Advisory Group Meeting Presentation of Draft Final Report Assessment of the Implementation by the Member States of the IPPC Directive Advisory Group Meeting Thursday 26th October 2006 Presentation of Draft Final Report Mark Watson Michael Soldner

Agenda Acknowledgements Study objectives Status of report Permitting progress & conclusions National level perspective Installation level perspective Role of Advisory Group Next steps Give summary of what will be covered by the presentation

Acknowledgments Our thanks to: MS representatives for participating in telephone interviews AG members for time and support to help progress the study CAs and Operators of the 30 installations participating in the study Commission for helping expedite communications Continued support required in reviewing information in the report to make sure information we are reporting on is accurate

Objectives "to determine through a questionnaire and interviews with competent authorities of the Member States, and from other sources as appropriate, the number of permits already issued for new and existing (including 'substantially changed') installations in terms of the IPPC Directive, and the number that remain to be issued" "to select and analyse specific permits granted in Member States in order to assess whether these permits have been issued in accordance with the IPPC Directive" Reiterate the study objectives

Status of Report A draft final report – following consultation findings could change A challenging study with many aspects to consider Significant amounts of data have been collated Next steps outlined later in the presentation

Project consultations Consultation: 1st AG meeting Telephone interview proformas Permitting data queries Site interview records (Operators and CAs) MS case study write ups Consultation: 3rd AG meeting

Permitting Progress Based on 22 out of 25 MS responses: Circa 35,500 existing installations Circa 17,000 permitted installations Equivalent to 48% permitting progress Top 4 MSs (Germany, France, Spain & UK) have circa 65% of the total number of existing installations Top 5 MSs (Germany, France, UK, Netherlands and Belgium) have circa 78% of the total number of permits issued or reconsidered (updated / not updated)

Permitting Progress by MS

Permitting Progress by Industry Category Annex 1 Category of Industrial Activity Total Number of Existing Installations Total No. of Permits Issued and Reconsidered (updated and not-updated) Permitting Progress 1. Energy Industries 2,296 1,124 49% 2. Production and Processing of Metals 4,148 1,902 46% 3. Minerals Industry 1,948 841 43% 4. Chemicals Industry 4,860 2,935 60% 5. Waste Management 4,949 2,685 54% 6. Other Activities - 6.6(a) 7,119 2,995 42% 7. Other Activities - 6.6(b) 3,784 1,223 32% 8. Other Activities - other 5,897 3,141 53% 9. Unallocated 545 283 52% TOTAL 35,542 17,121 48%

Sources of Uncertainty MS industry classifications not fully corresponding with Annex 1 categories of industrial activity Difficulties in categorising sites undertaking multiple categories of industrial activities Multiple permits per installation One permit for multiple installations Incomplete / inconsistent collation of permitting data No central database of permitted installations

National Level Perspective 1/2 Diversity of practice across Europe Permitting practice / approach New permits for existing installations Reconsidering permits for existing installations Permitting data collation Frequency of collation Location of information Future plans for permitting Existence of timetables for permitting A challenge for some MSs (but note that significant progress may have been made since state of play date)

National Level Perspective 2/2 Diversity of practice across Europe Pre-IPPC Legislation Circa 50% of MSs already had integrated pollution control legislation in place pre-IPPC Typical gaps in some pre-IPPC legislation – BAT, cross media effects, energy use, odour and noise Guidance BAT BREF documents Generic guidance General Binding Rules

Questions

Installation Level Perspective Objective: "to select and analyse specific permits granted in Member States in order to assess whether these permits have been issued in accordance with the IPPC Directive" Opening statements: Not possible to extrapolate case study findings to make conclusions at MS or sectoral level but some implementation issues and good practices have been illustrated through these case studies Installations selected in accordance with agreed selection criteria Identity of the installations used as case studies is NOT relevant to this study This study does NOT constitute a legal compliance check of those installations. Neither does the study attempt to undertake full determination of each application reviewed Findings subject to potential change during finalisation of work.

Permit selection matrix 30 permits selected with 30 in reserve Iron & Steel Non-Ferrous Metal Cement Chemicals Textiles Pulp & Paper Total Czech Republic 2 6 France Germany Greece Hungary 4 Italy Lithuania Poland Portugal Spain Sweden UK 12 8 10 60 The total of 60 installations comprises 30 primary candidates for consideration in the study and 30 candidates in reserve.

Approach used Development of data collection and reporting template Desk-based reviews for MSs involved: Published documents on permitting process BREF documents for sectors under consideration National / sub-national guidance or legislation Permit-specific documents (application, performance data, permit etc.) Face to face interviews with CA and Operator Analysis focussing on emissions of key / primary pollutants from each sector

Analysis 1 Appendix Assessment of national level permitting and compliance assessment process Background Permitting process Permit application determination process Permit compliance assessment process Assessment of installation level permitting and compliance Introduction Permit application Permit application determination Assessing compliance and reporting

Analysis 2 Main section of report: A table providing a summary assessment of selected aspects of the permitting and compliance assessment process A table comparing permit conditions with BREF BAT-Associated Emission Levels (BAT-AELs) and current performance A bullet point summary of key observations from the case study

Permit conditions based on BAT for main emission sources? 14/30 installations have conditions clearly based on BAT 2/30 installations (two cement processes) – permit conditions for NOx are set in accordance with WID but would allow emissions higher than BREF BAT-AELs 1/30 installations (cement sector) has conditions set at a level that would allow emissions higher than BREF BAT-AELs – but with justification 6/30 installations have conditions set at a level that would allow emissions higher than BREF BAT-AELs – not clear that based on BAT 3/30 installations have conditions in different units to BREF BAT-AELs making comparison difficult (for example, non ferrous metals, cement) 4/30 installations, the position is unclear (no clear justification of permit conditions or further analysis needed) Discuss installations with permit conditions set higher than BREF BAT-AELs prior to 2007 and in line with BREf BAT-AELs therafter.

Consideration of specific technical, geographic or local conditions Installation specific aspects appear to be taken into account in most permitting processes (for example non ferrous metals) In most cases influence of these factors is simply not clear In one case, outdated machinery was highlighted as an issue but there is no evidence that this resulted in permit conditions set at a level that would allow emissions higher than BREF BAT-AELs

Trade offs to balance different environmental impacts In no case studies is there evidence of any trade offs being used beyond the BAT evaluation in the BREF to balance different local environmental impacts For one case study in the Iron and Steel sector, there were relevant issues that may have warranted potential consideration for trade-offs, but none were considered

Factors influencing permit conditions possibly not compatible with the Directive Difficult to have clear evidence on factors not compatible with the Directive due to the fact that when local factors are taken into consideration, this is generally not explicitly justified For at least two installations, affordability was a factor in determining the timing and / or scope of abatement techniques, and for a third installation, due for closure in 2008, the actual permit conditions for two pollutants were set at a level that would allow emissions higher than BREF BAT-AELs

Compliance with EQSs 2/30 installations – the permit refers to the need to comply with EQSs and this has led to a tightening in permit conditions 14/30 installations – the permit refers to the need to comply with EQSs, although this has not required any additional measures 6/30 installations – the permit does not refer to the need to comply with EQSs 8/30 installations – the position is unclear based on the information available

Compliance with permit conditions 18/30 installations – Yes, for all main permit conditions 9/30 installations – Yes for some but not for others 2/30 installations – Not for most permit conditions 1/30 installations – the position is unclear due to monitoring reporting in different units than permit ELVs

Planned future improvements All installations except 1 have planned future improvements (not always related to emissions reductions): For Iron and Steel, where permit ELVs allow emissions higher than BREF BAT-AELs, a number of improvements may be planned (e.g. low-NOx technologies, SNCR, various abatement programmes) For Pulp and Paper, evidence to suggest that performance relative to BREF BAT-AELs has resulted in planned improvements to reduce emissions (e.g. ammonia stripping, ESP upgrade) Most of improvement programmes in place in view of Oct 2007 deadline while in some cases the timescale for improvements may extend beyond 2007

Enforcement actions and sanctions applied in the case of non-compliance Where non-compliance has been identified, enforcement actions have been applied at 2 installations, but they do not appear to have been applied at 7 installations

Frequency of on-site inspections 24/30 installations – at least one per year. 1/30 installations – not one in 2 years. 5/30 installations – not clear

Performance comparable with BREF BAT-AELs 9/30 installations – Yes, for all main pollutants 13/30 installations – Yes for some pollutants but not for others 5/30 installations – unclear due to different units 3/30 installations – comparison not possible due to lack of BREF BAT-AELs (textile sector)

Expected role of Advisory Group Review / comment on relevant MS information and case studies (in addition to further review of case studies by Operating Companies and CAs) Encourage Operating Companies and CAs to comment on case studies

Next Steps Deadline for AG Comments (to be set) Final Report (End December 2006)

Questions