Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 1 August 2014
(OR. en)
12253/14
Interinstitutional File:
2013/0442 (COD)
LIMITE
ENV 694
ENER 363
IND 215
TRANS 376
ENT 170
SAN 302
PARLNAT 218
CODEC 1670
NOTE
From:
To:
General Secretariat of the Council
Delegations
No. Cion doc.:
18170/13 ENV 1236 ENER 601 IND 389 TRANS 694 ENT 357 SAN 557
PARLNAT 326 CODEC 3089 - COM(2013) 919 final
Subject:
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from medium
combustion plants
- Comments from delegations
Delegations will find in the Annex comments received from Lithuania and Finland on the
abovementioned proposal.
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
1
EN
ANNEX
LITHUANIA
This regulation would contribute to solving the air quality problems relating with biomass,
but on the other hand this regulation also must respect the national energy policy of each MS. By
setting very stringent emission limits values the proposal could potentially have the adverse effect:
it might have negative impact on the possibility to use biomass for central heating or because of the
expensive investments it might increase the price of central heating and that all might lead to the
central heating decentralization. New EU level requirements must be proportional and do not
stimulate irrational investments.
According to the current proposal, Member States may exempt medium combustion plants
which do not operate more than 500 operating hours per year from compliance with the emission
limit values set out in Annex II. The number of operating hours should be increased to the same
level as foreseen in the Industrial Emissions Directive which offers exemptions for combustion
plants operating less than 1500 hours per year.
The normal NOx concentration by using high-value wood products (logs, chopped trees)
normally is about 250-350 mg/Nm3. In case of using barks, forest chips, forest pellet other and
other various forms of low grade wood or wood waste NOx concentration normally is about 400600 mg/Nm3. By setting very stringent emission limits values the proposal could potentially have
the adverse effect by stimulating to use only high-value wood (logs; chopped trees) and eliminating
other types of wood fuels such as forest chips, bark, forest pellets and other various forms of low
grade wood or wood wastes.
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
2
EN
Emission limit values (mg/Nm3) for existing and new medium combustion plants
SOLID FUELS
Solid biomass
Other solid fuels
Existing combustion
plant
1<= - < 5
5<= - <20
20<= - <50
1<= - < 5
5<= - <20
20<= - <50
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
SO2
400
300
200
400
400
400
NOx
650
650
450
650
650
450
CO
1500
600
600
2000
1000
600
Dust
300
200
100
300
200
100
New combustion
plant
Solid biomass
Other solid fuels
SO2
400
300
200
600
400
400
NOx
450
400
300
500
400
300
CO
600
400
400
600
400
400
Dust
100
60
30
100
60
30
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
3
LIMITE
EN
LIQUID FUELS
Heavy fuel oil
Liquid fuels other than heavy fuel oil
Existing
combustion plant
1<= - < 5
5<= - <20
20<= - <50
1<= - < 5
5<= - <20
20<= - <50
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
SO2
4501
4001
3501
3501
2001
2001
NOx
650
650
650
3502
3002
2002
CO
500
400
300
300
200
200
Dust
1503
1503
1003
1503
1003
503
New combustion
plant
Heavy fuel oil
Liquid fuels other than heavy fuel oil
SO2
4501
3501
3501
3501
2001
2001
NOx
4502
3502
3502
3502
3002
2002
CO
400
300
200
300
200
100
Dust
1503
1003
603
1003
603
303
1
For plants which do not operate more than 500 operating hours per year, 850 mg/Nm3
2
For plants which do not operate more than 500 operating hours per year, 450 mg/Nm3
3
For plants which do not operate more than 500 operating hours per year, 200 mg/Nm3
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
4
LIMITE
EN
GASEOUS FUELS
Natural gas
Existing
combustion
plant
Gaseous fuels other than natural gas
1<= - < 5
5<= - <20
20<= - <50
1<= - < 20
5<= - <20
20<= - <50
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
MW
-
-
-
354
354
354
NOx
200
200
200
2505
2505
2505
CO
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dust
400
200
200
400
200
200
SO2
New
combustion
plant
Natural gas
Gaseous fuels other than natural gas
SO2
-
-
-
354
354
354
NOx
1006
1006
1006
2005
2005
2005
CO
200
100
100
200
100
100
Dust
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
Biogas 100 mg/Nm3
5
Biogas 320 mg/Nm3
6
For plants which do not operate more than 500 operating hours per year 200 mg/Nm3
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
5
LIMITE
EN
Emission limit value benchmarks (mg/Nm³) for medium combustion plants other than engines and gas turbines
Pollutant
Rated thermal
Solid biomass
Other solid fuels
Liquid fuels
Natural gas
input (MW)
NOx
Dust
Gaseous fuels other than
natural gas
1-5
300
300
200
90
1207
> 5 - 50
200
200
150
90
1207
1-5
45
45
45
-
10
> 5 - 50
20
20
20
-
10-
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
6
LIMITE
EN
FINLAND
1. Comments on ELV questions
Regime applicable to plants between 1-5 MW
We support specific ELVs for existing and new plants. Considerably lighter investment demand is
needed for the smallest plants. For existing plants specific ELVs for peak- and reserve plants
operating less than 1 500 hours per year should be applied in all cases where high investments
would be required. The current Finnish ELVs for 1-50 MW from 2010 applicable for new and
existing plants are presented as an Annex. In our view the implementation of the MCP directive
should be done primarily via investments to new plants, thus we are not in favour of delaying ELV
application dates for new plants, particularly if these plants would need to be retrofitted later to
fulfil the MCP requirements.
It might not be necessary to develop less burdensome registration requirements for 1-5 MW plants,
as the registration in the MCP should be the least burdensome administrative option for all plants in
the scope of the directive. In general, we should aim at finding the least burdensome administrative
option for the for the smallest plants; and any changes increasing the administrative burden, such as
unclear aggregation rules as commented later, should be avoided.
Concerning monitoring, the cost of a monitoring event is rather fixed irrespective of the plant size,
so there is clear cost argument to develop less burdensome monitoring to small plants. The
monitoring depends a lot on the techniques used (if any) for emission reduction, so monitoring
requirements should be discussed only after agreeing on ELVs.
The current compromise text leaves a lot of freedom for member states to develop the regime for
compliance checks, so we do not think that is necessary to specify a lighter regime for compliance
checks for 1-5 MW plants.
Regime applicable to plants above 5 MW
We support dividing specific ELVs for 5-50 MW plants to two categories. In our current legislation
there are technology based divisions at 10 MW or 15 MW depending on the combustion technology
and fuel. For liquid and gas fired boilers the ELVs are divided at 15 MW as typically boilers below
15 MW using liquid and gaseous fuels would be fire-tube boilers and above that other boilers types
would be dominant. In solid fuel combustion boilers below 10 MW would be grate-fired and above
that fluidized beds are dominant technology. Our current ELVs for biomass and peat combustion
under 10 MW boilers are considerably different from the MCP Directive proposal. Similarly as for
1-5 MW boilers, for existing plants specific ELVs for peak- and reserve plants operating less than
1 500 hours per year should be applied in all cases where high investments would be required.
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
7
EN
For 10-50 MW plants the particulate ELVs for biomass and peat should be in line with the
Gothenburg protocol. Alternatively other means should be incorporated to the proposal so that the
ELVs would consider those plants which are using flue gas condensation. Recent technology study
(ÅF-Consult Ltd, 2014) has concluded that solid fuel plants using multicyclone/cyclone separation
before flue gas condensation (scrubber) would be able to reach emission level 50 mg/Nm3. From the
cost-efficiency view point it would not make sense that these plants invest to other particulate
emission reduction device. As low temperature heat from flue gas condensation can be used widely
in district heating, this technology choice is widely applied in Finland.
2. Comments to the Directive text (version dated 27.6.2014)
General comments
We supports the majority of the changes made to the new text. Our proposal is to simplify
provisions to the minimum, delete duplication and may-provisions, as suggested in the detailed
comments below.
Aggregation rules
At least at this point we are not supporting any aggregation rules in the MCP Directive proposal.
Thus we think that Art. 5.1a, Art. 5a and definition of stack [Art. 3 (15a)] should be deleted. If the
upcoming ELV discussions would lead to a risk for misuse of the capacity thresholds, solutions
should be discussed only after agreement on ELVs.
The purpose of any aggregation rule is to avoid misuse of the threshold limits in legislation. In
many practical applications the common stack rule is not the best option to achieve this goal, so
other options should be investigated. Common stack rule increases the administrative burden
considerably, as it relies on assessment made by competent authority. Imposing common stack rule
to 1-5 MW plants would increase the administrative burden drastically, keeping in mind that there
are more than 10-fold of plants within 1-5 MW category compared to large combustion plants and
in 1-5 MW category much smaller operators are involved. Finally, for the great majority of
common stack cases misuse is not the intention of the operator and applying the rule can result to
arbitrary ELVs for combustion plants and subsequently unequal treatment of operators.
In a typical common stack case a base-load plant burning solid fuel and a peak and reserve load
plant burning liquid or gaseous fuel share the same stack with individual flues. In this kind of case
the approach suggested in Article 5.1a would lead to unrealistic ELVs (either too high or technically
not possible) for both of these boilers. In this case the only realistic way to set the ELVs is what is
described in IED Article 30.4 in the last sentence i.e. separate ELVs are set for both boilers in
relation to the total rated thermal input of the entire combustion plant.
If there will be an agreement to apply common stack, it is essential to apply it solely to new
combustion plants.
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
8
EN
Article 2
Article 2.2: Recovery boilers should be excluded from the scope of the directive. There is only hand
full of these plants in Europe under 50 MW (only one in Finland) and so there is no risk for
increased emissions from these plants. These plants need to fulfil the recently approved BAT
conclusions in four years’ time. It should be further explained why European safety net in needed
for these plants.
Article 2.3: We propose to delete the word “medium” from Article 2.3 due to the fact that in some
cases testing activities for larger combustion plants take place in pilot-scale plants over 1 MW. We
are not supporting any additional text to limit the use of exception for research, development and
testing activities. These activities should be treated in the same way as in the IED and any measures
to prevent misuse should be dealt in national implementation. It is not realistic to limit the sales of
energy products, as during the testing small quantities of energy products will be delivered for
energy networks. This energy production is not done commercially, so the main purpose of the
activity is still research, development and testing.
If there are further issues with research, development and testing activities, one way to solve these
would be to include these plants on the scope of the directive proposal, but exclude these from the
emission limit values and the measurement requirements. Finnish legislation is based on this
approach, i.e. these sites would still need a permit if the capacity threshold is exceeded, but the
minimum requirements do not apply.
Article 3
Changes to definition 16 should be further elaborated. What is the procedure to determine duration
of the start-up and shut-down periods? If this is cannot be done without case-by-case consideration,
this could increase the administrative burden in registration considerably.
Article 4
Article 4.6a-c: There provisions are mostly explanatory and contain guidance rather than actual
legal provisions. These could fit better as recitals or could be developed further in a guidance
document.
Article 5
Article 5.1a: We propose to delete Article 5.1a even if it is not obligatory. The steps a-c go beyond
the common stack rule in IED, as the steps contain elements of the common stack aggregation and
calculation rules for multi-fuel firing combustion plants (IED Art. 40). This way of calculating only
applies to situations where two fuels are combusted simultaneously in one individual combustion
plant. It does not function in the situations where two individual combustion plants with separate
flues share a common stack with different operational mode. In these cases IED has clearly a
different way of calculating the ELVs (IED Article 30.4).
Article 5.2: We propose adding separate ELVs for existing plants operating less that 1 500 hours
per year in all cases where the Annex II ELVs for existing plants would mean a high investment to
existing plants. This can be done either in Article text or in Annex II.
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
9
EN
Article 5.7: In these cases for the first 10 days competent authority could be simply notified and
derogation by competent authority could come into question only after the 10 day period. In most
cases the alternative fuels to be used during sudden interruption in the gas supply can be foreseen
during the registration process due to the fact that there needs to be technical capability to combust
secondary fuels.
Article 6
Article 6.4: We propose the text to be replaced with following. “Secondary abatement equipment in
medium combustion plant shall be operated continuously in order to meet the emission limit values.
Effective continues operation of that equipment shall be recorded.”
Article 6.3-4: The order of the provisions could be different, so that “all monitoring results” would
logically include the provision presented in the beginning of the Article including current Article
6.4.
Annex II
ELVs for boilers: It remains unclear how ELVs for the recovery boilers have been derived from
BAT conclusions.
ELVs for engines: There have been some concerns whether the dust limit value (10 mg/Nm3) can
be reached only by using LFO. Slightly higher ELV (Proposal: 20 mg/Nm3) would be justified.
Input to the ELV discussions
Finland has established minimum ELVs for MCPs 2010 and the values have been updated 2013.
Current ELVs are presented as an Annex. These values are relatively new and are largely based in
the Finnish understanding on what would be BAT for combustion plants below 50 MW5. More
recently data has been collected about the cost of the particulate emission reduction retrofit
investment for the existing solid biofuel plants of 1-20 MW. Main finding is that there are
considerable differences in cost-efficiency depending on the size of the plant, particularly within the
1-5 MW boiler group as illustrated in the Figure 1 below. The background documents for the MCP
proposal have grouped 1-5 MW plants in single category, which does not sufficiently reflect these
differences. Furthermore, the cost-efficiency in a Member State level can be very different from the
European average. As Finland has already emission reduction requirement for all plants, the
nationally applicable baseline is different from the European average and this reduces the costefficiency at member state level. It should be noted that the cost-efficiency of scrubber with heat
recovery in negative due to the fact that recovered heat can be utilised and revenues gained. It is
not possible to use low temperature heat in all plants.
5
Best Available Techniques (BAT) in Small 5-50 MW Combustion Plants in Finland (In Finnish.
English abstract on pages 98-104), Finnish Environment Institute, 2003. Available:
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download/noname/%7B8211A686-7117-4F90-938E5EFC49187673%7D/57228
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
10
EN
Cots of particle emission reduction (EUR/t)
25 000
Operating hours 5000 h/a
Emission level before the new investment 200 mg/Nm3
20 000
15 000
10 000
5 000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-5 000
-10 000
Boiler size (MWfuel)
ESP
Fabric filter
Scrubber
Scrubber (heat recovery)
Figure 1. Sensitivity of the cost to the boiler size (site specific costs are excluded from the
Figure 5.1. Sensitivity of the Costs to Boiler Size (site specific costs are excluded
investment cost estimate). Source: ÅF-Consult Ltd, 20146.
from the investment cost estimate)
The cost-efficiency can be analysed in different operational modes and it is clearly poor when
looking at the peak and reserve combustion plants operating less than 1 500 hours per year. The
effect is very clear particularly when the investment cost is relatively high, as is the case with
particulate emission reduction with ESP/FF/Scrubber in the Figure below.
6
Particle Emission Reduction, Cost Analysis for Existing 1-20 MWfuel Solid Biofuel Plants in
Finland, ÅF-Consult Ltd, 2014. Available upon request.
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
11
EN
Cots of particle emission reduction (EUR/t)
80 000
Boiler size 10 MWfuel
Emission level before the new investment 200 mg/Nm3
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0
-10 000 0
1000
2000
-20 000
ESP
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Operating hours (h/a)
Fabric filter
Scrubber
Scrubber (heat recovery)
Figure 2. Sensitivity of the cost to operation hours (site specific cost are excluded from the
investment cost estimate). Source: ÅF-Consult Ltd, 2014.
Figure 5.2. Sensitivity of the Costs to Operation Hours (site specific costs are
excluded
the investment
estimate)
The
effect from
is typically
dependentcost
on the
investment costs and operating hours. In some specific
cases also operational cost are relevant and in the cases where ELVs are achieved via fuel switch
this is a major factor influencing the cost. Earlier some similar calculations have been made for
large combustion plants, looking at the cost-efficiency of the NOx-reduction for HFO boilers as
shown in the figure below. While results cannot be used directly for MCP-boilers, the similar cost
curves are probable also for the MCP plants, depending on the investment demand.
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
12
EN
110 mg/m3n
Figure 3. Cost of NOx emission reduction in boilers using liquid fuels. Source: Pöyry Finland Oy,
2013 (modified)7.
The Figure above illustrates the development of cost-efficiency of NOx reduction in the situation
where the baseline is emission level of 450 mg/Nm3 with HFO and targets are at three lower levels
using LFO and the selection of technology is different in each case. The study has been made as a
part of the Finnish input to the LCP BREF review. The case boiler is a 55 MW peak and reserve
boiler in district heating network. The dotted line illustrates the fuel associated cost when changing
from HFO to LFO (50 % of the fuel cost was allocated to NOx reduction). Main driver for the fuel
switch is lower SO2 ELVs in the IED and abatement equipment for SO2 reduction is not an option
due to low operational hours.
In the figure target 270 mg/Nm3 (grey lines) could be reached with LFO only with minor burner
modifications, thus these kind of measures could be required also from emergency plants. It is
noteworthy, that as the required emission reduction (450 mg/Nm3 -> 270 mg/Nm3) is smallest, the
fuel associated cost is highest in this case. Target 200 mg/Nm3 (light blue lines) could be reached
with LFO by changing the Low-NOx burners to most modern technology. While the actual
investment is not very high, the cost of reduced emission starts to rise more clearly below 1 500
operational hours. Target 110 mg/Nm3 (dark blue lines) could be reached with LFO by using
scrubbers. As the calculations have been made for a typical peak-load plant in district heating
network, which only operates few hours per day during the peak-demand, but does this daily during
the heating season, the typical secondary treatment technologies (SCR and SNCR) are not
applicable due to long start-up times. Target 110 mg/Nm3 using HFO and scrubbers (orange line)
shows similar cost curve as for LFO, without the fuel associated cost.
7
Cost analysis of reducing flue gas emissions to achieve the BAT emission levels in peak load
boilers using liquid fuels and natural gas, 2013, Pöyry Finland Oy. Available upon request.
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
13
EN
To conclude, there is solid techno-economical basis for differentiating ELVs for existing plants
operating less than 1 500 hours per year in almost all cases where high investment cost technics
(ESP, FF, wet abatement technologies etc.) would be needed to be retrofitted to existing plants. In
these cases specific ELVs should be based on low investment demand technics (multicyclones, low
sulphur fuels, etc.). This possibility should be included in the discussion as third alternative for
existing plants, apart from high investment retrofit and seize of the operation.
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
14
EN
Annex: Current Finnish ELVs for MCP relevant for the council discussions.
Table 1. Finnish ELVs for new MCPs (boilers) from 2010 onwards (updated 2013).
Rated thermal input (P)
Particulates
NOx (calculated to
NO2)
mg/m3n
mg/m3n
SO2
mg/m3n
Liquid fuels1
O2= 3 %
O2= 3 %
O2= 3 %
1≤P≤15 MW
50
800
350
15<P<50 MW
50
500
350
Gaseous fuels
O2= 3 %
1≤P≤15 MW
340
15<P<50 MW
200
Wood and other solid
O2= 6 %
O2= 6 %
1≤P≤5 MW
200
375
200
5<P≤10 MW
50
375
200
10<P<50 MW
40
375
200
O2= 6 %
O2= 6 %
O2= 6 %
1≤P≤5 MW
200
500
500
5<P≤10 MW
50
500
500
10<P<50 MW
40
500
500
O2= 6 %
O2= 6 %
O2= 6 %
50
270
850
biofuels2
Peat
Coal
1≤P≤10 MW
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
15
EN
10<P<50 MW
1
2
40
270
850
Applicable from 2020 to other liquid fuels than LFO and HFO
Reed canary grass, straw, pellets, etc.
Table 2. Finnish ELVs for existing MCPs (boilers). These values will be applied to existing boilers
latest by 2018. In parenthesis are shown ELVs for reserve and peak-plants operating less than 1 500
hours per year.
Rated thermal input (P)
Particulates
NOx (calculated to
NO2)
mg/m3n
3
mg/m n
SO2
mg/m3n
Liquid fuels1
O2= 3 %
O2= 3 %
O2= 3 %
1≤P≤15 MW
140 (200)2
900
350 (850)
15<P<50 MW
50 (140)2
600
350 (850)
Gaseous fuels
O2= 3 %
1≤P≤15 MW
400
15<P<50 MW
300
Wood and other solid
O2= 6 %
O2= 6 %
O2= 6 %
1≤P≤5 MW
300 (375)
450 (500)
200
5<P≤10 MW
150 (250)
450 (500)
200
10<P<50 MW
50 (125)
450 (500)
200
Peat
O2= 6 %
O2= 6 %
O2= 6 %
1≤P≤ 5 MW
300 (375)
600 (625)
500
5<P≤10 MW
150 (250)
600 (625)
500
10<P<50 MW
50 (125)
600 (625)
500
biofuels3
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
16
EN
1
2
3
Coal
O2= 6 %
O2= 6 %
O2= 6 %
1≤P<50 MW
50 (140)
420 (550)
1100
Applicable from 2020 to other liquid fuels than LFO and HFO.
for LFO the ELV is always 50 mg/m3n.
Reed canary grass, straw, pellets, etc.
Table 3. Finnish ELVs for new MCPs (engines and gas turbines) from 2010 onwards. In parenthesis
are shown ELVs for reserve and peak-plants operating less than 1 500 hours per year.
Diesel engine (Oil,
GI)
Diesel engine (Gas,
GD)
Spark-ignited engine
(SG)
Dual-fuel engine
(Gas, DF)
Dual-fuel engine (Oil,
DF)
Gas turbine
NOx
NOx
(calculated to NO2)
(calculated to NO2)
≤ 20 MW
> 20 MW
mg/m3n
SO2
Particulates
mg/m3n
mg/m3n
mg/m3n
O2= 15 %
O2= 15 %
O2= 15 %
O2= 15 %
1600
750 (1600)
120 (300)
30(50)
1600
750 (1600)
190
95 (190)
380
190 (380)
2000
750 (2000)
300
20
115
50
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
17
EN
Table 4. Finnish ELVs for existing MCPs (engines and gas turbines). These values will be
applicable to existing plants latest by 2018. In parenthesis are shown ELVs for reserve and peakplants operating less than 1 500 hours per year.
NOx
SO2
Particulates
mg/m3n
mg/m3n
mg/m3n
O2= 15 %
O2= 15 %
O2= 15 %
Diesel engine (Oil, GI)
1850
120 (300)
30(50)
Diesel engine (Gas, GD)
1850
300
70
(calculated to
NO2)
Spark-ignited engine (SG)
190 (250)
Dual-fuel engine (Gas, DF)
380
Dual-fuel engine (Oil, DF)
2300
Gas turbine
150 (250)
Apart from these tables Finland has introduced ELVs for new emergency plants operating less than
500 hours per year burning liquid or gaseous fuels. ELVs would be applicable to new MCPs from
2020. These values are not relevant for MCP Directive proposal discussion as no corresponding
ELVs are proposed for liquid and gaseous fuels.
12253/14
CM/ach
DG E 1A
LIMITE
18
EN