Report Chapter.Dot

Appendix F10 – Page 1

European Commission: IPPC Implementation Case Study Assessment Report

Case Study Reference: 03/SK/09

MemberState:Slovakia

Sector:Refineries

Table A.1Assessment of procedures and conditions set within the IPPC permit

Introduction
Overview description of type of installation / application / The installation is a large refinery operating with an annual production capacity of 5.5 - 6 million tonnes. The installation contains a wide range of technologies for the production of gases, ultra-low sulphur motor fuels, lubricants, plastics and petrochemical products.
The installation operates the following key facilities:

Section 1.1 A combustion installation with a rated thermal input exceeding 50 MW
Section 1.2 Mineral oil and gas refinery installations:
Catalytic hydrocracking
Catalytic reforming
Hydrogen separation processes and Isomerisation
Vacuum distillation
Superfractionation and aromatics
Sulphur and asphalt production
Sulphur recovery units and flue gas desulphurisation
Section 4.1 (a) chemical installations for the production of basic organic chemicals such as simple hydrocarbons:
Refined petro-products including Euro-standard diesel;
Plastics production (polypropylene 3);
Reforming and redistillation of aromatic products
Section 4.1 (b) chemical installations for the production of basic organic chemicals such as oxygen-containing hydrocarbons:
Fluid catalytic cracking for refining of vacuum distillation products
Section 4.2 (b) chemical installations for the production of basic inorganic chemicals such as acids:
Sulphur production, nitrate solution regeneration, striping of acid water, sulphuric acid regeneration.
Section 5.1 Installation for the disposal or recovery of hazardous waste.

Type of permit / issue date / There are 18 IPPC permits currently in force to authorise the activities undertaken at the installation. An additional 10 permits have been issued to cover the construction, upgrading and operational changes in the form of permit variations.
The focus of this assessment has been on the key processes that give rise to the most significant environmental impacts associated with the installation, which are:

Catalytic hydrocracking (permit issued 28.06.2006);
Catalytic reforming (permit issued 21.08.2006);
Atmospheric and vacuum distillation (06.06.2006);
Fluid catalytic cracking (permit issued 11.04.2006);
Sulphur recovery units (permit issued 01.03.2006).

The permits were issued under transitional arrangements and are of an integrated nature, covering aspects of air, water, land, raw materials, waste, energy, soil protection, accidents, monitoring requirements and other technical operation parameters.
Basis of BAT determination / The key piece of information relied upon in the determination of BAT is the IPPC Act 245/2003, specifically paragraph 5 and Annex 3.
There is guidance on the Slovak Environmental Inspectorate (SIZP) website that BREF documents canform part of the process of IPPC permit determination. However the responses given by the inspector during interview indicated that the basis of the BAT determination (due primarily to pressures of time and resources) has been to trust the technical assessment made and submitted by the operator in their application. The submissions are compared against the ELV ranges given in the GBRs and where it is clearly evident that BAT is lower than the ELV upper range, a lower limit may be used by the competent authority with suitable justification.
The operator stated that the basis of BAT determination used in the application and supporting documentation provided to the Inspectorate was developed by an internal division of the technologies department. An analysis of the current performance was made against technologies and ranges for emissions (AELs) as given within the refineries BREF document. The technical department works closely with the environmental department to ensure effective knowledge transfer.
Permit application
Question (1) / To what extent does the information provided by the applicant in relation to Article 6 appear to be comprehensive and accurate?
Statement on the overall completeness and quality of application / Completeness:
The response made by the inspector was that the applications made by the operator were of a good standard with relevant information in all the key areas required for determination. Some technical information requests were made during determination.
Quality:
In the opinion of the inspector, the applications were of good quality.
Presence of elements required by Article 6 - Applications for permits / Does the application include a description of the following: / Yes / No
Installation and its activities / 
Raw and auxiliary materials, other substances & energy / 
Sources of emissions from the Installation / 
Condition of the site / 
Nature & quantities of emission sources (including identification of significant environmental effects) / 
Proposed technology and other techniques for reducing or preventing emissions from the Installation / 
Measures for prevention and recovery of waste / 
Measures for emissions monitoring / 
The main alternatives / 
Non-technical summary / 
Other measures to comply with Article 3 requirements
The IPPC application required the operator to integrate the information regarding emissions of waste water, which was historically managed by the District Environmental Office, not the Inspectorate. / 
Note on application assessment:
The assessment process did not consider in full detail each application made by the operator due to constraints of time and the volume of technical information submitted for the 18 IPPC permits. A typical application (developed using the template approach) was assessed in order to determine that the relevant components of the application were present. The inclusion of information according to requirements of Article 6 of the Directive was confirmed with the operator and competent authority during the interviews.
Permit conditions and permit determination process
Question (2) / Has the Competent Authority taken such steps necessary through the development of the IPPC permit to ensure that installations are operated in a manner commensurate with the requirements of Article 3 (a)-(f) of the Directive?
Assessment of the general principles governing the basic obligations of the operator (Article 3 (a)-(f)) / Overall statement
The competent authority were clear in their view that the steps required to determine an IPPC permit are clearly laid out in the national laws (within annex 3 of the IPPC Act and Component Laws on air, water and waste) and associated GBRs.
The Ministry of Environment and Environmental Inspectorate provides guidance to operators to produce applications that contain the correct information in order to facilitate determination. The assessment of this installation has shown that conditions are included within the permit that governs the basic obligations of the operator according to Article 3.
Each of the permits issued to the operator that govern processes undertaken at the installation are based on a template that ensures consistency. Whilst many of the permit conditions are generic, they have suitable cross-reference to GBRs and other regional/local requirements.
Pollution prevention measures:
The permits contain conditions within Section C that specifically address issues of pollution prevention. These conditions are split according to the environmental component (air/water/waste) and are specifically tailored to each technical unit of the installation to which the permit conditions apply.
This is supported by a number of specific conditions in the permit that prevent pollution which include, inter alia the following:
-General operational conditions that the operator is required to comply with the prevent pollution, including specific operational procedures for the abatement equipment, maintenance and adequate training of employees;
-Restrictions on the storage, handling and use of raw materials, particularly with regard to those containing dangerous substances that could have a significant impact upon the environment or human health;
-Prescribed conditions for waste and raw material storage, including tank specifications, bunding requirements, spillage mitigation and emergency plans.
No significant pollution is caused:
The permits contain generic conditions (including the application of BAT in order to prevent significant levels of pollution) within Section H that specifically address the measures that the operator must comply with in order to ensure emissions of pollution from the installation are not significantly exceeded.
In addition to this, the permit contain a wide range of technical conditions that relate directly to the operational parameters and functioning of the process and abatement technologies proposed by the operator to ensure no significant pollution is caused. The competent authority is required to assess such proposals against defined limits contained within GBRs to ensure that limits will not be exceeded.
It was not clear from the assessment exactly how the local conditions of the surrounding area were taken into account by the operator in development of their proposals however they used the BAT-AELs as a performance appraisal guide.
It is understood from the competent authority that assessment of the emissions from the site, together with the operator’s proposed level of abatement, is made having regard to the local air quality and is supported by GBRs stating maximum permitted values of pollutants such as SO2, NO2, CO and particulates.
Conditions are then placed within the permit referencing the GBRs requirement for the operator to ensure that local air and water quality standards are not breached. In this instance, the operator is required to undertake continuous boundary and beyond-boundary monitoring of air quality to ensure compliance.
Waste avoidance, recovery and disposal:
The permits issued for this installation contain specific conditions relating to the production and treatment of waste materials, specifying which EWC-coded wastes are authorised to be produced and how they should be effectively managed to prevent or reduce the environmental impact.
It is not clear from the permits that specific conditions require the operator to minimise or recover wastes. Generic conditions are included.
Energy efficiency:
Within all permits, a general condition is included that requires the operator to use such measures as necessary to ensure energy is used efficiently.
Accident prevention:
Each permit contains a set of generic and specific conditions relating to the measures that the operator must take in order to prevent accidents. These are included as Section F to the permits.
Site closure measures:
Conditions are included within Section K of each permit that address the measures that the operator must have in place or undertake in order to prevent or reduce environmental risk and pollution during cessation of site activities and closure. Many of the conditions are generic with some permits containing specific conditions relating to aspects of the technical unit.
Question (3) / Issues associated with permit determination
Was there suitable dialogue between the operator and the competent authority during the permit determination process?
The operator stated that they engaged the competent authority on many matters relating to IPPC both during pre-application and permit determination phases. The operator takes a very proactive approach and this was noted by the inspector during discussion.
Was co-ordination required between Competent Authorities and how did this process work in practice?
The inspector’s opinion was that during permit determination, many other competent authorities are involved and are required to be under the IPPC Act 245/2003, which sets out the roles of individual competent authorities in reaching decisions on permit conditions to protect the environment.
In many cases, the inspector felt that communication was good between competent authorities however there was an issue raised regarding the technical detail (required for effective determination) in some responses. It was also noted that the responses received did not, in all cases, adequately address the specific aspects of environmental risk presented by operation of the installation. This presented a problem for the Inspectorate in that they were unable to access sufficient detail in order to be able to focus the permit conditions on those areas requiring strictest control or improvement.
What timescale was the permit developed on? Did the development meet the target timescales? If no, why?
The aim of the competent authority is to determine and issue IPPC permits within a period of 9 months. In this instance, many permits took longer to issue due to significant issues resourcing sufficient technical officers to determine the large volume of permit applications, variations and requests for construction permits.
It was evident from discussions with the inspector that there is considerable pressure on departmental resources and the decision for the Inspectorate to act as competent authority for issuing construction permits (those permits required to be issued by law 6 months after application to cover the design, construction and commissioning of new facilities or changes in the installation) has created additional pressure that results in delays.
The operator also noted this particular point during discussions as being a significant problem, restricting them in undertaking such technical changes as are necessary to ensure a progression reduction in environmental impact through application of BAT. The delays in issue of construction permits mean that improvements that are planned are being delayed excessively, which results in higher levels of environmental pollution.
Were there any disagreements between the operator and the Competent Authority during permit development? If so, how were they resolved?
No specific disagreements were noted.
Question (4) / Was the process for permit application also undertaken in conjunction with development of an Environmental Impact Assessment.? To what extent were these processes co-ordinated? Was information from the EIA incorporated into the permit application in accordance with Articles 6(2) and 9(2)?
Interaction with the EIA process / The application process was not taken in conjunction with development of an EIA as this was an existing installation moving to IPPC under transitional arrangements.
Question (5) / Does the permit contain conditions that are compliant with the requirements as set out in Article 9(3) of the Directive or general binding rules according to Article 9(8)?
Inclusion of ELVs or equivalent parameters or technical measures (Article 9(3)) or reference to GBR (Article 9(8)) / Air:
ELVs have been set for all main pollutants for the key installation processes considered within the framework of this assessment (see Introduction). Many of the ELVs are explicitly stated in the permit however references to the GBRs that contain these limits values are also made within the competent authority decision given in the permit annex.
No ELVs have been set (concentration or mass limits) for fugitive releases or for the flare. Conditions are in the permit requiring the operator to minimise the release of fugitive emissions (for example from storage) and those through flaring using BAT.
Further details of ELVs are provided in Table A1.b.
Water:
ELVs are set for the main pollutants emitted from the treatment of process and sanitary wastewaters arising from the installation. The ELVs are set using GBRs referenced within the permit and administered by the District Environmental Office, not the Slovak Inspectorate. In order to ensure full integration in the IPPC permit, conditions are placed in the permit requiring the operator to comply with the discharge parameters and limits given by the GBR.
Land:
No ELVs are set for direct releases to land as it is understood none can be made within the authority of the IPPC permits.
Protection of soil and groundwater
No ELVs have been set.
The permits contain a number of conditions (including pollution prevention and accident prevention / control measures) relating to requirements to protect groundwater and soil.
Waste
The permits address the arisings of waste from the various technical units through conditions placed in Section D of the permit. In addition to a number of generic conditions addressing general waste management, treatment and recovery, the permit authorise the treatment and recovery of various EWC codes wastes giving specific quantities.
Transboundary considerations
It is understood that the procedure for taking into account transboundary pollution was done in accordance with Article 17. The permits indicate that conditions are not required in order to control transboundary pollution as the impacts are not likely to adversely affect the environment and air quality of neighbouring Member States.
Further equivalent technical parameters/measures have been set for:
The permits contain technical parameters for operation within Section A.2. In all permits there is a generic condition on the operator to ensure adequate technical control of the relevant processes. In addition to this, in several permits operational parameters such as level of continual operation and specific limits for non-operation (e.g. for maintenance).

Table A.1b - Permit Emission Limit Value Summary Table

Emission point reference / Pollutant / Permit Limit (ELV) / Corresponding BREF BAT-AEL / Monitoring (Permit)
Method / Units / Av Period / Ref. Cond.
Emissions to Air
Permit for Atmospheric Distillation (AD5) and Atmospheric Vacuum Distillation (AVD6)
AD5 / AVD6 / Particulates / 5 mg/m3 / No BAT-AELs / Periodic Every 3 years
See Notes / mg/m3 / Not given in permit / Not given in permit
SO2 / 35 mg/m3
NOx / 200 mg/m3
CO / 100 mg/m3
Catalytic Hydrocracking (BAT-AELs taken from BREF on mineral oil and gas refineries Chp 5.10 (pp. 407-410)
Reforming furnace B102.301
Vacuum distillation furnace B101.101
Recycled gas furnace B103.101
Reboiler furnace B103.102
Fraction product furnace - main site B103.103
Recycled oil furnace B103.104 / Particulates / 5 mg/m3 / 5 – 20 mg/m3 / Continuous Emissions Monitoring System
See Notes / mg/m3 / Monthly mean of half-hour measured value / 101.325kPa 0°C 3% O2
SO2 / 37[i]/100[ii] mg/m3 / 5 – 20 mg/m3
NOx / 200 mg/m3 / 20-150 mg/m3
CO / 100 mg/m3 / No BAT-AEL
TOC / 150 mg/m3 > 3 kg/hr flow / No BAT-AEL
Flare / Particulates / No limit but use of BAT to minimise emissions / No BAT-AEL / Monitoring not required by permit conditions
SO2
NOx
CO
Catalytic Reform
Reforming 5:
Furnace H 501 – 504
Furnace H 505
HRR4:
Furnace H 601
Furnace H 602 / Particulates / 5 mg/m3 / No BAT-AELs / Continuous Emissions Monitoring System