The substitution at source of the use and production of hazardous chemicals is a key principle of the IED pollution prevention at source framework. The provisions on the control and substitution of hazardous chemicals have also been strengthened, and the role of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in the BREF process has been formalised.
It is now official that one of the aims of the Directive is to “continuously reduce emissions, to improve resource efficiency, and to promote circular economy, and decarbonisation, in order to achieve a high level of protection of human health and the environment taken as a whole” (Art 1).
Chemicals specific requirements are further set within the minimal requirements on Environmental Management Systems (EMS). The IED 2.0 sets out minimal expectations, such as the setting of “environmental policy objectives for the continuous improvement of the environmental performance and safety of the installation”, which shall include minimal measures to that end relating to waste prevention, the optimisation of resource use and to prevent / reduce use or emissions of hazardous substances. This also relates to objectives and performance indicators.
A more systematic and broader requirement for a substitution assessment of all hazardous substances is provided, which was at that time objected by the German Chemical Industry. REACH would rather focus on a subset of substances of very higher concern (SVHC). The substitution assessment shall cover all hazardous substances used and produced (Art 14a, para 1 point (d)). The operator will have to substitute and minimise their use and emissions. This provision is relevant for many industrial activities, in particular those relying on materials input with potential contamination with chemicals of concern, but also for tracking waste management actions.
As highlighted in the water quality section, the comprehensiveness of at the source pollution control measures through ambitious permit emission limit values will mainly depend on the review of the pollutants lists and thresholds considered under the Regulation establishing the Industrial Emissions Portal, to be finalised in 2025, on the one hand, as well as permit writers’ ambition to prioritise pollution prevention impact prevention v. operators’ economic concerns, which depend on the ambition level set by the BAT-Conclusions.
The amount of pollutants releases to any environmental media (above the reporting thresholds) and reported by the European operators are available through the EEA Industrial Emissions Portal.
The EEB advocates for:
- The suppression of ‘relevance thresholds’ for chemicals of concern or other priority hazardous substances irrespective of the release pathways;
- A comprehensive group approach for PFAS listing and its phase out at the source;
- Mandatory BAT on the substitution of chemicals of concern (hazardous and very high concern substances), which is a standard BAT relating to Chemicals Management Systems.
See more information in the IEP-R section and letter sent (February 2025) to DG Environment related to the PFAS problem and the role of the IED / EU BAT with Annex.
In relation to accidents prevention, whilst the official Annex III BAT criteria explicitly refer to the need to “prevent accidents and to minimise the consequences for the environment and human health” in its point 11, the BAT Conclusions hardly ever set requirements on this aspect. To the EEB it is irrelevant if strong safety provisions are primarily aimed to protect workers on site instead of the surrounding environment. The substitution of the use / production of chemicals of concern would hence constitute an additional co-benefit in this case. The EMS provisions of the IED 2.0 aim to continuously improve the safety performance of the installation, thus there is a clear interface link with the EU Seveso III Directive.
- Information on whether potential BAT candidates such as substitution of chemicals of concern will result in a change of the Seveso Directive hazard classification would have positive implications for Seveso status related aspects. This is particularly relevant for at source substitution of chemicals of concern (including physical hazards) contained in the EMS as well as storage related requirements.
- The Seveso III Directive requires the operator to draw up a document in writing setting out the major-accident prevention policy (MAPP) and to ensure that it is properly implemented. The MAPP shall be designed to ensure “a high level of protection of human health and the environment […]. It shall include the operator’s overall aims and principles of action, the role and responsibility of management, as well as the commitment towards continuously improving the control of major-accident hazards, and ensuring a high level of protection]”.
- Further, the Safety Report related requirements of its Annex II refer to the need to set out a “description of preventive measures” and available “information on best practices” (of processes and operating measures). There is hence an obvious BAT link.
Art.8 of the IED 2.0 provides that in case of incidents that may have consequences also to human health, the operator must take immediate measures to limit the consequences. The impact of these provisions will again depend on proper enforcement, incl. legal actions as a response to potential breaches at national level.
Further information:
- HAZBREF project (supported by the EEB)
- EEB briefing (2013) on the main changes brought by the Seveso III Directive
