Streamlining industrial emissions legislation Caspar Corden, Alistair Ritchie (Entec) IPPC Review Advisory Group meeting 23 May 2006

Outline of presentation Legislative interactions – findings to date Selection of case studies Possible streamlining scenarios Programme for future work

Legislative interactions (1) Detailed review of legislation and literature conducted Several examples cited but not much evidence (quantitative or qualitative) or real examples Summary and questionnaire distributed to Advisory Group (4th April)

Legislative interactions (2) List of interactions identified in literature was provided in questionnaire. Examples: LCP and WI Directive limit values interpreted as uniform standards. Timescales, new/existing plant differ amongst Directives (e.g. IPPC vs LCP, WI, SE Directives) Different coverage of installations by Directives (e.g. IPPC vs EIA, SE, GHG-ET Directives) Definitions of installation, facility, establishment, plant, etc. vary amongst several Directives Array of and variation of monitoring requirements (LCP, SE, WI, Landfill, GHG-ET, EPER/PRTR) Reporting by Member States on several Directives

Legislative interactions (3) LCP Directive: Confusion with exemptions from ELVs and options for implementation (and requirement to apply BAT) Does not take site-specific factors into account SE Directive: Potential for separate permitting regimes applying to single site WI Directive: Disincentives for burning waste (<50MW) to avoid WID and IPPC Disincentives for co-incineration (increased monitoring, etc.) Hazardous versus non-hazardous waste and level of regulatory control Definition of 'biomass' is different to GHG-ET Directive

Legislative interactions (4) Landfill Directive: Confusion with overlap with IPPC – what need for additional control beyond Landfill Directive? Seveso II / COMAH Directive: Establishment versus installation in IPPC Extent of similar information requirements Inspections and revisiting conditions - prescriptive approach cf. IPPC which is flexible EIA Directive: Thresholds and definitions differ from IPPC Extent of impact analysis similar but often wider than IPPC

Legislative interactions (5) Chemicals legislation: Interface between Existing Substances legislation and IPPC – proposals made for emissions control in IPPC installations but what is the legislative link? REACH and IPPC review – opportunity to ensure adequate link Water Framework Directive: Priority substances and water objectives – what level of controls will be achievable through IPPC permitting Additional controls in IPPC permits (e.g. impoundment) Definition of 'pollution' varies between Water FD and IPPC

Questionnaire responses (1) Member State Governments Others Austria (2) Cefic Cyprus Cérame-Unie France CIA (UK) Netherlands ESVOC Poland Eurometaux Portugal Eurofer Slovenia Eurelectric Spain Hydro Polymers Sweden IMPEL United Kingdom (2) Orgalime/Confed of Danish Ind Scottish & Sthrn Energy (UK) VNCI (NL) UNICE Plus more general comments from others … thank you to all!

Questionnaire responses (2) Only an initial review so far – more detailed analysis to come Consistency of definitions (examples): Installation, facility, etc. – confirmed by several MS Suggestions to harmonise installation definition by several respondents – would this lead to increased coverage by some regimes? WID and Waste FD a key issue for some (particularly with definition of 'waste' and what is included therein) Definitions are not an issue for some MS! Detailed consideration of solvent/VOC definitions

Questionnaire responses (3) Operative requirements (examples): Monitoring requirements of WID more stringent than IPPC – is this always necessary? Variability amongst MS in BAT-based cf. sector directive limit values and how BAT-AELs are used Support for combination of permitting regimes (though not by all) – this is an issue for the MS Interaction of IPPC with NEC Directive (setting limit values to help meet national ceilings)

Questionnaire responses (4) Monitoring and reporting by MS (examples): Viewpoint varies amongst respondents Potential for combination and reducing burdens - but this leads to concentration of effort at one time Some are happy with current system Further feedback on MS reports Emissions trading for NOx and SO2 (examples): A number against trading at this time (experience from CO2 trading, additional burdens) Some favour exclusion from some IPPC requirements (particularly LVs for NOx/SO2)

Interactions – Discussion points Questions and comments on interactions? Any important interactions missed? Priority of interactions? Any further data to support assessment?

Case studies (1) Progress note 8 May Objectives: Practical, quantitative evidence at site level Highlight consequences and severity of problems Identify opportunities for improvements Aim to include c. 16 case studies 8 provisionally identified so far

Case studies (2)

Case studies (3) Process for case studies: Identification of installations Preparatory discussions (initial introduction, information collation, relevant legislation and timescale of application) Establish specific areas for investigation based on preceding work and applicable legislation Detailed discussions (including site visit) Operators Permitting/inspection authorities National authorities Reporting, follow-up and feedback

Current case study proposals (4) Case studies identified to date: Netherlands: Coal / biomass / waste power station Chemical manufacture Refinery United Kingdom Waste co-incineration in cement manufacture Belgium Waste incinerator Nordic country or France Hazardous waste incinerator Slovakia Under discussion with Member State / industry Portugal Installation subject to LCP and IPPC Directives

Case studies (5) More case study installations needed: Power generation Waste co-incineration (power, manufacturing) Refineries Landfills * Chemicals Surface treatment using solvents * Case studies need to be permitted under IPPC An opportunity to highlight the issues of concern for legislative interactions and to help inform possible future improvements

Netherlands case study example (1) Example for Essent power station

Netherlands case study example (2) Issues at Essent Power station (preliminary): Interactions: Coverage by IPPC versus potential for emissions trading (timing for installation of SCR) Waste wood gasification and coverage by WI Directive (investment €50m, monitoring €1-2 million /yr) Possible implications of requirements under NEC Directive Frequency of revising permit conditions with new legislation Other issues: Issues of regulatory certainty and level of environmental protection Legal status of BREF notes and sector-level implications (NL interpretation) GHG-ET Directive and allocations for previously mothballed units

Case studies – Discussion points Questions and comments on proposed case studies? Questions and comments on approach? Suggestions for further case study installations ...

Possible streamlining scenarios (1) Possible scenarios detailed in the questionnaire: Do nothing Removal of certain requirements from sectoral Directives and increased reliance upon BAT-based conditions Integration of sector/media-specific legislation (WI, LCP, SE Directives) into a single framework Directive Guidance and/or legislative changes to promote clarity and cost savings Provision to facilitate emission trading of industrial emissions of NOx or SO2

Possible streamlining scenarios (2) Initial views from questionnaires and other responses: Additional guidance cf. more significant amendment? Several respondents favour specific scenarios However, this varies between MS and industry and amongst MS: Option 2 most favoured by industry respondents (also 1 and 3) Member States mainly favour consideration of 2, 3 and 4 Some suggestions made regarding more detailed definition of scenarios, including: Applying only IPPC to larger installations and SE Directive only to smaller installations Different requirements for high and low risk sites Combination of several scenarios or staged timing

Programme of future work Further review and follow up of questionnaires – May/June Case studies – May to August Selection and detailed assessment of streamlining scenarios – June to October Draft report – end October Final report – January 2007

Proposed streamlining scenarios – Discussion points Further questions and comments on proposed streamlining scenarios? Any other questions or comments?