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

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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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!

9. 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

10. 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)

11. 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)

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

13. 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

14. Case studies (2)

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

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

19. 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

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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

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