1. 1 Inspection of LCPs: System for Inspection. ECENA Training Workshop Bristol, March 2008

2. 2 Introduction This presentation, Session 5, addresses Inspection of LCPs: System for inspection: General requirements and development of a programme of inspection. Implementation of a programme of Inspection Follow up activities.

3. 3 IPPC Process LCPs are subject to the IPPC directive: Pre-IPPC approach was one of command and control – industry was seen as the problem! IPPC approach is one of co-operation between regulators and industry. Incorporates a large degree of self compliance as industry knows best on how its facilities should be operated efficiently – industry seen as the solution.

4. 4 Relationship with Industry In countries where the integrated approach has been operating for a number of years, experience has shown that nearly all companies are pro- active: They want a good relationship with their regulators and neighbours. They are concerned about their image. They demonstrate self compliance.

5. 5 Relationship with Industry Experience has shown that there are a very limited number of companies, who have poor compliance, even to the point of misleading the authorities. These companies need a high level of compliance supervision that would not be appropriate to the previous circumstances.

6. 6 Inspectors’ support groups ECENA – of course!! Detailed set of guidance on website: http://www.rec.org/REC/Programs/rerep/BERCEN/Trainin gManual.html http://www.rec.org/REC/Programs/rerep/BERCEN/Trainin gManual.html IMPEL Network of environmental inspectorates: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/impel/index.htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/impel/index.htm TAIEX – Technical Assistance Information Exchange Unit. Set up for 10 new Member States, now being phased out: http://taiex.ec.europa.eu/http://taiex.ec.europa.eu/

7. 7 Guidelines for Inspection of IPPC Activities Guideline prepared by PM Group in 2005 for Romanian IPPC project. Given as handout. Experience has shown in other Member States that one inspector can handle about 25 installations annually.

8. 8 Guidance on Inspection Recommendation 2001/331/EC of European Parliament Planning Annual Plans; Inspection plans Types A & B Installations – based on Risk (LCP  A) Routine & Non routine Authorisation Inspection Diagnostic – initiated by complaint Accident case Permit review Reporting Inspections Annual reports

9. 9 Inspection types Routine inspections Impacts, informing, permit evaluation, operator assessment Authorisation Inspection With permitting & monitoring staff, Reviews management style Diagnostic inspections Proactive inspection – aimed at compliance support Accident & Complaints Failure analysis, may be followed by enforcement Permit review Inspects scope and impact of changes

10. 10 Inspections Plans Annual Plans Risk Assessment Frequency of routine inspections Allow for the unforeseen! Inspection plans Inspection Stages Resources for the inspection

11. 11 Sample Basis for Inspection Plan Inspection ActivityEvents per year Authorisation InspectionsOne per application Visits to installations - Pro-active management1 site visits minimum Compliant management2 Reluctant management/ high risk10 Data review at Agency - Pro-active management4 Compliant management4 Reluctant management / high risk12 - 50 Diagnostic investigationsEstimate 1 per 5 sites Accident investigationsEstimate 1 per 10 sites

12. 12 Minimum requirements All inspections: Compliance with EU Legislation Co–ordination between authorities Reporting Access to significant areas of site

13. 13 Reporting Inspection reports Publicly available Consultation with operator Annual reports Regional reports National reports To EU Formats provided in Recommendation 2001/331/EC Resources, activity, compliance, actions & assessment All reports accessible to public.

14. 14 Follow up! Minutes of meeting need to be promptly issued to company. Inspection report needs to be completed and publicly available within 2 months. Inspection data needs to be safely filed and stored. Conclusion on whether further action should follow, e.g. enforcement proceedings, issuing of new or revised IPPC permit, follow-up inspections, etc.

15. 15 The Feedback Loop! Inspections provide the feedback necessary to ensure a good permit: Significant emissions or waste not controlled by permit conditions  permit may need to be updated! Irrelevant or ineffective monitoring  permit conditions may need to be updated!

16. 16 Permit Life Cycle

17. 17 Proposed New Directive on Industrial Emissions The EU Commissions IPPC Action Plan for 2008 – 2010 includes five key actions: Action 3: Enhanced monitoring and compliance checks of the application of the legislation on industrial emissions – The commission will continue to monitor the number of IPPC permits issued and updated, and where required investigate the system of monitoring and inspection at IPPC installations.

18. 18 Proposed New Directive on Industrial Emissions Article 9 Non-compliance: 1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the conditions of the permit are complied with. Article 25 Inspections: 1. Member States shall set up a system of inspections of installations. That system shall include on-site inspections.

19. 19 Proposed New Directive on Industrial Emissions Article 25 Inspections: 2. Member States shall ensure that all installations are covered by an inspection plan. 3. Details of each inspection plan. 4. Competent authority shall draw up an inspection programme – at least one site visit every 12 months. 5. Routine inspections. 6. Non-routine inspections. 7. Report preparation.

20. 20 What are the Main Inspection Issues with LCPs: All fuel types: Compliance with air emission parameters and noise, improvement programmes to meet BAT, general housekeeping, energy efficiency, complaints received. Oil: Integrity of oil storage and transfer systems, surface water discharges, Coal: Dust emissions from coal storage and landfilling of ash.

21. 21 Questions?