1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. Permitting Progress by MS

9. 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%

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. Questions

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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)

29. 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

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

31. Questions