Patrick ten Brink, Senior Fellow & Head of Brussels Office, IEEP ptenbrink@ieep.eu ieep.eu

1. "Towards a future policy on industrial emissions: Review of the IPPC Directive and related legislation" Stakeholder HearingSummary of the work: Data gathering and impact assessment for a possible technical review of the IPPC Directive Patrick ten Brink, Senior Fellow & Head of Brussels Office, IEEP ptenbrink@ieep.eu www.ieep.eu On behalf of the project team: IEEP, VITO, and Bio Friday 4 May 2007, Centre de Conference Borschette (Rue Froissart 36, Brussels)

2. Aims and Objectives • Develop understanding of arguments for/against specific potential amendments • There is no a priori preference for legislative route • To help assess potential implications of different options: • Collect insights on country practice / data • Collect comment from MS and stakeholders on the options • Carry out a first impact assessment • Analysis of economic, environmental and social impacts

3. The Process Towards the Choice of Study Areas IPPC Communication / Consultation responses E-PRTR Member State initiatives (eg ENAP) Thematic Strategies Waste; Water; Air IPPC Guidance Group Issues to potentially to be covered by Data Collection work in the IPPC Review and/or by other Review elements Data gathering and impact assessment for a possible technical review of the IPPC Directive: Part 2 & Data gathering and impact assessment for a review and possible widening of the scope of the IPPC Directive in relation to waste treatment activities Ongoing Data gathering and impact assessment for a possible technical review of the IPPC Directive Part 1 – Complete See Circa website http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/ippc_rev/library

4. Specific areas focused upon – Part 1 Study • Amendments to permitting and monitoring provisions • Specific Emission Limit Values   • Clarification of “periodically” for reconsidering permit conditions • Clarification of “periodically” for monitoring reports   • Obligation to perform regular inspections • Requirements re. discharges to water   • Amendments on the exchange of information on BAT • Provision of information by MSs in the Sevilla process   • Amendments to Annex I of the IPPC Directive • Thresholds for combustion installations • Extension of current IPPC activities: to Aquaculture   Key elements will be presented today

5. Key Questions explored – for clarification issues • In a number of cases the IPPC directive gives flexibility to Member States to chose how to implement the requirements. • Eg periodically reconsidering permits, reporting, inspection • It is important to assess whether the flexibility is actually helpful or whether there are benefits of more explicit requirements. • The work therefore asks: • What is the issue? • What is the range of practice across the EU? • Is there any indication that environmental benefits could arise from changes of practice? • What options are there? • What would be the potential benefits and costs of options? Note that benefits / costs would be in the wide sense of the term, not just purely economic. As a question of principle, what are the risks of flexibility? And what are the risks of explicit requirements?

6. Permit Review Frequency Issue • Article 13(1) requires Member States to ensure that competent authorities periodically reconsider and, where necessary, update permit conditions. Problem definition • Frequency of permit renewal is not defined, but some conditions for permit reconsideration are set by art 13 (2) • Wide range of legal requirements and practices in different MS. • Different permit lengths may lead to uneven environmental protection conditions & competitiveness effects where permits review periods are ‘unduly’ long. • Some concerns that fewer permit reviews will lead to missed opportunities for improving environmental performance / upgrading BAT at some installations. Options • 1. Do nothing • 2. Flexible frequency but common methodology for assessing length, eg based on size, sector, emission, risk, EMS, (2a: within the Directive; 2b: as a separate Guideline) • 3. Minimum frequency requirement. 3 cases: 5, 8 (= Brefs review) or 10 years

7. Study insights • Important to consider the interdependency between permit review and: • Role and frequency of inspections • Monitoring and reporting obligations • BREFs revision (key issue) - v important to ensure that planned revision of BREFs is maintained • Effects of more frequent/regular permit review : • Installation updating according to BAT when suitable (not late) and hence better environment • More permits reviewed where only minor improvements are required (ie inefficient use of resources) and where action is required – there is a trade-off • Additional costs for more regular review will likely be smaller (ie in the order of tens of millions EUR/year for EU 15) in comparison to potential benefits, and mainly administrative.

8. Which are the Interesting options? There is an issue of clarity: it is unclear how MS should interpret review and permit length, and terminology in art 13(2) Option 1 does not address this issue Option 2 (a/b) could be a feasible solution Option 2 b (guidelines) has the advantage that it does not introduce amendments – although less binding Option 3 may lead to a more stringent regulation 5 years: may largely affect many MS current practices 10 years: it may not be v helpful to improve current practice 8 years: interesting because it takes into consideration Brefs reviews

9. Obligation to perform regular inspections Issue • Article 14 of the IPPC Directive states that ‘operators of installations afford the representatives of the competent authority all necessary assistance to enable them to carry out any inspections’. Problem definition • Compliance and enforcement are an essential element of implementation but the IPPC Directive has virtually no provisions on these issues • IPPC does not define an inspection or state that MS should conduct inspections, what format inspections should take, their regularity or how they should fit with the rest of the enforcement proceedings conducted by a Member State. • A variety of practices adopted in MS re the regularity, approach and the obligation to complete inspections • Note: other legislation does contain clear provisions re inspection eg Seveso II Options • 1. Do nothing - ie business as usual • 2. Strengthen the compliance enforcement framework • 3. Minimum frequency of inspection • 3a: at least on an annual basis • 3b: On an annual basis unless a programme of inspections based on an appraisal of risks of the installations is in place

10. Key Impacts • Environment • Option 2 - improvement of the quality of inspection • Option 3 - improvements only if it increases the occurrence of inspections, without jeopardising quality • Costs to public authorities • Option 2 : a more thorough approach could increase time/resources for some MS, but better planning and targeting might give some efficiency savings • Option 3: likely increased number of inspections, thus more resources needed (ballpark estimate ~ €30m/year). Option 3B may mitigate • Confidence of public in environmental control • Option 2 - increased quality of inspection leading to improved performance and public information • Option 3 – positive impact as long as an increase in inspections does not result in pressure on resources and reduced quality • Clarity and consistency • Both options 2 and 3 would increase linkages with other legislation and provide clarity, making more clear what is required to assess compliance

11. Key Questions explored – for potential new ‘Sectors’ • Is the industry in question an EU wide one, or one that applied only to a small minority? • Is the sector more or less of the same scale as IPPC Annex 1 sectors? • Are there significant environmental impacts? • Are these predominantly local / have they cross border impacts? • Can the type of environmental impacts be regarded as ‘pollution’ and potentially be addressed by a BAT type approach? • Is there existing legislation within countries? • Does it already address the impacts? • Are there any potential competitiveness/internal market effects given different levels of protection? • Are there significant potential environmental benefits from including the sector under IPPC? Careful consideration of impacts of potential inclusion under IPPC.

12. Small combustion installations Issue • Possible Lowering of the threshold for combustion installations in energy industries from 50 to 20 MW (or an appropriate value) thermal input Problem definition • Presently, installations > 50 MW controlled by LCP and IPPC Directives: While LCP sets ELVs, the IPPC Directive uses permit conditions based on BAT. • Reducing the threshold from 50 to 20 MW would bring more installations and sectors under IPPC, & may lead to significant emissions reductions Options • 1. (A) Do nothing • (B) update the BREFs or guidance document to include BAT for the combustion installations less than 50 MW • 2. Lowering the IPPC threshold from 50 to 20 MW • 3. Lowering the threshold of the IPPC Directive to industrial installations of below 20 MW (with a threshold to be determined)

13. Current Practice – Scale of the sector • About 3 000 combustion installations in the 20-50 MW capacity (i.e. one third of the total European combustion installations covered by EU-ETS Directive) • More than 65% of them are concentrated in 6 MS (Germany, UK, Poland, France, Italy, and Denmark) • Other MS having less than 150 installations each. • Some installations already under IPPC as directly associated activities, but UK example suggests about 1/2 - 2/3 are still not covered

14. Environmental Impacts • For industrial small combustion installations, the emission estimates for SO2, NOx, PM2.5, and PM10 represent about 12%, 12%, 18% and 15% of total industrial combustion emissions of EU-25. • The impacts for POPs and heavy metals emissions significant • Photochemical oxidation and acidification impacts significant - about 5% of the EU-25 activity impacts Environmental Impact significant and important to look at in earnest

15. Analysis results • Environmental Issues • For most of the environmental issues, the impacts of the options 1B, 2, and 3 are positiveand in increasing order • Economic Issues, Social and other issues • Increased costs for the industry, and administrative burden for the MS but • Improved public confidence as directly linked to the health benefits • Other key insights • New and better technologies are being developed - the concept of BAT is very well applicable • At the MS level, a large disparity exists for regulating the small combustion installations (e.g. ELVs for SO2 in in one MS 200-1700 while other 800-2500 and for CO the ELVs used are 60-200 and 650-1000 in two MS)

16. For Reference – areas under Part 2 Contact VITO: Vrancken Karl on karl.vrancken@vito.be

17. For Reference – Waste related areas Contact VITO: Vrancken Karl on karl.vrancken@vito.be

18. "Towards a future policy on industrial emissions: Review of the IPPC Directive and related legislation" Stakeholder HearingThank You! Questions? Patrick ten Brink, Senior Fellow & Head of Brussels Office, IEEP ptenbrink@ieep.eu www.ieep.eu IEEP is a not-for-profit institute dedicated to the analysis, understanding and promotion of policies for a sustainable environment in Europe