Patrick ten Brink, IEEP Supported by Peter Vercaemst, VITO and Shailendra Mudgal , Bio

1. Data gathering and impact assessment for a possible technical review of the IPPC Directive An introduction to the project Patrick ten Brink, IEEP Supported by Peter Vercaemst, VITO and Shailendra Mudgal, Bio On behalf of the project team: IEEP, VITO, Bio, Ecologic, IVM IPPC Advisory Group Meeting 13 January 2006

2. Structure of presentation • Overview of the project • Aims and Objectives • (Potential) Amendments overview (8 proposed) • Tasks and Tools • Timeframe • 2. Amendments discussion 1 by 1, with the theme areas • A: Permitting and monitoring provisions • B: Exchange of information on BAT • C: Annex 1 of the IPPC Directive

3. Aims and objectives • What the work is aimed at: • Develop understanding of arguments for/against specific potential amendments • Collect data to help assess potential implications • First analysis of economic, environmental and social impacts • Develop methodology for analysis of further possible amendments in subsequent work • What the work is not aimed at: • The outcome will not be a final impact assessment (IA), but will rather allow the Commission to develop its own IA. • The work is not supposed to analyse all 25 MS, but rather to focus on relevant case studies.

4. Possible Amendments Possible amendments were identified on the basis of responses to the 2003 IPPC Communication

5. Amendments to be covered in possible future work • Other possible amendments to Annex 1: … and other amendments that may arise from other potential contributors and other activities (e.g IEG work on guidance)

6. Tasks and tools • Problem definition and objectives • Fact sheets per amendment – common structure • Option definition per amendment • Part of fact sheets • Based on literature survey, suggestions by contributors • Methodology • Data gathering • Literature survey – starting now. • Questionnaire – sent out by mid March • Coordination with and input from other projects • Assessment of impacts of different options • Comparison of impacts and justification of preferences

7. Timeframe Written reports for detailed comment shortly after each Advisory Group

8. Part 2 • Initial presentation of amendments: • A: Permitting and monitoring provisions • B: Exchange of information on BAT • C: Annex 1 of the IPPC Directive

9. Potential Amendment A1: ELV • Issue • ‘The permit shall include emission limit values for pollutants, in particular, those listed in in Annex III, likely to be emitted from the installation concerned in significant quantities, having regard to their nature and their potential to transfer pollution from one medium to another (water, air and land). (…)’ [art 9(3)] • ‘The permit shall contain suitable release monitoring requirements, specifying measurement methodology and frequency, evaluation procedure and an obligation to supply the competent authority with data required for checking compliance with the permit. (…)’ [art 9(5)] • Problem Definition • Difficult to compare ELVs in permits across Europe. • Currently ELVs often set in terms of e.g. mg/Nm3 – could it be better presented e.g. by g/tonne? • Improving information could lead to benefits of transparency, use in benchmarking, and encourage eco-efficiency.

10. Potential Amendment A2: permit review frequency Issue ‘Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that competent authorities periodically reconsider and, where necessary, update permit conditions.’ [art. 13(1)] Problem definition • Frequency of permit renewal is not defined – either as a method to determine appropriate time periods or as fixed timescales for renewal • Wide range of practices in different MS. • Some countries are concerned that others are unsuitably gaining by low permit review frequency – in terms of lower costs to business and later upgrade to latest BAT

11. Potential Amendment A3:monitoring report frequency • Issue • ‘Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that: • (…) the operator regularly informs the competent authority of the results of the monitoring of releases and without delay of any incident or accident significantly affecting the environment (…)’ [art 14] • Problem Definition • Monitoring report frequency is not defined • IPPC reporting is complicated by other reporting and links to initiatives to reduce reporting requirements • There are arguments that the current data reported is insufficient and that more data on actual emissions could usefully be required. • How to amend to ensure that it respects/implements Aarhus?

12. Potential Amendment A4:inspection frequency • Issue • ‘‘Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that: • (…) operators of installations afford the representatives of the competent authority all necessary assistance to enable them to carry out any inspections within the installation, to take samples and to gather any information necessary for the performance of their duties for the purposes of this Directive.’[art 14] • Problem Definition • Inspections should be carried out regularly to assess whether installations conform with permit requirements • Early IMPEL led work raised the issue that the quality of inspections (inc. frequency) was very variable across Europe and led to the creation of the Minimum Criteria on Inspections. • IPPC sets out no precise inspection requirement (unlike Seveso), so some amendment may be appropriate.

13. Potential Amendment A5Requirement re discharges to water • Issue • Introduction of explicit requirements related to discharges to water from IPPC installations of priority substances and priority hazardous substances, as specified by Annex X of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. • Problem Definition • Clear link between IPPC Directive and WFD through the discharges to water from the installation. • To ensure that the link is optimal, a permit application could have more information on discharges and the permit could include conditions to ensure compliance.

14. Potential amendment B1: BAT information exchange Issue Cf. Art 16(2): ‘The Commission shall organise an exchange of information between Member States and the industries concerned on best available techniques, associated monitoring, and developments in them.’ Problem definition • Provision of information for the BREFs, e.g. on emissions data, is variable • Data limitations affect ability to draw timely BAT conclusions

15. Potential Amendment C1Lower thresholds for power plant 50 to 20MW • Issue • Categories of industrial activities referred to in Article 1 • 1. Energy industries • 1.1. Combustion installations with a rated thermal input exceeding 50 MW (1) [Annex I] • Problem Definition • Power plants in the range of 20MW to 50MW currently fall outside IPPC, but have been identified as significant emission sources in CAFE work and are under ET scheme • Should they be included in IPPC? • A better understanding of costs is needed– how many installations involved, what level costs at an average installation, overall etc.

16. Potential amendment C2: Intensive aquaculture Issue Potential addition of intensive aquaculture to the Annex I list of covered activities, eg with a production capacity of 1,000 tonnes of fish or shellfish per year. Problem definition • Aquaculture can cause environmental degradation, e.g.: • Biological Pollution: Fish that escape from aquaculture facilities may harm wild fish populations; • Organic Pollution and Eutrophication: discharges of fish wastes and uneaten feed can bring local nutrient loading; • Chemical Pollution: use of antibiotics and pesticides may bring antibiotic resistance and harm to non-target species;

17. Input requested from Advisory Group • Initial reactions to possible amendments, e.g. issues specific to your MS/sector • Is there any option for a certain amendment you would like to flag? • Possible information sources? • Respond to questionnaire to be circulated in March • Comment on draft reports around April and September

18. Key Contact details Commission Neil Emmott: Neil.EMMOTT@cec.eu.int IEEP Patrick ten Brink: PtenBrink@ieeplondon.org.uk Samuela Bassi: SBassi@ieeplondon.org.uk BIO Veronique Monier: veronique.monier@biois.com Shailendra Mudgal: shailendra.mudgal@biois.com VITO Peter Vercaemst: peter.vercaemst@vito.be