Farm operators that are SMEs
would stand to benefit from the
reductions in administrative
burden.
 No detrimental environmental
impacts are expected to be induced
by the briefer TA, which will
reduce administrative burden, but
not compromise on pollution
control.
PO5-b Extend the
current sectoral
coverage to also
include battery
production
within the scope
of the IED
IED#34
 The main environmental pressures
from the sector are energy
consumption, use of hazardous
substances, water pollution and waste
management, use of raw materials /
circularity of the materials used and
re-manufacturing of products.
 Europe could see its share of global
battery production increase from a
7% in 2020 up to 31% by 2030.
 The EU’s climate-neutral target
includes an objective of at least 30
million zero-emission cars on the
road by 2030, and the ambition of
European companies meeting more
than 90% of the demand for batteries.
 Re. total energy storage capacity,
sector growth is primarily
attributable to the electrification of
transport (accounts for most of the
 The Commission has identified
batteries as a value chain of
strategic importance and has
proposed an industry-led approach.
 The scope of the EU battery
directive has recently been
extended to cover sustainability
and safety requirements targeting
among others the restrictions of
hazardous substances.
Sustainability of batteries and their
re-purposing is regulated by the
(new draft – in co-legislation)
Batteries Regulation
 More than half of the companies
active in this field are SMEs thus
there may be a considerate impact
from the policy option on smaller
companies.
 Apart from the pollution of air and
676
Option
N°
Policy measure Key impacts of the activities Summary of evidence
battery demand in 2030).
 The total production capacity in
the EU ranges between 69.5 and
143.5 GWh. Plans have been
revealed to build more than 20
large-scale battery factories in the
EU in the coming years, with an
expected production capacity of
600 GWh.
 Inclusion of battery manufacturing
and disposal and recovery would
ensure that all types of facilities
included in the life cycle of batteries
are covered by the requirements. As
such, it can contribute to the
consistent framework and provide for
more sustainable growth of the
industry.
 Much of the batteries value chain is
already covered by IED (non-ferrous
metals and processing, chemicals,
production of chemicals, waste
treatment).
 The rapidly changing scale of
battery production, disposal and
recovery is a key driver in
determining whether this sector
should be regulated under the IED
or not.
water, the IED (through BAT
conclusions for the sector) could be
effective in addressing energy
consumption, use of resources,
chemicals and in accident
prevention (e.g. through an EMS).
 The number of production
installations is expected to be c. 20-
25 sites by 2030 and c. 45-95 by
2040 (central estimate used in the
assessment is 25 installations).
Extend the
current sectoral
coverage to also
include forging
presses, cold
rolling with
capacity
exceeding 10 t/h,
and wire
drawing with
capacity
exceeding 2 t/h
within the scope
of the IED
IED#36
 The environmental pressures from
forging relate to energy use, noise,
emissions to air, GHG emissions,
and resource consumption.
 The measure would expand the
existing scope and cover likely
more than 250-400 installations
(combined forging, cold rolling and
wiredrawing installations).
 The IED could be effective in
regulating the pollution typically
arising from these activities.
Extend the
current sectoral
coverage to also
include textile
finishing
activities with
 Finishing processes are considered
one of the most pollutant aspects of
textiles. The main environmental
issues relate to the amount of
polluted water discharged and the
chemical load it carries, including
 The measure would expand the
existing scope to include the
activity of 50-100 installations that
may also have finishing activities.
 Textile manufacturing is a diverse
industry dominated primarily by
677
Option
N°
Policy measure Key impacts of the activities Summary of evidence
the existing
capacity
thresholds in
IED activity 6.2
(pre-treatment or
dyeing of textile
fibres or textiles)
IED#37
organic compounds. Moreover, the
textile finishing sector consumes
high rates of energy, water and
chemicals. Other relevant issues to
consider in this sector are those
related to air emissions, solid wastes
and odours, which can be of
significant nuisance in certain
treatments.
 The textile finishing industry market
share in EU textile production was
around 10% between 2011-2017. In
2018 the finishing of textiles industry
accounted for 8% of the EU total
textile manufacture.
 This is a gap-filling extension of
scope as it would include textile
finishing activities alongside textile
production activities already covered
under IED activity 6.2 (pre-treatment
or dyeing of textile fibres or textiles).
SMEs. Manufacturers are typically
small and highly specialised
businesses
 The textile finishing industry in the
EU is currently led by four
countries (Italy, Germany, Spain
and Portugal), which together
account for almost 72% of the
market share for the entire EU.
Extend the
current sectoral
coverage to also
include
smitheries of 20
kilojoule per
hammer with no
threshold for the
calorific power
or reduce the
capacity
threshold for the
calorific value to
> 5 MW in
activity 2.3(b)
IED#38
 Environmental pressures from
smitheries relate to emissions to air
(dust, NOx, SO2), noise, vibrations,
and consumption of energy.
 The measure will encompass a larger
proportion of the sector’s emissions
and impacts, particularly for releases
to air.
 The number of smitheries with
hammers that would be included in
the scope is highly uncertain, with
a possible range of 400-500
smitheries.
PO5-c Landfills:
Adoption of
BAT
conclusions for
activity 5.4
landfills
(IED#39)
AND
Revise the
capacity
threshold in
Annex I for
activity 5.4
 The key environmental issues from
landfills relate to releases to
water/soil and to air (GHG and air
pollutants).
 Landfills remain an important source
of GHG emissions: with emissions
of GHGs, equating to 1.6 – 2.4%,
relative to the baseline scope of the
IED.
 Landfills are also associated with
associated with releases to water
(leachate) of several heavy metals,
including cadmium, zinc and
Adoption of BAT conclusions
(IED#39)
 Currently, the existing
requirements of the Landfill
Directive are not shown to be out
of date and may still represent
state-of-the-art, however,
adoption of BATC would lead to
improvement in existing
standards and continuous
improvement moving forward.
 The measure would contribute to
climate neutrality as the BATC
678
Option
N°
Policy measure Key impacts of the activities Summary of evidence
landfills
(IED#40)
chromium. These releases, relative
to the baseline scope of the IED,
can be sizeable, e.g. 4.7 – 9% of
cadmium releases.
 No BATC exist for landfills,
considered under activity 5.4. This
is owing to the coverage of this
activity under Council Directive
1999/31/EC, the Landfill Directive.
Currently the Landfill Directive
provisions are deemed to constitute
BAT (Art 1(2) of Directive 1999/31).
 An updated BREF and BATC for
landfill would allow the
consideration of techniques that
are nowadays more prevalently
used in the sector, such as methane
capture.
would cover management of
landfill gas. However, the impact
of the measure is uncertain and
dependent upon the eventual
BREF.
 NB Repeal of Article 1(2) of 1999
Landfill Directive is necessary to
enable Landfill BREF/ BAT
conclusions, and update of
reference from IPPC to revised
IED.
Revising the capacity threshold
(IED#40)
 There were around 2 950 landfill
sites in the EU-27 in 2018
(hazardous waste and non-
hazardous waste). However, very
limited data could be found
regarding the distribution of
landfills by capacity size, which
limits the ability to assess impacts
of this measure. The number of
landfills with a capacity below the
current threshold is expected to be
very limited.
 Because the additional sites under
the extended scope would be
smaller landfills, there is the
potential for this measure to
disproportionately impact SMEs.
Furthermore, given larger landfill
operators already fall under the
scope of the IED, any additional
costs will only fall on smaller
operators.
 Assuming no BATC are
implemented alongside the
threshold change, smaller operators
that come into scope are only
required to comply with wider
monitoring and reporting
requirements which have no
significant direct impact.
PO5-d Include non
energy minerals
extraction
activities (E-
PRTR Annex I
activities 3a and
3b) and
 Minerals extraction activities are
considered as potentially highly
polluting activities not within the
scope of the IED.
 The sector is responsible for
environmental impacts,
particularly in terms of air
 The sector has a high share of
SMEs (over 90% of enterprises or
40% of all employees are classified
as, or working within an SME).
The measure, therefore, will impact
upon SMEs within the sector.
 Among the key environmental
679
Option
N°
Policy measure Key impacts of the activities Summary of evidence
extractive waste
within the scope
of the IED
IED#41
emissions, water pollution, waste
and emissions to soil and
groundwater, notably with regard
to heavy metals.
 The demand for critical minerals
and industrial minerals by other
growing sectors will continue to
place demands on specific mining
installations (although some of this
would be outside of the EU, the EU
wishes to be far more self-sufficient
re. Critical Raw Materials in the
future).
issues, the strongest impacts
across all mineral categories
relate to structural and physical
stability, emissions to soil and
groundwater, and the discharge
of suspended particles and metals
in surface water. Different
extracted materials have different
impacts on the water quality and
the quantity used.
 Emissions to air during extractive
practices relate to dust and
particles, which are easily
dispersed by wind. Such emissions
differ substantially based on the
techniques used and the
composition of the ore, even within
subsectors.
 Minerals extraction activities
may lead to substantial emissions
of PM10 equivalent to around
4.4% of total industrial emissions
covered by the IED (E-PRTR
data).
 Extractive waste resulting from
mining activities is regulated by a
dedicated directive, (Extractive
Waste Directive 2006/21/EC) and a
BREF on management of
extractive wastes is already
available.
 Potential benefits are likely to
outweigh costs, especially for the
extraction and treatment of metallic
and industrial minerals.
 For quarrying, i.e. extraction of
aggregates, given the fewer
environmental issues and higher
number of sites, benefits are not
expected to outweigh costs.
 It is concluded to focus the scope
of the measure on only extraction
and treatment of metallic and
industrial minerals. It is
estimated that this would include
c. 800-900 “minerals extraction”
installations to be regulated
under the IED.
PO5-e Include
Aquaculture in
 The demand for seafood is
expected to increase; European
 In 2018 there were about 15 000
aquaculture companies in the EU,
680
Option
N°
Policy measure Key impacts of the activities Summary of evidence
the IED scope
IED#42
aquaculture can help to meet that
demand.
 There is a driver for a more
sustainable and competitive EU
aquaculture sector (aquaculture
was identified to contribute to the
EGD objective).
 Environmental impacts from the
sector mainly relate to water
pollution (N and P), waste
generation and use of resources.
 Aquaculture contributes to nutrient
build-ups in the case of open water
aquaculture (cages), which can lead
to eutrophication and/or
nitrification from non-consumed
feed, faeces, dead fish.
 Depending on feed material,
pharmaceutical products, growth
promoters, antibiotics, and anti-
algae biocides can leach into the
surrounding aquatic environment,
impacting other species, causing
localised pollution and leading to
anti-microbial resistance.
 The measure could facilitate a level
playing field in the EU in terms of
preventing and controlling
environmental pollution.
employing 69 000 people and
producing 1.2 million tonnes of
produce.
 There are between 55 and 250
aquaculture installations which
produce >1000t a year.
 Approx. 90% of aquaculture
enterprises in the EU employ fewer
than 10 people.
 Members States with the highest
levels of production are Spain,
France, Italy and Greece.
 Aquaculture may not contribute
significantly to the emissions of
pollutants regulated by the IED,
apart from nutrient emissions to
water.
 Further evidence on the
environmental, social and
economic impacts of the sector at
EU level is currently being
compiled, e.g. as part of the
implementation of the Strategic
Guidelines for a more sustainable
and competitive EU aquaculture
(COM/2021/236 final).
PO5-f Include
Upstream oil
and gas in the
IED scope
IED#43
 Environmental impacts from
hydrocarbon operations may include
impacts to air, climate, water (surface
and subsurface), noise, soil and
subsurface geology and biodiversity.
There is potential for the
modification and/or destruction of
species habitat, and the disturbance
and displacement of flora and fauna.
 Flaring, venting and fugitive
emissions are widely recognised as
a source of GHGs and air
pollution. Methane is a primary
constituent of produced gas.
 Furthermore, handling and storage of
chemicals is required for a variety of
operations.
 Conventional offshore oil and gas
extraction is contracting as a sector,
although potential for unconventional
gas to expand.
 There are around 1 000-2 000
installations (offshore and onshore)
in the EU.
 The Member States with most
offshore installations in the EU27
include Germany, Denmark,
Ireland, Netherlands, and Spain.
 Upstream oil and gas
installations appear to contribute
around 0.75% of NOx totals in
the IED and 1.75% of NMVOC
totals. The measure is likely to
have a positive impact on air
quality
 Upstream oil and gas industries
are covered by a "hydrocarbons"
BAT Guidance Document thus
best available techniques have
already been identified (2019).
NB This is solely “guidance”, not
mandatory for operators.
681
Option
N°
Policy measure Key impacts of the activities Summary of evidence
 Baseline scenario projections
suggest that, compared to 2020
levels, EU production of oil will be
10% lower in 2030 and
accelerating to 40% decrease in
2040. For natural gas, the EU
production is expected to drop by
20% by 2025 compared to 2020
levels, and then remain at this level
to 2040 (source: PRIMES).
 Other legislation and guidelines
applicable to the sector include the
Offshore Safety Directive and work
of the EU Offshore Authorities
Group (OAG), the Seveso III
Directive, and work under
international conventions such as
the Oslo and Paris (OSPAR) and
Barcelona Conventions. These
groups operate independently from
the EU albeit that the EU and its
Member States are generally
members of such groups.
 The inclusion of upstream oil and
gas activities within the scope of
the IED, and thus making binding
recommendations for BAT and
BAT-AELs for the sector
through a BAT Conclusions
document would be expected to
target methane releases as a key
environmental issue of the sector.
In this way, the measure would be
expected to contribute to the EU
Methane Strategy.
 Legislation specifically targeting
methane emissions from the
energy sector is expected in the
fourth quarter of 2021.
Additional administrative have been estimated to the extent that is possible and are
summarised in Table A10-6 below.
Table A10-6: Administrative burden from PO5-a to PO5-i
Policy options
Additional administrative
burden on businesses,
M€2020 annual average
over 20 years
Additional administrative
burden on public authorities,
M€2020 annual average over
20 years
PO5-a
IED#31
(+E-PRTR#20)
102-401
15.5
102-401
1
IED#32
(+E-PRTR#21)
80-194
13.4
80-194
1.5
IED#33 - 63-232 - 63-232
PO5-b
IED#34
(+E-PRTR#22)
0.6
0.1
0.8
0.007
682
Policy options
Additional administrative
burden on businesses,
M€2020 annual average
over 20 years
Additional administrative
burden on public authorities,
M€2020 annual average over
20 years
IED#36
(+E-PRTR#24)
6
0.6
4
0.03
IED#37
(+E-PRTR#25)
1
0.1
1
0.007
IED#38
(+E-PRTR#26)
7
1.8
5
0.07
PO5-c
IED#39 0 0
IED#40
(+E-PRTR#27)
Not available Not available
PO5-d
IED#41 12 8
PO5-e
IED#42 2 2
PO5-f
IED#43 23 15
PO5-g
E-PRTR#28 0.3 0.01
PO5-h
E-PRTR#29 5.5 0.30
E-PRTR#30 3.5 0.19
PO5-i
IED#44
(+E-PRTR#31)
N/A N/A
sub-total IED measures 170.6-414.6 154.8-398.8
sub-total E-PRTR measures (with
#29)
37.3 2.9
sub-total E-PRTR measures (with
#30)
35.3 2.8
Total - all PO5 measures 207.9-451.9€ (E-PRTR#29)
205.9-449.9 M€ (E-
PRTR#30)
157.7-401.7 M€ (E-
PRTR#29)
157.6-401.6 M€ (E-
PRTR#30)
683
Annex 11: Sector transformation case studies
Three case studies have been undertaken to illustrate how the expected industrial
transformation would impact pollutant emissions, GHG emission and use of resources, and
how this could affect the relevance of the IED and E-PRTR legal framework and coherence
and synergies with related legislation. These concern the following sectors:
1. Cement production: a sector where both CCS/CCU and circular economy are
expected to be important for the sector’s transformation;
2. Iron and steel: a sector considered particularly advanced in terms of development of
transformation technologies;
3. Downstream oil and gas (refining): a sector that will have to transform not only in
process or ways of using energy but also in terms of moving to renewable feedstock
materials.
The detailed case studies are included in the report from Ricardo supporting this impact
assessment. This annex provides a summary table and an overview table describing the
potential decarbonisation and transformation pathways and the related GHG and pollutant
emission impacts, the maturity of their development and the related challenges BREF
development and permitting under the IED.
684
Table A11-1: Key findings from the industrial transformation case studies
685
Table A11-2: Overview of the industrial transformation case studies
Sector Transformation
pathways
GHG impact Pollutant impact Technology maturity Challenges from IED perspective
Cement
1. Carbon Capture and
Utilisation / Storage
(CCU/S)
High albeit uncertain; could
reach up to 95% of baseline
emissions.
Unclear impacts on other
KEIs e.g., emission to
water, etc.
TRL 3-8, a number of pilot
projects and investments are
ongoing. VDZ/Cembureau
expects no or only a few full-
scale operations before 2030.
Decisions will be needed on whether to
base BAT on application of CCS. This
would lead to requiring large investments
from operators.
CCU/S is a technique applicable to
multiple sectors and is an IED activity in
itself. Hence a BREF may be developed to
define BAT for CCU/S. A technical
concern would be to ensure that CO2
‘leaks’ are avoided, as well as their
impacts on groundwater quality.
2. Alternative energy
source
i. Biomass and hydrogen
Medium (biomass &
hydrogen) to high
(electrification); with
abatement potential
reaching 100% of GHG
emissions from final energy
consumption (not process).
Dependent on the source of
energy used; use of suitable
waste only has a minor
influence on metal
emissions from the clinker
burning process; For
hydrogen, although overall
positive, high levels of NOx
possible.
TRL 3-9, highest TRLs for
biomass, lowest for
electrification .
Cuts across multiple sectors.
For biomass and hydrogen, impact on
pollutant emissions can be positive or
negative (specifically NOx emissions in
the case of hydrogen), depending on
characteristics of alternative materials.
BAT-AELs can thus be a driver or a
barrier for increased substitution.
3. Alternative feedstock
i. Raw material
substitution in clinker,
including material
recovery and recycling
Medium to high;
Dependant on the substitute.
Generally, 20-30%
reduction but some binders
predicted to give up to 90%
GHG reduction compared to
Portland cement.
Uncertain, dependent on the
characteristics of the
alternative feedstock.
TRL 6-9, depending on the
substitute.
Impact on pollutant emissions can be
positive or negative, depending on
characteristics of alternative materials.
BAT-AELs for pollutants can thus be a
driver or a barrier for increased
substitution.
3. Alternative feedstock
ii. Clinker
substitution/novel
Low; Dependant on the
substitute. Ultimately will
depend on the quantities of
Positive impact relative to
amount of cement or
concrete produced; reduced
TRL 4-9, depending on the
substitute.
This is partly outside the scope and control
of IED cement manufacturing operators.
Depends on availability and on
686
Sector Transformation
pathways
GHG impact Pollutant impact Technology maturity Challenges from IED perspective
cement feedstock used which
depends on the application.
air pollution when fly ash or
blast furnace slag are used
in the process.
product/application, waste and by-product
standards.
4. New processes Low-Medium GHG impact,
could reach reduction of
1.1-6.8 kg CO2/t cement, or
3% reduction.
Positive impact on air
emissions due to improved
energy efficiency and
reduction of NOx emissions.
TRL 4-9, depending on the
process.
Few challenges, as the processes are
currently reported in the BREF. Updates
would be required.
Iron
and
steel
1. CCU/S
i. Top gas recycling
Medium; reduced direct
emissions and 65%
secondary reduction.
Positive impact on reducing
air pollutant emissions,
including SO2.
Varying degree of technology
readiness. Steelanol and
Carbon2Chem22 are more
mature (TRL 6-8). IGAR
technology is in the
development phase (TRL 4).
Substantial modifications are required in
the industrial processes and, therefore, a
BREF update and/or review of BAT
Conclusions would be needed to take this
into account.
1. CCU/S
ii. STEPWISE (SEWGS
technology)
High; potential to reduce
emissions by 75%. SEWGS
is a multi-column reactive
hot Pressure Swing
Adsorption (PSA) system
where three processes are
combined in one reactor: (1)
water-gas shift reaction, (2)
CO2 adsorption, (3)
simultaneous acid gas
removal.
Slight increase in the air
pollution indicator; lower;
abiotic depletion potential,
Ozone Layer Depletion
Potential and Human
Toxicity Potential than for
the CCS with MEA.
The technology is in the
development phase having
been demonstrated in the
laboratory (TRL 4-5).
Substantial modifications are required in
the industrial processes and, therefore, a
BREF update and/or review of BAT
Conclusions would be needed to take this
into account.
2. Alternative energy
sources
i. Electrification
High; greater than 70%
reduction in emissions.
Depends on the source of
energy used for the
generation of electricity.
Overall, the air emissions
would be eliminated when
Some options are already
TRL 9, others will continue to
progress in this decade.
No direct challenges expected for the IED.
Electrified production technologies are
well understood for producing secondary
steel.
Electrification is a cross-cutting pathway
687
Sector Transformation
pathways
GHG impact Pollutant impact Technology maturity Challenges from IED perspective
renewables are used except
in cases of biomass or
geothermal energy.
raising horizontal issues related to the
energy production system that will have
impacts beyond the I&S sector.
2. Alternative energy
sources
ii. Biocoal (Torero
Project)
Medium; 30-70% emission
reduction due to lower
carbon intensity than coal.
Reduces the air emissions
linked to coke-making as
the energy source is
changed. The direct impact
of combustion in the steel-
making process is not
significant.
The technology is in the
deployment phase having
been demonstrated in a
prototype operational
environment (TRL 7-8,).
This process replaces powered coal with
wood waste-based coal. Minor impacts to
IED and existing process for steel making.
The Torero project captures carbon
monoxide from exhaust gas to be further
processed to bioethanol. Such processes
would require expanding/ updating the
sectoral BREF.
3. Alternative feedstocks
i. Hydrogen as a
reducing agent instead
of coal/ coke (H-DRI)
High; potential to reduce
GHG emissions by over
70%. However, the
reduction could vary
depending on the source of
hydrogen and the switch
from fossil fuels to
renewables to deliver the
demand for process energy.
Direct air emissions could
be significantly reduced;
whilst noting that the
technology would need very
large amounts of electricity
(3.5 TWh per million tonne
steel), in particular for the
preparation of water before
the electrolysis, and the
electrolysis process itself.
Positive impacts from lower
iron ore consumption, etc.
The technology is broadly in
the development phase,
demonstrated in controlled
environments (TRL 4-8).
Many different companies are
developing their own version:
tkH2Steel, Hybrit, GrINHy,
H2Steel (H2Future, SuSteel),
Hybrid Steel Making,
SALCOS; DILCOS
Would require updating BREF documents
for both hydrogen production and the
operational changes expected from
switching from coal/coke to hydrogen.
Hydrogen production is a cross-cutting
pathway across many IED activities.
4. New processes
i. Smelting reduction -
COREX
Low; reduced GHG
emission approximately
20%
Reduction by 30% NOX, no
VOC; significantly lower
SO2.
No need for coking; fuel
savings of 18%.
Waste generation: Lower
slag production (18%
Commercially available, with
several operational plants
(TRL 7-9).
Reported as emerging techniques in
existing BREF, although this will need
updating to keep up with innovation/
technological progress.
688
Sector Transformation
pathways
GHG impact Pollutant impact Technology maturity Challenges from IED perspective
reported).
4. New processes
ii. Smelting reduction -
FINEX
Low; less than 10% GHG
emission reduction.
Same as COREX above. Commercially available
Limitations relate to the
design and scale up of the
fluidised bed reactors (TRL
6-9).
Same as COREX above.
4. New processes
iii. Smelting reduction –
Hisarna
Medium; 20% carbon
emission reduction
compared to conventional
process, increases to 80% if
it is combined with CCS.
Reduction of the emission
of NOX, SOx and fine dust,
heavy metals and dioxins,
due to the elimination of
iron ore sintering and coke
making
Positive impacts on
reducing water consumption
and waste generation.
The technology is broadly in
the development phase,
demonstrated in controlled
environments (TRL 5-7).
Requires new plant, cannot be
retrofitted.
Hisarna employs an upgraded smelt
reduction process that processes iron ore
in a single step, eliminating coke ovens
and agglomeration. It is more efficient and
produces a concentrated CO2 stream.
Therefore, this would require updating
BREF documents for both hydrogen
production and the operational changes
expected from switching from coal/coke to
hydrogen.
4. New processes
iv. Advanced Mineral
Recovery Technology
(AMRT)
Low; a novel EAF
technology which can smelt
red mud (the waste product
from alumina production-
Bayer process). Emission
reduction would be below
30%.
No major change in air,
water, or soil emissions.
Positive impact on reducing
consumption of virgin
material and slightly
reduced energy demand.
A prototype of the technology
has been demonstrated in an
operational environment
(TRL 7). No strong economic
case.
Generally reported as emerging techniques
in existing BREF, although this will need
updating to keep up with innovation/
technological progress.
4. New processes
v. Iron ore Electrolysis
High; the process achieves a
potential 100% reduction in
direct CO2 process
emissions. Total reduction
depends on carbon intensity
of power sector.
Positive impact across the
emission of all pollutants to
air, water, and soil.
Positive impact expected
regarding energy use and
resource efficiency.
The technology is still in the
research phase (TRL 2-3).
There are four projects in the
early stage of developing the
process ULCOLYSIS,
ULCOWIN, SIDERWIN,
Boston Metal.
Electrolysis of iron ore does not require
coke ovens or blast furnaces and operates
with electricity as its primary energy
input. This is a significant difference to
existing processes detailed in the I&S
BREF.
The process is heavily dependent on
electricity and, therefore, environmental
689
Sector Transformation
pathways
GHG impact Pollutant impact Technology maturity Challenges from IED perspective
impacts would depend on power sector
decarbonisation.
O&G
refineries
1. CCU/S High albeit uncertain; could
reach up to 95% of baseline
emissions
Unclear impacts on other
KEIs e.g., emission to
water, etc.
TRL 3-9, some investments
already at commercial stage.
Evidence from FuelsEurope
suggests first-of-a-kind in
2021 and 13 new plants in
2030.
There are commercial CCU
plants in O&G sector, for
example in Jubail, Middle
East since 2015 with German
(Linde) technology. Sabic is a
leading petrochemicals
corporation.
Decision on whether to base BAT on
application of CCU/S; BREF updates
and/or new BREF required.
CCU/S cover techniques applicable to
multiple sectors and is an IED activity,
hence a BREF may be developed to define
BAT for CCU/S. A technical concern
would be ensuring that the CO2 remains
stored/avoiding leaks.
This could lead to needing large
investments from operators.
2. Alternative sources of
energy (e.g. renewable
energy)
High; with abatement
potential reaching 100% of
GHG emissions from final
energy consumption (not
process).
Expect an overall positive
impact when compared to
conventional sources.
Some options are already
TRL 9, others will continue to
progress in this decade.
Cuts across multiple sectors; BAT-AELs
can be drivers or barriers for deployment,
where sources can increase the emissions
of some pollutants (e.g. H2, biomass).
3. Alternative feedstocks
(e.g. biocrude)
High; the use of biocrude
emits 65-85% less CO2e
than petroleum, depending
on the suitability of the
biomass source.
Some potential negative
impacts, such as emissions
of NOx (up to 20%) and
NH3 during the production
of vegetable oils with
potential increases of O3
and acidification problems.
TRL 3-7, with hydro-treated
vegetable oils (HVO) TRL 9,
starting in 2024 and 10 plants
by 2030. Other options start
later in the decade.
Activity currently “Mineral Oil refinery”
in Annex I may need to be updated to a
term that covers a wider pool of
feedstocks.
No major challenges are expected since
manufacturing processes are very similar
to other well-known processes covered by
existing REF BREF (and LVOC BREF).
The existing REF BREF has a section for
hydrogen-consuming processes that could
be updated to cover HVO production (now
690
Sector Transformation
pathways
GHG impact Pollutant impact Technology maturity Challenges from IED perspective
in emerging technique section).
4. New processes (a
number of options e.g.
power-to-liquid to
manufacture synthetic
fuels)
High albeit uncertain;
depends. Some processes
involve a circular carbon
cycle. On the power-to-
liquid example, it is
assumed that the hydrogen
employed will be generated
with renewable electricity.
Potentially lower emissions
to air when compared to
conventional fuel
production, although
uncertain.
TRL 6-8; first-of-a-kind
likely in 2025, and 5 new
plants in 2030 (FuelsEurope
Report).
No disruptive policy challenges are
expected as BREF processes are already
likely to cover these aspects even if
outside of the REF BREF (e.g. LVOC).
Using CO2 as a feedstock would not
require an “end of waste” criteria since it
is already used in other processes such as
soft drinks.
691
Annex 12: Screening Methodology and List of Screened-out
Measures for the Revision of the IED
This Annex contains the list of measures that were contemplated, but that were then
progressively screened out for the IED revision. The methodology adopted to achieve this is
discussed, and then the results presented. Annex 14 separately presents those measures that
were screened out for the revision of the E-PRTR regulation.
More than one-hundred and thirty policy measures were initially developed and
considered in this study. Of these, over ninety measures were discarded from the in-depth
impact assessment as a result of a thorough screening exercise, in line with the European
Commission Better Regulation Guidance.
The criteria for screening the policy measures were developed in accordance with Tool #17
of the European Commission Better Regulation Toolbox23
and agreed in advance between the
external contractors and the European Commission. The criteria are outlined below.
1. Legal feasibility: Policy measures must respect the principle of conferral. They
should also respect any obligation arising from the EU Treaties (and relevant
international agreements) and ensure respect of fundamental rights. Legal obligations
incorporated in existing primary or secondary EU legislation may also rule out certain
options. Therefore, it was considered whether measures were compatible with EU
law, and obligations arising from the EU treaties and international agreements, via
answering these three questions:
 Is the measure compatible with EU Treaties?
 Is the measure legally feasible to implement and enforce?
 Will the measure respect fundamental rights?
2. Technical feasibility: A second important criteria to consider is whether each
measure may be technologically and technically feasible to implement, monitor and
enforce, including by answering:
 Would the measure be technologically and technically possible to implement the
measure?
 Is there a system in place to monitor the implementation and impact of the
measure (or could it be established)?
 Would Member States’ Authorities be able to inspect and enforce any possible
sanctions under the measure?
3. Stakeholder acceptability: Another criterion that is important to establish is whether
the measure could garner the necessary stakeholder support for legislative adoption at
the EU and MS level, including by answering:
23
Tool #17. How to identify policy options. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-
regulation-toolbox-17_en_0.pdf
692
 Is the measure consistent with EU-level and MS policies and public positions?
 Does the measure instil legislative certainty?
 Could the measure cause competitive distortion (e.g. by limiting the growth of
certain industries or creating discrimination between industries based in different
Member States)?
4. Effectiveness: the fourth criterion considered is the extent to which each measure
could contribute to addressing the specific problem and/or meeting the objectives that
it is seeking to address, both specifically for the IED and the wider setting of the
Commission’s priorities in the short-, medium- and long-term. The following
questions guided this exploration:
 To what extent could the measure contribute the protecting the environment by
reducing pollution (concerning air, water, soil and waste) and/or the use of
potentially toxic substances?
 To what extent could the measure contribute to achieving climate neutrality by
2050 and/or a more circular use of resources?
 Does the measure directly promote or incentivise investment in technological
innovation and/or rapid uptake of state-of-the-art technologies that can reduce the
environmental footprint of industrial activities?
5. Efficiency: At a high-level, the fifth criterion utilised analyses the extent to which
measures can improve social, economic and environmental welfare in an efficient
way, especially when compared to the alternatives. The following queries guided the
assessment:
 Could the measure have significant, positive social and environmental impacts
e.g. reduced pollution, lower GHG emissions, lower use of resources, more green
jobs, etc.?
 Could the measure have a high-cost burden on consumers, businesses and/or
public institutions e.g. higher price of consumer goods, lower production
efficiency, etc.?
 How do the expected benefits and costs compare?
6. Proportionality: This criterion determines the extent to which the measure can
address the problem that is targeting in a way that is proportionate to the costs or
constraints that may arise from implementing the measure. The following questions
guided this:
 To what extent are the costs resulting from the regulatory actions taken by the EU
are proportionate to the potential environmental and health benefits?
 Could the measure disproportionately impact smaller companies?
693
7. EU added value: It is also important to consider the likely advantages of EU-level
intervention to resolve these problems, compared to actions at the national level,
including but not only by answering the following:
 Could the measure result in a more consistent approach across the EU than
national-level alternatives?
 To what extent could the measure help raise standards in Member States lagging
behind on environmental protection?
 To what extent would the measure be more cost-effective at the EU versus
national level?
8. Coherence: The last criterion considers the compatibility of each potential measure
with existing and ongoing policy frameworks (also where being currently subject to
dynamic revision) at the international and EU level (e.g. European Green Deal,
Chemical Strategy for Sustainability, EU ETS legislation, E-PRTR, and the Urban
Waste Water Treatment Directive). In particular, the experts assessing this were
guided by the following queries:
 Is the measure compatible with EU acquis?
 Is the measure coherent with the objectives and/or actions set out in the European
Green Deal, the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability, EU ETS, E-PRTR and
UWWTD revisions, etc.?
The screening analysis was carried out by a team of experts, employing available evidence
available, especially from the recent IED evaluation study, and expert judgement. These
experts scored the measures against each of these criteria: 5-high score, 3-medium score, and
1-low score, or any integer in between.
The project team developed general guidelines outlined in Table A12-1 as to what constituted
the score for each criterion. These general guidelines aimed at providing consistency to the
task from the start, although the screening process was iterative. However, the experts
carrying out this task had multiple opportunities to come together and calibrate their
assessment effectively and collectively, based on the evidence available.
Table A12-1: General guidelines for scoring across each criterion
Criteria (5) High score (3) Medium score (1) Low score
1 -Legal feasibility Compatible with EU Treaties,
and legally instruments to
implement and enforce are
available.
Compatible with EU Treaties,
but some doubts as to whether
legal instruments are readily
available to implement and
enforce.
Not compatible with EU
Treaties or no legal
instruments available.
2 -Technical
feasibility
Technology and techniques
available to implement,
monitor, inspect and enforce
measure.
Technology and techniques
available to implement
measure, but doubts on how
to monitor, inspect, and
enforce measure.
Measure cannot be
implemented technically, or
measure cannot be enforced,
inspected, or monitored.
694
Criteria (5) High score (3) Medium score (1) Low score
3 -Stakeholder
acceptability
Consistent with policies and
public positions, instils
certainty and does not cause
distortions.
Consistent with policies, but
not necessarily fitting with
public positions or instil
certainty.
Inconsistent with current
policies, not necessarily
fitting with public positions,
may not instil certainty and
could cause unwanted market
distortions.
4 -Effectiveness Contributes significant/clearly
to one or two of: protecting
environment, climate
neutrality, circular use of
resources, encouraging
innovation.
Contributes, potentially, to
one or two of: protecting
environment, climate
neutrality, circular use of
resources, encouraging
innovation.
Doubtful contribution to any
of: protecting environment,
climate neutrality, circular use
of resources, encouraging
innovation.
5 -Efficiency Evidence of clear balance of
benefits to limited costs or
significant benefits to some
acceptable/ proportionate
costs.
Doubtful evidence on benefits
but limited costs, or clear
evidence on strong benefits
and doubtful evidence on
potentially high costs.
Limited expected or high
uncertainty on benefits, but
some or clear evidence on
high costs.
6 -Proportionality Benefits are high and/or
address objectives at the
lowest possible cost, based on
evidence. SMEs not impacted
disproportionately.
Benefits are high and/or
address objectives at
relatively low cost, based on
evidence, but SMEs affected
disproportionately.
Costs are too high compared
to potential benefits -e.g.
industry struggles to compete,
etc.- based on evidence.
SMEs affected
disproportionately.
7 -EU value added Bringing more consistency
across the EU, raising
standards across countries,
and more cost-effective at
EU-level.
Clear evidence on one or two
of: Bringing more consistency
across the EU, raising
standards in some countries,
and more cost-effective at
EU-level.
Unclear evidence on any of:
More consistency across the
EU, raising standards across
countries, and more cost-
effective at EU-level.
8 -Coherence Compatible with EU acquis
and coherent with the
objectives of EU plans/
strategies.
Compatible with EU acquis
and coherent with the
objectives of EU plans/
strategies.
Not compatible with EU
acquis or coherent with a
limited set of EU
plans/strategies' objectives.
The output of this exercise is a robust and consistent shortlist of retained policy measures
selected to tackle the problem drivers, areas and consequences identified and taken forward
for an in-depth assessment of their potential impacts.
The measures were grouped according to the same 6 problem areas that were used at the
outset of the IED Impact Assessment, i.e., those utilised in the breakdown of IED issues
consulted upon in the Targeted Stakeholder Survey. These six problem areas are:
1. The environment is polluted (split by zero pollution ambition and non-toxic
environment)
2. Climate crisis is happening
695
3. Natural resources are being depleted
4. Innovation - State of the art techniques cannot respond satisfactorily to problem areas
#1 to #3
5. Private individuals have limited opportunities to get informed about, and take action
regarding impacts caused by (agro-)industrial plants
6. Excessive burdens may affect the efficiency of policy instrument(s)
(It should be noted that the “problems areas” approach was partly revised when converted
into Policy Options, as discussed in the main SWD report body, and e.g., SWD Annexes 7
and 12.)
Ninety measures were discarded from the in-depth impact assessment via adopting the
above qualitative but objective process. Of these, ninety discarded measures:
 Over seventy measures were identified to have overlaps with other measures
and/or there were better alternatives available to tackle the problems targeted; that is,
they were replaced by better alternatives. Most measures were discarded, and instead
are incorporated - via being expected at a future date to be taken forward - as part of
the baseline (i.e., BAU going forward in a natural adaptive evolution), or where their
score was assessed to be, on average, below “medium” levels across the agreed
criteria. These measures are outlined in a table below.
 Over twenty measures were identified as legal measures or amendments with a
low likelihood of any significant impacts. These measures mostly focussed on
legislative simplification and/or update, and as such not required to be subject to the
impact assessment process. These measures are outlined subsequently in Table A12-3.
Table A12-2 gives an overview of each policy measure that has been discarded, as assembled
by “Problem Area” group, as well as a brief summary of the reason(s) for the measure to be
discarded.
Table A12-2: Discarded policy measures and broad rationale
Discarded policy measures Broad rationale
Include Data Centres under scope of the IED. The environmental issues surrounding data centres mainly
relate to product-related energy use consumption for the
devices per se, and their cooling (off-site electricity);
‘extended product’ systems such as these are better
regulated through standards and certification mechanisms
that are being developed, rather than BAT-based cross-
media permit conditions for data centres. . An extended
product approach is being pursued elsewhere in product
legislation and standardisation, which seems more
appropriate.
Extending the production capacity thresholds
for Medium Combustion Plants. Examine the
scope of Chapter III - Large Combustion Plants
(LCP), detailed under IED Article 28. Move the
ELVs have not yet come into force for all installations (entry
inforce for existing installations in 2025 and 2030),
depending on their size) and the first reporting on
implementation is not yet available (Member States are
696
Discarded policy measures Broad rationale
20-50 MWth capacity threshold from the
Medium Combustion Plant Directive (MCPD)
(Directive (EU) 2015/2193) to LCP. The main
driver for this revision is to align with the EU
ETS scope threshold.
required to report to the Commission in 2021, 2026 and
2031). It has also been cited that the MCPD is a good
example of Better Regulation, having been designed to be
affordable for SMEs and providing long-term certainty for
all economic operators concerned, whilst minimising the
administrative burden for both industry and Member States.
The MCPD “as is” should encourage continued innovation
and thus provide the opportunity for EU industry to share in
the rapidly growing global market for pollution control
technology. Bringing part or all of these MCPs under the
scope would create legal uncertainty until BAT conclusions
would be adopted, which would be unlikely in the coming
years.
Extend the current sectoral coverage to include
shipbuilding (other than coating) and ship
dismantling within the scope of the IED.
Shipbuilding is already partly covered under IED Activity
6.7, for the coating activity (being one of the main
environmental pressures from the activity). Shipbuilding and
repair installations that carry out coating activities with an
organic solvent consumption capacity of more than 150 kg
per hour or more than 200 tonnes per year are included in
the scope of the IED.
Furthermore, there is already a set of minimum requirements
for ship recycling facilities across the EU as a result of the
EU Ship Recycling Regulation (regulation (EU) No
1257/2013, which was based on the Hong Kong Convention
(2009) on transboundary movements of hazardous wastes
and their disposals to the ship recycling industry. This is
argued to already provide a (minimum) level playing field.
NB: this measure (IED#35) was discarded at a later stage
in the impact assessment.
Revise the scope of Chapter IV on waste
incineration detailed in Article 42(2) of the IED
Superseded by other measures considered in the SWD and
associated consultants’ report.
Thresholds for subdivisions of chemicals
industry.
The measure was excluded as evidence suggests it is
unlikely to lead to significant reductions in pollution and as
solutions are being developed as part of the BREF process to
target BAT-AELs on the main emissions, thereby addressing
potential inefficiencies.
Superseded by measures part of Problem Area 6, refocussed
on clarifying legal requirements.
Prohibit the indirect release of polluting
substances to water.
Evidence and expert judgement suggest that this measure is
likely to be technically infeasible, inefficient and ineffective
(especially). There were also doubts as to the EU value
added and questions about coherence with other water and
wastewater legislation at the EU level.
Delete the flexibility that presently allows the
setting of different ELVs in permit conditions
Evidence and expert judgement suggest that this measure is
likely to be technically infeasible, inefficient and ineffective
697
Discarded policy measures Broad rationale
in terms of values, periods of time and
reference conditions (IED Article 15(3[b]).
(especially). There were also doubts as to the EU value
added.
Add to the provisions of Article 15(3) to clarify
setting different ELVs in permit conditions in
terms of values, periods of time and reference
conditions.
Expert judgment concluded that this measure is unlikely to
be effective.
Further harmonisation, clarification or
provision of guidance on EU-wide definition of
(co)incineration, including pyrolysis, currently
left to each Member State.
Superseded by other measures considered in the SWD and
associated consultants’ report.
Extend the scope of current monitoring to
include the use of remote sensing data (e.g.
satellite data) to monitor air, water and/ or soil
quality at a distance.
Evidence and expert judgement suggest that this measure is
unlikely to be technically feasible and potentially
burdensome.
Extend the scope of monitoring/ reporting
concerning Article 15(4) derogations.
IED experts have confirmed that Article 16(1) monitoring
requirements cover installations with derogations granted
via Article 15(4). Therefore, no legal change is required.
Changes to the BREF exchange of information
process.
Burden and complexities of changes are expected to
outweigh the benefits.
Ensure greater cooperation/ harmonisation
between Member State competent authorities
and nature conservation agencies/ groundwater
control, including public consultation (IED
Article 26)
Merged with another measure that has been shortlisted.
Introduce requirements for continuous
monitoring and online reporting.
Evidence and expert judgement suggest that this measure is
unlikely to be technically feasible.
Formalise the legal basis of the EU Registry. Evidence and expert judgement suggest that this measure is
unlikely to be technically feasible or coherent with the
objectives of the E-PRTR.
Enhance public availability of baseline reports
and periodic monitoring results (including
regarding soil).
Already covered by Article 22 of the existing IED and EU
registry.
Option to reinforce Art. 25 (on access to
justice).
Overlaps with other measures, especially those
strengthening Article 24, which may indirectly reinforce
Article 25 through greater and easier access to information
as well as increased requirements for public participation.
Simplify the requirements for specific IED
chapters.
Superseded by a better alternative implementing the same
principle.
Remove redundant ELVs from the current IED
Annex V referred to in Chapter III or harmonise
with LCP BATC.
Evidence and expert judgement suggest that this measure is
unlikely to be effective.
Remove redundant ELVs from IED Annex VI Evidence and expert judgement suggest that this measure is
698
Discarded policy measures Broad rationale
referred to in Chapter IV or harmonise with WI
BATC.
unlikely to be effective.
Set-up a tailored regulatory permitting
framework for addressing emissions of
pollutants and GHGs from the IED agro-
activities.
Superseded by other measures considered in the SWD and
associated consultants’ report.
Modernise and merge Extractive Waste
directive (2006/ 21) into the IED.
Superseded by other measures considered in the SWD and
associated consultants’ report.
Merge the existing 1990s VOC Stage I directive
into the IED.
Expert judgement found this measure to be more complex
than potentially beneficial.
Move 20-40 MWth installations from MCPD to
LCP.
Superseded by other measures considered in the SWD and
associated consultants’ report.
Provide clarifications on the interaction
between the IED and ETS Directive.
Superseded by other measures considered in the SWD and
associated consultants’ report.
Rationalise overlaps between E-PRTR and IED
reporting requirements.
Superseded by other measures considered in the SWD and
associated consultants’ report.
Add specific thresholds to certain sub-activities
within activity 4 ‘Chemical industry’, e.g.,
pharmaceuticals, to account for lower scale
‘artisanal’ production.
Screened out, given that there is ongoing work in the WGC
BREF on transfer rates, i.e., expected to be addressed as part
of the baseline.
Amend the legislation to remove the ambiguity
on the approaches to be taken in accounting for
measurement uncertainty in compliance
assessments for LCPs and waste (co)-
incineration plants.
Superseded by other measures considered in the SWD and
associated consultants’ report.
Provide guidance on the implementation of
BAT conclusions in permits focussed on
establishing a more consistent approach across
the EU.
EC expects to address this as part of the baseline scenario.
Provide guidance on the implementation of IED
provisions concerning monitoring requirements
specifically for indirect releases to water and
emissions to soil (Articles 14, 15 and 16).
EC expects to address this as part of the baseline scenario.
Provide guidance on baseline reports submitted
for environmental protection and stringency of
requirements upon definitive cessation of
activities (Article 22).
EC expects to address this as part of the baseline scenario.
Provide guidance on how environmental
inspections shall be carried out across the EU
(Article 23).
EC expects to address this as part of the baseline scenario.
Facilitate peer-to-peer support among Member
States Competent Authorities for undertaking
mutual/joint environmental inspections.
EC expects to address this as part of the baseline scenario.
699
Discarded policy measures Broad rationale
Promote MS pilot projects for operators to link
and share their installations’ continuously
monitored emissions data with Member State
Competent Authorities and making such
information available to the public on the
Internet.
EC expects to address this as part of the baseline scenario.
Promote the setting of stricter ELVs Superseded by a better alternative implementing the same
principle.
Accelerated incorporation in BAT conclusions
of breakthrough technologies.
Superseded by a better alternative implementing the same
principle.
Set a forward-looking formal tiered approach
(as in Ecodesign) in sectoral BREFs.
Legal complexity and unclear evidence of cost and benefit
balance.
Establish stricter long-term BAT-AELs Superseded by a better alternative implementing the same
principle.
The pilot innovation observatory had identified
LIFE and ETV as funding schemes for ETs.
Potential links to accelerator funding via Green
Deal.
The IED would be unlikely to have access to specific
finance, and rather, would work to facilitate funding
opportunities through existing mechanisms.
Require the coverage of emerging techniques in
BREF processes.
Superseded by a better alternative implementing the same
principle.
Require the inclusion of long-term forecast
performance of emerging techniques in BREF
processes.
Superseded by a better alternative implementing the same
principle.
EC/EIPPCB to update BAT-AEL range (upper
and lower) every ‘x’ years.
Evidence and expert judgement suggest that this measure’s
complexity outweighs any potential benefits.
Requiring permit conditions to meet upper
BAT-AEL after 4 years of BATC adoption.
This can be achieved now without the need for IED
modifications. With the IED current status, any competent
authority could request the operators to meet the most
stringent value of the BAT-AEL (the lower end of the AEL
range).
Avoid "lock in" of good performance. Superseded by a better alternative implementing the same
principle.
Avoid marginal performance improvements.
Promote breakthroughs.
Superseded by a better alternative implementing the same
principle.
Provide guidance as suggested in Art 27 to
promote emerging techniques via MS.
Superseded by a better alternative implementing the same
principle.
Dynamic BAT-AEL concept Superseded by a better alternative implementing the same
principle.
Prohibit manufacture and use of REACH
SVHCs within industrial settings where BAT
identifies safer chemical alternatives.
This would already be possible via BREFs (the so-called
“negative BAT” prohibition mechanism).
700
Discarded policy measures Broad rationale
Introduce a requirement on operators to
quantify emissions.
Evidence and expert judgement suggest that this measure
may not be legally infeasible, and there are doubts as to how
efficient and effective it could be.
Continuous update of ELVs based on current
BAT conclusions.
This is already possible under current IED.
Mandate the development of ELVs for POPs to
stimulate their thermal destruction.
POPS should already be addressed in the baseline BREF
process and permits, where relevant.
Introduce reporting requirements so that, where
BAT identifies safer chemical alternatives for
SVHCs, the information is provided to ECHA
as part of the prioritisation process for
Authorisation.
Covered by another retained measure, where regular
reporting on progress and outcome is expected.
Introduce a requirement for MS’ competent
authorities to check the Water Framework
Directive’s priority substance exceedances for
relevant water bodies, when updating
environmental permits, and take this into
consideration for the permit.
Superseded by other measures considered in the SWD/
consultants’ report.
Encourage the systematic inclusion of
information on chemical substances of concern
developed under other legislation related to IED
and the availability of safer chemicals in the
BREF process and BAT conclusions.
EC expects to address this as part of the baseline scenario.
Delete IED Art. 9(2) regarding energy
efficiency-related BAT conclusions, i.e., thus
enabling mandatory action on energy
efficiency, even for activities covered by ETS.
Superseded by other measures considered in the SWD/
consultants’ report.
Inclusion of sectoral benchmarking in BREFs
to address e.g. energy use, water use, materials
use, waste generation per unit of installation
output.
The assessment suggested that this measure would lead to
confusion with other concepts and measures proposed, so it
was screened out to mitigate these.
Support industrial symbiosis through EU
guidance on good practices and the inclusion of
information in BREFs
Evidence and expert judgement suggest that there are doubts
as to how efficient and effective this measure could be.
Alternative measures were retained.
Set a forward-looking formal tiered approach
(as in Ecodesign) in sectoral BREFs.
Discarded due to legal complexity and unclear evidence of
cost and benefit balance.
Also establish “BNAT” (Best Not yet Available
Techniques) long-term benchmarks for stricter
long-term BAT-AELs.
Superseded by other measures considered in the SWD/
consultants’ report.
Update guidance on information exchange to
address issues associated with sharing
potentially confidential business information
when setting BAT-AEPLs.
EC expects to address this as part of the baseline scenario.
701
Discarded policy measures Broad rationale
Introduce an explicit reference to the binding
nature of resource efficiency BAT-AEPLs for
new permits and permit reviews.
EC expects to address this as part of the baseline scenario.
Introduce a requirement for the data outputs of
a shortlisted measure requiring a benchmarking
exercise to become inputs to the EU ETS
allocation of emission allowances.
Evidence and expert judgement suggest that this measure is
likely to be ineffective and inefficient, and would require
close alignment with EU ETS.
Expand scope of IED to cover agro-industrial,
GHG-intensive activities.
Covered by another measure in Problem Area 1.1.
Allow the granting of longer deadlines for BAT
implementation.
Covered by another measure in Problem Area 1.1.
Establish a financial and/or compensatory
mechanism to encourage investment in
breakthrough technologies.
The IED would be unlikely to have access to specific
finance, and rather, would work to facilitate funding
opportunities through existing mechanisms.
Undertake systematic data collection on GHG
emissions at the IED installation level within
the BREF process, for those installations and/or
emissions covered by the EU-ETS at an EU
level.
EC expects to address this as part of the baseline scenario.
Develop BAT-AELs systematically for direct
and indirect GHG emissions not covered by the
ETS. This shall include emissions of non-ETS
GHG by ETS installations and emissions of any
GHGs by non-ETS installations.
EC expects to address this as part of the baseline scenario.
As mentioned on page 4 of this Annex, of the more than ninety measures that were discarded
from the in-depth impact assessment via the thorough screening exercise, twenty-two
measures belonged to the second overall group of legal measures or amendments.
These legal measures/ amendments were identified as having a low likelihood of incurring
any significant impacts, instead being mostly focussed on legislative simplification and/or
updating measures. The pertinent measures that were deemed as not requiring detailed impact
assessment are outlined in Table A12-3 below.
Table A12-3: Policy measures focussed on clarifying and/or simplifying policy measures not
taken forward for the in-depth impact assessment
Legal policy measures Problem
Area
Recital 4 – update references to latest strategies 1
Recital 11 – amend references to Directive 85/337/EEC 1
702
Legal policy measures Problem
Area
Recital 19 – update strategy reference 1
Recital 20 – remove, obsolete 1
Recital 29 – update 1
Recital 28 – remove, obsolete 1
Recital 30 – remove, obsolete 1
Recital 43 – remove/update, obsolete 1
Article 30(9) – remove, obsolete 1
Article 31(3) – remove, obsolete 1
Article 32 – remove, obsolete 1
Article 34(1) – remove, obsolete 1
Article 35(2) – remove, obsolete [Art 35.1 expires end 2022] 1
Article 41 – remove, obsolete 1
Article 64 – consider if to remove or if EC still wishes to exchange further information 1
Article 72(3) and 72(4) – update to reflect reporting now to the Registry 1
Article 73(2) and 73(3) – remove, obsolete 1
Article 79 – update or remove 1
Article 80 – update 1
Article 81 (repeal) – remove, obsolete as now repealed 1
Article 82 (transitional provisions) – remove, obsolete. 1
Remove production of asbestos from Annex I. 1
703
Annex 13: Screening of measures (E-PRTR)
158 initial measures were developed. An initial screening was undertaken in order to test
their suitability and whether or not they should be retained for more detailed analysis. 24
were excluded from further analysis. The screening considered a set of criteria for
determining which measures to include as set out in BR Guidelines Tool #1724
. The
interpretation used of these criteria in this assessment has been as described below:
Legal feasibility: Measures must respect any obligation from EU Treaties, any relevant
international agreements and ensure and respect fundamental rights. Legal obligations
incorporated in existing or secondary EU legislation must also be taken into account. In
general, legal feasibility is not expected to be e a major issue.
Technical feasibility: Technological and technical constraints may impact implementation,
monitoring and/or enforcement of measures. While not directly technically unfeasible,
there could be cases where monitoring or measurements of certain pollutants/parameters
could be difficult.
Coherence with other EU policy objectives: Measures should be coherent with other
general EU policy objectives. Several of the problem/improvement areas come from a
desire to increase coherence by aligning definitions of sectors/activities or reporting
requirements.
Effectiveness and efficiency: This has been interpreted as the potential increased reporting
burden or costs of implementation that a measure may lead to. The main trade-off
relevant for the majority of the options will be between covering a large share of the
overall releases and facilities whilst limiting the reporting burden on a large number of
facilities.
Proportionality: Some measures may clearly have a poor balance in relation to the
importance of the additional releases or contextual data compared to the costs of
collecting them.
Political feasibility: Measures that would clearly fail to garner the necessary political support
for legislative adoption and/or implementation could also be discarded.
Relevance: When it can be shown that two options are not likely to differ materially in terms
of their significant impacts or their distribution, only one should be retained.
At this stage, the screening analysis was largely qualitative since it would not be possible to
conduct a more detailed analysis of such a long list of measures. Some of the required
information came from the recently completed Commission study on ‘Review of E-PRTR
implementation and related guidance’25
. Other more subjective and specific indicators (such
as political feasibility) have been informed by discussion with the Commission, taking into
account the results of the public and/or targeted consultation(s), reviewing the responses to
earlier consultations and/or expert judgement.
Each measure from the long list was given a corresponding colour: green, yellow or red;
green when the measure fulfils the criteria, yellow when it is not clear and red if not feasible.
24
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-17_en_0.pdf
25
https://europa.eu/!hm46gp
704
A measure was retained when considered green across all the criteria. If marked red on a
single criterion, then the measure was discussed with the Commission and excluded if
deemed appropriate. Measures marked as yellow (with or without green) were also retained
for further assessment.
The process was an iterative one, where the result of the impact assessment led to changes to
the definition of the measures. This helped to further elaborate the measures in terms of what
they would entail in practice and also to define the data assessment needs and to gather the
associated data.
Table 1 presents the discarded measures along with the reason for being screened out. In
addition, some measures, such as updates to guidance, were identified as baseline measures
and therefore not included in the more detailed analysis.
Table A13-1: Discarded measures
Problem
area
Measure Reason for screening out
5
2c – Include
combustion plants
between 1MW and 50
MW
It is anticipated that this measure would create a significant reporting
burden, due to the number of MCPs between 1-5 MWth. In addition, the
existing plants between 1-5MWth do not need to register under the
MCPD (Medium Combustion plants directive) until 2029.
5
4 – Revise thresholds
for biological
treatment of waste
Analysis of PRTR data with activity thresholds below the E-PRTR show
no facilities reporting releases or transfers undertaking biological
treatment of waste below the current E-PRTR activity threshold. It is
therefore anticipated that there will be a minimal increase in capture of
releases/transfers with a potentially high increase in reporting burden to
operators and Competent Authorities for the EU Registry dataflow.
5
13e – Revise activity
thresholds for urban
waste water treatment
plants (1,000 p.e)
Since the urban waste water treatment directive only defines requirements
for plants over 2,000 p.e (population equivalent) this measure would not
give full coherence and may be technically difficult for many Member
States due to not regulating facilities of this size. Additionally, this
measure could increase the reporting burden on operators and Competent
Authorities substantially.
5
15b – Include mixed
livestock farms
This measure overlaps too significantly with the option to update the
activity thresholds of activity 7(a) to LSU (thresholds of 150, 300 and 450
LSU are being considered) and as such was discarded. Updating the
threshold to LSU would also result in mixed livestock farms being
included within scope of the E-PRTR.
5
17 – Include data
centres in activity list
While data centres are potentially interesting in terms of energy usage the
majority of releases from these installations is expected to be from
combustion activities – often off-site. However, while some will likely be
regulated by the MCPD or even the LCPD and therefore fall under
activity 1(c), especially if the threshold for this activity is reduced.
However, many of the generators installed within these facilities are for
back-up purposes only and would not be expected to be in use except for
testing and emergencies so annual releases are not anticipated to be high
and likely below the ELVs specified in the IED and below E-PRTR
pollutant release thresholds. As such, this measure may be technically
difficult if emissions are not monitored from these sites and not result in
705
Problem
area
Measure Reason for screening out
many benefits with regards to additional capture of releases/transfers
compared to the increased reporting burden.
5
19 - Include new
activity of plastic
convertors
The level of release from this activity is not well understood beyond
releases of micro-plastics and, as the European Plastics Convertors
association (EuPC) identifies that there are around 50,000 medium and
small plastic convertor businesses across Europe, it is anticipated that the
increased reporting burden would outweigh the benefits of capturing the
potentially low releases and transfers from this activity.
5
22 – Include an
additional sub sector
for forging presses
This activity is not included as a specific sector for the development of
ELVs in the Ferrous Metals Processing Industries BREF and therefore not
thought to be a sector of high environmental concern. The additional
reporting burden, and associated costs, is therefore likely to outweigh the
benefits of capturing releases/transfers from this activity.
5
24 – Include and
additional sub activity
for metal working
With the variety of activities that fall under metal working it is difficult to
define a production-based throughput threshold and potentially emission
factors / methodology to calculate releases for these activities.
5
25 – Include intensive
horticulture activities
in activity list
While contextual information such as consumption levels may be useful
from this activity, the majority of these facilities have a closed loop
system and therefore releases are expected to be low. In addition, it is
unknown if measurement methodologies and emission factors are
available for this activity. As such the increased burden, and associated
costs, are unlikely to be outweighed by the benefit of capture of a small
number of releases from this activity.
5
26 – Include petrol
storage
Depending on the reporting threshold, this could potentially result in a
large number of additional facilities reporting to the E-PRTR. The
additional VOC releases this would include within the E-PRTR is
unlikely to outweigh the additional reporting burden and associated costs.
1
34 - Remove the
pollutant reporting
thresholds
Potential for considerable additional reporting burden in return for a small
marginal improvement in data completeness.
3
36u – Include
fluorinated ethers and
alcohols in the Annex
II pollutant list
This is a very broad pollutant group definition and therefore there are no
harmonised methods of measurement for this group of pollutants,
although there are methods for specific substances. Additionally, as the
pollutant group definition is so broad it is not anticipated to increase the
value of the E-PRTR dataset and as such the increased reporting burden,
and associated costs, will outweigh the benefits.
3
36ab - Additional
pollutants for inclusion
- microplastics26
There is no harmonised method for measurement of microplastics. A 2009
report from NOAA includes “Methods to isolate microplastics from
surface waters (net tows, filters), sediments, and organisms are
desperately needed before further progress can be made in this
field.”27
3
36ae – Additional
pollutants for inclusion
- nitrogen trifluoride
(NF3)
No measurement methodology was identified. As such this pollutant
should not be included in the Annex II pollutant list yet.
3 36aw – Additional While this pollutant is already required to be monitored under the IED
26
Materials consisting of solid polymer-containing particles, where ≥ 1% w/w of particles have (i) all dimensions 1nm ≤ x ≤
5mm, or (ii), for fibres, a length of 3nm ≤ x ≤ 15mm and length to diameter ratio of >3.
706
Problem
area
Measure Reason for screening out
pollutants for inclusion
- Total suspended
particulate (TSP)
Annex II, TSP is the same as total dust. Particulate Matter of a small size
is considered far more important to human health and PM10 is already
included in the pollutant list. The addition of this outdated pollutant is
therefore not expected to increase the value of the dataset. As such the
increased reporting burden, and associated costs, will outweigh the
benefits.
1
47a – Reduce
reporting period to 3
months for all facilities
While reducing the reporting period to three months from the end of the
reporting year would decrease the time before the data is available to the
public, with the current reporting infrastructure, this could reduce data
quality or require a large increase in resource from MS competent
authorities. This will be especially difficult for entities that are regulated
at the local level and where data passes through a chain of competent
authorities. This increased burden on competent authorities will likely
result in this option failing to get the necessary political support.
1
47b – Reduce
reporting period to 3
months for some
facilities
As with the previous measure, this is likely to reduce the data quality or
require a large increase in resource from MS competent authorities,
although the staggered approach would not require as large an increase in
resource. This increased burden on competent authorities will likely result
in this option failing to get the necessary political support.
1
48 – Require
simultaneous direct
reporting to EEA as
well as to competent
authorities
This measure has the potential to reduce the reporting time lag however
would require a significant increase in resource within the EEA in order to
undertake the simultaneous QA. Additionally, the QA undertaken by
CAs, especially the more local authorities, that are closer to the facilities
reporting and have a better understanding of what is expected from them
is more likely to identify errors than that done by the EEA. This measure
could therefore reduce the E-PRTR data quality. This measure is also
procedurally very complex due to the parallel reporting flows and is
therefore unlikely to garner the necessary political support.
1
49 – Near real time
reporting for CEMs
The data collected by CEMS are principally for compliance assessment
under the IED and are fundamentally different to E-PRTR release/transfer
data. In addition, CEMS data would represent a considerable additional
burden on the E-PRTR reporting infrastructure and there are concerns
with ensuring data quality / understandability.
3
50 – Operators to
establish a mandatory
CMS
It would not be possible to implement this measure through the E-PRTR
legislation.
1
54 - Integrate IED
monitoring with E-
PRTR reporting
It is anticipated that this measure would fail to garner the necessary
political support for legislative adoption.
1
55 – Mandate
reporting of expected
pollutants for specific
installations
It is anticipated that this measure would fail to garner the necessary
political support for legislative adoption.
1
63 – Create a data
reliability indicator
This measure would provide relatively little benefit above the existing E-
PRTR requirement for operators to indicate whether data is measured,
calculated or estimated.
1
64 – Remove reporting
of releases to soil
Whilst the existing data on releases to soil is poor by comparison with
data on releases to air and water, it remains an important component of
understanding the environmental impact of facilities.
707
Annex 14: Description of the Industrial Emissions Directive
Overview of Sectors Covered, Intervention Tools Available
within the IED and Implementation Methods [Excerpt
from the IED Evaluation, SWD(2020)182 final]
This Annex contains a description of the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU; this
description comes directly from the IED Evaluation carried out in 2020, the results of
which were presented in SWD(2020)182 final.
Section 1 of the excerpt gives some background to the 2020 Evaluation, and the
description of the IED per se is contained in Section 2.
Below is an excerpt of the above Staff Working Document, from Section 1 to Section
2 (sub-sections 2.1 to 2.4 inclusive) of the SWD Evaluation Report, pp. 5-17. The
page numbering has been altered slightly by reformatting into the present version,
but the content is reproduced in full.
--------------------------------
SWD Excerpt, pp.5-17 [citing from original pagination, SWD(2020)182 final].
1. INTRODUCTION
This evaluation is being completed while the EU is working to implement the European
Green Deal Communication adopted in December 201928
. This Staff Working Document
(SWD) provides therefore important elements for informing this work, in particular with
regard to the Zero Pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment.
The Industrial Emissions Directive29
2010/75/EU (IED) is the main instrument in place at
the EU level to control and mitigate the environmental and human health impacts from
industrial emissions in the EU. The IED regulates around 52 000 of the largest industrial
installations covering a range of agro-industrial sectors. These include: power plants,
refineries, and production of steel, non-ferrous metals, cement, lime, glass, chemicals,
pulp and paper, food and drink as well as waste treatment and incineration and the
intensive rearing of pigs and poultry. The general objective of the IED is to prevent,
reduce and eliminate as far as possible emissions into air, water and soil and remediate
soil pollution arising from industrial activities.
The IED installations account for about 20% of pollutant emissions by mass to air and a
similar share of emissions to water. While IED sectors are large GHG emitters (around
40% of total EU GHG emissions), their CO2 emissions are mainly regulated under the
EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and, as stipulated by the IED itself, their IED
permit shall not include an emission limit value for that gas. Nevertheless, there are a
number of IED installations whose CO2 emissions are not regulated by the ETS, and
28
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-green-deal-communication-annex-
roadmap_en.pdf
29
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/ied/legislation.htm
708
there are emissions of GHGs other than CO2 from IED installations, most of which are
not regulated by the ETS. Altogether, it is estimated that around 10% of GHG emissions
of IED plants are not covered by the ETS, representing around 4% of total EU GHG
emissions30
.
This evaluation provides a particularly timely opportunity to assess how well the current
legal framework on industrial emissions is working, how relevant it remains in light of
the stated EU policy ambitions, and the degree to which it achieved its intended impacts.
It includes a review of the implementation of the IED based on Member States reports
and complementary information held by the Commission.
The evaluation has been carried out in line with the European Commission's Better
Regulation guidelines31
. Evidence gathering and its analysis was carried out with the
support of independent experts. This SWD was supported by their report32
. Other
evaluations have recently been concluded for legislation with which the IED interacts
strongly, notably on air quality33
, water management34
, and urban waste water
treatment35
. The relevant aspects of those interactions have been considered in this
evaluation.
The general public, industrial stakeholders, public authorities, and representatives of civil
society have been consulted throughout the process. The evaluation assesses the
legislation against the five standard criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence,
relevance and EU-added value. It primarily covers the period from adoption of the IED,
in 2010, to the present; however, in some aspects (e.g. emissions of large combustion
plants), it was pertinent to look back further to its predecessor legislation.
In terms of legislation, the evaluation covers the IED, including the information
exchange process for elaborating Best Available Techniques Reference Documents
(BREFs)36
. It covers all activities within the scope of Annex I to the IED and the whole
of the EU. It also covers the following main implementing decisions adopted under the
IED that govern its implementation:
 the Commission Decision setting up the IED Forum37
;
 the BREF Guidance38
.
30
Estimation based on E-PRTR data.
31
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-
why-and-how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en
32
Ricardo Energy & Environment, Umweltbundesamt (AT), Milieu (2020) ‚”Support to the evaluation of
the Industrial Emissions Directive (Directive 2010/75/EU)”, https://europa.eu/!nY63hc
33
SWD(2019) 427 final,
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/SWD_2019_427_F1_AAQ%20Fitness%20Check.pdf
34
SWD(2019) 439 final,
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/fitness_check_of_the_eu_water_legislation/documents/Water
%20Fitness%20Check%20-%20SWD(2019)439%20-%20web.pdf
35
SWD(2019) 700 final, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
urbanwaste/pdf/UWWTD%20Evaluation%20SWD%20448-701%20web.pdf
36
This is referred to as the “BREF process” and is described in detail in Section 3.3.
37
2011/C 146/03, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011D0517(01)
38
2012/119/EU, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2012.063.01.0001.01.ENG
709
The 17 implementing decisions containing the conclusions on Best Available Techniques
(BAT conclusions) adopted so far under the IED are not individually assessed as part of
the evaluation, but are indirectly addressed as a whole for the following reasons:
 The process to derive the BAT conclusions is analysed in detail and applies to all
those adopted;
 The effectiveness of the IED is mainly the cumulative effectiveness of the
implementation of the BAT conclusions;
 Most evaluation questions, e.g. on efficiency, apply to the BREF process, and
consequently to the drawing up of all BAT conclusions. Where issues specific to
individual BAT conclusions have been raised (usually by stakeholders) or
assessed in studies, they have been documented.
A number of other implementing acts adopted under the IED have not been included in
the evaluation. These are the following ones:
 Implementing rules on the determination of start-up and shut-down periods for
large combustion plants39
are not included because they cover a very specific
technical issue;
 Implementing rules on transitional national plans40
for ensuring compliance of
Large Combustion Plants (LCPs) with IED requirements are time-limited and all
expire in 2020;
 Implementing rules for Member State reporting41
are not addressed, but they
provide some of the data used in the evaluation.
This evaluation will also feed into an Impact Assessment on the revision of the IED,
seeking to ensure its fullest contribution to the Zero Pollution ambition and coherence
with other policy objectives, such as industrial decarbonisation, also taking note of the
Masterplan42
adopted by the High Level Group on Energy Intensive Industries, and a
cleaner and more circular economy to the benefit of both public health and enhanced
resilience of natural ecosystems, in line with the European Green Deal Communication.
2. BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION
2.1. Description of the intervention and its objectives
Industry is responsible for a significant share of overall environmental impacts. The IED
is the main EU legislation regulating the environmental impacts of large agro-industrial
sources. It combines and strengthens requirements previously set under seven different
EU Directives (see Annex 5 for details of legal instruments), namely:
 The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPCD)43
 The Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCPD) 44
39
2012/249/EU, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32012D0249
40
2012/115/EU, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012D0115
41
(EU) 2018/1135, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018D1135
42
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/38403
43
Directive 2008/1/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0001
44
Directive 2001/80/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32001L0080
710
 The Waste Incineration Directive (WID) 45
 The Solvent Emissions Directive (SED)46
 Council Directive 78/176/EEC on waste from the titanium dioxide industry47
 Council Directive 82/883/EEC on procedures for the surveillance and monitoring
of environments concerned by waste from the titanium dioxide industry48
 Council Directive 92/112/EEC on procedures for harmonising the programmes
for the reduction and eventual elimination of pollution caused by waste from the
titanium dioxide industry49
As an example of better regulation, the IED was introduced following a review of the
industrial pollution policy framework50
. The motivation was to further control industrial
pollution, while simplifying regulations, lowering the administrative burden, and
improving enforcement. It aimed to support innovation and provide better coherence with
other aspects of EU environmental policy acquis (specifically concerning air, water, soil,
waste, circular economy).
2.2. Objectives of the IED and problems it is intended to solve
The IED is intended to respond to a number of needs. The first is to support a high level
of protection of human health and the environment by preventing, reducing and
eliminating, as far as possible, adverse impacts arising from industrial activities (e.g.
emissions to air, water and soil, waste, resource consumption). The second is to ensure a
level playing field for operators within sectors and across the EU for industrial pollution
prevention and control. The third is to ensure access to information, public participation
in decision-making and access to justice on industrial activities’ environmental
permitting and performance. The fourth is to reduce unnecessary or excessive
administrative costs for economic operators from previous legislation controlling
industrial emissions.
In response to these needs, the IED has a number of objectives. These include:
 to establish a framework for the control and permitting of the main industrial
activities;
 to avoid distortion of competition by ensuring consistent environmental
requirements for all economic operators within each sector;
 to ensure that permitting of industrial installations is based on best available
techniques;
 to stimulate innovation by encouraging the development and application of
emerging techniques;
45
Directive 2000/76/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32000L0076
46
Directive 1999/13/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31999L0013
47
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31978L0176
48
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31982L0883
49
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31992L0112
50
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/air/stationary/ippc/ippc_revision.htm
711
 to ensure simplification and clarity of the legal framework and reduce or avoid
unnecessary administrative burden.
2.3. Key requirements and principles
Scope of the Directive
More industrial activities fall under the scope of the IED than under its preceding
legislation, the IPPCD. In 2015, around 51 700 installations were reported as undertaking
industrial activities within the scope of the IED. Implementation of the IED, while driven
by EU actions, is therefore much decentralised. It depends on the correct and consistent
implementation by a large number of competent authorities across the EU.
The IED is based on several principles, in particular: an integrated approach to pollution
prevention and control, the use of best available techniques in permitting, flexibility,
inspections and monitoring, public participation and access to justice.
Integrated Approach and Permitting
The IED requires that emissions from industrial sources are dealt with in an integrated
way and minimised. All installations conducting activities listed in IED Annex I are
required to operate according to a permit issued by the competent authority of the
concerned Member State, and reflecting the principles and provisions stipulated by the
IED. These are the general requirements set out in Chapters I and II of the IED. The
permit extends to all environmental aspects of an installation’s operating activities,
including emissions of pollutants to air, water and soil, waste generation, resource use,
noise, odour prevention of accidents and restoration of the site upon closure.
For certain activities, i.e. large combustion plants (LCPs), waste incineration (WI) and
co-incineration plants, solvent using activities (SE) and titanium dioxide production
(TiO2), the IED also sets, in specific sectoral chapters, minimum requirements based on
the predecessor Directives.
Best Available Techniques (BAT)
Permit conditions must be based on the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT), which
are the most environmentally effective of the economically viable techniques available.
EU wide BAT conclusions are adopted as sector specific implementing decisions that
define BAT and the related environmental performance to be incorporated in permits
issued by Member States’ competent authorities.
In order to define BAT and the BAT-associated environmental performance at EU level,
the Commission organises an exchange of information with experts from Member States,
industry and environmental organisations. This work is co-ordinated by the European
IPPC Bureau51
(EIPPCB) at the EU Joint Research Centre in Seville (Spain). This process
results in BAT Reference Documents52
(BREFs). The BAT conclusions are a distinctive
chapter of the BREFs. More information on the production of BREFs is contained in
section 3.3. Figure A14-2-1 shows a schematic view of the IED.
51
https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
52
https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference
712
Figure A14-2-1: Schematic overview of the IED (legend: LCP - large combustion plant, WI
- waste incineration and co-incineration plants, SE - solvent using activities, TiO2 - titanium
dioxide production)
The setting of BAT and BAT-AEPLs at EU level is in general based on imbalances
between installations with high environmental performance and those less performing
ones. The BAT used in well performing installations can then be generalised across all
installations through the BREF processes, creating a level playing field and a high level
of environmental performance within each industrial sector. Market demand leads to
continual innovation in techniques and improved performance at lower cost. This process
continues independently of the BREF review process, ensuring that better performing
techniques are available in a subsequent cycle.
BREFs have a standard format, set out in the BREF Guidance, consisting of the
following chapters:
Preface
Scope
General information about the sector concerned
Applied processes and techniques
Current emission and consumption levels
Techniques to consider in the determination of BAT
Best Available Techniques (BAT) conclusions (BATc)
Emerging techniques
Concluding remarks and recommendations for future work
713
References
Glossary of terms and abbreviations
Annexes (dependent upon relevance to the sector and availability of information)
The BAT conclusions identify a non-exhaustive and non-prescriptive list of BAT, as well
as the environmental performance levels achievable with the use of BAT. They can
contain:
 BAT-Associated Emission Levels (BAT-AELs), i.e. a numerical range of
emission levels for specific pollutants,
 BAT-Associated Environmental Performance Levels (BAT-AEPLs) other than
emission levels, which usually address the consumption of raw materials, energy
or water, as well as waste generation, and/or
 Descriptive BAT which are not associated with either BAT-AELs or BAT-
AEPLs, e.g. concerning monitoring, site remediation, environmental
management systems, or the limitation or ban of the use of hazardous substances.
IED Article 14(3) makes BAT conclusions the mandatory reference for setting permit
conditions. Article 15(3) makes BAT-AELs the binding requirements for pollutant
emissions, usually to air and water. Their upper level is the upper boundary for the
corresponding emission limit values set in permits, unless a derogation is granted by a
competent authority subject to strict conditions set by the IED. BAT-AEPLs and
descriptive BAT are not binding in the same way as BAT-AELs, but authorities must use
them as a reference for setting permit conditions.
Competent authorities must update installation permits to be in line with the content of
the BAT conclusions, and operators must be compliant with them within 4 years of
publication of the BAT conclusions in the Official Journal of the EU. This gives BAT
conclusions a more prominent role than under the IPPCD, where they were not legally
binding. In doing so, permitting authorities must also ensure compliance with relevant
minimum requirements contained in IED Chapters III to VI.
Flexibility
The IED allows competent authorities some flexibility to set less strict emission limit
values. Such derogations are possible only in specific cases, where an assessment shows
that achieving the emission levels associated with BAT described in the BAT
conclusions would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental
benefits due to the geographical location, local environmental conditions, or the technical
characteristics of the installation, preventing the implementation of BAT. However, the
use of this derogation procedure is strictly limited as the competent authority has to
ensure that no significant pollution is caused and that a high level of protection of the
environment as a whole is achieved. The competent authority shall always document its
justification for granting such derogations. In the case of the sectors covered also by the
714
specific Chapters IV, V, VI, VII, derogations cannot exceed those minimum
requirements.
At the same time, competent authorities must set stricter emission limits when an
environment quality standard is exceeded.
Figure A14-2-2 illustrates the different regimes for emission limits under the IED.
Figure A14-2-2: Emission limits under the IED
Inspections and Monitoring
The IED contains mandatory requirements on environmental inspections. Member States
must set up a system of environmental inspections and draw up inspection plans
accordingly. The IED requires a site visit to take place at least every 1 to 3 years, using
risk-based criteria.
Operators have to report to Member State authorities the results of the monitoring
requirements set by BAT conclusions, and Member States are reporting to the EU on
several aspects of the implementation of the Directive. This is described in more detail in
Section 3.4.
Access to Information and Access to Justice
Access to information and public participation are key elements of the IED. They enable
the public to have a right to participate in the decision-making process, and to be
informed of its consequences in accordance with the Aarhus Convention. This requires,
in particular, ensuring public information on applications for permits by industrial
operators and access to permits issued by competent authorities and the results of
emissions monitoring held by them. In view of the large number of IED installations,
public involvement is also key to police the correct implementation of IED requirements
in permits and their respect by operators. Access to justice is another aspect of the
Aarhus Convention transposed in the IED. It aims to ensure that, where a problem arises,
individuals affected or NGOs can take legal action to ensure the respect of the IED
requirements.
715
Figure A14-2-3 outlines the different roles and obligations of the Competent Authorities
and operators of industrial installations in the permitting process.
Figure A14-2-3: Roles and obligations of the Competent Authorities and installation
operators
The IED Forum
The IED requires the Commission to establish and regularly convene a Forum to support
the information exchange. The Forum is composed of representatives of Member States,
industry and environmental NGOs. It has been created as a formal expert group through a
Commission decision, and is chaired by the Commission. New members of the Forum,
who are not Member States, are appointed by the Director General of DG Environment.
The IED Forum has so far held 14 meetings and all documents relating to them are
publicly available on the internet on CIRCABC53
.
The Commission is required to obtain the opinion of the Forum on the proposed content
of BREFs and make it publicly available. The Commission must also take into account
this opinion for the adoption of the BAT conclusions. The Commission also obtains the
opinion of the Forum on the practical arrangements for the exchange of information
including on the work programme for the revision of BREFs. This has, over the years,
led to incremental improvements of the BREF process. Forum members nominate
participants in the Technical Working Groups who carry out the detailed work on each
BREF.
53
https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/06f33a94-9829-4eee-b187-21bb783a0fbf
716
2.4. Intervention logic
For illustrative purposes, the approach through which the IED operates can be described
through a simplified sequence:
→ IED identifies sectors with large environmental impacts
→ IED creates a framework for BAT based permitting
→ BREF process identifies BAT and associated environmental performance
levels
→ MS competent authorities issue BAT-based permits for installations
→ Industrial operators apply BAT to comply with permit conditions
→ MS competent authorities undertake inspection, compliance and enforcement
actions
→ Emissions and environmental impacts decrease to levels prescribed
→ Civil society can access information and challenge permit decisions
→ IED contributes to the EU’s environmental quality objectives.
Figure A14-2-4 shows a summary intervention logic for the IED, the elements of which
are explained below. A more detailed version is presented in Annex 2.
Objectives
The main objectives of the IED are described in Section 2.2.
Inputs
The inputs needed are essentially human and financial resources. These are made
available by the European Commission, Member State authorities, economic operators
and other stakeholders. EU inputs are primarily needed for the EU level actions, while
Member States provide input at EU, national, regional and local levels.
Activities
The resources provided are used to undertake a range of activities at various different
levels. The first of these, at EU level, was the preparation and adoption of the IED. From
that time onwards the main actions of the Commission are to manage the production of
BREFs and adoption of BAT conclusions, oversee implementation of the IED and report
on it. Member States had to ensure that the necessary structures were in place at national
and sub-national levels to implement the IED. Member States, industry and NGOs then
participate together with the Commission in the development of BREFs and BAT
conclusions. At installation level, Member State competent authorities have to engage
with operators to grant permits, review them when necessary, ensure that permit
conditions are respected, inspect installations and carry out enforcement action, if
needed. Operators of installations must make investments, as needed, to reduce their
environmental impacts and ensure that they are compliant with the permit requirements.
NGOs and citizens are able to participate in permitting processes, access emissions
717
monitoring information and bring complaints and information to the competent
authorities when needed.
Outputs
There are a number of outputs. All installations covered by Chapter II of the IED should
hold regularly updated and BAT-based permits. Permitting decisions should be guided by
BREFs and BAT conclusions. The permits should be complied with by operators and
compliance should be enforced by competent authorities. The public should be involved
in permitting decisions and have access to information on the environmental performance
of industrial installations. Innovative techniques may be deployed to reduce the
environmental impacts of industrial activities. To ensure compliance and enforcement,
appropriate monitoring and reporting systems should be in place at all IED installations.
Member States’ competent authorities should collect accurate emissions data for all IED
installations and make them publicly available. The European Pollutant Release and
Transfer Register (E-PRTR) provides the legal framework for monitoring aggregate
pollutant emissions from IED installations and making that information public, in line
with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention.
The IED should lead to the improvement of the environmental performance of industrial
installations across the EU.
Effects
If the implementation of the IED is effective, this should lead to benefits in four areas:
i. reduced impacts on human health and the environment through lower emissions to air,
water and soil, reduced waste generation and higher resource efficiency;
ii. a contribution to increased industrial and technology innovation in the EU;
iii. reduced distortion of competition across the EU;
iv. improved transparency for the public regarding information on the environmental
performance of industrial activities.
718
Figure A14-2-4: Simplified Intervention
Logic
719
Annex 15: Description of the European Pollution Release and
Transfer Register (E-PRTR)
Regulation (EC) No.166/2006: Overview and Implementation Methods
[Excerpt: E-PRTR ‘REFIT’ Exercise, SWD(2017)710 final]
This Annex contains a description of the European Pollution Release and Transfer Register
(E-PRTR), Regulation (EC) No.166/2006; this description comes directly from the E-PRTR
‘REFIT’ exercise carried out in 2017, the results of which were summarised in the European
Commission SWD(2017)710 final.
Section 1 of the excerpt gives some details regarding the purpose of the 2017 ‘REFIT’
assessment, the description of the E-PRTR per se is contained in the background information
of Section 2, and the implementation “state-of-play” in 2017 is presented in Section 3.
Below is an excerpt of the above Staff Working Document, from Section 1 to Section 3
of the SWD ‘REFIT’ assessment report, pp. 2-9. The page numbering has been altered
slightly by reformatting into the present version, but the content is reproduced in full.
--------------------------------
SWD Excerpt, pp.2-9 [citing from original pagination, SWD(2017)710 final].
1. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the evaluation
To check that European Union (EU) legislation is ‘fit for purpose’, the Commission routinely
reviews selected policy instruments through its Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT)
programme54
. REFIT is about ensuring that EU legislation effectively and efficiently pursues
public policy objectives that are best achieved at Union level.
In its Communication Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT): Results and Next
Steps55
, the Commission announced that the European Pollutant Release and Transfer
Register (E-PRTR) Regulation would be assessed for its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance,
coherence and EU added value.
The assessment looked at both the benefits delivered by the E-PRTR, as well as the potential
for simplification and reduction of regulatory costs and burdens. Furthermore, it took account
of Article 17 of the E-PRTR Regulation which requires that the Commission reviews E-
PRTR implementation every three years on the basis of Member State returns. The second
such review was exceptionally extended to four years (2010-2013) to fit with the evaluation
timing.
54
Commission Communication on Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/better_regulation/documents/com_2013_en.pdf
55
Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT): Results and Next Steps, COM/2013/0685 final
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/docs/20131002-refit-annex_en.pdf
720
In the interests of efficiency, the REFIT evaluation and the review were considered together.
Scope of the evaluation
The E-PRTR Regulation supports the EU in meeting the obligations of the (United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe) UNECE Kiev Protocol on pollutant release and transfer
registers56
. The E-PRTR and the Kiev Protocol have aligned objectives around enhanced
public access to information through the establishment of coherent, nationwide pollutant
release and transfer registers (PRTRs).
Since the EU would have to deliver Kiev Protocol obligations even if the E-PRTR Regulation
did not exist, the REFIT evaluation concentrates on requirements that are additional to those
required by the Kiev Protocol, or in other EU law. In practice, distinction between the two
was sometimes difficult for evaluation purposes.
The evaluation looked at E-PRTR implementation from its 2006 inception to the end of 2013
(for which the most recent data were available). In view of the improvements made during
this period, more weight is given to issues that are still prevalent. And because Croatia only
joined the EU in 2013, the geographical scope of the evaluation covers the other 27 Member
States.
A contractor conducted a supporting study57
to assist the REFIT evaluation, while also
addressing the routine triennial check on implementation. This Staff Working Document
summarises the REFIT evaluation’s findings and the Commission’s responses to them.
2. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE
Objective of the E-PRTR Regulation
The main aim of the E-PRTR Regulation is to transpose the Kiev Protocol in Europe and to
assist Member States in implementing it consistently. Flowing from this, the E-PRTR helps
improve public access to environmental information on pollutant releases and transfers from
Europe's largest industrial facilities. By establishing a coherent and integrated database with
clear data on the annual mass emissions (and transfers) of pollutants, the E-PRTR enables the
public to become more closely involved in environmental decision-making.
An informed public is able to influence the behaviour of operators and thus encourage lower
pollutant releases and transfers. So although the E-PRTR relates to information on pollutants,
rather than setting controls on actual pollutant releases per se, it exerts downward pressure on
emissions since companies do not want to be identified as among the biggest emitters.
56
UNECE Kiev Protocol http://www.unece.org/env/pp/prtr.html
57
Supporting the evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 concerning the establishment of a European
Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and its triennial review – Final report. August 2016, Amec Foster
Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Ltd and IEEP https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/fd585562-0c60-48f0-
ad62-9d1ff7151059/E-PRTR%20evaluation_Final%20report%20.pdf
721
Policy-makers also use the knowledge and evidence base provided by E-PRTR data to assess
other policy instruments that deal with emissions from industrial sources, such as the
Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)58
.
Legal context of the E-PRTR
UNECE Kiev Protocol: The E-PRTR Regulation is the EU's sole means of delivering
obligations under the Kiev Protocol59
. The Protocol binds its Parties "to enhance public
access to information through the establishment of coherent, nationwide pollutant release
and transfer registers (PRTRs)" that:
 are publicly accessible through the Internet, free of charge;
 can be searched using separate parameters (facility, pollutant, location, etc.);
 are user-friendly in their structure and provide links to other relevant registers;
 present standardised, timely data on a structured, computerised database;
 cover releases and transfers of at least 86 pollutants covered by the Protocol;
 cover releases and transfers from certain types of major point sources;
 accommodate available data on releases from diffuse sources (e.g. transport and
agriculture);
 have limited confidentiality provisions;
 allow for public participation in their development and modification.
Such PRTRs should be based on a reporting scheme that, as a minimum, is: mandatory,
annual, multi-media (i.e. covers air, water, and land), facility-specific and pollutant-specific.
To date the Protocol has been ratified by the European Union and 34 countries, including all
EU Member States, except for Greece and Italy.
UNECE Aarhus Convention: The Kiev Protocol is part of the broader Aarhus Convention60
which establishes a number of people’s rights as regards to the environment and for
involvement in decision-making. Parties to the Convention are required to take steps so that
public authorities (at national, regional or local level) deliver the right to:
 receive the environmental information that is held by public authorities;
 participate in environmental decision-making;
 review procedures to challenge public decisions that have been made without respecting
the two aforementioned rights or environmental law in general.
58
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated
pollution prevention and control) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32010L0075
59
Kiev Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers to the UNECE Aarhus Convention
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/prtr/Protocol%20texts/PRTR_Protocol_e.pdf
60
UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to
Justice in Environmental Matters http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf
722
E-PRTR Regulation: The E-PRTR Regulation was adopted in 2006 to implement the Kiev
Protocol at EU level and to ensure consistent implementation by Member States of their
obligations arising from the Protocol.
The E-PRTR provides pollutant emission and waste data on large industrial facilities,
spanning not only the EU Member States, but also the European Free Trade Area (EFTA)
nations and Serbia.
This data covers:
 emissions and transfers covering 65 economic activities from nine main industrial
sectors61
(as defined in Annex I to the Regulation)
 91 pollutants (as detailed in Annex II to the Regulation) including heavy metals,
pesticides, greenhouse gases and dioxins. In all, there are five additional water pollutants
above the minimum requirements of the Kiev Protocol.
Contribution to the 7th Environmental Action Program:
The E-PRTR is crucial to several objectives of the 7th
Environmental Action Programme (7th
EAP)62
. Priority objective 5 (to improve the knowledge and evidence base for Union
environment policy), states that Union environment policy is based on environmental
monitoring, data, indicators and assessments linked to the implementation of Union
legislation.
The 7th
EAP recognises that there has been considerable progress on strengthening this
knowledge base, raising awareness and improving the confidence of policy-makers and the
public in the evidence which underpins policy, including policies where the precautionary
principle has been applied. This has facilitated better understanding of complex
environmental and societal challenges (see paragraph 66 of the Annex to the Decision).
Paragraph 69 goes on to acknowledge improvements in the way environmental information
and statistics are collected and used at Union and at national, regional and local level, as
well as globally. However, data collection and quality remain variable and the multiplicity of
sources can make access to data difficult. Continuous investment is therefore needed to
ensure that credible, comparable and quality-assured data and indicators are available and
accessible to those involved in defining and implementing policy. Environmental information
systems need to be designed in order to enable new information on emerging themes to be
easily incorporated. Union-wide electronic data-exchange should be further developed, with
enough flexibility to encompass new areas.
61
Energy; production and processing of metals; mineral industry; chemical industry; waste and waste water
management; paper and wood production and processing; intensive livestock production and aquaculture;
animal and vegetable products from the food and beverage sector; others.
62
Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a
General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’ (OJ L 354,
28.12.2013, p. 171–200) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386
723
Baseline
The first E-PRTR data cover 2007 and succeed a previous EU-initiated industry registry, the
European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER), under which data were reported for the years
2001 and 2004. The fact that the EPER pre-dated and evolved into the E-PRTR makes it
difficult to establish an exact baseline for assessing the E-PRTR’s additional impact.
No impact assessment was prepared for the E-PRTR Regulation, which is designed to
transpose the EU’s international obligations.
Intervention logic
The following intervention logic provides an overview of the main E-PRTR actions and their
expected outcomes.
724
Actions:
1. Commission - initial one-off actions
a) Establish an integrated Pollutant Release and
Transfer Register (E-PRTR), directly accessible via
the Internet
b) Develop guidance on implementation
2. Member States (MS) – ongoing actions
 assure quality of data provided by industry
 report annually on releases and off-site
transfers (electronic data transfer within 15
months of end of reporting year)
 report on practices and measures taken
 lay down rules on penalties applicable to
infringements of provisions of the Regulation
 promote public awareness and provide
assistance in accessing, understanding and
using information
3. Commission (assisted by EEA) – ongoing actions
 assure quality of data provided by MS
 publish E-PRTR data (within 16 months of
receipt from MS)
 include information on releases from diffuse
sources
 report to EP and Council
 promote public awareness and ensure
assistance in accessing, understanding and
using the provided information
Consequences:
1. Amalgamated EU data is publically (and globally) accessible on the E-PRTR website and
database, and is supported by guidance
2. Comprehensive and harmonised E-PRTR data available, used by a variety of stakeholders
3. Efficient and effective reporting on pollutant releases and transfers
Expected results/impacts:
1. More effective participation of public
and stakeholders in environmental
decision-making
2. Constant access to information on
industrial / environmental pollution
3. Easy accessible information
External factors:
1. MS activities on reporting of
environmental information
2. Concerns of industry or stakeholders
(e.g. confidentiality, administrative
burden)
3. Budgetary constraints from EU and MS
4. Other policies or reporting
requirements
5. International obligations
6. Technological progress
Needs:
1. A better knowledge of pollution
2. Promote transparency and
accountability in environmental
matters
3. Effectively engage citizens
4. Improve environmental performance
Objectives:
1. Transpose the Kiev Protocol into EU law
2. Maximise public access to information on
pollutant releases and transfer
3. Encourage public participation in environmental
affairs
4. Contribute to prevention and reduction of
environmental pollution
5. Create consistency between EU countries
725
3. IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY
All Member States have adopted national legislation and procedures to implement the
requirements of the E-PRTR Regulation. Appendix D of the [2017 contractors’] supporting
study summarises implementation measures in each Member State. The following are general
observations:
E-PRTR website
According to Article 10(1) of the Regulation, the Commission must make the register
publicly accessible free of charge on the Internet. The E-PRTR website
(http://prtr.ec.europa.eu) is hosted and maintained by the European Environment Agency
(EEA), allowing for further integration of E-PRTR data with other datasets that the EEA
manages.
The website is designed to maximise ease of public access and the information is
continuously and readily accessible. At present, the E-PRTR website provides online access
to data reported by more than 30 00063
major industrial facilities covering 65 economic
activities64
in the main industrial sectors. For each facility, it provides information on the
quantity of pollutant releases to air, water and land, together with off-site transfers of waste
and of pollutants in waste water for 91 key substances. In addition to those core datasets,
which are the main point sources of pollution, the E-PRTR also contains spatially
disaggregated data on releases from diffuse sources into air and water.
Every year, industrial establishments with pollutant emissions above certain thresholds report
their pollutant emissions to Member States’ competent authorities. These data take the form
of total masses of pollutants released to air, water and land, as well as off-site transfers of
waste and of pollutants in wastewater.
In turn, Member States check these data and electronically report them annually to the
Commission via a portal managed by the EEA. The reporting deadline is 15 months from the
end of the reporting year (e.g. the deadline for reporting 2014 data was 31 March 2016).
Since the first reporting year (2007), the deadline has by and large been met by Member
States. Some minor delays (of up to a few months) have occurred but no structural issues are
apparent.
The EEA then incorporates the information reported by Member States into the E-PRTR
database within 16 months of the end of the reporting year (e.g. the target for publishing 2014
data was 30 April 2016)65
.
The EEA publishes the data on the E-PRTR's interactive website and also separately make it
available for detailed use in its data service facilities. Emission data can be accessed in
63
In the year 2014, data was reported by 33,246 facilities.
64
See Annex I of the E-PRTR Regulation
65
In practice two months are needed for the necessary consistency tests and addressing Member State
reporting issues.
726
different ways on the E-PRTR website i.e. by searching on criteria such as pollutant,
industrial activity type, country, or river-basin. The website includes a link to the EEA
website, from which the full E-PRTR database and summary tables can be downloaded.
Reporting 2014
The EEA's E-PRTR Summary Report 201466
presents overall statistics for 2014 E-PRTR data
and shows selected data time series since 2007.
Some key observations are listed below:
 In 2014, emissions were reported by 33 084 facilities in 33 countries – the EU-28,
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Serbia. This was an increase of
about 2% over the 32,480 facilities that reported in 2013.
 Of the E-PRTR facilities that reported in 2014, 46% had reported every year since
2007. The level of continuity is probably higher still as it does not include facilities
that have changed name or are close to the reporting thresholds in Annex II of the
Regulation (and so do not need to report every year).
 11% of facilities reported for the first time in 2014, including those in Croatia.
 In 2014 the largest number of facilities carried out waste and waste-water
management (31%), followed by intensive livestock production and aquaculture
(21%).
 Between 2007 and 2014, some industrial activities saw significant increases in the
number of facilities reporting emissions. For instance, the figure for waste and waste
water management was up 58% and for food and beverage industries it rose by 28%.
This probably reflects higher reporting by existing facilities, rather than the opening
of new facilities.
The following figure shows the number of E-PRTR facilities per main activity over the
period 2007 to 2014.
66
EEA Summary Report on 2014 E-PRTR Data https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/fb8035be-a0b3-4b0f-9de1-
58e2c602063f/E-PRTR%20Summary%20Note%202014.pdf
727
Quality assurance
After receiving annual data returns from facility operators, Member States carry out quality
checks before transmitting their compiled data to the EEA.
An automated validation tool developed by the EEA helps Member States validate E-PRTR
data and assure compliance with the agreed reporting format. The validation covers
information such as: pollutant types, industrial sector codes, geographical coordinates,
mandatory checks for formatting, quantitative checks of release / waste values (including
outliers), and checks for confidential data. If errors are found, Member States may resubmit
data.
To help implement the Regulation, the EEA also checks the quality of data in the E-PRTR
annually through a process known as the 'informal review', after which:
 Member States are provided with detailed feedback on the quality and
completeness of their submitted data. EEA checks cover an evaluation of the
number of facilities and release reports, the amounts of releases and transfers
reported, confidentiality claims and accidental releases;
 to identify and address potential inconsistencies, E-PRTR data are also
subsequently compared with data reported under other reporting obligations (e.g.
728
the National Emission Ceilings Directive67
, the Emissions Trading Scheme68
, the
Urban Waste-Water Treatment Directive69
and the Waste Statistics Regulation70
).
Commission guidance
As required under Article 14 of the Regulation, the Commission published a guidance
document71
in 2006 to support implementation of the E-PRTR. The guidance covers practical
matters such as who should report, what information is required and how data should be
submitted. It also includes an indicative list of sectors and pollutants for which data reporting
is expected.
Enforcement action
The Commission has had little need to resort to formal action against Member States to
enforce the requirements of the Regulation. There has only been one pilot action (now
closed) and that hinged on whether an activity carried out at a facility was covered by the
Regulation. While there have been some delays with the annual submission of data by
Member States, these have been resolved through informal reminders and have not
necessitated formal action.
67
Directive 2001/81/EC http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al28095
68
Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1488376075580&uri=CELEX:32003L0087
69
Directive 91/271/EEC
70
Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32002R2150
71
Guidance Document for the implementation of the European PRTR http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/docs/EN_E-
PRTR_fin.pdf
729
Annex 16: Mapping of the scope of IED, E-PRTR, ETS and other relevant instruments
E-PRTR IED EU-ETS Other instruments
1(a) Mineral oil and gas refineries 1.2. Refining of mineral oil and gas Refining of mineral oil
1(b) Installations for gasification and liquefaction 1.4. Gasification or liquefaction of:
(a) coal;
(b) other fuels in installations with a total rated
thermal input of 20 MW or more.
1(c) Thermal power stations and other combustion
installations with a heat input of 50 megawatts
(MW)
1.1. Combustion of fuels in installations with a
total rated thermal input of 50 MW or more
Combustion of fuels in installations with a total
rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW (except in
installations for the incineration of hazardous or
municipal waste)
Directive (EU) 2015/2193
on medium combustion
plants covers MCPs with a
total rated thermal input
exceeding 1 MW
1(d) Coke ovens 1.3. Production of coke Production of coke
1(e) Coal rolling mills with a capacity of 1 tonne
per hour
1(f) Installations for the manufacture of coal
products and solid smokeless fuel
2(a) Metal ore (including sulphide ore) roasting or
sintering installations
2.1. Metal ore (including sulphide ore) roasting
or sintering
Metal ore (including sulphide ore) roasting or
sintering, including pelletisation
2(b) Installations for the production of pig iron or
steel (primary or secondary melting) including
continuous casting with a capacity of 2,5 tonnes
per hour
2.2. Production of pig iron or steel (primary or
secondary fusion) including continuous casting,
with a capacity exceeding 2,5 tonnes per hour
Production of pig iron or steel (primary or
secondary fusion) including continuous casting,
with a capacity exceeding 2,5 tonnes per hour
2(c) Installations for the processing of ferrous
metals:
2.3. Processing of ferrous metals: Production or processing of ferrous metals
(including ferro-alloys)
(i) Hot-rolling mills with a capacity of 20 tonnes
of crude steel per hour
(a) operation of hot-rolling mills with a capacity
exceeding 20 tonnes of crude steel per hour
Where combustion units with a total rated thermal
input exceeding 20 MW are operated. Processing
includes, inter alia, rolling mills, re-heaters,
annealing furnaces, smitheries, foundries, coating
and pickling
(ii) Smitheries with hammers with an energy of 50
kilojoules per hammer, where the calorific power
used exceeds 20 MW
(b) operation of smitheries with hammers the
energy of which exceeds 50 kilojoule per hammer,
where the calorific power used exceeds 20 MW
(iii) Application of protective fused metal coats
with an input of 2 tonnes of crude steel per hour
(c) application of protective fused metal coats with
an input exceeding 2 tonnes of crude steel per hour
730
E-PRTR IED EU-ETS Other instruments
2(d) Ferrous metal foundries with a production
capacity of 20 tonnes per day
2.4. Operation of ferrous metal foundries with a
production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day
Production of primary aluminium
Production of secondary aluminium where
combustion units with a total rated thermal input
exceeding 20 MW are operated
2(e) Installations: 2.5. Processing of non-ferrous metals:
(i) For the production of non-ferrous crude metals
from ore, concentrates or secondary raw materials
by metallurgical, chemical or electrolytic
processes
(a) production of non-ferrous crude metals from
ore, concentrates or secondary raw materials by
metallurgical, chemical or electrolytic processes
Production or processing of non-ferrous metals,
including production of alloys, refining, foundry
casting, etc., where combustion units with a total
rated thermal input (including fuels used as
reducing agents) exceeding 20 MW are operated
(ii) For the smelting, including the alloying, of
non-ferrous metals, including recovered products
(refining, foundry casting, etc.) with a melting
capacity of 4 tonnes per day for lead and cadmium
or 20 tonnes per day for all other metals
(b) melting, including the alloyage, of non-ferrous
metals, including recovered products and
operation of non-ferrous metal foundries, with a
melting capacity exceeding 4 tonnes per day for
lead and cadmium or 20 tonnes per day for all
other metals.
2(f) Installations for surface treatment of metals
and plastic materials using an electrolytic
or chemical process where the volume of the
treatment vats equals 30 m3
2.6. Surface treatment of metals or plastic
materials using an electrolytic or chemical process
where the volume of the treatment vats exceeds 30
m3
3(a) Underground mining and related operations
3(b) Opencast mining and quarrying where the
surface of the area effectively under extractive
operation equals 25 hectares
3(c) Installations for the production of: 3.1. Production of cement, lime and magnesium
oxide:
(i) Cement clinker in rotary kilns with a
production capacity of 500 tonnes per day
(a) production of cement clinker in rotary kilns
with a production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes
per day or in other kilns with a production
capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day
Production of cement clinker in rotary kilns with a
production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes per day
or in other furnaces with a production capacity
exceeding 50 tonnes per day
731
E-PRTR IED EU-ETS Other instruments
(ii) Lime in rotary kilns With a production
capacity of 50 tonnes per day
(b) production of lime in kilns with a production
capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day
Production of lime or calcination of dolomite or
magnesite in rotary kilns or in other furnaces with
a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day
(iii) Cement clinker or lime in other furnaces with
a production capacity of 50 tonnes per day
(a) production of cement clinker in rotary kilns
with a production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes
per day or in other kilns with a production
capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day
Production of cement clinker in rotary kilns with a
production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes per day
or in other furnaces with a production capacity
exceeding 50 tonnes per day
(c) production of magnesium oxide in kilns with a
production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day.
3(d) Installations for the production of asbestos
and the manufacture of asbestos-based products
3.2. Production of asbestos or the manufacture of
asbestos-based products
3(e) Installations for the manufacture of glass,
including glass fibre with a melting capacity of
20 tonnes per day
3.3. Manufacture of glass including glass fibre
with a melting capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per
day
Manufacture of glass including glass fibre with a
melting capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day
3(f) Installations for melting mineral substances,
including the production of mineral fibres with a
melting capacity of 20 tonnes per day
3.4. Melting mineral substances including the
production of mineral fibres with a melting
capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day
Manufacture of mineral wool insulation material
using glass, rock or slag with a melting capacity
exceeding 20 tonnes per day
3(g) Installations for the manufacture of ceramic
products by firing, in particular roofing tiles,
bricks, refractory bricks, tiles, stoneware or
porcelain with a production capacity of 75 tonnes
per day, or with a kiln capacity of 4 m3 and with a
setting density per kiln of 300 kg/m3
3.5. Manufacture of ceramic products by firing, in
particular roofing tiles, bricks, refractory bricks,
tiles, stoneware or porcelain with a production
capacity exceeding 75 tonnes per day and/or with
a kiln capacity exceeding 4 m3
and with a setting
density per kiln exceeding 300 kg/m3
Manufacture of ceramic products by firing, in
particular roofing tiles, bricks, refractory bricks,
tiles, stoneware or porcelain, with a production
capacity exceeding 75 tonnes per day
Drying or calcination of gypsum or production of
plaster boards and other gypsum products, where
combustion units with a total rated thermal input
exceeding 20 MW are operated
4(a) Chemical installations for the production on
an industrial scale of basic organic chemicals,
such as:
4.1. Production of organic chemicals, such as:
(i) Simple hydrocarbons (linear or cyclic, saturated
or unsaturated, aliphatic or aromatic)
(a) simple hydrocarbons (linear or cyclic, saturated
or unsaturated, aliphatic or aromatic)
Production of bulk organic chemicals by cracking,
reforming, partial or full oxidation or by similar
732
E-PRTR IED EU-ETS Other instruments
processes, with a production capacity exceeding
100 tonnes per day
(ii) Oxygen-containing hydrocarbons such as
alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids,
esters, acetates, ethers, peroxides, epoxy resins
b) oxygen-containing hydrocarbons such as
alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids,
esters and mixtures of esters, acetates, ethers,
peroxides and epoxy resins
(iii) Sulphurous hydrocarbons (c) sulphurous hydrocarbons
(iv) Nitrogenous hydrocarbons such as amines,
amides, nitrous compounds, nitro compounds or
nitrate compounds, nitriles, cyanates, isocyanate
(d) nitrogenous hydrocarbons such as amines,
amides, nitrous compounds, nitro compounds or
nitrate compounds, nitriles, cyanates, isocyanates
(v) Phosphorus-containing hydrocarbons e) phosphorus-containing hydrocarbons
(vi) Halogenic hydrocarbons (f) halogenic hydrocarbons
(vii) Organometallic compounds (g) organometallic compounds
(viii) Basic plastic materials (polymers, synthetic
fibres and cellulose-based fibres)
(h) plastic materials (polymers, synthetic fibres
and cellulose-based fibres)
(ix) Synthetic rubbers (i) synthetic rubbers
(x) Dyes and pigments (j) dyes and pigments
(xi) Surface-active agents and surfactants (k) surface-active agents and surfactants
4(b) Chemical installations for the production on
an industrial scale of basic inorganic chemicals,
such as:
4.2. Production of inorganic chemicals, such as:
(i) Gases, such as ammonia, chlorine or hydrogen
chloride, fluorine or hydrogen fluoride, carbon
oxides, sulphur compounds, nitrogen oxides,
hydrogen, sulphur dioxide, carbonyl chloride
(a) gases, such as ammonia, chlorine or hydrogen
chloride, fluorine or hydrogen fluoride, carbon
oxides, sulphur compounds, nitrogen oxides,
hydrogen, sulphur dioxide, carbonyl chloride
Production of ammonia
(ii) Acids, such as chromic acid, hydrofluoric acid,
phosphoric acid, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid,
sulphuric acid, oleum, sulphurous acids
(b) acids, such as chromic acid, hydrofluoric acid,
phosphoric acid, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid,
sulphuric acid, oleum, sulphurous acids
Production of nitric acid; Production of adipic
acid; Production of glyoxal and glyoxylic acid
(iii) Bases, such as ammonium hydroxide,
potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide
(c) bases, such as ammonium hydroxide,
potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide
(iv) Salts, such as ammonium chloride, potassium (d) salts, such as ammonium chloride, potassium
733
E-PRTR IED EU-ETS Other instruments
chlorate, potassium carbonate, sodium carbonate,
perborate, silver nitrate
chlorate, potassium carbonate, sodium carbonate,
perborate, silver nitrate
(v) Non-metals, metal oxides or other inorganic
compounds such as calcium carbide, silicon,
silicon carbide
(e) compounds such as calcium carbide, silicon,
silicon carbide
4(c) Chemical installations for the production on
an industrial scale of phosphorous-, nitrogen- or
potassium-based fertilisers (simple or compound
fertilisers)
4.3. Production of phosphorous-, nitrogen- or
potassium-based fertilisers (simple or compound
fertilisers)
4(d) Chemical installations for the production on
an industrial scale of basic plant health products
and of biocides
4.4. Production of plant protection products or of
biocides
4(e) Installations using a chemical or biological
process for the production on an industrial scale of
basic pharmaceutical products
4.5. Production of pharmaceutical products
including intermediates
4(f) Installations for the production on an
industrial scale of explosives and pyrotechnic
products
4.6. Production of explosives
Production of carbon black involving the
carbonisation of organic substances such as oils,
tars, cracker and distillation residues, where
combustion units with a total rated thermal input
exceeding 20 MW are operated
Production of hydrogen (H2) and synthesis gas by
reforming or partial oxidation with a production
capacity exceeding 25 tonnes per day
Production of soda ash (Na2CO3) and sodium
bicarbonate (NaHCO3)
5(a) Installations for the recovery or disposal of
hazardous waste receiving 10 tonnes per day
5.1. Disposal or recovery of hazardous waste
with a capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day
involving one or more of the following activities:
(a) biological treatment;
734
E-PRTR IED EU-ETS Other instruments
(b) physico-chemical treatment;
(c) blending or mixing prior to submission to any
of the other activities listed in points 5.1 and 5.2;
(d) repackaging prior to submission to any of the
other activities listed in points 5.1 and 5.2;
(e) solvent reclamation/regeneration;
(f) recycling/reclamation of inorganic materials
other than metals or metal compounds;
(g) regeneration of acids or bases;
(h) recovery of components used for pollution
abatement;
(i) recovery of components from catalysts;
(j) oil re-refining or other reuses of oil;
(k) surface impoundment.
5(a) Installations for the recovery or disposal of
hazardous waste receiving 10 tonnes per day
5.2. Disposal or recovery of waste in waste
incineration plants or in waste co-incineration
plants:
(b) for hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding
10 tonnes per day
5(a) Installations for the recovery or disposal of
hazardous waste receiving 10 tonnes per day
5.6. Underground storage of hazardous waste
with a total capacity exceeding 50 tonnes
5(b) Installations for the incineration of non-
hazardous waste in the scope of Directive
2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration
of waste with a capacity of 3 tonnes per hour
5.2. Disposal or recovery of waste in waste
incineration plants or in waste co-incineration
plants:
(b) for non-hazardous waste with a capacity
exceeding 3 tonnes per hour
5(c) Installations for the disposal of non-hazardous
waste with a capacity of 50 tonnes per day
5.3.(a) Disposal of non-hazardous waste with a
capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day involving
one or more of the following activities, and
excluding activities covered by Council Directive
91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban
waste-water treatment:
735
E-PRTR IED EU-ETS Other instruments
(i) biological treatment;
(ii) physico-chemical treatment;
(iii) pre-treatment of waste for incineration or co-
incineration;
(iv) treatment of slags and ashes;
(v) treatment in shredders of metal waste,
including waste electrical and electronic
equipment and end-of-life vehicles and their
components.
5(d) Landfills (excluding landfills of inert waste
and landfills, which were definitely closed before
16.7.2001 or for which the after-care phase
required by the competent authorities according to
Article 13 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of
26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste has expired)
receiving 10 tonnes per day or with a total
capacity of 25 000 tonnes
5.4. Landfills, as defined in Article 2(g) of
Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on
the landfill of waste, receiving more than
10 tonnes of waste per day or with a total capacity
exceeding 25 000 tonnes, excluding landfills of
inert waste
5(e) Installations for the disposal or recycling of
animal carcasses and animal waste with a
treatment capacity of 10 tonnes per day
6.5. Disposal or recycling of animal carcases or
animal waste with a treatment capacity exceeding
10 tonnes per day
5(f) Urban waste-water treatment plants with a
capacity of 100 000 population equivalents
Council Directive
91/271/EEC concerning
urban waste water
treatment defines standards
and emission limits for
UWWTP above 2 000
population equivalents
5(g) Independently operated industrial waste-
water treatment plants which serve one or more
activities of this annex with a capacity of
10 000 m3 per day
6.11. Independently operated treatment of waste
water not covered by Directive 91/271/EEC and
discharged by an installation covered by Chapter
II
5.3(b) Recovery, or a mix of recovery and
736
E-PRTR IED EU-ETS Other instruments
disposal, of non-hazardous waste with a capacity
exceeding 75 tonnes per day involving one or
more of the following activities, and excluding
activities covered by Directive 91/271/EEC:
(i) biological treatment;
(ii) pre-treatment of waste for incineration or co-
incineration;
(iii) treatment of slags and ashes;
(iv) treatment in shredders of metal waste,
including waste electrical and electronic
equipment and end-of-life vehicles and their
components.
When the only waste treatment activity carried out
is anaerobic digestion, the capacity threshold for
this activity shall be 100 tonnes per day.
5.5. Temporary storage of hazardous waste not
covered under point 5.4 pending any of the
activities listed in points 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 5.6 with
a total capacity exceeding 50 tonnes, excluding
temporary storage, pending collection, on the site
where the waste is generated
6(a) Industrial plants for the production of pulp
from timber or similar fibrous materials
6.1(a) Production in industrial installations of pulp
from timber or other fibrous materials;
Production of pulp from timber or other fibrous
materials
6(b) Industrial plants for the production of paper
and board and other primary wood products (such
as chipboard, fibreboard and plywood) with a
production capacity of 20 tonnes per day
6.1. Production in industrial installations of:
(b) paper or card board with a production capacity
exceeding 20 tonnes per day;
(c) one or more of the following wood-based
panels: oriented strand board, particleboard or
fibreboard with a production capacity exceeding
600 m3 per day.
Production of paper or cardboard with a
production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day
(c) Industrial plants for the preservation of wood
and wood products with chemicals with a
6.10. Preservation of wood and wood products
with chemicals with a production capacity
737
E-PRTR IED EU-ETS Other instruments
production capacity of 50 m3 per day exceeding 75 m3
per day other than exclusively
treating against sapstain
7(a) Installations for the intensive rearing of
poultry or pigs
(i) With 40 000 places for poultry
(ii) With 2 000 places for production pigs (over
30 kg)
(iii) With 750 places for sows
6.6. Intensive rearing of poultry or pigs:
(a) with more than 40 000 places for poultry;
(b)with more than 2 000 places for production
pigs (over 30 kg), or
(c) with more than 750 places for sows.
7(b) Intensive aquaculture with a production
capacity of 1 000 tonnes of fish or shellfish per
year
8(a) Slaughterhouses with a carcass production
capacity of 50 tonnes per day
6.4(a) Operating slaughterhouses with a carcass
production capacity greater than 50 tonnes per day
8(b) Treatment and processing intended for the
production of food and beverage products from:
6.4(b) Treatment and processing, other than
exclusively packaging, of the following raw
materials, whether previously processed or
unprocessed, intended for the production of food
or feed from:
(iii) animal and vegetable raw materials, both in
combined and separate products, with a finished
product production capacity in tonnes per day
greater than:
- 75 if A is equal to 10 or more; or,
- [300- (22,5 × A)] in any other case,
where ‘A’ is the portion of animal
material (in percent of weight) of the
finished product production capacity.
Packaging shall not be included in the final weight
of the product.
(i) Animal raw materials (other than milk) with a
finished product production capacity of 75 tonnes
(i) only animal raw materials (other than
exclusively milk) with a finished product
738
E-PRTR IED EU-ETS Other instruments
per day production capacity greater than 75 tonnes per day
(ii) Vegetable raw materials with a finished
product production capacity of 300 tonnes per day
(average value on a quarterly basis)
(ii) only vegetable raw materials with a finished
product production capacity greater than 300
tonnes per day or 600 tonnes per day where the
installation operates for a period of no more than
90 consecutive days in any year
Treatment and processing of milk with a capacity
to receive 200 tonnes of milk per day (average
value on an annual basis)
(c) Treatment and processing of milk only, the
quantity of milk received being greater than 200
tonnes per day (average value on an annual basis)
9(a) Plants for the pre-treatment (operations such
as washing, bleaching, mercerisation) or dyeing of
fibres or textiles with a treatment capacity of
10 tonnes per day
6.2. Pre-treatment (operations such as washing,
bleaching, mercerisation) or dyeing of textile
fibres or textiles where the treatment capacity
exceeds 10 tonnes per day
9(b) Plants for the tanning of hides and skins with
a treatment capacity of 12 tonnes of finished
product per day
6.3. Tanning of hides and skins where the
treatment capacity exceeds 12 tonnes of finished
products per day
9(c) Installations for the surface treatment of
substances, objects or products using organic
solvents, in particular for dressing, printing,
coating, degreasing, waterproofing, sizing,
painting, cleaning or impregnating with a
consumption capacity of 150 kg per hour
or 200 tonnes per year
6.7. Surface treatment of substances, objects or
products using organic solvents, in particular for
dressing, printing, coating, degreasing,
waterproofing, sizing, painting, cleaning or
impregnating, with an organic solvent
consumption capacity of more than 150 kg per
hour or more than 200 tonnes per year
9(d) Installations for the production of carbon
(hard-burnt coal) or electro-graphite by means of
incineration or graphitisation
6.8. Production of carbon (hard-burnt coal) or
electrographite by means of incineration or
graphitisation
9(e) Installations for the building of, and painting
or removal of paint from ships with a capacity for
ships 100 m long
6.9. Capture of CO2 streams from installations
covered by this Directive for the purposes of
geological storage pursuant to Directive
Capture of greenhouse gases from installations
covered by this Directive for the purpose of
transport and geological storage in a storage site
739
E-PRTR IED EU-ETS Other instruments
2009/31/EC permitted under Directive 2009/31/EC
Transport of greenhouse gases by pipelines for
geological storage in a storage site permitted under
Directive 2009/31/EC
Geological storage of greenhouse gases in a
storage site permitted under Directive 2009/
31/EC