Review of practice of ELVs and other conditions setting in EU member states for non-Annex I installations Valts Vilnītis

EU member states’ experience Latvia - good example of the environmental regulation development in the former Soviet Union country; Czech Republic - air pollution regulation was firstly greatly inspired by the German prescriptive system and during last 10 years it has undergone several principal modifications; UK - regulation is one of the least prescriptive in the EU; nevertheless there is an elaborated system of regulatory guidance for large number of various sectors.

Issues assessed Legal framework setting the environmental regulation of non-Annex I installations; Specification of non-Annex I installations; Air pollution regulations of non-Annex I installations, setting ELVs and other requirements for operators; Other regulatory requirements related to specific media (e.g. water) or to specific types of activities or installations.

Czech Republic Non-Annex I activities are regulated by media- specific legislation: – Air pollution regulation (lists specific activities requiring permit, e.g. Animal farms, fuel storage, as well as activities not requiring permit, but which have to comply with rules); – Water pollution regulation (lists specific activities requiring permit, e.g. abstraction of surface water for business purpose); – Waste management (lists activities requiring approval of waste management authorities).

Latvia (1) Non-Annex I activities divided in B and C category polluting activities – B activities require integrated permit (similar structure to Annex I permit); – C activities require declaration (less stringent; on the basis of declaration);

Latvia (2) Some of the category C and B activities and installations in addition to general pollution legislation are regulated by a separate enactment that can be considered as GBRs, where special attention is paid to operational specifics. GBRs usually include a scope of environmental requirements most topical to the activity it is referred to (addressing activity). There are also regulations that address specific issues mentioned in the law, for example, odour control, air quality, development of emission limit project etc. (addressing environmental issue that can be common to different activities).

Latvia (3) Regulation addressing specific issues regarding performance of polluting activities, inter alia: – Odour – Ambient air quality (SO 2, NO 2, NOx, PM 10, PM 2.5, Pb, O 3, benzene, CO, As, Cd, Ni and benzo(a)pyrene) – Stationary source emission limit project These regulations are applicable also in the context of activity-specific GBRs, if the issue is relevant to the activity

Latvia (4) Regulations addressing specific non-Annex I polluting activities: – Vehicle repair shops – Animal housing – Sawmills and wood processing plants – Chemical protection of timber – Small boiler houses – End-of-life vehicle recycling and processing – Waste incineration plants – Service stations, oil storage and mobile containers – Combustion plants (large and medium) – Installations using organic solvents

Latvia – GBR example Small boiler houses – 0,2 – 5 MW biomass or gas – 0,2 – 0,5 MW liquid fuel (excl. fuel oil) – Requirements include: Compliance with ELVs set in other regulations for stationary emission sources; Modelling using ADMS Screen software (including detailed info. on necessary input data and preparation of such data) or other as prescribed in legal acts; Requirements regarding soil and water protection, wastewater management; Detailed monitoring requirements on energy consumption, wastewater, waste (incl. hazardous waste), end-of-pipe emission reduction measures. – Annexes with fuel-specific emission factors to be used for calculation of emisisons into ambient air.

UK Non-Annex I activities divided in A2 and B polluting activities – A2 activities require integrated permit; – B activities require environmental permits which cover mainly air pollution issues using Statutory Guidance with prescribed emission limits benchmarks. The Environment Agency for England and Wales provides detailed guidance for sector specific issues as well as general issues related to environmental regulation.

Conclusions The Latvian system would be probably easiest for implementation as it keeps the procedure for determining ELVs for relatively big number of pollutants for many industrial activities. Yet it undertook transformation from media to integrated approach. Czech system keeps media approach, therefore is less costly both for the industry and for the permitting authorities. English and Welsh system emphasises negotiation of permit conditions including ELVs, using the guidance’s proposed emission levels as benchmarks, which is very different from project countries’ system.

Conclusions Possible approaches 1.Utilizing the Latvian regulations prescribing environmental performance conditions for several specific activities (GBRs); 2.Utilizing the Czech regulations prescribing ELVs and related air protection measures; 3.Utilizing the English sectoral guidance as models for developing general binding rules or recommendations for project countries.