Amending Directives 2008/98/EC, 2010/75/EU, (EU) 2015/2193 and (EU) 2024/1785 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards simplification of some requirements and reduction of administrative burden

Amendment 59

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1

Or. en

Amendment 60

Anne-Sophie Frigout, Valérie Deloge, Antonín Staněk, Gilles Pennelle, Mathilde Androuët, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1

Or. fr

Amendment 61

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2

Or. en

Amendment 62

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2

Or. en

Amendment 63

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3

Or. en

Amendment 64

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4

Or. en

Amendment 65

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4

Or. en

Amendment 66

Anne-Sophie Frigout, Valérie Deloge, Gilles Pennelle, Mathilde Androuët, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4

Or. fr

Amendment 67

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Roman Haider, Viktória Ferenc, Anne-Sophie Frigout

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4

Or. en

Amendment 68

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 69

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Or. en

Justification

The SCIP database is a unique source of information about substances of very high concern in articles. It would be irresponsible to let it die a slow death by ending the obligation for economic operators to pass such information to ECHA. Such information is necessary to facilitate proper waste management, improving the quality of recycling quality and enabling the transition to a clean circular economy. Such information is also useful to increase the protection of workers in waste management from exposure to hazardous substances. Finally, the database is the sole source of information for authorities with regard to substances of very high concern in articles and thus of major importance to inform policy decisions. Admittedly, due to its current structure, in particular the flexibility with regard to article identifiers, the information included in the database has had limited usability thus far. There are however no tools which can fully substitute the database. SCIP is the sole database that encompasses information about substances of very high concern across all articles. Moreover, the Common Chemicals Data Platform adopted in 2024 relies on the SCIP database as key input, and Digital Product Passports under the Eco-Design Regulation will only be introduced gradually from 2027, and only for certain product categories. Rather than ending the notification requirements, they should be simplified by harmonising them with recently adopted standards and thus facilitate the integration of such information with upcoming digital product passports.

Amendment 70

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Or. en

Amendment 71

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Or. en

Amendment 72

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Or. en

Justification

Considering the shift towards a more circular economy, SCIP database under the Waste Framework Directive is the only existing structured source of data on harmful chemicals in products and deleting it would undermine Union’s circular economy objectives and considering there is no functional alternative contradict the stated aim of simplification. The appropriate course is to address existing implementation weaknesses to ensure that the system functions properly to serve its true objective of informing waste management about presence of the substances of concerns in articles, in particular the concentration of the substance and its location within the article.

Amendment 73

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6

Or. en

Justification

Waste prevention is at the top of the waste hierarchy. Waste prevention indicators are key to be able to asses the success of measures taken. Article 9(1) of the WFD sets out twelve measures MS are obliged to take. While several of them are of soft nature, others set out clear legal requirements to reduce waste generation (see points c, f, g, j, k). The fact that some MS have developed national indicators or that the EEA has developed a framework for monitoring waste prevention cannot replace the establishment of clear EU-wide indicators by the Commission to inform EU wide policy-making.

Amendment 74

Jeannette Baljeu, Andreas Glück, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Olivier Chastel

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 75

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Roman Haider

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Or. en

Amendment 76

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Or. en

Amendment 77

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Or. en

Amendment 78

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Or. en

Amendment 79

Anna Zalewska

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 80

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 81

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 82

Anna Zalewska

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 83

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Roman Haider

Proposal for a directive

Recital 8

Or. en

Amendment 84

Martin Günther

Proposal for a directive

Recital 8

Or. en

Justification

EMAS is a stronger choice than ISO 14001: While EMAS incorporates the environmental management system requirements of ISO 14001, it also requires demonstrated legal compliance, continuous improvement in actual environmental performance, employee involvement and the publication of an independently validated environmental statement.

Amendment 85

Anna Zalewska

Proposal for a directive

Recital 8

Or. en

Amendment 86

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Recital 8 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 87

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Or. en

Amendment 88

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Roman Haider

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Or. en

Amendment 89

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Or. en

Amendment 90

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Or. en

Amendment 91

Katri Kulmuni

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Or. en

Justification

We would like to ensure that chemicals requiremenst can be established in the sector specific BAT conclusions also in the future. This has been established practice as of 2022 and upto now, such requirements have been established in five sector specific BAT conclusions.

Amendment 92

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Or. en

Justification

the provision was introduced in 2024 and from everything we went through, including EPRS assessment, the deletion proposed by the EC is not justified.

Amendment 93

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Roman Haider

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Or. en

Amendment 94

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Or. en

Amendment 95

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Or. en

Amendment 96

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Krzysztof Hetman

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Or. en

Justification

The deletion of the empowerment to adopt implementing acts does not, in itself, remove the underlying publication obligation. The mandatory online publication of information relating to environmental management systems would generate additional administrative burden for operators and competent authorities, and could necessitate redactions in order to safeguard confidential business information, while providing limited environmental added value. Public access to environmental information remains fully ensured under the existing Union and national legal frameworks.

Amendment 97

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Or. en

Amendment 98

Katri Kulmuni

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Or. en

Justification

It would be good to get this common format back to the text as it would greatly benefit for the simplification objectives of this proposal. Having one single publication format in EU would provide massive administrative burden benefits, as compared to establishing such format at MS level or deciding what to publish on case-by-case basis. As the EMS deadline is postponed, we could give the Commission a similar time extension for the IA.

Amendment 99

Carmen Crespo Díaz, Dolors Montserrat

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10 a (new)

Or. es

Amendment 100

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Roman Haider

Proposal for a directive

Recital 11

Or. en

Amendment 101

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Recital 11

Or. en

Amendment 102

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 11

Or. en

Amendment 103

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 11

Or. en

Amendment 104

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Roman Haider

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Or. en

Amendment 105

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Or. en

Amendment 106

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Or. en

Amendment 107

Anna Zalewska

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Or. en

Amendment 108

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Roman Haider

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13

Or. en

Amendment 109

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13

Or. en

Amendment 110

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13

Or. en

Amendment 111

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13

Or. en

Amendment 112

Anna Zalewska

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13

Or. en

Amendment 113

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 114

Anna Zalewska

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 115

Jeannette Baljeu, Andreas Glück, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Ana Vasconcelos, Katri Kulmuni

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

The deletion of the word “pig” in point 2.2 is intended to clarify the scope of the Directive and facilitate cleaner steel production techniques such as direct reduction. This clarification ensures that innovative low-carbon processes are not discouraged by unnecessary or duplicative permitting burdens, while preserving the IED framework and BAT-based environmental protection.

Amendment 116

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Or. en

Amendment 117

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 118

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Roman Haider

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 119

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 120

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 c (new)

Or. en

Amendment 121

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 d (new)

Or. en

Amendment 122

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15 e (new)

Or. en

Justification

we understand that the burden on some installations (albeit a small minority of all agri installations need to implement control of pollution in accordance with this Directive) is a matter of concern for some, but what might not be well appreciated, by some, is the cost of this pollution. EPRS was very helpful and assisted is in better substantiation of what is already at stake if nothing is done- including the health of Union citizens.

Amendment 123

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Or. en

Amendment 124

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Or. en

Justification

If there are 1000 breeding sows and every one of them has 9 little ones, with two litters per year, thus making them present all year round, it surely isnt necessarily ´´low emissions´´. For the purpose of simplification we could however agree to this provision, only making it clearer that the category of less or equal to 20 kg doesnt contain unweaned piglets.

Amendment 125

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Or. en

Amendment 126

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 127

Carmen Crespo Díaz, Dolors Montserrat

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16 a (new)

Or. es

Amendment 128

Carmen Crespo Díaz, Dolors Montserrat

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16 b (new)

Or. es

Amendment 129

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Or. en

Amendment 130

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Or. en

Amendment 131

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Or. en

Amendment 132

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Or. en

Amendment 133

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Or. en

Amendment 134

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Or. en

Amendment 135

Anna Zalewska

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 136

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 137

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Recital 18

Or. en

Amendment 138

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Recital 18

Or. en

Justification

Oxy-fuel combustion supports industrial decarbonisation because it uses oxygen-enriched combustion, which makes CO₂ easier to capture. However, this changes flue-gas characteristics, meaning pollutant concentrations may appear higher even if the total mass of pollution released is not higher. This modification allows competent authorities to adapt compliance assessment for this technology, but adds a safeguard that it must not lead to an overall increase in air pollutant emissions compared with conventional air combustion.

Amendment 139

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Roman Haider

Proposal for a directive

Recital 18 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Anti-gold-plating clause

Amendment 140

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19

Or. en

Justification

advanced end of pipe abatement systems should be deployed in back up generators, as they are e.g. used for data centres, which increasingly find their way to populated areas. this should be considered and the new provision should allow for simplifiation of administrative burden in case such advanced techniques are in place. the EC proposal refers to particulate pollutants limits, but NRG have limits only for PM, but not for PN (and whether the ambition of the PM emission limit requires advanced tehcniques to be implemented, is debatable)

Amendment 141

Carmen Crespo Díaz, Dolors Montserrat

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19 a (new)

Or. es

Amendment 142

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19 a (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 143

Carmen Crespo Díaz, Dolors Montserrat

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19 b (new)

Or. es

Amendment 144

Carmen Crespo Díaz, Dolors Montserrat

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19 c (new)

Or. es

Amendment 145

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Recital 20

Or. fr

Amendment 146

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 20 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

As the unchanged provision from the Directive adopted in 2024 is being challenged by the ENVI report, for the purpose of reiteration of the importance of an existing provision, this recital introduces the content, word for word, of the recital 29 from the Directive 2024. no change to an existing operative text is proposed as article 15.3 as adopted in 2024 should remain unchanged.

Amendment 147

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Roman Haider, Viktória Ferenc

Proposal for a directive

Recital 20 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 148

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Recital 20 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 149

Jeannette Baljeu, Andreas Glück, Ilhan Kyuchyuk

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point e

Or. en

Justification

Directive 2008/98/EC already excludes decommissioned explosives from its scope. However, divergent interpretations of that exclusion may create practical obstacles for the secure management, demilitarisation, transport or disposal of ammunition and munitions, thereby affecting operational readiness. Referring to Class 1 explosives provides a clearer and more harmonised basis, while ensuring that such materials remain subject to dedicated defence, security and explosive-safety regimes.

Amendment 150

Sergio Berlato, Michele Picaro, Pietro Fiocchi, Stefano Cavedagna, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Paolo Inselvini

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 6 – paragraph 4 a new

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098)

Amendment 151

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point c

Or. en

Justification

The reporting system also needs to include products made available on the market in a Member State in which a producer is not established. The reporting should apply to the products made available on the market in a given year - and not just to the products made available on the market for the first time, as the latter would exclude many products. As the Commission might be reluctant to establish a central digital reporting mechanism, the possibility of a network of national digital systems should also be foreseen.

Amendment 152

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point c

Or. en

Justification

Replacing “at a maximum frequency of once every 12 months” with “at least once every 12 months” ensures EU-wide minimum harmonised annual reporting while allowing Member States to require more frequent reporting where needed. This is important for systems like Germany’s EPR/WEEE allocation, which rely on monthly put-on-market data.

Amendment 153

Jeannette Baljeu, Andreas Glück, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Olivier Chastel, Ana Vasconcelos

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Extended producer responsibility reporting may require detailed information on product volumes, composition and waste flows. For defence-related products, such information may be operationally sensitive or classified. A narrowly framed possibility for aggregated or restricted reporting protects national security while preserving producer responsibility and the safe management of waste.

Amendment 154

Susana Solís Pérez

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 8a a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 155

Alexander Bernhuber

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 8a a (new)

Or. en

Justification

It must be ensured that the simplification for EU companies is not exploited by “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs), i.e. that they do not mis-use EPR schemes.

Amendment 156

Alexander Bernhuber

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a(new)

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 8a a (new)

Or. en

Justification

It must be ensured that the simplification for EU companies is not exploited by “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs), i.e. that they do not “free-ride” on EPR schemes.

Amendment 157

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point i

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point i

Or. en

Justification

Firstly, this reinstates the current text in Article 9(2) of the Waste Framework Directive, maintaining the link between the promotion of the reduction of the content of hazardous substances in materials and products with the obligation on suppliers to provide information about substances in concern to ECHA (first sentence). Secondly, it specifies the minimum to be provided in line with the Eco-Design Regulation. Thirdly, it provides for the obligation to use the new standards applicable to digital product passports for the provision of this information (publication of a reference to those standards in the OJ is expected in the next days). Using the new standards would simplify and harmonize the notification and make it future-proof by integrating it with upcoming digital product passports. Finally, the amendment specifies that such information provision are no longer required when the information is accessible via the web portal on digital product passports. This is true simplification, integrating REACH notification requirements on substances of very high concern with notification requirements of such substances to ECHA and with information requirements under the Eco-Design Regulation in the form of digital product passports, using the same IT language for all.

Amendment 158

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point i

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point i

Or. en

Justification

Once an article is covered by an equivalent information system that fulfils the same requirements regarding substances of concern in the article — for example, the Digital Product Passport — it shall be exempt from reporting under the SCIP database. Although it may seem simpler to grant automatic exemption as soon as a product is covered by the Digital Product Passport, the Commission should issue a Delegated Act to ensure that only articles covered by an equivalent information system can benefit from the exemption. This also allows for a transition period to be implemented, ensuring that there is no data reporting gap for a product category. Additionally, it is crucial to inform waste management operators where substances of concern can be found in articles/waste and in what quantities, to ensure the usability of the information. Article 38a on the exercise of the delegation must be amended accordingly to the proposed modifications.

Amendment 159

Jeannette Baljeu, Andreas Glück, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Olivier Chastel, Ana Vasconcelos

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point i

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point i

Or. en

Justification

The reduction of hazardous substances remains an important objective. However, certain substances, coatings, materials or components may be essential for defence performance, safety, durability or operational readiness, and suitable alternatives may not yet be available. This amendment prevents waste-prevention policy from indirectly undermining defence capabilities, while preserving existing Union requirements and requiring appropriate risk management.

Amendment 160

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point ii

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point ia

Or. en

Justification

The SCIP database is a unique source of information about substances of very high concern in articles. It would be irresponsible to let it die a slow death by ending the obligation for economic operators to pass such information to ECHA. Such information is necessary to facilitate proper waste management, improving the quality of recycling quality and enabling the transition to a clean circular economy. Such information is also useful to increase the protection of workers in waste management from exposure to hazardous substances. Finally, the database is the sole source of information for authorities with regard to substances of very high concern in articles and thus of major importance to inform policy decisions. Due to its current structure, in particular the flexibility with regard to article identifiers, the information included in the database has had limited usability thus far. There are however no tools which can fully substitute the database. SCIP is the sole database that encompasses information about substances of very high concern across all articles. Moreover, the Common Chemicals Data Platform adopted in 2024 relies on the SCIP database as key input, and Digital Product Passports under the Eco-Design Regulation will only be introduced gradually from 2027, and only for certain product categories. Rather than ending the notification requirements, they should be simplified by harmonising them with recently adopted standards and thus facilitate the integration of such information with upcoming digital product passports.

Amendment 161

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point ii

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point ia

Or. en

Amendment 162

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point ii

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 1– point ia

Or. en

Amendment 163

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a – point ii

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point ia

Or. en

Amendment 164

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b – introductory part

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 165

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 166

Jeannette Baljeu, Andreas Glück, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Olivier Chastel, Ana Vasconcelos

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The proposal discontinues new SCIP notifications while maintaining data already submitted to ECHA. Where such archived data concern defence-related products or classified information, safeguards are needed to prevent disclosure that could affect national security. This amendment protects sensitive information without creating a general exclusion from EU waste law or weakening obligations for safe waste management.

Amendment 167

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

Firstly, the first three sentences reinstate the current provisions of the law. The access rights to the database as stated in the current law need to be preserved. Secondly, ECHA should be tasked to ensure that the database meets its objectives. For that, the articles containing substances of very high concern need to be clearly identified and in a manner that allows users of the database to identify actual articles placed on the market. Moreover, it needs to fulfil the needs of waste treatment operators by allowing aggregation of the data.

Amendment 168

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 169

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The implementation of SCIP has not been fully satisfactory because its data outputs do not sufficiently serve the needs of waste management operators. The amendment gives the Commission and ECHA a mandate to improve SCIP so that it can better fulfil its intended purpose.

Amendment 170

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point c

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 9 – paragraph 7

Or. en

Justification

Waste prevention is at the top of the waste hierarchy. Waste prevention indicators are key to be able to asses the success of measures taken. The obligation in the current WFD for the Commission to adopt an implementing act to measure overall progress on waste prevention measures - an obligation introduced in the revision of the WFD in 2018! - should remain. To avoid further delays and undue unilateral deprioritisation, a clear deadline should be set for the adoption of this implementing act.

Amendment 171

Susana Solís Pérez

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 33 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 172

Alexander Bernhuber

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 33 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

It must be ensured that the simplification for EU companies is not exploited by “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs), i.e. that they do not mis-use EPR schemes.

Amendment 173

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2008/98/EC

Article 37 – paragraph 6

Or. en

Amendment 174

Anne-Sophie Frigout, Valérie Deloge, Gilles Pennelle, Mathilde Androuët, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Title

Or. fr

Amendment 175

François-Xavier Bellamy, Céline Imart

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Title

Or. fr

Amendment 176

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 177

Anne-Sophie Frigout, Valérie Deloge, Gilles Pennelle, Mathilde Androuët, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – points 2 and 3

Or. fr

Amendment 178

Anne-Sophie Frigout, Valérie Deloge, Gilles Pennelle, Mathilde Androuët, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Or. fr

(DIRECTIVE 2010/75/EU)

Amendment 179

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Or. fr

Amendment 180

Jessica Polfjärd

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive (EU) 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Or. en

(02010L0075-20240804)

Amendment 181

François-Xavier Bellamy, Céline Imart

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Or. fr

Amendment 182

François-Xavier Bellamy, Céline Imart

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 b (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 183

Anne-Sophie Frigout, Valérie Deloge, Gilles Pennelle, Mathilde Androuët, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)

Or. fr

(Directive 2010/75/EU)

Justification

Some techniques for reducing emissions from livestock farming facilities may involve buildings’ specific structural features. It is therefore necessary to clarify the concepts of existing or new unit and installation, so that the techniques to be applied can be tailored and so that techniques that would require structural alterations to existing buildings are not imposed.

Amendment 184

Anne-Sophie Frigout, Valérie Deloge, Gilles Pennelle, Mathilde Androuët, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 b (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)

Or. fr

(Directive 2010/75/EU)

Justification

Some techniques for reducing emissions from livestock farming facilities may involve buildings’ specific structural features. It is therefore necessary to clarify the concepts of existing or new unit and installation, so that the techniques to be applied can be tailored and so that techniques that would require structural alterations to existing buildings are not imposed.

Amendment 185

François-Xavier Bellamy, Céline Imart

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 c (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 186

Anne-Sophie Frigout, Valérie Deloge, Gilles Pennelle, Mathilde Androuët, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 c (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 c (new)

Or. fr

(Directive 2010/75/EU)

Justification

Some techniques for reducing emissions from livestock farming facilities may involve buildings’ specific structural features. It is therefore necessary to clarify the concepts of existing or new unit and installation, so that the techniques to be applied can be tailored and so that techniques that would require structural alterations to existing buildings are not imposed.

Amendment 187

Anne-Sophie Frigout, Valérie Deloge, Gilles Pennelle, Mathilde Androuët, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 d (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 d (new)

Or. fr

(Directive 2010/75/EU)

Justification

Some techniques for reducing emissions from livestock farming facilities may involve buildings’ specific structural features. It is therefore necessary to clarify the concepts of existing or new unit and installation, so that the techniques to be applied can be tailored and so that techniques that would require structural alterations to existing buildings are not imposed.

Amendment 188

Alexander Bernhuber

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 5a

Or. en

(2010/75/EU)

Justification

AEPLs are obsolete because of several provisions in the special legislative acts such as Water Framework Directive, Ambient Air Quality Directive, Waste Framework Directive.

Amendment 189

François-Xavier Bellamy, Céline Imart

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 d (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – points 12a, 23, 23a and 23b

Or. fr

Amendment 190

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1- point -1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9a

Or. en

(DIRECTIVE (EU) 2024/1785)

Justification

The obligation to prepare a transformation plan for industrial installations introduced in 2024 is deleted. it is considered reasonable to be brought back for limited number of installations- those which will claim derogations from emission levels associated with BATs due to being deeply transformed and a new investment to BATs would be considered as some undesired stepping stone blocking them from deep industrial transformation. It is assumed that such transformation needs to be described somewhere, otherwise it is difficult to see how it would be implemented and verified.

Amendment 191

Anna Zalewska

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9a

Or. en

Amendment 192

Anna Zalewska

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 23b

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02010L0075-20240804)

Amendment 193

Daniel Buda

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – points 50 a and 50 b (new)

Or. en

Justification

This definition ensures that no existing project will have to integrate techniques that would require structural modifications to existing buildings

Amendment 194

Anne-Sophie Frigout, Valérie Deloge, Gilles Pennelle, Mathilde Androuët, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 e (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Or. fr

(DIRECTIVE 2010/75/EU)

Amendment 195

Daniel Buda

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 196

Daniel Buda

Proposal for a directive

Article 2– paragraph 1 – point -1 b (new)

Directive 2024/1785 EU

Article 8 – paragraphs 4

Or. en

Amendment 197

François-Xavier Bellamy, Céline Imart

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 e (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 8 – paragraphs 3 and 4

Or. fr

Amendment 198

Anne-Sophie Frigout, Valérie Deloge, Gilles Pennelle, Mathilde Androuët, Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 f (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 8 – paragraph 4

Or. fr

Amendment 199

François-Xavier Bellamy, Céline Imart

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 f (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c and f

Or. fr

Amendment 200

Jessica Polfjärd

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph -1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 12 – Applications for permits

Or. en

(02010L0075-20240804)

Amendment 201

Sergio Berlato, Michele Picaro, Pietro Fiocchi, Stefano Cavedagna, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Paolo Inselvini

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 - paragraph 1 – point -1 a

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – letter f

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075)

Amendment 202

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Viktória Ferenc

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1- point -1 (new)

Directive (EU) 2024/1785, amending Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 13 – paragraph 1

Or. en

(Directive (EU) 2024/1785, amending Directive 2010/75/EU)

Amendment 203

Andrea Wechsler, Christian Ehler, Jens Gieseke, Angelika Niebler, Oliver Schenk, Norbert Lins, Zala Černilec Tomašič, Peter Liese, Wouter Beke

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1- point -1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 13 – paragraph 1

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02010L0075-20240804)

Justification

The amendment supports a more efficient and technically focused exchange of information for the preparation and review of BAT reference documents. Streamlining the process helps ensure predictable review cycles, reduces procedural complexity and allows the framework to focus on actors directly involved in implementation.

Amendment 204

Pietro Fiocchi

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 13 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02010L0075-20240804&qid=1783407411429)

Justification

The option to deviate from data anonymisation introduces disproportionate and superfluous administrative complexity into the BREF process. Deleting this option follows the objectives of the Omnibus VIII initiative to reduce administrative burdens.

Amendment 205

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1- (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 206

François-Xavier Bellamy

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 13 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Or. fr

Amendment 207

Andrea Wechsler, Christian Ehler, Jens Gieseke, Angelika Niebler, Oliver Schenk, Norbert Lins, Zala Černilec Tomašič, Peter Liese, Wouter Beke

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02010L0075-20240804)

Justification

The amendment simplifies permit conditions by removing additional requirements that risk duplicating existing obligations and overcomplicating the permitting process. It preserves the core BAT-based framework of the Directive, strengthens legal certainty for operators and competent authorities and ensures effective environmental protection without unnecessary administrative burden.

Amendment 208

Pietro Fiocchi

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point a

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02010L0075-20240804&qid=1783407411429)

Justification

Setting Emission Limit Values (ELVs) must be strictly focused on key pollutants relevant to the sector as defined in the BAT conclusions. Allowing general or non-specific parameters to be included in permit conditions creates severe legal uncertainty and cross-media monitoring inefficiencies. By restricting ELVs to sector-relevant substances, this provision rationalizes technical controls, lightens the bureaucratic workload for industrial sites, and prevents heterogeneous application across Member States.

Amendment 209

Pietro Fiocchi

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 b (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point ab

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02010L0075-20240804&qid=1783407411429)

Justification

The systematic requirement to assess environmental risks for all REACH substances under the IED creates a redundant and unmanageable administrative process. This provision duplicates existing REACH procedures and increases the reporting workload for operators without objective environmental added value.

Amendment 210

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Krzysztof Hetman

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point (ba)

Or. en

Justification

The EMS obligation already follows from Article 14a and can be verified through environmental inspections. Including EMS characteristics in permits risks additional permit updates and burdens for competent authorities and operators without corresponding environmental benefit.

Amendment 211

Sergio Berlato, Michele Picaro, Pietro Fiocchi, Stefano Cavedagna, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Paolo Inselvini

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 - point -1 b (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14 – paragraph 4

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075)

Amendment 212

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1- point -1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14

Or. en

(Directive (EU) 2024/1785 amending Directive 2010/75/EU)

Amendment 213

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Roman Haider

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive (EU)2024/1785, amending Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a

Or. en

Amendment 214

Andreas Glück

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Justification

Requiring a mandatory EMS as part of the permit would lead to further procedural delays and represents a massive administrative burden for companies covered by the IED. Most companies have already implemented an EMS according to international norms like ISO 14001.

Amendment 215

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Roman Haider

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a

Or. en

Amendment 216

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 217

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a

Or. en

Amendment 218

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – Title

Or. en

Amendment 219

Alexander Bernhuber

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EC

Article 14a – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

The mandatory publication of EMS contents in the internet shall be deleted to avoid additional red tape and the publication of production-related data. There is no added environmental value.

Amendment 220

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EC

Article 14a – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 221

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

Additional wording would prevent companies from claiming that data can be reported only in an aggregated form through a single EMS. Under the IED, environmental compliance is evaluated and enforced for each individual installation rather than at company level. For this reason, competent authorities need access to installation-specific environmental data to properly assess and verify environmental performance. This level of detail is also essential for the development of the BREFs under the IED. These reference documents form the basis for the permit conditions that authorities issue or update for individual installations. Reporting only at company level would not provide the level of detail needed either to evaluate the environmental performance of individual factories or to support the EU BREF process.

Amendment 222

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 223

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 224

Anna Zalewska

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 225

Andreas Glück

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 1

Or. en

Justification

Operators of plants covered by the IED are already obliged to comply with BAT conclusions through other means.

Amendment 226

Anna Zalewska

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 1 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 227

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 2

Or. en

Amendment 228

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Krzysztof Hetman

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Or. en

Justification

Recognition of EMAS/ISO 14001 avoids duplication and supports the use of existing, internationally recognised environmental management systems. Certification should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance where the scope covers the relevant installation(s).

Amendment 229

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii

Or. en

Amendment 230

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Krzysztof Hetman

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – point 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 231

Andreas Glück

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 2 – point b

Or. en

Justification

Requiring EMS objectives and performance indicators to take such BAT benchmarks into account would effectively reintroduce an installation-specific approach.

Amendment 232

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Krzysztof Hetman

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 2 – point b

Or. en

Justification

The reference to BAT benchmarks limits the practical effect of EMS simplification. EMS should remain a flexible management tool adapted to the nature, scale and complexity of installations, rather than an additional route for imposing installation-specific BAT-related obligations.

Amendment 233

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 2– point b

Or. en

Justification

letter b) text represents an unchanged part of the directive adopted in 2024 which the ENVI report amends. that change is contested, and full support to the reading of the Directive in 2024 is provided by this amendment. water use and the its efficiency might in number of sectors due to lack of data be represented in BAT conclusions by benchmarks only. this doesnt mean that this element doenst represent a significant environment aspect for installation in question and that a continuous improvement on this aspect should not be considered in an EMS.

Amendment 234

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 235

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a– paragraph 2– point d

Or. en

Justification

Within the food and beverage sector, these practices have already been adopted by a number of industry leaders and should be actively promoted as a benchmark for securing the future of water-dependent industries. While water dependency spans all sectors to varying degrees, it remains a critical risk factor for all. Consequently, integrating these measures can significantly enhance Environmental Management Systems (EMS), strengthening the long-term economic resilience of both individual installations and the broader enterprise.

Amendment 236

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 2– point d a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Deletion of chemical inventory and chemical management system is not justified. Report from Finnish Environmental Institute co-financed from Interreg Baltic Region Strengthening chemicals management in Best Available Techniques Reference Documents from 2021 clearly identified the need for such inventory and was proposed in the EC proposal for IED2.0 in 2022. EPRS service couldnt find any overlap of obligations under CMS in IED adopted in 2024 with obligations under other ENVI legislation. This amendment proposes limiting the scope of such inventory to classified substances, plus a subset of PFAS substances for which environmetnal quality standards and standards for groundwater were agreed in 2026 and the reduction of which is necessary if MS are to strive to comply in future with the standards, and thus significantly limits the burden on installations.

Amendment 237

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 238

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 239

Alexander Bernhuber

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – point 1 (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)

Or. en

(2010/75/EU)

Justification

The elements listed in Article 14a (2) of Directive 2010/75/EU are commonly incorporated in EMAS and ISO 14001 as well as other systems. In addition, there are sector-specific EMS in Member States that are even audited and certified by EMAS-auditors and are therefore recognised by the authorities. It must thus be made absolutely clear that these systems are considered an EMS according to the meaning of Article 14a.

Amendment 240

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 241

Andreas Glück

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 3 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 242

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 243

Martin Günther

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 3 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Regarding waste management facilities, many Member States already require stringent, specialised national certification schemes (such as the German Regulation on Specialised Waste Management Companies (Entsorgungsfachbetriebeverordnung – EfbV)) that ensure high environmental and sustainability standards. Many of these national schemes already audit and verify elements that are identical to the requirements of EMAS. Recognising these equivalent, specialised national systems through a Member State option would make a significant contribution to simplification by avoiding unnecessary duplication of audits, reducing costs for circular economy operators, and maintaining a high level of environmental protection without lowering the bar for compliance.

Amendment 244

Martin Günther, Sebastian Everding, Per Clausen

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 245

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Krzysztof Hetman

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Articla 14a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Justification

The obligation relating to environmental management systems should be simplified through the removal of publication requirements that are not strictly necessary. Mandatory publication would impose recurrent administrative tasks on operators and competent authorities, including the assessment and redaction of confidential business information, without delivering commensurate environmental benefit. Public access to environmental information is already guaranteed under the existing Union and national legal frameworks.

Amendment 246

François-Xavier Bellamy, Céline Imart

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 4

Or. fr

Amendment 247

Susana Solís Pérez

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 248

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

Or. en

Amendment 249

Katri Kulmuni

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

In order to achieve the simplification objectives of this proposal, it seems necessary to establish a EU-wide common format for publication of relevant information.

Amendment 250

Alexander Bernhuber

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

It must also be made absolutely clear that an EMS is not a prerequisite for a permit per se (whether new or updated), but that the operator shall have to provide it to the authorities within a reasonable time period.

Amendment 251

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 252

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Krzysztof Hetman

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The obligation relating to environmental management systems should be simplified through the removal of publication requirements that are not strictly necessary. Mandatory publication would impose recurrent administrative tasks on operators and competent authorities, including the assessment and redaction of confidential business information, without delivering commensurate environmental benefit. Public access to environmental information is already guaranteed under the existing Union and national legal frameworks.

Amendment 253

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

Or. en

Justification

The addition only details the existing provision that the information may be refused (and not made public), including information on emissions to the environment (e.g. pertaining to the chemical inventory provision), where it could affect national defence.

Amendment 254

Anna Zalewska

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3

Or. en

Amendment 255

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 256

Jutta Paulus

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14a – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 257

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Krzysztof Hetman

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a ( new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14 b (new)

Or. en

Justification

Introducing an additional IED-specific chemicals inventory would create overlapping documentation requirements, contrary to the simplification objective of the Omnibus package. These additional assessment obligations would create further administrative and organisational burden for operators of large combustion plants, without clear added value compared to existing chemical safety, occupational health and environmental compliance obligations. The administrative burden would therefore remain, even if the obligation is formally moved outside the EMS.

Amendment 258

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 14 b (new)

Or. en

Justification

A chemicals inventory is necessary to support proper risk assessment, substitution and reduction of hazardous substances, effective permitting and enforcement, and the shift towards a safer and more circular economy. Existing obligations under REACH, CLP and occupational safety legislation only partially overlap and do not provide equivalent installation-specific information on hazardous substances present in or emitted from industrial installations.

Amendment 259

Ondřej Knotek, Jana Nagyová, Antonín Staněk, Anne-Sophie Frigout

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 15

Or. en

(Directive (EU) 2024/1785, amending Directive 2010/75/EU)

Amendment 260

Michal Wiezik, Martin Hojsík

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 15 – paragraph 1– subparagraph 2

Or. en

(Directive 2010/75/EC)

Justification

an amendment is to only counter the ENVI report which opens the text unchanged by the EC proposal. the Art 15.1 was changed in 2024 because it was not clear and in practice resulted in a disproprotionate burden on waste water treatment facilities while the primary source of pollution, the IED installation, could freeride on the services offered by the waste water treatment plant downstream, and even impede their operation by its activity and lack of implementation of control of pollution at source.

Amendment 261

Thomas Bajada, Annalisa Corrado

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 15 – paragraph 1

Or. en

(32024L1785)

Amendment 262

Andreas Glück

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 15 – paragraph 3

Or. en

(Directive 2010/75/EU)

Justification

Requiring operators to justify why they cannot meet the strictest end of every individual emission range creates a heavy administrative burden. This amendment allows an integrated emission management approach that lets facilities optimize pollution reduction holistically across connected sources, provided it delivers the best overall environmental protection.

Amendment 263

Sergio Berlato, Michele Picaro, Pietro Fiocchi, Stefano Cavedagna, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Paolo Inselvini

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Directive 2010/75/EU

Article 15 – paragraph 3

Or. en

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075)