EU) Final report:

SUPPORTING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE (2010/75/EU) Final report: 2015-12-06 Introduction to IMPEL The European Union Netwo...
Author: Lester Horton
9 downloads 2 Views 9MB Size
SUPPORTING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE (2010/75/EU) Final report: 2015-12-06

Introduction to IMPEL The European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL) is an international non-profit association of the environmental authorities of the EU Member States, acceding and candidate countries of the European Union and EEA countries. The association is registered in Belgium and its legal seat is in Brussels, Belgium. IMPEL was set up in 1992 as an informal Network of European regulators and authorities concerned with the implementation and enforcement of environmental law. The Network’s objective is to create the necessary impetus in the European Community to make progress on ensuring a more effective application of environmental legislation. The core of the IMPEL activities concerns awareness raising, capacity building and exchange of information and experiences on implementation, enforcement and international enforcement collaboration as well as promoting and supporting the practicability and enforceability of European environmental legislation. During the previous years IMPEL has developed into a considerable, widely known organisation, being mentioned in a number of EU legislative and policy documents, e.g. the 6th Environment Action Programme and the Recommendation on Minimum Criteria for Environmental Inspections. The expertise and experience of the participants within IMPEL make the network uniquely qualified to work on both technical and regulatory aspects of EU environmental legislation. Information on the IMPEL Network is also available through its website at: www.impel.eu

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

2

Title report: SUPPORTING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE (2010/75/EU)

Number report:

Project manager: Horst Büther; Germany

Report adopted at IMPEL

2015/01

General Assembly: Luxembourg, 2015/12

Authors:

Number of pages: 162

Terrance Shears, Horst Büther

Report: 10 Annexes: 13/152

Project team

Austria

Günter Dussing [email protected] Robert Gross [email protected] Belgium Martine Blondeel [email protected] (Flanders) Olivier Dekyvere [email protected] (Wallonie) Croatia Dubravka Pajkin Tuckar [email protected] Cyprus Chrystalla Stylianou [email protected] Czech Republic Tomáš Augustin [email protected] Estonia Reeli Sildnik [email protected] Finland Jaakko Vesivalo [email protected] Germany Hartmut Teutsch [email protected] Wulf Böckenhaupt [email protected] Iceland Sigridur Kristjansdottir, [email protected] Italy Romano Ruggeri [email protected] (ARPA Sardegna) Nazzareno Santilli [email protected] (ISPRA) Fabio Colonna [email protected] (ARPA Lombardia) Netherlands Pieter Roos [email protected] (Ministerie I&M) Marinus Jordaan [email protected] (DCMR) Poland Joanna Stepien, [email protected] Portugal António Quintas [email protected] (IGAMAOT) Francisco Negrão [email protected] (IGAMAOT) Paulo Pires [email protected] (Azores Islands) Romania Florin Homorean [email protected] Slovenia Vladimir Kaiser [email protected] Spain María Jesús Mallada Viana [email protected] (La Roja) Iñaki Bergareche Urdampileta [email protected] (Galizia) Maria Milagros Pereira Carneiro [email protected] (Galiz.) Carlos Bernácer Sales [email protected] (Valencia) Sweden Maria Enroth [email protected] UK Dave Canham [email protected] Disclaimer: This report is the result of a project within the IMPEL network. The content does not necessarily represent the view of the national administrations or the European Commission.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

3

Content

SUPPORTING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE (2010/75/EU) .............................................................................................................................. 1 Content ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Content of part 2 of 3 ................................................................................................................. 5 Content of part 3 of 3 ................................................................................................................. 6 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 7 2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.1 The Purpose of the Project ........................................................................................... 9 2.2 Scope and Methodology ............................................................................................... 9 3. Conclusion and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 10 ANNEX 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE................................................................................. 11

1.

Work type and title .............................................................................................. 11

2.

Outline business case (why this piece of work?) ............................................... 12

3.

Structure of the proposed activity ...................................................................... 13

4.

Organisation of the work ..................................................................................... 14

5. High level budget projection of the proposal. In case this is a multi-year project, identify future requirements as much as possible ......................................... 16 6.

Detailed event costs of the work for year 1 ........................................................ 16

7.

Detailed other costs of the work for year 1 ........................................................ 17

8.

Communication and follow-up (checklist) ......................................................... 18

9.

Remarks ................................................................................................................ 19

ANNEX 2

PROPOSED GUIDANCE BOOK ON IED IMPLEMENTATION .................. 20

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 20 2. Application of Best available Techniques ................................................................ 22 3. Permitting ................................................................................................................... 29 4. Baseline Report on soil contamination ..................................................................... 35 5. Environmental Inspections ........................................................................................ 37 6. Reporting obligations of the operator ...................................................................... 45 7. Related topics .............................................................................................................. 45

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

4

Content of part 2 of 3 ANNEX 3 FINDINGS FROM SUB GROUP ON LEVELS OF NON COMPLIANCE 1. THE APPROACH FROM IMPEL 2013 2. THE APPROACH FROM THIS 2015 PROJECT “IED IMPLEMENTATION” AMINOR CASES OF NON-COMPLIANCE B - RELEVANT OR SIGNIFICANT CASES OF NON-COMPLIANCE C - IMPORTANT CASES OF NON-COMPLIANCE CONSEQUENCES OF INSPECTION RESULTS 3. PRACTICE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES ANNEX 4 FINDINGS FROM SUB GROUP ON REPORTING TO THE PUBLIC 1. OBLIGATION BY IED 2. INSPECTION REPORT 1. MOTIVE 2. DESCRIPTION 3. RESULTS / COMPLIANCE 4. MEASURES 3. WHO IS PUBLISHING AND HOW 4. PROCEDURE RELATED GOOD PRACTICES 5. CONTENT RELATED GOOD PRACTICES ANNEX I: TABLE FROM SMALL SURVEY TO IMPEL MEMBERS ON PUBLICATION OF INSPECTION REPORTS ANNEX II: EXAMPLES OF INSPECTION REPORTS FROM GROUP MEMBERS EXAMPLE FROM CZECH REPUBLIC EXAMPLE FROM AUSTRIA, SALZBURG REGION EXAMPLE FROM THE NETHERLANDS EXAMPLE FROM SPAIN ANNEX 5 CLOSURE OF INSTALLATIONS/BANKRUPTCY 1. OBLIGATIONS FROM IED 2. HOW TO FIND OUT WHETHER A COMPANY IS HEADING TOWARDS BANKRUPTCY (WEAKNESS SIGNALS) 3. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE 4. HOW TO DETERMINE THE FINANCIAL GUARANTEE? 5. DEFINITIVE CESSATION OF OPERATION 6. MINIMUM CONTENT OF A CESSATION/DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 7. CONCLUSIONS ANNEX I ANNEX II ANNEX III ANNEX IV ANNEX V ANNEX VI ANNEX VII ANNEX 6 DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON LEVELS OF NON-COMPLIANCE

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

5

Content of part 3 of 3 ANNEX 7 DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON REPORTING TO THE PUBLIC ANNEX 8 DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON CLOSURE OF INSTALLATIONS ANNEX 9 DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON BAT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ANNEX 10 SUB GROUP DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON SELF MONITORING DEFINITIONS SELF MONITORING PLAN: WHAT IS IN THE PERMIT? CONTENTS OF SELF MONITORING REPORT RECORDING OF DATA AND DOCUMENTS ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT: AUDIT AND VALIDATION WHAT TO DO IF A NON COMPLIANCE IS DETECTED REPORTING OF THE EVALUATION ANNEX 11 NOTE OF PROJECT TEAM MEETING, BREMEN, 10-11 MARCH, 2015 1. ARRIVAL AND WELCOME 2. TOUR DE TABLE 3. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT 4. IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE 5. DEVELOPMENT OF A WORK PROGRAMME 6. PROJECT ORGANISATION 7. PREPARATION OF THE WORKSHOP AND IMPLEMENTATION CONFERENCE 8. LIFE+ APPLICATION 9. COMMUNICATION STRATEGY, TIMETABLE AND MILESTONES 10. IED INSPECTIONS IN GERMANY ANNEX ANNEX 12 NOTE OF WORKSHOP, MONS, 28-29 APRIL, 2015 1. WELCOME 2. PRESENTATION BY OLIVIER DEKYVERE FROM THE WALLONIA REGION OF BELGIUM ON BREFS, PERMITTING AND INSPECTION 3. PRESENTATION ON PROGRESS TO DATE WITH THE PROJECT INCLUDING FIRST RESULTS OF THE THREE WORKING GROUPS AND AIM OF THE WORKSHOP 4. PRESENTATION OF BREAKOUT GROUPS TO THE PLENARY MEETING 5. HOW TO PUT PROPOSALS INTO DAY-TO-DAY WORK, ANY NEED FOR ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES OR A NETWORK 6. FUTURE WORK PRIORITIES ANNEX ANNEX 13 NOTE OF PROJECT TEAM MEETING, BUCHAREST, 1-2 OCT., 2015 1. WELCOME 2. INTRODUCTIONS AND TOUR DE TABLE 3. PRESENTATION BY FLORIN HOMOREAN OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GUARD ON THE ROMANIAN HANDLING OF BREFS, PERMITTING AND INSPECTION 4. PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE THREE WORKING GROUPS 5. PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT GUIDANCE BOOK CONTENT 6. HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE WORKING GROUP RESULTS IN THE GUIDANCE BOOK 7. POSSIBLE STRUCTURE OF THE GUIDANCE BOOK 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

6

1. Executive Summary Industrial production processes account for a considerable share of the overall pollution in Europe due to their emissions of air pollutants, discharges of waste water and the generation of waste. The Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and the Council (IED) is the main EU instrument regulating pollutant emissions from industrial installations. The IED was adopted on 24 November 2010 and entered into force on 6 January 2011. The IED aims to achieve a high level of protection of human health and the environment taken as a whole by reducing harmful industrial emissions across the EU, in particular through better application of Best Available Techniques (BAT). Around 50,000 installations undertaking the industrial activities listed in Annex I of the IED are required to operate in accordance with a permit (granted by the authorities in the Member States). This permit should contain conditions set in accordance with the principles and provisions of the IED. The IED is based on several pillars, namely (1) an integrated approach, (2) use of best available techniques, (3) flexibility, (4) inspections and (5) public participation. 1. The integrated approach means that the permits must take into account the whole environmental performance of the plant, covering for example emissions to air, water and land, generation of waste, use of raw materials, energy efficiency, noise, prevention of accidents, and restoration of the site upon closure. 2. The permit conditions including emission limit values must be based on the Best Available Techniques (BAT). In order to define BAT and the BAT-associated environmental performance at EU level, the Commission organises an exchange of information with experts from Member States, industry and environmental organisations. This work is co-ordinated by the European IPPC Bureau of the Institute for Prospective Technology Studies at the EU Joint Research Centre in Seville (Spain). This process results in BAT Reference Documents (BREFs) and the BAT conclusions contained are adopted by the Commission as Implementing Decisions. The IED requires that these BAT conclusions are the reference for setting permit conditions. For certain activities, namely large combustion plants, waste incineration and co-incineration plants, solvent using activities and titanium dioxide production, the IED also sets EU wide emission limit values for selected pollutants. 3. The IED allows competent authorities some flexibility to set less strict emission limit values. This is possible only in specific cases where an assessment shows that achieving the emission levels associated with BAT described in the BAT conclusions would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits due to the geographical location or the local environmental conditions or 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

7

the technical characteristics of the installation. The competent authority is required to document its justification for granting such derogations. Furthermore, Chapter III of the IED on large combustion plants includes certain flexibility instruments (Transitional National Plan, limited lifetime derogation, etc.). 4. The IED contains mandatory requirements on environmental inspections. Member States shall set up a system of environmental inspections and draw up inspection plans accordingly. The IED requires a site visit to take place at least every 1 to 3 years, using risk-based criteria. 5. The IED ensures that the public has a right to participate in the decision-making process, and to be informed of its consequences, by having access to permit applications, permits and the results of the monitoring of releases. In addition, through the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR), emission data reported by Member States are made accessible in a public register, which is intended to provide environmental information on major industrial activities.

This project sought to identify those areas of the IED where there were challenges for those seeking to implement the directive and would seek to identify good practice in those areas.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

8

2. Introduction 2.1 The Purpose of the Project The project is intended to help achieve better implementation of the IED. It has particular regard to permitting, participation of the public, and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental inspections and surveillance through: 

application of risk criteria in a strategic way with a view to assessing, evaluating and mitigating the most serious types of non-compliance with the IED;



development of best practice examples in the application of BAT conclusions and the compilation of baseline report on soil and ground water contamination;



optimising the communication with and active dissemination to the public of the results of inspection and surveillance work;



fostering cooperation and coordination between different inspection and surveillance bodies with a view to streamlining and optimising the use of inspection and surveillance resources;



development of reaction methods after serious environmental complaints;



creation and use of electronic records of inspection and surveillance work with a view to enabling the efficiency and effectiveness of such work to be more easily measured and evaluated.

2.2 Scope and Methodology The project had three main components: i.

A first Project Team meeting in Bremen, Germany, on 10 and 11 March 2015, which decided the initial priority areas for the project, namely: Levels of non-compliance, Reporting to the public and Dealing with installations closing down/ bankruptcy. Work on those three topics began at that meeting. In addition the project group made a joint inspection of a steel producing factory in Bremen.

ii.

A Workshop in Mons, Belgium, on 28 and 29 April 2015, which looked at progress on those three topics and agreed on a further tree topics to be looked at (BAT Reference Documents, Baseline report, and Self-monitoring and operator reporting).

iii.

A second Project Team meeting in Bucharest, on 1 and 2 October 2015, which finalised work on the first three topics and looked at progress on the additional three topics. As the topic “Baseline report” was meanwhile an IMPEL project of its own under the ET “Water and Land” the project team decided on another topic for future work: “Inspection tools”. The work in this area shall be based on outputs from the IMPEL workshop on tools.

At the meeting in Mons it was decided that the project should seek to produce a guidance book which would give practical guidelines on different aspects of the IED. The guidance 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

9

book would draw on work previously done by IMPEL and also the outputs from this project. It was recognised that the book should be in a format that would ensure it was easy to use, though it was important to be clear who the potential users would be. This would be considered in conjunction with the IMPEL Communications Group.

3. Conclusion and Recommendations Through the course of the workshop and the project meetings, the main output has been the development of good practice on different topics and of the Guidance Book on Implementation of the IED. The first draft of the Guidance Book can be found in ANNEX 2 of this report. It draws on relevant previous IMPEL projects and on guidance produced by the European Commission and elsewhere. The intention is that the outputs from the sub groups in this project will, after adoption by the General Assembly, also be included in the Guidance Book. These outputs cover the following topics: 

Levels of non-compliance (ANNEX 3, 6)



Reporting to the public (ANNEX 4, 7)



Closure of installations/bankruptcy (ANNEX 5, 8)

A further two sub groups are looking at the use of BAT Reference Documents (BREFs, ANNEX 9) and Self-Monitoring (ANNEX 10); their outputs will be available early in 2016. An additional sub group is looking at Tools that can be used to facilitate inspections. The outputs from the IMPEL project on Baseline Reporting (soil contamination) and other overarching IED related projects running under different Expert Teams should also prove invaluable for the Guidance Book. The gaps in the Guidance Book illustrate the need for further work in future years in order to complete them. The IMPEL Communications Group will be invited to advise on the most appropriate format for the Guidance Book, bearing in mind that its likely users are those preparing guidance on the implementation of the IED in member countries.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

10

ANNEX 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

TOR Reference No.: Version: 2015-01-20

Author(s): Horst Büther Date: 2015-01-20

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR WORK UNDER THE AUSPICES OF IMPEL 1. Work type and title 1.1 Identify which Expert Team this needs to go to for initial consideration Industry Waste and TFS Water and land Nature protection Cross-c utting – tools and approaches 1.2 Type of work you need funding for Exchange visits Peer reviews (e.g. IRI) Conference Development of tools/guidance Comparison studies Assessing legislation (checklist) Other (please describe):

1.3 Full name of work (enough to fully describe what the work area is) Mutual joint visits of industry inspectors and regulators to achieve a level playing field implementation of the IED 1.4 Abbreviated name of work or project Supporting IED Implementation

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

11

2. Outline business case (why this piece of work?) 2.1 Name the legislative driver(s) where they exist (name the Directive, Regulation, etc.) Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) Air Quality Directive Seveso III Directive 2.2 Link to IMPEL MASP priority work areas 1. Assist members to implement new legislation 2. Build capacity in member organisations through the IMPEL Review Initiatives 3. Work on ‘problem areas’ of implementation identified by IMPEL and the European Commission 2.3 Why is this work needed? (background, motivations, aims, etc.) IMPEL already has done some work on facilitating the implementation of the IED into the day to day work of competent authorities. Especially the projects on IED inspections and IED permitting but also the IRIs and the DTRT and easyTools projects paved the way for a better understanding and enforcement of the IED obligations. To follow up with guidance and creation of a level playing field within Europe it is highly recommendable to foster the exchange of authorities dealing with the IED. Comparing the implementation of the IED with the Seveso Directive there is a difference regarding the common activities of the competent authorities. The Seveso Community under the leadership of the Committee of Competent Authorities (CCA) is performing yearly mutual joint visits since some years to support a common application of the Directive especially when it comes to inspections. This has developed to a very valuable activity with the aim to reduce the implementation gap and foster a level playing field. The success of this approach shall be applied to the implementation of the IED within a long running IMPEL activity of the Industry Expert Team. Another aim of the activity is to take on board the requirements of the EU Commission for Life+ support. 2.4 Desired outcome of the work (what do you want to achieve? What will be better / done differently as a result of this project?) The project aims at better implementing the IED with special regard to permitting, participation of the public, and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental inspections and surveillance, through:  application of risk criteria in a strategic way with a view to assessing, evaluating and mitigating the most serious types of non-compliance with the IED;  development of best practice examples in the application of BAT conclusions and the compilation of baseline report on soil and ground water contamination;  optimising the communication with and active dissemination to the public of the results of inspection and surveillance work;  fostering cooperation and coordination between different inspection and surveillance bodies with a view to streamlining and optimising the use of inspection and surveillance resources;  development of reaction methods after serious environmental complaints;  creation and use of electronic records of inspection and surveillance work with a view to enabling the efficiency and effectiveness of such work to be more easily measured and evaluated. 2.5 Does this project link to any previous or current IMPEL projects? (state which projects and how they are related) The projects on IED inspections and IED permitting but also the IRIs and the DTRT and easyTools

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

12

projects are linked to this activity. The results of the projects on Compliance Management Systems and Complementary Approaches to achieve Compliance are of great value too. The 2014 project on Derogations from BAT-AEL’s under IED will in addition be taken into account.

3. Structure of the proposed activity 3.1 Describe the activities of the proposal (what are you going to do and how?) First the activity will start as an IMPEL project running for 2 years to pave the way for a common understanding of the goals and to develop a work programme. Within these two years a Life+ application shall be prepared and launched. The members of the project team will consist of members of the Industry Expert Team. They are responsible to prepare the yearly joint meeting of (all) members of the Industry Expert Team. The yearly joint meeting has the character of a technical workshop. During these workshops the approaches of national authorities will be presented and discussed, exchange of best practice will be facilitated, common inspections including site visits will be organised, and the implementation of the IED will be supported. Back to back with the workshop there will be a conference on implementation of the IED and other industry related European law. Also other members of the Industry and Air Expert Team will be invited to the conference to contribute to the development of IMPEL activities needed to foster the common implementation of the IED and other industry related European environmental law and create a level playing field. In a second step new tools to support permitting and inspection will be developed. The results of the project on implementation gaps and discussions with the Commission will be used to identify priority needs for action concerning non-compliance with the IED. Tools already developed by IMPEL, like IRAM, will be adapted, and data bases and forms for electronic inspection reports that can be used for active publication of the reports on the internet shall be developed. Joint inspections together with Water, Waste, Nature and Seveso authorities to reduce costs and optimise the enforcement of the European inspection obligations shall also be performed and tested for future collaboration. Another aspect of the second step will be work on special topics like level playing field application of BAT, content and comprehension of baseline reports, extent of operator selfmonitoring of soil and groundwater, mandatory inspection after serious complaints, or reporting obligations of the operators. In a third step the application of the tools by the national member authorities shall be supported and checked by performing country visits. These country visits will be combined with site visits to see how the tools are working in the field. In an extra meeting training sessions for the application of the Integrated Risk Assessment Methodology will be prepared. The methodology was developed by an IMPEL project especially for the implementation of the IED and can be used as web tool by all IMPEL member authorities. The training sessions shall be performed at a later stage. 3.2 Describe the products of the proposal (what are you going to produce in terms of output / outcome?) Outputs:  Work program for better implementation of the IED  Results from technical workshops and conferences on implementation of EU industrial law  Best practice approaches  Supporting tools for permitting, inspection, reporting and enforcement  Electronic check lists for permitting and inspections, and inspection report templates  Definition and description of non-compliance levels  Results of integrated inspection approaches

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

13

 

Country visits on IED application and use of supporting tools Common approaches to deal with new demands of the IED like use of BAT, derogations, baseline reports, self-monitoring, handling of complaints, and reporting obligations

Outcome: Reduction of the IED implementation gap and a level playing field within IMPEL member states 3.3 Describe the milestones of this proposal (how will you know if you are on track to complete the work on time?) In the following only the milestones of step 1 (first year) are described in detail because the further step depend on the results of the first year. STEP 1  Common understanding and development of the work program: until May 2015  Workshop: country approaches / best practices / site visit: June 2015  Conference on implementation of EU industry related environmental law  Development of guidance and best practice examples: until October 2015  Preparation of the Life+ application: until December 2015 STEP 2  Implementation gaps, dissemination of results, cooperation with other authorities  Development of tools  Joint inspections STEP 3  Application of the tools  Country visits and joint inspections 3.4 Risks (what are the potential risks for this project and what actions will be put in place to mitigate these?) The first risk is that only a few countries collaborate within this activity. The new IMPEL strategic approach for actively encourage and support passive members shall be used to mitigate this risk. The second risk is that there is not enough money in the budget to support the active participation of all interested competent authorities. To mitigate this risk in the long run the project aims at extra financial support through Life+ support from the EU Commission. The third risk is that outputs of the project are only recognized by a small group of active project members. The new strategic IMPEL approach on communication of IMPEL results shall be used to mitigate this risk (see item 8).

4. Organisation of the work 4.1 Lead (who will lead the work: name, organisation and country) – this must be confirmed prior to submission of the TOR to the General Assembly)

Horst Büther, Regional Government Cologne, Germany 4.2 Project team (who will take part: name, organisation and country) Austria Günter Dussing [email protected] Belgium Martine Blondeel [email protected] (Flanders) Jean-Pierre Janssens [email protected] (Brussels) Olivier Dekyvere [email protected] (Wallonie) Croatia Dubravka Pajkin Tuckar mailto:[email protected] Cyprus NN Czech Republic Tomáš Augustin [email protected]

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

14

Estonia Finland Germany

Reeli Sildnik Jaakko Vesivalo [email protected] Horst Büther [email protected] (Project lead) Hartmut Teutsch [email protected] Wulf Böckenhaupt [email protected] Italy Romano Ruggeri [email protected]ardegna.it (ARPA Sardegna) Nazzareno Santilli [email protected] (ISPRA) Fabio Colonna [email protected] (ARPA Lombardia) Glauco Spanghero [email protected] (ARPA Friuli Venezia Giulia) Netherlands Henry Hiltjesdam (Province of Overijssel) Pieter Roos (Ministerie I&M) NN (DCMR) Poland NN Portugal Filipe Vitorino (IGAMAOT) Marco Candeias (IGAMAOT) Paulo Pires (Regional Inspectorate of Azores Islands) Romania Florin Homorean [email protected] Slovenia Vladimir Kaiser [email protected] Spain María Jesús Mallada Viana [email protected] (La Roja) Maria Milagros Pereira Carneiro (Galizia) Iñaki Bergareche Urdampileta (Galizia) Carlos Bernácer Sales (Valencia) Sweden Eva Dalenstam [email protected] UK Chris McDonald [email protected]) Barry Sheppard [email protected] 4.3 Other IMPEL participants (name, organisation and country) Further environmental officers of different national competent IED authorities to participate in the technical workshop and the conference, especially members of the Industry Expert Team. 4.4. Other non-IMPEL participants (name, organisation and country) Close contact with desk officers of the EU Commission dealing with industry related environmental law

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

15

5. High level budget projection of the proposal. In case this is a multi-year project, identify future requirements as much as possible How much money do you require from IMPEL? How much money is to be cofinanced Total budget

Year 1 (exact) 49,000 €

Year 2 49,000 €

Year 4 ditto

10,000 €

Year 3 Depends on Life+ ditto

20,000 € 69,000 €

59,000 €

ditto

ditto

Total costs €

ditto

6. Detailed event costs of the work for year 1

Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Event 4 Total costs for all events

Travel €

Hotel €

Catering €

(max €360 per return journey)

(max €90 per night)

(max €25 per day)

6,840 (19 travelling participants)

3,420 (for 19 participants)

1,000 (for 20 participants)

11,260

12,240 (34 travelling participants)

9,180 (for 34 participants)

2,625 (for 35 participants)

24,045

6,840 (19 travelling participants)

3,420 (for 19 participants)

1,000 (for 20 participants)

11,260

720 (2 travelling participants)

360 (for 2 participants)

200 (for 4 participants)

1,280

26,640

16,380

4,825

47,845

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

16

7. Detailed other costs of the work for year 1 7.1 Are you using a consultant?

Yes

7.2 What are the total costs for the consultant?

20,000 €

7.3 Who is paying for the consultant?

Germany, has to be confirmed on a yearly basis In the future financing is planned by Life+ budget

7.4. What will the consultant do?

Transformation of the project outputs into a format that can be used by all competent IED authorities and preparation of material that can be used for IMPEL communication purposes.

7.5 Are there any additional costs?

Yes

No

No

Namely: Transport of inspectors, web based tools

7.6 What are the additional costs for?

1. Transport of inspectors to industry sites during the technical workshops 2. Development of web based tools

7.7 Who is paying for the additional costs?

1. IMPEL: 1,000 € 2. Not in the first year

7.8. Are you seeking other funding sources? 7.9 Do you need budget for communications around the project? If so, describe what type of activities and the related costs

Yes

No

Namely: Life+ application

Yes

No

Namely: As with the results of the easyTools project some member countries might prefer to have individual presentations of the project results for their competent authorities. The costs are normally covered by the inviting countries but this might not always be the case. All paper based PR material shall be paid by the IMPEL budget: 155 €

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

17

8. Communication and follow-up (checklist)

8.1 Indicate which communication materials will be developed throughout the project and when (all to be sent to the communications officer at the IMPEL secretariat)

What

By when

TOR* Interim report* Project report* Progress report(s)  Press releases News items for the website* News items for the e-newsletter Project abstract* IMPEL at a Glance  Other, (give details): PPP for project presentation

Amended Nov. 2014

8.2 Milestones / Scheduled meetings (for the website diary)

See 6.

8.3 Images for the IMPEL image bank

Yes

June 2015 October 2015 II Q/y Conferenc/workshop Start / Conference/works. Start / after 3. meeting After 3. meeting October 2015 After 3. meeting

No

8.4 Indicate which materials will be translated and into which languages

Project abstract / IMPEL at a glance: at least German, Italian, Portuguese, Slovenian, Romanian; languages of the participating countries of the technical workshop

8.5 Indicate if web-based tools will be developed and if hosting by IMPEL is required

This is not foreseen for the first year

8.6 Identify which groups/institutions will be targeted and how

The main target group consists of competent authorities for IED implementation and Industry and Air Experts. They will be targeted by the means under 8.1 and by discussion at other IMPEL events.

8.7 Identify parallel developments / events by other organisations, where the project can be promoted

CCA TG 2 meetings, IRIs, meetings with COM (especially in preparation of the Life+ application), TFS technical workshops, national IMPEL meetings, international conferences (e.g. Lessons learnt from accidents).



) Templates are available and should be used. *) Obligatory

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

18

9. Remarks Is there anything else you would like to add to the Terms of Reference that has not been covered above?

In case of doubts or questions please contact the IMPEL Secretariat. Draft and final versions need to be sent to the IMPEL Secretariat in word format, not in PDF. Thank you.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

19

ANNEX 2

PROPOSED GUIDANCE BOOK ON IED IMPLEMENTATION

IMPEL Guidance book on the implementation of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) DRAFT Version 1.0 Foreword by IMPEL Chair The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) is a major piece of EU legislation concerning the environmental regulation of industrial facilities across Europe. Many of its provisions are technical in nature. IMPEL has been working through a range of projects to help improve understanding of the detailed requirements of the IED and to provide guidance and tools to support practitioners in regulatory authorities in its implementation. This guidance book has been developed with the aim of bringing together the results of IMPEL’s work and also related guidance issued by the European Commission. Links to specific projects and publications are provided to allow users to access the detailed documents. The intention is that the guidance book will be progressively developed in a flexible manner over time as more information becomes available. We hope that this guidance book will be a valuable source of reference for all those who are involved in the implementation of the IED and that it will make a contribution to our work in protecting and improving the environment for people and wildlife in the years to come. Dr John Seager, IMPEL Chair

1. Introduction 1.1 Aim of this guidance book This document provides practical guidance on the implementation of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)1 , often referred to as the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). It is a technical document, aimed at practitioners working in regulatory authorities at national, regional and local levels. It draws upon a wide range of current and previous projects carried out by IMPEL that are relevant to the practical implementation of the IED. Gaps in the guidance document are being progressively addressed by the current IMPEL project, ‘Supporting Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) implementation (2015/01)’. The guidance in this document is intended to complement, but not duplicate, guidance that exists elsewhere, and particularly guidance documents that have been issued formally through Communications from the European Commission. Relevant references and links to web sites of other organisations are made throughout this document. 1

DIRECTIVE 2010/75/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control).

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

20

1.2 The principles of the IED The IED is the successor of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive. Its main objective is to minimise environmental pollution from industrial sources throughout the European Union. Operators of industrial installations covered by Annex I of the IED are required to obtain an integrated permit from the authorities in the EU countries. About 50.000 installations were covered by the IPPC Directive and the IED will cover some new activities which could mean the number of installations rising slightly. The IED is based on several principles:  An integrated approach: in which the regulation of installations takes into account environmental impacts as a whole including emissions to air, water and land, generation of waste, use of raw materials, energy efficiency, noise, prevention of accidents, and restoration of the site upon closure.  Best available techniques (BAT): where the permitting of installations and emission limit values are based on agreed BAT Conclusions and BAT Reference Documents (known as BREFs) published by the European Commission.  Flexibility: by allowing the licensing authorities to set less strict emission limit values in specific cases where an assessment shows that the achievement of emission levels associated with BAT as described in the BAT conclusions would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits due to geographical location or the local environmental conditions or the technical characteristics of the installation.  A system for environmental inspections: where Member States must set up a system of environmental inspections and draw up inspection plans. Site visits have to take place at least every 1 to 3 years, using risk-based criteria.  Public participation: in decision-making and being informed of its consequences by having access to permit applications, the issued permits, the results of the monitoring of releases, and the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (EPRTR). 1.3 IED implementation arrangements The IED makes provisions for the establishment of two groups involving representatives from Member States to support the implementation of the IED. These are:  The IED Article 13 Forum: a formal expert group set up to exchange of information between Member States, the industries concerned, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and the Commission. The focus of this group is to review and form an opinion on the proposed content of the BAT reference documents.  The IED Article 75 Committee: a formal Committee set up to assist the Commission by delivering opinions on implementing acts, including guidance on the collection of data and on the drawing up of BAT reference documents and on their quality assurance, BAT conclusions, implementing rules for large combustion plants and the type, format and frequency of reporting by Member States.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

21



The Industrial Emissions Expert Group (IEEG: An informal group established to facilitate the exchange of experiences and good practices concerning interpretation, transposition and implementation of the IED, and to advise the Commission during the preparation of delegated acts.

1.4 General structure of this guidance book This guidance addresses specific practical issues that have been identified as of interest to IMPEL member organisations. For each of the sections the guidance considers the detailed requirements and interpretation of the IED. It takes account of implementation challenges that were identified in IMPEL’s recent project to identify specific Implementation Challenges2. It considers related guidance, where relevant, that has been published at European and National levels. It brings together and distils relevant information and best practice from current and previous IMPEL projects.

2. Application of Best available Techniques 2.1 BAT Conclusions The Commission has published BAT Conclusions for the following industry sectors:  The manufacture of glass3  Iron and steel production4  The production of cement, lime and magnesium oxide5  The tanning of hides and skins6  BAT conclusions for the production of chlor-alkali7  The production of pulp, paper and board8  The refining of mineral oil and gas9

2

Challenges in the practical implementation of eu environmental law and how impel could help overcome them. IMPEL Report, March 2015 3

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 28 February 2012 establishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions for the manufacture of glass. (2012/134/EU). 4 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 28 February 2012 establishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions for iron and steel production. (2012/135/EU). 5 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 26 March 2013 establishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions for the production of cement, lime and magnesium oxide. (2013/163/EU). 6 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 11 February 2013 establishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions for the tanning of hides and skins. (2013/84/EU). 7 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 9 December 2013 establishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions, for the production of chlor-alkali. (2013/732/EU). 8 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 26 September 2014 establishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for the production of pulp, paper and board. (2014/687/EU).

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

22

2.2 Translation BAT Associated Emission Levels (AELs) into Emission Limit Values This section is to be completed following the work of the group set up under the IMPEL IED Implementation project 2.3 Derogation from BAT-AELs 2.3.1 Provisions for derogations in the IED Article 15(3) of the IED provides for a specific role for BAT conclusions and BAT-AELs when setting emission limit values in permits. The expectation is that, in general, emission limit values will be set in permits so that emissions from the installation do not exceed the BAT-AELs. However, Article 15(4) of the IED provides the possibility to derogate from the requirements of Article 15(3) and, thereby, to allow emissions to be higher than the BATAELs where an assessment shows that the achievement of BAT-AELs would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits due to: (a) the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned; or (b) the technical characteristics of the installation concerned. Under Article 21(3) of the IED, within 4 years of publication of decisions on BAT conclusions competent authorities must reconsider and, if necessary, update the permit to ensure compliance with the Directive and in particular Article 15(3) and 15(4) and that the installation complies with its permit. The first two sets of BAT conclusions for the manufacture of glass and iron and steel production were published on 08 March 2012 and competent authorities are now under pressure to reconsider and update permits for these sectors by the 2016 deadline. Finally, Article 15(5) of the IED provides for temporary derogations for the testing and use of emerging techniques for a total period of time not exceeding 9 months, after which either the technique is stopped or the activity achieves at least the BAT-AEL. The IED does not stipulate any technical criteria for the using this derogation provision. 2.3.2 Article 15(4) derogations IMPEL has recently carried out a project to look at practice in countries with respect to the provisions for derogations in the IED10. The project involved a questionnaire to investigate practices in countries and this was followed by a workshop to look at specific issues in more detail. The project did not attempt to develop consistent guidance on how to interpret the provisions of the IED on derogations. However, it did look at current practices and provided information on guidance that has been developed in different countries. 9

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 9 October 2014 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions, for the refining of mineral oil and gas. (2014/738/EU). 10 Sharing of draft proposals between Member States for implementing derogations from BAT-AELs under Article 15 paragraphs (4) and (5) of the industrial emissions Directive 2010/75/EU. IMPEL Final report, April 2015.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

23

2.3.2.1 Development of guidance on the application of Article 15(4) The IMPEL project showed that arrangements for the implementation of Article 15(4) of the IED differ from country to country. In some cases, guidance is being produced by national administrations, whereas in others guidance is being developed by the competent authorities involved in the granting of derogations. In some cases, for example, in Germany and Italy, rules on the granting of derogations have been put in place through the legislation transposing the IED into national law. In Germany, the legislation restricts the reason for derogation to the technical characteristics of the installation only - geographical location or local environment are not considered as justified reasons for derogations. In Italy the legislation allows derogations in cases where a dedicated cost benefit analysis has been produced by an operator and where certain criteria are fulfilled. Links to guidance on the application of Article 15(4) and made available by participants in the IMPEL project are provided below: Country Belgium (Flemish Region)

Type of guidance Application guidance

Link http://navigator.emis.vito.be/milnavconsult/consultatieLink?wettekstId=61193&appLang=nl& wettekstLang=nl

Belgium (Flemish Region)

Procedure for granting a derogation

http://navigator.emis.vito.be/milnavconsult/consultatieLink?wettekstId=54729&appLang=nl& wettekstLang=nl

Czech Republic

Procedure for assessing whether a derogation is justified Guidance to operators and competent authorities on the application of Article 15(4) Guidance for IED installations including relevant technical characteristics for consideration under Article 15(4) Government book providing guidance on the assessment of impacts on air quality (the socalled Green Book) Guidance on the

http://www.mzp.cz/www/ippc4.nsf/b8b42dbc0c8637bac 125773c0021a91e/903ff45835028198c1257c0400474f9a ?OpenDocument

Denmark

England and Wales

England and Wales

Finland

http://miljogodkendelsesvejledningen.dk/opslag/principp et-om-bat/fravigelser-fra-bat/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environme ntal-permitting-regulations-guidance-on-part-ainstallations

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-greenbook-supplementary-guidance

http://www.ym.fi/fi-

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

24

application of Article 15(4) and training materials Netherlands

Manual for determining BAT at IED installations including application of Article 15(4)

FI/Ymparisto/Lainsaadanto_ja_ohjeet/Ymparistonsuojelu n_valmisteilla_oleva_lainsaadanto/Ymparistonsuojelulain _uudistaminen/Ymparistonsuojelulain_uudistuksen_toim eenpano http://www.infomil.nl/onderwerpen/duurzame/bbt-ippcbrefs/handleiding-bepalen/

2.3.2.2 Development of cost-benefit methodologies A key component of Article 15(4) of the IED is the need to undertake an assessment that shows that the achievement of BAT-AELs would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits as a result of the criteria laid down in Article 15(4)(a) and (b). The assessment of costs and benefits has led to a number of participant countries either to develop an IED specific cost-benefit methodology or to modify existing cost-benefit methodologies to suit the requirements of the IED. The quantitative analysis of costs and benefits will usually require that a range of possible information sources are considered to draw relevant data. In assigning assign values to environmental harm, useful references may exist in national publications, for example, UK guidance on how impacts on air quality should be incorporated into a cost benefit analysis 11 or in European reports, such as the European Environment Agency’s assessment of costs of air pollution from European industrial facilities 2008-201212. Some countries have developed their own methods for assigning costs to environmental damage using real life examples, such as Germany’s Methodological Convention 2.0 for Estimates of Environmental Costs13 . With regard to the assessment of the costs of compliance with the BAT-AELs, data included in the BAT Reference documents and the use of the European Commission reference document concerning economics and cross-media effects14 are useful sources of information. In order to assess the costs and benefits of action by the operator to comply with BAT-AELs a range of options may exist that are likely to require a number of scenarios to be developed. These scenarios were highlighted in many of the presentations made at the workshop and considered: 1) The do nothing scenario; 2) The compliance with the BAT-AELs scenario; and, in some cases; 11

Air quality: economic analysis. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. April 2013. Costs of air pollution from European industrial facilities 2008-2012. European Environment Agency, Technical Report, 20/2014, November 2014. 13 Methodological Convention 2.0 for Estimates of Environmental Costs. Annex B: Best-practice Cost Rates for Air Pollutants, Transport, Power Generation and Heat Generation. Umweltbundesamt, February 2014. 14 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Reference Document on Economics and Cross-Media Effects European Commission, July 2006. 12

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

25

3) The partial BAT-AEL compliance or move towards BAT-AEL compliance scenario. Where possible the costs and benefits against the scenarios developed would enable a decisive derogation decision to be made that could then be included in the justification for the permit conditions set as appended to the permit. Detailed quantitative analysis is unlikely to provide all of the information required to allow a derogation to be justified given some of the uncertainties that exist in the assessment of costs and benefits. Quantitative information should be supplemented by qualitative information, where relevant. Indeed, in some cases and for some IED activities it was considered that qualitative analysis may be easier than quantitative analysis in the assessment of derogations under Article 15(4). Third parties may also need to be involved in cost-benefit analysis in order to verify that a derogation is warranted or to provide an independent check of the data used as part of the analysis. Some countries have provided links to cost-benefit guidance as follows: (note that this guidance is not always specific to the application of the IED and may have been developed for other purposes) Country Belgium (Flemish Region) Czech Republic

Cost-benefit analysis guidance http://emis.vito.be/sites/emis.vito.be/files/pages/migrated/richtlijn_bepalen _bbt.pdf (currently under review)

Germany

The guidance provided below refers to general guidance on environmental cost-benefit assessment and is not used to assess derogations for individual installations in Germany. However, it may be of interest to other competent authorities given some of the issues highlighted in this report.

http://www.mzp.cz/www/ippc4.nsf/b77a7a146f29c439c1256cda0034ce22/ff 25a67616f160acc1257d5d00435eb4?OpenDocument

Methodological convention on the economic valuation of environmental damage: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/economic-valuation-ofenvironmental-damage-0 Annex A-Economic Valuation Methods: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/methodologicalconvention-20-for-estimates-of Annex B - Best-practice Cost Rates for Air Pollutants, Transport, Power Generation and Heat Generation: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/methodologicalconvention-20-for-estimates-of-0 as well as “Environmental costs in the energy and transport sectors” http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/environmental-costs-inthe-energy-transport-sectors Finland

http://www.ymparisto.fi/download/noname/%7BC5B52653-424E-4FFC-8A5544C8A537CA32%7D/57238

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

26

Croatia

http://www.mzoip.hr/doc/IPPC/Studija_o_smjernicama_za_ekonomsko_vred novanje.pdf

The Netherlands

http://www.infomil.nl/onderwerpen/klimaat-lucht/ner/digitale-ner/2algemeen/2-11/

2.3.2.3 Technical characteristics, local environment and geographic factors Article 15(4) of the IED makes clear that derogations can only be justified where one or more of the following factors would mean that the achievement of the emissions levels associated with the best available techniques would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits: (i) The geographical location of the installation concerned; (ii) The local environment of the installation concerned; (iii) The technical characteristics of the installation concerned. Participants in the IMPEL project provided examples where derogations might be applied with respect to these factors. With regard to technical characteristics, examples given were:  production of specialist products that are not adequately covered by the BAT conclusions,  configuration of a plant on a given site and lack of space to fit equipment,  practicability of installing equipment within four years,  intended operational lifetime of parts of an installation,  application of BAT to short-run / batch activities,  specificity of process gases,  failure of the application of the BAT concerned to achieve the BAT-AELs and  plants designed to use specific local raw materials. With regard to geographic characteristics, examples given were:  remote locations (such as islands) involving high transport costs for waste treatment,  availability of process water, and  size, type and flow of surface water were given as examples. With regard to local environment examples given were:  availability of water and quality of the surrounding environment including location of sensitive receptors. 2.3.2.4 Determining disproportionality Article 15(4) places an obligation on the competent authority to make a judgement about what constitutes disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits. This has close links to the issue of cost-benefit analysis discussed in section 2.3.2.2 above. However, the results of any cost-benefit analysis will not necessarily provide an answer as to what is disproportionate for a particular installation. 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

27

The project raised the following as factors that may be considered in deciding on disproportionality (note that this list reflects individual considerations and was not an agreed list from participants):  Payback periods for investments to be made to comply with BAT-AELs;  The impact of compliance with the BAT-AELs on product prices;  Cross-media impacts of compliance with the BAT-AELs including energy costs and resource consumption;  Cost-effectiveness of the measures proposed to be implemented;  Disproportionality may vary by installation and by sector given the wide variety of activities covered by the IED. There was general agreement by all participants that disproportionality is not demonstrated by a break-even point resulting from a cost-benefit analysis. Rather the costs of compliance with the BAT-AEL must be clearly higher than the environmental benefits. However, what the effective level at which compliance is said to be disproportionate should be left to the competent authority to decide.

2.3.2.5 European Commission Guidance on the application of Article 15(4) Article 15(4) provides a specific reference to the possibility of the European Commission to clarify, through guidance, the criteria to be taken into account for the application of that Article, albeit that such guidance would be based on the implementation reports submitted by Member States under Article 72(1) of the IED. However, the Commission may issue guidance at any time and is not limited in time by these specific provisions of Article 15(4). The majority of participants in the IMPEL project indicated that they wished to see the European Commission develop guidance on assessing derogation requests. For those participants that indicated they were in favour of Commission guidance the following elements were seen as important to be addressed: 1) How to assess disproportionality including the potential development of a decision tree approach to assist competent authorities. 2) How to measure costs and benefits both qualitatively and quantitatively including reference costs for pollutants. 3) The level of evidence necessary to justify derogations. 4) Examples of where derogations are justified. 2.3.3 Article 15(5) derogations Procedures for derogations under Article 15(5) appear to have had less consideration to date than those under Article 15(4). A majority of those participants in the IMPEL project that provided information indicated that operators must apply for derogations under Article 15(5) in a similar way to applying for a change to a permit. Guidance has been developed by a small number of countries: BE (Flemish Region): 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

28

http://navigator.emis.vito.be/milnavconsult/consultatieLink?wettekstId=10170&appLang=nl&wettekstLang=nl. and: http://navigator.emis.vito.be/milnavconsult/consultatieLink?wettekstId=20464&appLang=nl&wettekstLang=nl. Denmark: http://miljogodkendelsesvejledningen.dk/opslag/princippet-om-bat/fravigelser-fra-bat/ Only one country, Malta, had issued derogation under Article 15(5). In this case, derogation was applied related to a water treatment plant within a waste management facility, specifically on the treated effluent that would be discharged to sea. During the test period the operator was instructed not to discharge to sea but to dispose of all effluent as waste for export. The operator was only allowed to discharge once the data gathered and submitted was deemed acceptable by the Authority. 2.4 Going beyond BAT (in case environmental quality standards are not met) This section is to be completed following the work of the group set up under the IMPEL IED Implementation project. 2.5 Application of BAT within 4 years after publication of BAT conclusions This section is to be completed following the work of the group set up under the IMPEL IED Implementation project.

3. Permitting 3.1 Provisions for permitting in the IED The IED contains a number of provisions relating to the permitting of installations that fall within the scope of the Directive. 3.1.1 Obligation to hold a permit Article 4(1) places a requirement on Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that no installation or combustion plant, waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration plant is operated without a permit. Under Article 4(2) Member States may opt to provide that a permit cover two or more installations or parts of installations operated by the same operator on the same site. Where a permit covers two or more installations, it shall contain conditions to ensure that each installation complies with the requirements of this Directive. Under Article 3(3) Member States may opt to provide that a permit cover several parts of an installation operated by different operators. In such cases, the permit shall specify the responsibilities of each operator. 3.1.2 Granting of permits 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

29

Article 5(1) places a requirement on the competent authority to grant a permit if the installation complies with the requirements of the IED Directive. In cases where more than one competent authority or more than one operator involved, or more than one permit is granted, Article 5(2) requires Member States to take the measures necessary to ensure that the conditions of, and the procedures for the granting of, the permit are fully coordinated, in order to guarantee an effective integrated approach by all authorities competent for this procedure. In the case of a new installation or a substantial change where Article 4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 85/337/EEC applies, any relevant information obtained or conclusion arrived at pursuant to Articles 5, 6, 7 and 9 of that Directive shall be examined and used for the purposes of granting the permit. 3.1.3 General Binding Rules Article 6 allows Member States to include requirements for certain categories of installations, combustion plants, waste incineration plants or waste co-incineration plants in general binding rules. Where general binding rules are adopted, the permit may simply include a reference to such rules. 3.1.4 Applications for permits Article 12(1) requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that an application for a permit includes a description of the following: (a) the installation and its activities; (b) the raw and auxiliary materials, other substances and the energy used in or generated by the installation; (c) the sources of emissions from the installation; (d) the conditions of the site of the installation; (e) where applicable, a baseline report in accordance with Article 22(2); (f) the nature and quantities of foreseeable emissions from the installation into each medium as well as identification of significant effects of the emissions on the environment; (g) the proposed technology and other techniques for preventing or, where this is not possible, reducing emissions from the installation; (h) measures for the prevention, preparation for re-use, recycling and recovery of waste generated by the installation; (i) further measures planned to comply with the general principles of the basic obligations of the operator as provided for in Article 11; (j) measures planned to monitor emissions into the environment; (k) the main alternatives to the proposed technology, techniques and measures studied by the applicant in outline. An application for a permit shall also include a non-technical summary of the details referred to in the first subparagraph. Article 12(2) allows for information supplied in accordance with the requirements provided for in Directive 85/337/EEC or a safety report prepared in accordance with Directive 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

30

96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances or other information produced in response to other legislation fulfils any of the requirements of paragraph 1, to be included in, or attached to, the application. 3.1.5 Permit conditions Article 14(1) places an obligation on Member States to ensure that the permit includes all measures necessary for compliance with the requirements of Articles 11 (General principles governing the basic obligations of the operator) and 18 (Environmental quality standards). Those measures shall include at least the following: (a) emission limit values for polluting substances listed in Annex II, and for other polluting substances, which are likely to be emitted from the installation concerned in significant quantities, having regard to their nature and their potential to transfer pollution from one medium to another; (b) appropriate requirements ensuring protection of the soil and groundwater and measures concerning the monitoring and management of waste generated by the installation; (c) suitable emission monitoring requirements specifying: (i) measurement methodology, frequency and evaluation procedure; and (ii) where Article 15(3)(b) is applied, that results of emission monitoring are available for the same periods of time and reference conditions as for the emission levels associated with the best available techniques; (d) an obligation to supply the competent authority regularly, and at least annually, with: (i) information on the basis of results of emission monitoring referred to in point (c) and other required data that enables the competent authority to verify compliance with the permit conditions; and (ii) where Article 15(3)(b) is applied, a summary of the results of emission monitoring which allows a comparison with the emission levels associated with the best available techniques; (e) appropriate requirements for the regular maintenance and surveillance of measures taken to prevent emissions to soil and groundwater pursuant to point (b) and appropriate requirements concerning the periodic monitoring of soil and groundwater in relation to relevant hazardous substances likely to be found on site and having regard to the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination at the site of the installation; (f) measures relating to conditions other than normal operating conditions such as start-up and shut-down operations, leaks, malfunctions, momentary stoppages and definitive cessation of operations; (g) provisions on the minimisation of long-distance or trans-boundary pollution; (h) conditions for assessing compliance with the emission limit values or a reference to the applicable requirements specified elsewhere. Article 14(2) allows for emission limit values to be supplemented or replaced by equivalent parameters or technical measures ensuring an equivalent level of environmental protection. Article 14(3) states that BAT conclusions shall be the reference for setting the permit conditions. Article 14(4) allows the competent authority to set stricter permit conditions than those achievable by the use of the best available techniques as described in the BAT conclusions. 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

31

Member States may establish rules under which the competent authority may set such stricter conditions. Where the competent authority sets permit conditions on the basis of a best available technique not described in any of the relevant BAT conclusions, Article 14(5) requires that it ensures that: (a) that technique is determined by giving special consideration to the criteria listed in Annex III (Criteria for determining best available techniques); and (b) the requirements of Article 15 (Emission limit values, equivalent parameters and technical measures) are complied with. Where the BAT conclusions referred to in the first subparagraph do not contain emission levels associated with the best available techniques, the competent authority shall ensure that the technique referred to in the first subparagraph ensures a level of environmental protection equivalent to the best available techniques described in the BAT conclusions. Where an activity or a type of production process carried out within an installation is not covered by any of the BAT conclusions or where those conclusions do not address all the potential environmental effects of the activity or process, Article 14(6) requires that the competent authority, after prior consultations with the operator, sets the permit conditions on the basis of the best available techniques that it has determined for the activities or processes concerned, by giving special consideration to the criteria listed in Annex III. Article 14(7) states that for intensive rearing of poultry or pig installations, paragraphs 1 to 6 of this Article shall apply without prejudice to the legislation relating to animal welfare. 3.1.6 Changes by operators to installations Article 20(1) requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that the operator informs the competent authority of any planned change in the nature or functioning, or an extension of the installation which may have consequences for the environment. Where appropriate, the competent authority shall update the permit. Article 20(2) requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that no substantial change planned by the operator is made without a permit granted in accordance with the IED Directive. The application for a permit and the decision by the competent authority shall cover those parts of the installation and those details listed in Article 12 which may be affected by the substantial change. Article 20(3) states that any change in the nature or functioning or an extension of an installation shall be deemed to be substantial if the change or extension in itself reaches the capacity thresholds set out in Annex I (categories of activities that fall within the scope of the IED). 3.1.7 Reconsideration and updating of permit conditions by the competent authority Article 21(1) requires that Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authority periodically reconsiders in accordance with Articles 21 (2) to 21 (5) all permit conditions and, where necessary to ensure compliance with the IED Directive, updates those conditions. 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

32

At the request of the competent authority, Article 21(2) requires the operator to submit all the information necessary for the purpose of reconsidering the permit conditions, including, in particular, results of emission monitoring and other data, that enables a comparison of the operation of the installation with the best available techniques described in the applicable BAT conclusions and with the emission levels associated with the best available techniques. When reconsidering permit conditions, the competent authority shall use any information resulting from monitoring or inspections. Within 4 years of publication of decisions on BAT conclusions in accordance with Article 13(5) relating to the main activity of an installation, Article 21(3) requires the competent authority to ensure that: (a) all the permit conditions for the installation concerned are reconsidered and, if necessary, updated to ensure compliance with this Directive, in particular, with Article 15(3) and (4), where applicable; (b) the installation complies with those permit conditions. The reconsideration shall take into account all the new or updated BAT conclusions applicable to the installation and adopted in accordance with Article 13(5) since the permit was granted or last reconsidered. Where an installation is not covered by any of the BAT conclusions, Article 21(4) requires that the permit conditions shall be reconsidered and, if necessary, updated where developments in the best available techniques allow for the significant reduction of emissions. Article 21(5) states that he permit conditions shall be reconsidered and, where necessary, updated at least in the following cases: (a) the pollution caused by the installation is of such significance that the existing emission limit values of the permit need to be revised or new such values need to be included in the permit; (b) the operational safety requires other techniques to be used; (c) where it is necessary to comply with a new or revised environmental quality standard in accordance with Article 18. 3.2 IMPEL project on permitting under the IED In 2012, IMPEL carried out a project on permitting under the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)15. The project aimed to: document changes that Member States will make to their permitting systems to accommodate the provisions of Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of the IED and to determine how Member States are addressing the issue of substantial change at permitted facilities, now that ‘substantial change’ has been redefined by the IED. The project used a questionnaire approach which asked participating countries what would be different in the permitting systems required by the IED compared with previous regimes (eg IPPC). This was followed by a workshop to discuss the issues that arose in the questionnaire and also the question of how to interpret what constitutes ‘substantial change’. The project was more about comparing practices and approaches in different countries. It did not attempt to develop Europe-wide guidance. It made a number of conclusions and recommendations for further work in the area of IED permitting: 15

Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) – the transition to IED permits and how to deal with substantial change at a permitted facility. IMPEL report, October 2012.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

33

Concentration Limits Vs Mass Emission Limits It was recommended that a project should be developed to look at the potential differences between environmental regulators in prescribing concentration or mass emission limits in the BREFs and implementing decisions. There are strong arguments to be made for both approaches to environmental regulation. There is also a wealth of knowledge among the competent authorities of using both approaches, and their experiences would be valuable in developing a more uniform application of emission limit values in IED permits across the EU. Changes to Permit Conditions There are a number of different mechanisms for making changes to permits (both substantial and non-substantial changes) in each jurisdiction and it appears from the workshop that the possibility of discussing common templates for standard rules would be welcomed. The systems for making changes to permits in place in those countries represented at the workshop showed surprising variations and there are merits to each of the systems. If the best parts of each of those systems could be brought together, a uniform approach among competent authorities should be welcomed by industry. This is equally applicable among regional permitting authorities within the same country that have different approaches to reviewing or amending permits. Other than Normal Operations: During the discussions it became clear that there are differences between the competent authorities on the interpretation of what is considered ‘other than normal operating conditions’. One measure that could be adopted is for a register of all abnormal operations to be developed for different industries, either at an IMPEL level, or during the BREF review process for inclusion in the BREF documents. This should help to ensure uniform application of the requirements of the Directive across all MS. Any such register would be a nonexhaustive list of potentially abnormal operations and would be suited to the BREF process as the descriptions of the different BAT can include references to potential abnormal operating conditions. Adoption of Implementing Decisions: The potential exists for the development of a long-term IMPEL project to look at how MS are going to adopt the implementing decisions into national policy/guidance/legislation. According to the European Commission, one of the problems identified in the review of the IPPC Directive in 2007 was insufficient implementation of BAT leading to limited progress in the prevention and reduction of industrial emissions and to distortion of competition due to large differences in environmental standards. This was one of the driving forces behind the development of the IED and with significant changes in the requirements surrounding BAT conclusions, now may be the ideal time to begin to examine how the implementation process could be streamlined across the EU. 3.3 Measures to be included in the permit (art. 14) This section needs further consideration/ elaboration. It was suggested as an addition to the guidance, and linkages with Section 5.5.3 (verification of self-monitoring) and 5.9 (site closure) need to be clarified. 3.3.1 Decommissioning plan/cessation of activity 3.3.2 Self-monitoring plan (minimum content) 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

34

4. Baseline Report on soil contamination 4.1 Relevant provisions of the IED on establishing a baseline report Article 22(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (IED) provides that, ‘Without prejudice to Directive 2000/60/EC, Directive 2004/35/EC, Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration and to relevant Union law on soil protection, the competent authority shall set permit conditions to ensure compliance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article upon definitive cessation of activities’. Article 22, paragraphs 2 to 4, contain provisions for the definitive cessation of activities involving the use, production or release of relevant hazardous substances in order to prevent and tackle potential soil and groundwater contamination from such substances. A key tool in this respect is the establishment of a ‘baseline report’. Where an activity involves the use, production or release of relevant hazardous substances and having regard to the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination, a baseline report is to be drawn up before starting the operation of the installation or before a permit for the installation is updated for the first time after 7 January 2013. The report will form the basis for a comparison with the state of contamination upon definitive cessation of activities. Where information produced pursuant to other national or Union law reflects the state at the time the report is drawn up, that information may be included in, or attached to, the baseline report. Article 3(19) of the IED clarifies that the baseline report needs to provide information on the state of soil and groundwater contamination by relevant hazardous substances. Article 22(2) specifies that a baseline report should contain at least the following information: (a) information on the present use and, where available, on past uses of the site; and (b)where available, existing information on soil and groundwater measurements that reflect the state at the time the report is drawn up or, alternatively, new soil and groundwater measurements having regard to the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination by those hazardous substances to be used, produced or released by the installation concerned.’ 4.2 European Commission guidance on baseline reports According to the last subparagraph of Article 22(2) of the IED, ‘the Commission shall establish guidance on the content of the baseline report.’ Accordingly, the Commission has published a Communication on European Commission Guidance concerning baseline reports16. This guidance provides information on the legal provisions concerning a baseline report and covers the following elements of Article 22 of the IED that should be addressed in the baseline report:  Determining whether a baseline report is required to be produced;  Designing baseline investigations;  Designing a sampling strategy; 16

European Commission Guidance concerning baseline reports under Article 22(2) of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions. 2014/C 136/03.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

35



Developing the baseline report.

The guidance sets out 8 key stages in the development of the report: Stage 1: Identifying the hazardous substances that are currently used, produced or released at the installation – to determine whether or not hazardous substances are used, produced or released in view of deciding on the need to prepare and submit a baseline report. Stage 2: Identifying the relevant hazardous substances - to restrict further consideration to only the relevant hazardous substances in view of deciding on the need to prepare and submit a baseline report. Stage 3: Assessment of the site-specific pollution possibility - to identify which of the relevant hazardous substances represent a potential pollution risk at the site based on the likelihood of releases of such substances occurring. For these substances, information must be included in the baseline report. Stage 4: Site history – to identify potential sources which may have resulted in the hazardous substances identified in Stage 3 being already present on the site of the installation. Stage 5: Environmental setting – to determine where hazardous substances may go if released and where to look for them. Also identify the environmental media and receptors that are potentially at risk and where there are other activities in the area which release the same hazardous substances and may cause them to migrate onto the site. Stage 6: Site characterisation- to identify the location, nature and extent of existing pollution on the site and to determine which strata and groundwater might be affected by such pollution. Compare with potential future emissions to see if areas are coincident. Stage 7: Site investigation – to collect additional information as necessary to allow a quantified assessment of soil and groundwater pollution by relevant hazardous substances. Stage 8: Production of the baseline report

4.3 IMPEL project on baseline reports A ToR has been produced to carry out a project to assess the procedures that are already being implemented in countries in relation to the production of baseline reports and to identify best practices. The results of this work should be available by end of 2015. 4.4 Baseline Report on soil contamination a. Aim of the baseline report in relation to soil pollution b. Definition of relevant hazardous substances, quality and quantity c. Limitation of the object of investigation d. Inspection of soil and ground water These areas were suggested as part of the IMPEL IED guidance. Some of them seem to be covered in the Commission guidance. Other aspects could be considered in the new IMPEL project on baseline reports. This needs further consideration. 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

36

5. Environmental Inspections 5.1 Provisions of IED on environmental inspections Article 23 sets out the requirements for environmental inspections for installations falling within the scope of the IED. 5.1.1 System of environmental inspections Article 23(1) requires that Member States set up a system of environmental inspections of installations addressing the examination of the full range of relevant environmental effects from the installations concerned. Member States must ensure that operators afford the competent authorities all necessary assistance to enable those authorities to carry out any site visits, to take samples and to gather any information necessary for the performance of their duties for the purposes of this Directive. 5.1.2 Inspection plans Article 23(2) places an obligation on Member States to ensure that all installations are covered by an environmental inspection plan at national, regional or local level and to ensure that this plan is regularly reviewed and, where appropriate, updated. Under Article23(3), each environmental inspection plan must include the following: (a) a general assessment of relevant significant environmental issues; (b) the geographical area covered by the inspection plan; (c) a register of the installations covered by the plan; (d) procedures for drawing up programmes for routine environmental inspections pursuant to paragraph 4; (e) procedures for non-routine environmental inspections pursuant to paragraph 5; (f) where necessary, provisions on the cooperation between different inspection authorities. 5.1.3 Risk-based programmes for routine environmental inspections Based on the inspection plans, Article 23(4) requires that the competent authority shall regularly draw up programmes for routine environmental inspections, including the frequency of site visits for different types of installations. The period between two site visits must be based on a systematic appraisal of the environmental risks of the installations concerned and shall not exceed 1 year for installations posing the highest risks and 3 years for installations posing the lowest risks. If an inspection has identified an important case of non-compliance with the permit conditions, an additional site visit shall be carried out within 6 months of that inspection. The systematic appraisal of the environmental risks shall be based on at least the following criteria:

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

37

(a) the potential and actual impacts of the installations concerned on human health and the environment taking into account the levels and types of emissions, the sensitivity of the local environment and the risk of accidents; (b) the record of compliance with permit conditions; (c) the participation of the operator in the Union eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009. The Commission may adopt guidance on the criteria for the appraisal of environmental risks. 5.1.4 Non-routine inspections Article 23(5) requires that non-routine environmental inspections be carried out to investigate serious environmental complaints, serious environmental accidents, incidents and occurrences of non-compliance as soon as possible and, where appropriate, before the granting, reconsideration or update of a permit. 5.1.5 Inspection reports Following each site visit, Article 23(6) requires that the competent authority shall prepare a report describing the relevant findings regarding compliance of the installation with the permit conditions and conclusions on whether any further action is necessary. The report shall be notified to the operator concerned within 2 months of the site visit taking place. The report shall be made publicly available by the competent authority in accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information within 4 months of the site visit taking place. Without prejudice to Article 8(2), the competent authority shall ensure that the operator takes all the necessary actions identified in the report within a reasonable period. 5.2 General principles for environmental inspections IMPEL has long history of working to provide inspectors with practical approaches and tools for managing environmental inspections. Much of this work is relevant to the requirements for environmental inspections under the IED. 5.2.1 Minimum criteria for environmental inspections IMPEL’s early work focussed on developing EU-wide criteria for environmental inspections. IMPEL has published a series of guidance documents on the planning and reporting of inspections17 . It also previously published a Reference book for Environmental Inspections18 The guidance incorporates a series of documents, including:   17 18

General Principles (Nov 1997) Frequency of Inspections (Dec 1998

Minimum Criteria of Inspections: Planning and Reporting. IMPEL report 1999/03. IMPEL Reference book for Environmental Inspections. IMPEL report 1999/02.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

38

 

Operator Self-Monitoring (Dec 1998) Planning and Reporting of Inspections (June 1999)

This work also provided the basis for the formal EU Recommendation on minimum criteria for environmental inspections19. 5.2.2 ‘Doing the right things’ IMPEL carried out a series of projects, under the name of ‘Doing the right things’ which were designed to provide practical guidance to inspectors in planning and executing inspection programmes. ‘Doing the right things I’20 explored how inspection authorities set priorities with regard to their tasks in setting up inspection plans. ‘Doing the right things II’21 resulted in a step-by-step guidance book to help practitioners answer the basic questions any inspecting authority has to deal with when setting up an inspection plan. ‘Doing the right things III’22 was concerned with providing practical support to inspectors in using the guidance in their work. A key feature of the DTRT work was to develop an agreed environmental inspection cycle. This has been used as the basis for adapting guidance to the requirements of the IED.

19

Recommendation 2001/331/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States. 20 Doing the right things I: Comparison Programme on prioritising environmental inspections. IMPEL report 2006/19. 21 Doing the right things II: Step-by-step guidance book for planning of environmental inspections. IMPEL report 2007/11. 22 Doing the right things III: Implementation of the step-by-step guidance book for planning of environmental inspections. IMPEL report 2008/02.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

39

1. Planning 1b. Setting priorities  risk assessment  allocating resources

1c. Defining objectives and strategies

1a. Describing the context

 objectives and measurable targets  inspection strategies to ensure compliance  communication strategy

 identifying the scope  information gathering

1d. Planning and review  organizational, human and financial conditions  inspection plan (including inspection programme)  review and revision

4. Performance monitoring

2. Execution Framework

 monitoring  accounting for effort, performance results  comparing and auditing  external reporting

 work protocols and –instructions  protocols for communication,  information management and information exchange  equipment and other resources

3. Execution and Reporting  routine inspections  non-routine  investigation - accidents - incidents - occurrence of non compliance  reporting  information exchange with partner organisations

Environmental inspection cycle

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

40

5.3 Risk assessment IMPEL has carried out a series of projects to develop methods, tools and guidance to support risk assessment in the planning and execution of environmental inspections. These are relevant to the requirement for risk-based inspection programmes under Article 23(4) of the IED. 5.3.1 ‘EasyTools’ and Integrated Risk Assessment Methodology (IRAM) To support inspectors in the execution of risk assessment in the planning phase of the environmental inspection cycle, IMPEL carried out a project, known as ‘EasyTools’23. The project produced a guidance manual24 and an associated web-based tool aimed at providing a simple and flexible means of quantifying relative risk in the planning and targeting of inspections of industrial installations. At the heart of this approach is the method developed to calculate relative risk, known as the Integrated Risk Assessment Methodology (IRAM). This method is based on assessing both the potential and actual impacts of facilities and the performance of the operator. The main IRAM principles are: I. The inspection frequency is determined by the highest impact score II. The inspection frequency is reduced by one step, if the set number of highest scores is not met (the Rule) III. The inspection frequency can be changed by one step up or down based on operator performance IV. The more criteria are scored high, the more inspection effort is needed The main risk criteria used to assess impact and operator performance are: Potential impacts  Kind and type of installation  Risk of accidents  Handling and storage of waste Actual impacts  Levels and types of emissions: air, water, soil  Sensitivity of the local environment  Incidents and accidents Operator performance  Compliance with permit conditions  Attitude of the operator  Environmental management system (EMAS) 5.3.2 Risk criteria

23

Development of an easy and flexible risk assessment tool as a part of the planning of environmental inspections linked to European environmental law and the RMCEI (easyTools), phase 2. IMPEL report 2011/05. 24 easyTools - RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE BOOK. IMPEL, February 2012.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

41

The success of the implementation of IRAM depends on the choice of risk criteria for impact and operator performance. Because it was designed to be a flexible tool, IRAM leaves the user freedom in the selection and the weighting of risk criteria. IMPEL carried out a project on risk criteria for the prioritization of environmental inspections25 to share experience on the application of criteria and indicators used in risk assessment in different countries. Risk criteria, indicators and parameters in use were collected from inspection authorities and a database was created with access via IMPEL’s Basecamp. A risk criteria ‘dashboard’ was also developed to support users in the selection of appropriate criteria. 5.4 IED inspection plans and programmes 5.4.1 IMPEL guidance on inspections in accordance with the IED In 2012, IMPEL carried out a project on environmental inspections of industrial installations in accordance with the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)26. The objective of this project was to organise an exchange of information concerning best practices for the implementation of Article 23 and other relevant articles of the IED. Taking into account the guidance on inspection planning and risk appraisal already developed by IMPEL as well as the requirements of the IED an interactive guidance book on IED inspection27 was developed. The guidance book aims to help practitioners to implement the requirements for inspections set out in Article 23 of the IED and other related Articles. It builds on the main phases of the inspection cycle previously developed by IMPEL and adapts them to the specific requirements of the IED. It also draws on methods and tools previously developed by IMPEL, for example, the use of the IRAM rule-based method in the assessment of risk required under Article 23(4) of the IED. The guidance book helps to provide a common understanding of the technical and legal inspection terms used in the IED and helps to establish a level playing field in applying the new inspection obligations of the IED in the IMPEL member countries. The structure of the guidance is summarised in the figure below.

25

Risk Criteria for the Prioritization of Environmental Inspections. IMPEL report, March 2015. Environmental inspections of industrial installations in accordance with the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). IMPEL report 2012/06. 27 IED Inspections. Guidance for the implementation of the IED in planning and execution of inspections. IMPEL, June 2013. 26

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

42

Overview of IMPEL guidance on IED environmental inspections Chapter 2 RMCEI / IED

Chapter 3 Environmental Inspection Cycle 3.1 Introduction

level of detail Chapter 4 Planning Cycle

Annexes

Chapter 5 IED

4.1 Introduction

Article 23(1)

4.2 3.2 1a. Describing the context

Identifying the scope

Article 8

4.3 Information gathering

3.3 1b. Setting Priorities 2.3 1. Planning 3.4 1c. Defining objectives and strategies

3.5

2.3 2. Execution 2.3

3.6 2. Execution Framework

Article 23(4)

VI Organisational aspects insp. targets

Strategies

4.8 Review and revision

Article 23(2) Article 23(3) Recital 26

3.7 3. Execution and Reporting

3.8 Performance up 4. IRAM –related monitoring

VII Training programme

Article 3(22) Article 7

3. Reporting 2.3 4. Evaluation 5.4.2 Drawing

Impact criteria

V Case studies for inspection targets

4.6

4.7

III

IV Operator Performance criteria

4.5 Objectives and measurable targets

Inspection plan 1d. Planning and Review

II IRAM (Excel-tool)

4.4 Risk assessment Ranking, classification and priorities

I Integrated Risk Assessment Method

Article 23(5)

VIII Graduation of noncompliances IX Lay-out inspection report

Articlethe IED inspection programmes under

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

23(6)

43

The IRAM methodology has been further tested in a project to use it in drawing up inspection programmes28 in which the IRAM tools were further developed and refined. The project group developed an overview of what an inspection programme should look like and defined mandatory and optional information requirements. Mandatory issues are: 1. Defined time period of the program 2. Name of installations / identification numbers 3. Risk categories and related frequencies 4. Type of inspections (e.g. integrated etc.) 5. Dates of the last inspections 6. Dates of the next inspections (year, month) Optional issues are: 7. Results of the last inspections (compliance) 8. Compliance records 9. Alert when dates have passed 10. Names or teams of inspectors or units 11. Inspection categories; inspection efforts 12. Amount of time needed for the inspections 13. Amount of staff needed for the inspections 14. Qualifications and/or skills needed 15. Equipment needed 16. Co-operation with other authorities needed 5.5 Environmental Inspections This chapter needs further consideration and elaboration through the current IED Implementation Project 5.5.1 Site visits (routine, non-routine, unannounced, cross media) 5.5.2 Checks of internal reports 5.5.3 Verification of self-monitoring 5.5.4 Checking of techniques used and adequacy of the environmental management of the installation 5.6 Tools - check lists, procedures and electronic records This chapter needs further consideration and elaboration through the current IED Implementation Project 5.7 Levels of non-compliance This section is to be completed following the work of the group set up under the IMPEL IED Implementation project

28

Environmental inspections of industrial installations in accordance with the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) – Drawing up of IRAM related inspection programmes. IMPEL report 2013/08.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

44

5.8 Inspection report This section is to be completed following the work of the group set up under the IMPEL IED Implementation project 5.9 Site closure (Bankruptcy and temporary and definitive cessation of activity in IED installations) This section is to be completed following the work of the group set up under the IMPEL IED Implementation project

6. Reporting obligations of the operator This chapter is to be completed following the work of the group set up under the IMPEL IED Implementation project 6.1 Incidents and accidents 6.2 Non-compliance 6.3 Yearly report on emissions

7. Related topics 7.1 IED and REACH REACH (EC 1907/2006) is an EU regulation relating to the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals. REACH aims to improve the protection of human health and the environment through the better and earlier identification of the intrinsic properties of chemical substances. REACH also aims to enhance innovation and competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry. The regulation of chemicals and industrial emissions are connected in different ways. Many of the he industrial activities listed in Annex I of the IED are related to the manufacture or processing of chemical substances and to potential releases or emissions of pollutants. At the same time, chemical substances are regulated under the REACH Regulation. IMPEL has recently completed a project to look at linking the IED and the REACH Regulation29. It carried out a systematic analysis of the linkages and synergies of the REACH Regulation with the IED. It showed how downstream users / operators can benefit from the information generated under REACH and IED for cross - legislation compliance. Best practice examples from the participating IMPEL organisations covering templates, tools, work flow sheets and supporting guidance show that competent REACH and IED authorities try to bring together the information generated under the two pieces of legislation and to optimise their daily work. It was recommended that competent REACH and IED authorities should cooperate closely to exchange information, avoid duplication of work, and carry out joint inspections.

29

Linking the Directive on Industrial Emissions (IED) and the REACH Regulation. IMPEL report November, 2013.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

45

7.2 IED and Natura 2000 The Habitats Directive30 forms the cornerstone of Europe's nature conservation policy. It is built around two pillars: the ‘Natura 2000’ network of protected sites and the strict system of species protection. All in all the directive protects over 1,000 animals and plant species and over 200 habitat types which are of European importance. Article 6 is one of the most important articles in the Habitats Directive as it defines how Natura 2000 sites are managed and protected. It is of particular relevance to the regulation of IED facilities and sites. Paragraphs 6(1) and 6(2) require that, within Natura 2000, Member States:  Take appropriate conservation measures to maintain and restore the habitats and species for which the site has been designated to a favourable conservation status;  Avoid damaging activities that could significantly disturb these species or deteriorate the habitats of the protected species or habitat types. Paragraphs 6(3) and 6(4) lay down the procedure to be followed when planning new developments that might affect a Natura 2000 site. Thus:  Any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall undergo an Appropriate Assessment to determine its implications for the site. The competent authorities can only agree to the plan or project after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned (Article 6.3)  In exceptional circumstances, a plan or project may still be allowed to go ahead, in spite of a negative assessment, provided there are no alternative solutions and the plan or project is considered to be of overriding public interest. In such cases the Member State must take appropriate compensatory measures to ensure that the overall coherence of the N2000 Network is protected. (Article 6.4) An IMPEL project on building up IMPEL nature conservation capacities31 identified particular challenges in carrying out ‘Appropriate Assessment’ (AA) required under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Examples where problems are being encountered include: assessment of cumulative impacts, analysis of the baseline condition, and drawing conclusions with respect to the assessment results. IMPEL has recently carried out a project on nature protection in permitting and inspection of industrial installations32. The project aimed to identify best practices in countries in the regulation of industrial installations in areas that fall within the scope of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Areas that were highlighted by practitioners include:  providing good guidance (general and sector specific) and supporting tools (databases and screening/evaluation tools) on screening and for Appropriate Assessment,

30

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 31 Building up IMPEL nature conservation capacities. IMPEL Report, December 2013. 32 Nature protection in permitting and inspection of industrial installations – implementation of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. IMPEL report , March 2015.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

46

   

prior discussion and early communication of Natura 2000 aspects in permit procedures and screening, setting good and enforceable permit conditions concerning Natura 2000 sites, (particularly for monitoring and reporting), maintaining good cooperation between competent nature conservation and permitting and inspection authorities, and providing good working material and training for competent authorities.

Although the project did not develop specific guidance it identified some key challenges, including:  improving knowledge and awareness on the existence and use of existing EU guidance documents,  initiating the development of new EU guidance, especially on sector specific requirements,  exchange of knowledge on screening and the criteria for ‘significant effects’ and assessment methodologies. The project recommended that:  Information about screening and AA should be integrated into the permit.  Only clear and well defined conditions concerning Natura 2000 sites that can be inspected and enforced should become part of the permits.  More information is need on dealing with activities without permits, such as small farms and the assessment of cumulative effects. A further project is proposed that will look specifically at the evaluation of the applicability of the EU Guidance Document ‘Wind energy developments and Natura 2000’ and the development of a sector specific guidance document on dealing with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive in permitting of farm projects (pigs and poultry). 7.3 IED and Water Framework Directive The Water Framework Directive33 (WFD) establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which: (a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems; (b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources; (c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances; (d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and (e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts 33

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

47

The objectives and requirements of the WFD and IED strongly interact. IED requires the permitting process to consider environmental objectives (such as those derived from the WFD) and the WFD requires action to be taken on pressures on water bodies (which may include provisions for IED installations). The nature, timing, scope and limitations of these interactions (and more specific interactions with the ‘supporting’ Directives ) are not always clear and they present a major challenge for competent authorities in the Member States to address. IMPEL has carried out a phased project IMPEL Project on linking the WFD and the IED34. The first phase examined the nature of the interaction between these directives. The second phase brought together IMPEL members to examine the practical problems they face in addressing the interaction between the directives in decision making as well as the good practice solutions that have been developed. The third phased produced checklists and guidance for water management authorities and for IED competent authorities and on the sharing of information in different phases of their water management cycles and regulatory cycles. The checklist for water management authorities is structured around the cycle of river basin planning:  Understanding significant water pressures  Establishing and implementing measures  Monitoring The guidance for IED competent authorities is structured around the regulatory cycle of the IED:  Permitting  Monitoring  Inspection planning  Inspection  Permit review The checklists contain a series of actions the relevant authorities may take to aid in their work, including information they could request from another authorities or information they could supply. 7.4 IED and Seveso inspections This section needs more consideration. The IRAM methodology (covered in section 5.3 and the guidance for IED inspections (covered in section 5.4) are also relevant for installations covered in the Seveso Directive. 7.5 IED and Air Quality Directive This section needs more consideration and is relevant to the work being taken forward by the IED Implementation Project on ‘going beyond BAT’ which will be covered in section 4.2. 34

Linking the Water Framework Directive and IED Directive – Phase 3. IMPEL Final Report, November 2013.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

48

7.6 IED and Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) This section needs more consideration. IED installations are included in Annex III.1 as referred to in Article 3.1 of the Directive on Environmental Liability.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 1, Version 2015-12-06

49

2015 Report on the IMPEL project IED Implementation, Part 2 Content

CONTENT................................................................................................................................................................ 1 ANNEX 3

FINDINGS FROM SUB GROUP ON LEVELS OF NON COMPLIANCE.......................................................... 3

1.

THE APPROACH FROM IMPEL 2013 ............................................................................................................... 3

2.

THE APPROACH FROM THIS 2015 PROJECT “IED IMPLEMENTATION” ........................................................... 5

AMINOR CASES OF NON-COMPLIANCE ..................................................................................... 5 B - RELEVANT OR SIGNIFICANT CASES OF NON-COMPLIANCE ................................................................... 6 C - IMPORTANT CASES OF NON-COMPLIANCE ...................................................................................... 6 CONSEQUENCES OF INSPECTION RESULTS ........................................................................................... 8 3.

PRACTICE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES ............................................................................................................. 8

ANNEX 4

FINDINGS FROM SUB GROUP ON REPORTING TO THE PUBLIC ........................................................... 10

1.

OBLIGATION BY IED ..................................................................................................................................... 10

2.

INSPECTION REPORT ................................................................................................................................... 11

1. MOTIVE...............................................................................................................................11 2. DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................11 3. RESULTS / COMPLIANCE ...........................................................................................................12 4. MEASURES ...........................................................................................................................12 3.

WHO IS PUBLISHING AND HOW .................................................................................................................. 13

4.

PROCEDURE RELATED GOOD PRACTICES ..................................................................................................... 13

5.

CONTENT RELATED GOOD PRACTICES ......................................................................................................... 13

ANNEX I: TABLE FROM SMALL SURVEY TO IMPEL MEMBERS ON PUBLICATION OF INSPECTION REPORTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 ANNEX II: EXAMPLES OF INSPECTION REPORTS FROM GROUP MEMBERS ................................................ 17

EXAMPLE FROM CZECH REPUBLIC ...................................................................................................17 EXAMPLE FROM AUSTRIA, SALZBURG REGION ...................................................................................19 EXAMPLE FROM THE NETHERLANDS ................................................................................................21 EXAMPLE FROM SPAIN ................................................................................................................23 ANNEX 5 CLOSURE OF INSTALLATIONS/BANKRUPTCY ....................................................................................... 29 1.

OBLIGATIONS FROM IED ............................................................................................................................. 31

2.

HOW TO FIND OUT WHETHER A COMPANY IS HEADING TOWARDS BANKRUPTCY (WEAKNESS SIGNALS) .. 33

3.

FINANCIAL GUARANTEE .............................................................................................................................. 33

4.

HOW TO DETERMINE THE FINANCIAL GUARANTEE? ................................................................................... 34

5.

DEFINITIVE CESSATION OF OPERATION ....................................................................................................... 36

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

1

6.

MINIMUM CONTENT OF A CESSATION/DECOMMISSIONING PLAN ............................................................. 37

7.

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 38

ANNEX I ................................................................................................................................................................ 39 ANNEX II ............................................................................................................................................................... 44 ANNEX III .............................................................................................................................................................. 46 ANNEX IV ............................................................................................................................................................. 48 ANNEX V .............................................................................................................................................................. 50 ANNEX VI ............................................................................................................................................................. 53 ANNEX VII ............................................................................................................................................................ 56 ANNEX 6

DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON LEVELS OF NON-COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 60

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

2

ANNEX 3

FINDINGS FROM SUB GROUP ON LEVELS OF NON COMPLIANCE

Environmental Inspections

Levels of non-compliance Non-compliance of an installation with the permit conditions has to be examined by the competent authorities. In case of environmental problems the IED demands additional inspections: Article 23(5) IED: Non-routine environmental inspections shall be carried out to investigate serious environmental complaints, serious environmental accidents, incidents and occurrences of non- compliance as soon as possible and, where appropriate, before the granting, reconsideration or update of a permit.

This means, the competent authority has to react on every detected case of non-compliance. This non routine inspection however is not necessarily a site visit with information of the public. Important cases of non-compliance lead to an additional site inspection: Article 23(4) IED: … If an inspection has identified an important case of non-compliance with the permit conditions, an additional site visit shall be carried out within 6 months of that inspection.

Obviously there are different types of non-compliances. This chapter tries to give examples for different types of non-compliances and especially for the decision, if an additional site visit within 6 month is necessary. 1. The approach from IMPEL 2013 For defining different levels of non-compliance we can use the IMPEL report on IED inspections1 as the starting point. The levels or cases of non-compliance in this report are: 1. minor 2. significant or relevant 3. important or serious.

1

http://impel.eu/projects/environmental-inspections-of-industrial-installations-in-accordance-with-the-industrialemissions-directive-ied/

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

3

Table 1: Levels of non-compliances from IMPEL report “Step by step guidance for IED Inspections” (June 2013): Levels of noncompliance

Permit conditions complied with?

Indicative list emission environmental limit values quality complied standards with? complied with?

A

Minor cases of noncompliance

No

Yes

Yes

B

Relevant or significant cases of noncompliance

No

No

Yes

C

Important or serious cases of noncompliance

No

No

No

Aim of the permit achieved?

No (or negligible) offences To be assessed from case to case; measures necessary Enforcement required

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

4

Within the IMPEL report from 2013 definitions and examples were given, which are used also in the examples below. 2. The approach from this 2015 project “IED Implementation” During discussion it became clear that there would be no simple definitions of different levels of non-compliance but, in any case, the attitude of the operator, the repetition and number of non-compliances and the participation in the Union eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) has to be taken into account. We collected additional examples of 3 levels of non-compliance to give help to environmental inspectors in daily exercise. This 3-level-concept may also help filling in the inspection reports to be published. There is no need to divide between important and serious cases, so part C is only named C Important cases of non-compliance. The most serious non-compliances leading to closing down the installation according to Article 8 IED are assumed to be very seldom. So we will not give any definition to those cases. A-

Minor cases of non-compliance

In general  Non-compliances that have a low risk of damage to the environment, so within a reasonable period of time appropriate measures must be taken to eliminate the noncompliances;  only minor violations of permit conditions /legal obligations/operator duties with no consequences on the protection and precaution against pollution.  Emission limit values, environmental quality standards and other limitations are still met.  The aim of the permit (to protect the human health and the environment against pollution and to take precautionary measures against pollution) is still achieved.  The competent authority gives a note to the operator. Examples  Operations diary is not kept orderly or only with delay  Missing work instructions  Pipelines are not labelled properly  Documentation of stipulated maintenance work is not directly available  missing or inadequate records, if required, such as: data on raw material consumption  missing data on waste types and waste quantities, solvent management plan, etc.  missing or inadequate waste management plan  not adequate safety precautions at storage units of or for the handling of environmentally hazardous substances (e.g. catch basin)  emission measurement reports incomplete or not in accordance with the state of the art  inadequate continuous measurements  exceeded deadline for periodic reports 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

5



other obligations under environmental law for reporting or verification not met

B - Relevant or significant cases of non-compliance In general  Non-compliances that may cause a risk of harm to the environment or the damage has already occurred, so within a reasonable period of time appropriate measures must be taken to eliminate the non-compliances  Significant violations of permit conditions/violations of legal obligations/operator duties which can have consequences on the precaution against pollution.  It is unclear if the emission limit values are complied with.  The aim of the permit (to protect the human health and the environment against pollution and to take precautionary measures against pollution) is in question.  Breaching the operator’s duty according to Articles 8 (2a) and 20 (1) (IED): the operator has to inform the competent authority about non-compliances and changes of the operation.  Several or repeated similar minor non-compliances could be rated as a relevant noncompliance. Examples  Orders from inspection reports are not fulfilled  Frequency of maintenance is not complied with  Maintenance work on an exhaust gas cleaning facility was not carried out  Failure of monitoring systems of a noise protection facility without exceeding of ambient noise limit values  missing annual report according to Art.14 para. 1 (d) IED  missing (audit or emission or monitoring) report  for waste treatment installations: activity not covered by the permit  important exceedance of an emission limit value  missing emission measurement report, if required, or deadline for periodic report exceeded by far  continuous measurements severely deficient, measuring device not operational or does not exist at all  missing safety precautions at storage units of or for the handling of environmentally hazardous substances (eg, catch basin)  missing permit for a mode of operation, which may affect emissions  continuously existing minor non-compliances C - Important cases of non-compliance In general  Non-compliances that cause a serious risk of substantial harm to the environment or the damage has already occurred, so usually immediately appropriate measures must be taken to eliminate the non-compliances.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

6

     

Serious violations of permit conditions/violations of legal obligations/operator duties which derogate the precaution or the protection against pollution. Emission limit values, environmental quality standards or other limitations are not met. The aim of the permit (to protect the human health and the environment against pollution and to take precautionary measures against pollution) is not met. Several or repeated similar relevant non-compliances could be rated as a serious noncompliance Violation of an environmental quality standard or non-compliance that could lead to a maximum potential impact Non-compliance very important in terms of complaints and public perception

Examples  Operation of an installation without permit or a substantial change of an installation without changes of the permit  Maintenance or monitoring of environmentally relevant parts of the installation does not exist  Relevant exceeding of the maximum permitted waste storage capacity  Operation of a malfunctioning filter installations or protection systems with important exceeding of emission limit values  Storage of dangerous (liquid) waste on unprotected soil  Operation of an old single-walled sub soil pipeline for hazardous substances without proper protection against corrosion  presence of "imminent danger" to the environment  inoperative emission control system or wastewater treatment system  Misoperation with potential big impact  Exceeding emission limit values (based on BAT-AELs) that could lead to significant impacts on public health and environment Every classification of non-compliance requires a case-by-case decision. The classification should avoid discrepancies to other regulations. E.g. if it is a criminal offence to run an installation without a permit this should not be rated as a minor non-compliance. Important cases of non-compliance leading to an additional site visit according to article 23 (4) In addition to the definitions of IMPEL project 2013 we aimed to develop guidance on how to determine important cases of non-compliance leading to an additional site visit within six months (article 23(4) of the IED). We collected examples of cases of important non-compliance. These are summarized in part C Important cases of non-compliance (see above). As another possibility there was a suggestion for a simple guidance: If a non-compliance detected during a routine inspection leads to a higher risk according to the risk assessment, then this non-compliance is considered to be important leading to an additional inspection within six months as set out in article 23(4) of the IED. 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

7

(Please note that e.g. quitting the EMAS or enlarging the production capacity may lead to higher inspection frequency, but is not a case of non-compliance. So this will not lead to an additional site visit according to Art. 23(4) IED) Check your own risk assessment to find out whether this might help you in the inspectorate. Consequences of inspection results According to IMPEL guidance2 the risk assessment should be updated (directly) after each inspection. A higher inspection frequency could be the outcome. However the update of the full inspection program can be done later, according to the practice of the competent authority (for example each year). We recommend not changing the inspection cycle in case of an additional site visit. So the next regular site visit should be performed at the planned date according to the last determined inspection frequency. If the authority gets knowledge of the non-compliance not during a site visit but on other ways, the necessary additional site visit may come up together with the next routine site visit.

3. Practice in different countries Summary of dealing with non-compliances today In most countries the reaction of the authorities to non-compliances depends on the effect on environment as well as the operator performance:

close down

potential of environmental impact

punish administrative fines warning letter info criminal energy of operator

Reaction of the administration to non compliances

2

IRAM http://impel.eu/projects/supporting-the-implementation-of-the-integrated-risk-assessment-methodiram/

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

8

Some countries use 3 steps of non-compliances, others use 2 or 4 steps.

Possible measures to be taken by the authority:  writing a letter to the company 

demanding a rehabilitation plan/technical measures



putting seals on devices



partially or full closing down a plant or activity



administrative fines



notification to prosecutors



Imprisonment

If a non-compliance is observed several times in the same year, the competent authority can adopt a partial and/or temporary closure of installation, depending on the environmental effect of the non-compliance. In some countries, single cases of non-compliance are recorded onto a database, collected over one year and then judged. Less-compliant sites will pay a surcharge on their annual charge, while operators with perfect compliance records can receive a discount. Another result could be a changed inspection frequency. When it comes to the classification of a case of non-compliance it should be kept in mind that the judgement and the experience of the inspectors stay very important and the particular case has to be analysed. Technical definitions of non-compliance levels are not sufficient for a realistic assessment.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

9

ANNEX 4

FINDINGS FROM SUB GROUP ON REPORTING TO THE PUBLIC

REPORTING TO THE PUBLIC 1. Obligation by IED IED Art. 23 (6) obliges Member States to take the following actions: Following each site visit, the competent authority shall prepare a report describing the relevant findings regarding compliance of the installation with the permit conditions and conclusions on whether any further action is necessary. The report shall be notified to the operator concerned within 2 months of the site visit taking place. The report shall be made publicly available by the competent authority in accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information (OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 26) within 4 months of the site visit taking place. What it means3  



3

Report: the outline of the contents of an inspection report that can be made publicly available can be found in the next chapter. Notified: An inspection can consist of more than 1 site visit. It’s also possible relevant inspection results (e.g. monitoring results) are not directly available after the site visits. For those cases the report has to be sent to the operator 2 months after the first site visit and a follow-up after the further results are available. Publicly available: reports of routine and non-routine inspections have to be made actively available (for instance on the internet) 4 months after the site visit. If the 4 months pass and results are not yet available then only mention the relevant findings and follow-up later.

Impel IED implementation project 2012

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

10

Lay-out inspection report4 Good practice for publishing a report actively on the internet: - Permit number or identification; - Site or installation name (not full address) - Date of visit - Location - Summary of the outcome (level of compliance, follow up requirements) - Hi-level summary Optional requirements for reports are: - full form report - Scope (what and what not inspected) - Other assessment types (e.g. data audit, non-routine) Example see next page

2. Inspection Report 1. Motive According to Article 23 of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) the competent inspection authorities are obliged to carry out routine on-site inspections. The period between two site visits is based on a systematic appraisal of the environmental risks of the installations concerned and shall not exceed 1 year for installations posing the highest risks and 3 years for installations posing the lowest risks. The purpose of routine inspections is to check compliance of the inspected installations with legal requirements and permit conditions. In case of non-compliance the competent authority will require the operator to take measures necessary to ensure that compliance is restored. Following each site visit, the competent authority prepares a report describing the relevant findings regarding compliance of the installation with the permit conditions and conclusions on whether any further action is necessary. The report shall be made publicly available by the competent authority within 4 months of the site visit taking place.

2. Description      4

Inspection basis (permit, legal regulations) Competent inspection authority, cooperating inspection authorities Kind of installation (e. g. power plant or chemical plant) Operator (Name of the company) Address

Impel IED implementation project 2012

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

11

   

Date of inspection Length of inspection time Scope of the site inspection (e. g. integrated inspection, media that were inspected, parts of the installation that were inspected) Expected or unexpected site inspection

3. Results / compliance  No or only minor non-compliances  Significant or relevant non-compliances  Serious or important non-compliances (The definitions of non-compliances are discussed in a separate chapter in this guidebook)

4. Measures Initiated measures (e. g. warning letter, (supplementary) decree, fine, closing down of (parts of) the installation, cancellation of the permit) (Inspection reports for publication shall not contain information that violates the rights of third parties, like protected data, information on industrial and business secrets and so on)

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

12

3. Who is publishing and how A small survey to IMPEL members on publication of inspection reports has been executed in August 2014 by Horst Büther and updated in May 2015 (summary in annex I including the website addresses where these can be found). In annex II several examples of internet publications can be found.

4. Procedure related good practices 1) Information should be made available for the public in an active way (on internet). Although not the main reason, publication of inspection reports can be used to increase compliance promotion. More and more member states publish via the internet and in the spirit of more transparency this way of publication is the way forward. 2) It is an important principle that there should be transparency in reporting and that therefore the inspection reports should be made public for a minimum period of time (taking into account local legal obligations). Three years is considered as a minimum publication period as it fits the inspection cycle (all installations have to be inspected within three years). 5. Content related good practices 1) The level of understanding of the published report should be targeted to the general public. 2) There should be only one inspection report. A summary of the report can be extracted for publication. 3) Only basic information should be the level of detail of the summary. So without too many technical details, not more than 1 to 3 pages in length. It is considered to be good practice to use a fixed template. A possible template can be found in chapter 2 and some examples in annex II. Internet links where inspection reports from EU member states can be found can be found in annex II 4) Information on the type of inspection (scope and depth) should be in the report (full, partial (some areas), random sample check, in depth…) The scope of the inspection should be mentioned in the inspection report 5) As a minimum, only cases of non-compliance need to be included in the published report. See also chapter 2. 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

13

6) Opportunity for the company to react in the publication; Before: it is a good practice to use the legal obligation to notify the inspection report to the operator (within 2 months) for getting comments on it (possible mistakes, sensitive commercial information, privacy legislation). The operator should have a minimum time to do so. Two months is considered as reasonable. After: once the report is published on the internet, it is final and no further opportunity should be given to the operator to give comments. 7) It is considered to be a good practice that a solved non-compliance will be put in the next inspection report as this finding is the result of a new inspection. In some countries it is mentioned in the report when the non-compliance is resolved. This motivates the operator to act fast. 8) With further actions as mentioned in the IED it is considered that both the actions of the operator and enforcement actions of the inspector’s organization should be mentioned. As a good practice and to avoid potential problems in subsequent judicial action, it is recommended that details on future enforcement actions should be reported but kept to a minimum. 9) The name of the inspector should not be included in the inspection report, only the name of the inspection organization. 10) In the case that the site visit lasts more than 1 day: are the periods for notification to the operator (within 2 months) and for making available to the public (within 4 months) starting at the first day or at the last day of the site visit? From a practical point of view, the first day of the site visit is the starting point of the 2/4 month period.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

14

Annex I: table from small survey to IMPEL members on publication of inspection reports (Horst Büther, update of the summary table May 2015) Results

Survey on publishing of inspection reports on the internet Questions: Do you publish the results of industrial inspections on the internet? If yes, do you also publish the level of non-compliance like minor or relevant or important case of non-compliance? Country Interne On NonInternet address t deman complian d ce level Austria Yes Yes Yes https://secure.umweltbundesamt.at/edm_portal/cms.do? get=/portal/informationen/ie-richtlinie-und-ippcanlagen/inspektionsberichte.main Belgium: Intende Not Not Flemish d relevan relevant at Region t at the the momen moment t Cyprus Intende Yes Nm d Czech Yes Yes Nm www.mzp.cz/ippc Republic Denmark Yes Yes Yes Finland Yes Yes Nm France No Yes Nm Germany Bremen Yes Yes Yes NorthYes Yes Yes http://www.bezregRhine koeln.nrw.de/brk_internet/umweltueberwachungsberic Westphalia Yes Yes Yes hte/index.html SchleswigHolstein Iceland Yes Yes Yes Ireland No Yes Yes Italy http://isprambiente.gov.it/it/temi/prevenzione-eLombardy Intende Yes Under riduzione-integrate-dellinquinamento-ippc-controlliSardinia d Yes discussion aia/relazioni-ispra-sui-controlli-aia No Nm The Intende Yes Yes http://brzoplus.nl/inspecties-0/kies-regio/ Netherland d s 2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

15

Norway Poland

Yes Intende d No No Yes No Yes

Yes Yes

Yes No

Portugal Yes Yes Romania Yes Yes Slovenia Yes Yes Sweden Yes Nm Switzerlan Yes Yes d Turkey No Yes Nm England No Yes Yes Scotland yes yes Yes Spain Yes yes Yes http://www.larioja.org/npRioja/default/defaultpage.jsp? (Galicia) idtab=840345&IdDoc=840089 nm = not mentioned Reports are first checked for confidentiality parts and industrial secrets before they are given to the public. Some countries only publish a short version of the report on the internet.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

16

Annex II: Examples of inspection reports from group members Example from Czech Republic

Inspection reportaccording to § 20b article 9 of Act no. 76/2002 Sb. 1. Identification of the operator operator’s name Address ID 2. Identification installation name installation Address ID in Information system IPPC

3. Scope of control and controlled period Description of the scope of control

For example: Monitoring compliance with the integrated permit conditions Controlled period

4. Site visit date site visit starting date site visit finishing date

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

17

5. Findings Description of inspection findings

For example: Checking the integrated permit conditions.(or Checking the integrated permit conditions regarding air/water/waste management… According to the findings based on on-site inspections, - the operator had committed a breach of condition no. 1.2 integrated permit (also a condition no. 4.2.1.1.) or - the operator have no non-compliances) 6. Conclusions Description of the findings For example: On-site inspections were found to have breached the Act. No. 76/2002, According to the findings during the inspection, the operator had committed a breach of condition no. 1.2 integrated permit (also a condition no. 4.2.1.1.). or Has not been proven non-compliances

7. Further action description further action arising out of inspection

8. Annexes No.

Name

9. Identification inspection authority 1. Regional Inspectorate CEI 2. address 3. ratify 4. Date 5. report ID

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

18

Example from Austria, Salzburg region Summary Report on the Environmental Inspection of an IPPC Installation Establishment Operator

xxx

Establishment / facility / site

xxx

Local address

xxx

Latitude and longitude

###; ###

Global Location Number (GLN) ### PRTR ID (if applicable)

###

Environmental Management System in use

xxx

IPPC installation Name of the installation

xxx

ID #1 (GLN) [constant over time]

###

ID #2 (GLN) [depending on op.]

###

Main IPPC activity (IED code)

###

Other IPPC activities (IED codes)

###

Competent authority

xxx

Brief description of the installation

xxx

Permits under Art. 24 Para. 2 IED (issued from 07.01.2013, if applicable)

xxx

Chap. III IED applicable?

yes/no

Chap. IV IED applicable?

yes/no

Chap. V IED applicable?

yes/no

Derogation from Art. 15 Para. 3 (b) IED applicable?

yes/no

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

19

Derogation from Art. 15 Para. 4 (b) IED applicable?

yes/no

Baseline report under Art. 22 IED available?

yes/no

Environmental inspection Cause for the inspection

routinely according to the inspection program of the governor / non-routinely because of …

Date of site visit

###

Scope of the inspection

    

Outcome of the inspection

 No or only minor non-compliances (that cannot cause damage to the environment evidently)  Significant or relevant non-compliances (that can lead to environmental damage)  One or more serious or important noncompliances (that can result in significant adverse environmental effects); in this respect a follow-up inspection will be carried out within 6 months

Measures initiated by the authority

 No action required

Emissions to air Emissions to (ground and/or surface) water Waste management Protective measures for soil and ground water …

 Documented non-compliances have been corrected (partially or entirely) by the operator  The competent authority mandated the correction of the non-compliances (setting a deadline)  Others: …

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

20

Example from The Netherlands Summary of a Seveso inspection at company x Further information on the Seveso regulation, what inspectorates work together during Seveso inspections, and on inspection at Seveso companies can be found at www.brzoplus.nl. General information Goal of the inspection Seveso companies must comply to strict safety and environmental requirements. The purpose of this inspection is to check if the company complies, Purpose of the summary The purpose of this summary is to inform the public in a public friendly way about the results of a Seveso inspection How to understand the assessment of the inspectors Inspections are samples. Every year a Seveso companies will be inspected. During an inspection not all subjects on safety, environment or working conditions are being inspected. The inspectors report on what has been found during this inspection. Introduction On x and y date an inspection team inspected company x. The inspectors executed a random check with a focus on safety. The inspectors addressed what subjects were ok and what subjects were not ok. On y date the inspectors executed a close out about their findings on this inspection to the company. this summary will provide the major results of this inspection and the final judgement of the inspection team. What type of company is company x? Company x is a storage and distribution centre with a workshop and sales office for ship supply. What did the inspectors inspect? The inspectors inspected the following subjects:  Does company x take sufficient measures to identify dangers and to asses the risks of serious   

accidents? Does company x take sufficient measures to control the operations? Does company x take sufficient measures on emergency situations? Etc

Results What is ok?  The company has executed several risk assessments  The company has a clear reference system where all relevant documents can be found  The good housekeeping at the site Opportunities for improvement (no non compliances)  Combine the different plans into a clear and up to date document with clear deadlines  Enhance the risk matrix  There are no clear safety benchmarks as demanded at the management review of 2013  Etc Non compliances

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

21

The inspection team establishes the seriousness of a non-compliance identified during the inspection. There are three types that identify the level of seriousness. Type 1 for non-compliances with the risk of an immediate and severe incident. Type 2 for less serious non compliances where no immediate threat of an incident can occur. Type 3 are non-compliances with a little chance on an incident. The type of enforcement depends on the type of non-compliance, The following types of non-compliances have been established:

Non compliances type 2     

The inspection team identified four non compliances of this type. The company cannot demonstrate that risks for serious incidents have been assessed. The company have done brainstorm sessions in which 15 possible scenarios for incidents have been identified. The quality of these assessments are not sufficient. This is why the company cannot fully demonstrate that risks for serious incidents have been identified. The systematic identification of emergency situations cannot be provided. Additional there is no procedure or working instruction how to deal in these situations etc

Non compliances type 3 The inspection team identified three non-compliances of this type.  There is no system in the internal emergency plan what types of incidents can occur. What should happen in cases of these incidents Also further elaboration of such accidents in the internal emergency plan, and what measures should be taken, is inadequate?  Etc

Final judgement The inspectors have identified seven non compliances. The company must comply within the set or still to be determined timeframe. The inspectors identified several possibilities for improvement and expect that the company will address these. There are also subjects the inspection team did not inspect. The team cannot comment on these. Enforcement The inspectors will check if the necessary measures have been taken by the company to repair the noncompliances. This will be done according to the national enforcement strategy. If the non-compliance continues, inspectors will take action till all non-compliances have been taken care of.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

22

Example from Spain (see next pages)

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

23

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

24

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

25

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

26

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

27

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-12-06

28

ANNEX 5 CLOSURE OF INSTALLATIONS/BANKRUPTCY

IED Implementation Project

Group 3 - Site closure (Bankruptcy and cessation of IED installations) Final report

Authors: -

Florin Homorean (Romania), group leader Dubravka Pajkin Tuckar (Croatia) Jaakko Vesivalo (Finland) Sigridur Kristjansdottir (Iceland) Romano Ruggeri (Italy) Vladimir Kaiser (Slovenia) Iñaki Bergareche Urdampilleta (Xunta de Galicia – Spain)

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

29

Table of contents

1. .................................................................................................................. OBLIGATIONS FROM IED ........................................................................................................................................................ 31 2.HOW TO FIND OUT WHETHER A COMPANY IS HEADING TOWARDS BANKRUPTCY (WEAKNESS SIGNALS) ........................................................................................................................................................ 33 3. ................................................................................................................... FINANCIAL GUARANTEE ........................................................................................................................................................ 33 4. ........................................................................ HOW TO DETERMINE THE FINANCIAL GUARANTEE? ........................................................................................................................................................ 34 5. ............................................................................................ DEFINITIVE CESSATION OF OPERATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 36 6. .................................................. MINIMUM CONTENT OF A CESSATION/DECOMMISSIONING PLAN ........................................................................................................................................................ 37 7. .................................................................................................................................. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 38

ANNEX 1 - RESULTS OF SCRUTINIZING THE USE OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE FEHLER! TEXTMARKE NICHT DEFINIERT. ANNEX 2 - MINIMUM CONTENT OF A CESSATION/DECOMMISSIONING PLAN................................. 44 ANNEX 3 - CASE STUDY - BANKRUPTCY OF A WASTE OIL REGENERATION PLANT, FINLAND ............ 46 ANNEX 4 - CASE STUDY - BANKRUPTCY OF A LARGE COMBUSTION PLANT, ROMANIA .................... 48 ANNEX 5 - CASE STUDY - BANKRUPTCY OF A CHEMICAL PLANT, GALICIA ........................................ 50 ANNEX 6 - CASE STUDY - CLOSING OF A POWER PLANT, FINLAND ................................................... 53 ANNEX 7 - CASE STUDY - CESSATION CONDITIONS ON IED PERMIT, ROMANIA ............................... 56

Annex 8 - Sardinian decree on determination of financial guarantee for wastes facilities (Italian) Annex 9 - Austrian methodology for determination of financial guarantee for landfills (German) Annex 10 - Decommissioning plan for a chemical plant in Sardinia (Italy)

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

30

1. Obligations from IED5 The following IED provisions address the bankruptcy and cessation of installations: i) Whereas: 24) In order to ensure that the operation of an installation does not deteriorate the quality of soil and groundwater, it is necessary to establish, through a baseline report, the state of soil and groundwater contamination. The baseline report should be a practical tool that permits, as far as possible, a quantified comparison between the state of the site described in that report and the state of the site upon definitive cessation of activities, in order to ascertain whether a significant increase in pollution of soil or groundwater has taken place. The baseline report should, therefore, contain information making use of existing data on soil and groundwater measurements and historical data related to past uses of the site. ii) Article 11 (General principles governing the basic obligations of the operator) (h) the necessary measures are taken upon definitive cessation of activities to avoid any risk of pollution and return the site of operation to the satisfactory state defined in accordance with Article 22. iii) Article 14 (Permit conditions) (f) measures relating to conditions other than normal operating conditions such as startup and shut-down operations, leaks, malfunctions, momentary stoppages and definitive cessation of operations; iv) Article 22 (Site closure) 1. Without prejudice to Directive 2000/60/EC, Directive2004/35/EC, Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of ground water against pollution and deterioration and to relevant Union law on soil protection, the competent authority shall set permit conditions to ensure compliance with paragraphs 3and 4 of this Article upon definitive cessation of activities. 2. Where the activity involves the use, production or release of relevant hazardous substances and having regard to the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination at the site of the installation, the operator shall prepare and submit to the competent authority a baseline report before starting operation of an installation or before a permit for an installation is updated for the first time after 7 January 2013. The baseline report shall contain the information necessary to determine the state of soil and groundwater contamination so as to make a quantified comparison with the state upon definitive cessation of activities provided for under paragraph 3.

5

Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions published on Official Journal of the European Union L 334 , 17.12.2010

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

31

The baseline report shall contain at least the following information: (a) information on the present use and, where available, on past uses of the site; (b) where available, existing information on soil and groundwater measurements that reflect the state at the time the report is drawn up or, alternatively, new soil and groundwater measurements having regard to the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination by those hazardous substances to be used, produced or released by the installation concerned. Where information produced pursuant to other national or Union law fulfils the requirements of this paragraph that information may be included in, or attached to, the submitted baseline report. The Commission shall establish guidance on the content of the baseline report. 3. Upon definitive cessation of the activities, the operator shall assess the state of soil and groundwater contamination by relevant hazardous substances used, produced or released by the installation. Where the installation has caused significant pollution of soil or groundwater by relevant hazardous substances compared to the state established in the baseline report referred to in paragraph 2, the operator shall take the necessary measures to address that pollution so as to return the site to that state. For that purpose, the technical feasibility of such measures may be taken into account. Without prejudice to the first subparagraph, upon definitive cessation of the activities, and where the contamination of soil and groundwater at the site poses a significant risk to human health or the environment as a result of the permitted activities carried out by the operator before the permit for the installation is updated for the first time after 7 January 2013 and taking into account the conditions of the site of the installation established in accordance with Article 12(1)(d), the operator shall take the necessary actions aimed at the removal, control, containment or reduction of relevant hazardous substances, so that the site, taking into account its current or approved future use, ceases to pose such a risk. 4. Where the operator is not required to prepare a baseline report referred to in paragraph 2, the operator shall, upon definitive cessation of the activities, take the necessary actions aimed at the removal, control, containment or reduction of relevant hazardous substances, so that the site, taking into account its current or approved future use, ceases to pose any significant risk to human health or the environment due to the contamination of soil and groundwater as a result of the permitted activities and taking into account the conditions of the site of the installation established in accordance with Article 12(1)(d). v) Article 24 (Access to information and public participation in the permit procedure) 3. The competent authority shall also make available to the public, including via the Internet at least in relation to point (a): (a) relevant information on the measures taken by the operator upon definitive cessation of activities in accordance with Article 22

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

32

2. How to find out whether a company is heading towards bankruptcy (weakness signals) Bankruptcy is difficult to foresee. Usually the competent authority doesn’t receive information about difficulties in operation from companies. The following “weakness signals” could be taken in account: 

No annual reports being produced



Temporary closure of the company or simplification of operations, significant changes in amount of staff and reduction in salaries



Many non-compliances and no effort from the company to tackle them (because they don’t have the money)



Problems in day-to-day operation



Could possible weakness signals be reflected in the risk assessment of the company?



No payment of the annual inspection fee, etc.

3. Financial guarantee Experience shows that in the case of bankruptcy and/or site closure there are not enough resources to finance all measures needed to safeguard the environment. In such cases early preservation of financial resources through insurance, financial guarantees, bank guarantees or other means (such as environmental funds) could help both operators and competent authorities in rehabilitation of the environment, closure of installations and after-care measures. The financial guarantee is not obligatory but should be seen as be a good tool to take care of problems arising when companies have to close down, especially in bankruptcy cases; examples of good practices can be found in many countries: 

Environmental fund – funded by fines (50%) issued to companies because of infringements of environmental law (Portugal)



Financial guarantee is mandatory in Italy upon IED implementation for all IED plants– national decision (awaiting decree); up to now financial guarantee is required for waste treatment plants but it will be mandatory for IED sites which manage and discharge hazardous substances (Baseline report)

 In Xunta de Galicia (Spain) a financial guarantee is needed for: o Companies producing waste and waste management companies o All IED installations will need to have a guarantee in 2 years’ time  In Finland, a financial guarantee is mandatory only for waste management sites: o The amount of money is calculated based on the size of the site and the cost of the cessation operations (monitoring of the site for 30 years) 

In The Netherlands, a financial guarantee is mandatory for underground storage tanks containing petrol or gasoline type of liquids and landfills



In the Czech Republic, a financial guarantee is mandatory only for landfills (both IED installations and smaller sites)



In Austria, financial guarantees can be mandatory or optional measures or they may not be possible, depending on the type of installation and the relevant material law; under the mining law financial guarantees are foreseen for mining activities schedule, mining installations and waste facilities of category A In Croatia, a financial guarantee is Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

33

needed before granting a permit for waste management installations and before granting notifications for transfrontier shipments of waste 

In Iceland, the guarantee is requested before a permit for waste management installations is issued. Also, an insurance of up to 1 million Special Drawing Rights (1 US$ is approximately 0,72 SDR)is needed for installations that can possibly cause pollution in the ocean or on the coastline



In Germany (Bremen), financial guarantees are required for Windmills on public ground and for waste treatment installations dealing with waste that cannot be sold on the market, especially waste incineration plants



In Romania, financial guarantees are required for landfills (both IED and smaller sites) and for mining activities



In Cyprus, financial guarantees are required before granting the permit; the guarantees are used to cover possible environmental damage or to handle untreated waste (for example after bankruptcy) and are mandatory for IED Installations and for waste management



In Slovenia, financial guaranties are used for very limited types of installations and are mandatory only for landfills of waste. More detailed information on each example mentioned above can be found in Annex 1. To encourage the competent authorities to use such tools the member states have to make use of art. 14 of Environmental Liability Directive6 (provides an encouragement to member states to put up a financial security system). IED installations are included in the Annex III of the Environmental Liability Directive. In the transposition of the Environmental Liability Directive, seven member states (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Portugal and Spain) decided to establish in their national legislation on Environmental Liability a system of mandatory financial security provided in article 14 of the Directive. In some countries, actual implementation of the system is still to be developed in regulation which shall specify the form and the extent of the security, conditions for using the security, rules of accounting and keeping the records of it, and rules of the environmental protection insurance.

4. How to determine the financial guarantee? A survey of member countries in the project identified some examples of methodologies, guidance and tools for determination of financial guarantees that are available in the respective national languages (Annex 1). The most detailed examples of determination of the amount of financial guarantee are in Xunta de Galicia (Spain) for companies that are dealing with waste (generation, collection, storage, recovery, and disposal) and Sardinia (Italy) for waste treatment plants (both IED and not). In Xunta de Galicia (Spain) the following criteria are taken in account: 

Intensity of the damage the operator can cause



Extent of the damage the operator can cause

 Criteria set by authorities: o The type of the activity o Amount of waste produced 6

Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage published on Official Journal the European Union L 143 , 30/04/2004

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

34

o -

Correction factors Waste in solid state Inert waste EMAS system Insurance Industrial State (not in rural area) Recovery Storage



The amount of the financial guarantee is calculated by using an online tool where the operator can put in the criteria and the tool gives the minimum financial guarantee insurance the company has to take out: please see http://sirga.cmati.xunta.es/calculofianza-ambiental and http://eportal.magrama.gob.es/mora/idm/editarSeleccionIdmAgentes.action In Sardinia (Italy) the amount of the financial guarantee is calculated according to a methodology established at regional level (Decree 39/23 from 15.7.2008). The methodology for calculation is different for different types of installations:



Landfills



Installations for recovery of wastes



Waste storage facilities



Treatment plants for disposal of hazardous or non-hazardous wastes



Incineration plants for municipal waste, hazardous and non-hazardous



Mobile plants



Research & experimentation equipment. For example, for landfills the following criteria are taken in account for determination of financial guarantee:

 1. a) b) 2. a) b)

Landfills for inert wastes: Operation period: the amount of the guarantee is determined by the sum of following : 2.5 € per square metre of effective area of coverage 5 € per cubic metre of volume occupied After-care period: the amount of the guarantee is determined by the sum of following : 2.5 € per square metre of effective area of coverage 2.5 € per cubic metre of volume occupied

 1. a) b) 2. a) b)

Landfills for non-hazardous urban wastes: Operation period: the amount of the guarantee is determined by the sum of following : 5 € per square metre of effective area of coverage 5 € per cubic metre of volume occupied After-care period: the amount of the guarantee is determined by the sum of following : 5 € per square metre of effective area of coverage 10 € per cubic metre of volume occupied (5 € per cubic metre for landfills with a volume greater than 200,000 cubic metres)

 1. a) b)

Landfills for hazardous wastes: Operation period: the amount of the guarantee is determined by the sum of following : 20 € per square metre of effective area of coverage 30 € per cubic metre of volume occupied Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

35

2. After-care period: the amount of the guarantee is determined by the sum of following : a) 20 € per square metre of effective area of coverage b) 10 € per cubic metre of volume occupied. Further information on the determination of financial guarantee for other types of installation dealing with recovery, treatment and disposal of wastes can be found in Italian on the ARPA Sardinia website. Other examples: 

In Finland – calculation based on size of the site, the waste classes (hazardous/nonhazardous), the amount of the waste and the cost of the waste management (waste management sites)



In the Czech Republic, the determination of financial guarantee for landfills is based on the amount of waste received (35 or 100 CZK/t waste received at the installation)



In Austria, the calculation of the guarantee is done on a case-by-case basis, based on an actuarial calculation or ensuring value guarantee using the construction cost index; for landfills an Excel tool was developed by the Federal Ministry (available in German)



In Croatia, the financial guarantee for waste management installations is calculated according to the formula: Minimum insurance amount = total waste amount*safety factor due to waste property*safety factor due to waste management activity*7,5kn



In Germany (Bremen), the level of the guarantee is calculated by estimating the costs of rebuilding and cleaning the ground



In Romania, for mining sites the financial guarantees should be calculated according to Environmental Ministry Order 2881/2013 based on the following factors: potential impact of the activity on the environment, including the mining wastes treatment plant the works for environmental rehabilitation, closure and after-care of site.



In Cyprus, the calculation of the guarantee is done on a case-by-case basis for waste installations using expert judgment and on the basis of a formula for transport of waste (for IED facilities, they are in the process of establishing criteria, type, amount of guarantee or amount of insurance for all categories of installations included in the Directive); for Mining installations, however, there is a requirement for bank guarantees for after-life closure and restoration that is calculated on the basis of the mining closure and restoration plan. There is a specific law on Mining Operations and Permits More detailed information on each example mentioned above can be found in Annex 1.

5. Definitive cessation of operation Examples of how to implement the requirements of the IED on definitive cessation were given by Finland, Romania and Xunta de Galicia (Spain). The Finnish examples illustrated the cessation and demolition of a Large Combustion Plant while the Romanian examples referred to a cessation plan included in an IED permit. The case of Xunta de Galicia (Spain) referred to a chemical plant (squalane production).    

Cessation conditions included in an IED permit granted to a refinery in Romania: Operational permits are very detailed In each permit there is an obligation for cessation plan – the plan must be agreed by the EPA and is a part of the permit Contains both general and particular conditions The particular conditions for a refinery: Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

36

o o o o o o o

Preliminary activities Cessation of the installation Leakage flow from pipes, hazardous substances Maintenance/conservation Dismantling of installation/equipment Demolition Remediation actions

6. Minimum content of a cessation/decommissioning plan To avoid the contamination of the environment in the case of definitive cessation of operation, the permit granted by the competent authority shall contain conditions and measures that the operator must comply with. As good practice, the permit shall contain a cessation/decontamination plan and not only conditions (in most cases a few lines in the permit). In this way the permit will be more enforceable. An example of a decommissioning plan for an IED chemical plant was given by Sardinia Region (Italy). This plan consists of: 

Risk analysis and risk management



Activity description, including storage of raw materials and wastes, treatment of waste water, etc.



Health, security and environment monitoring



Waste management plan and plan for recoverable materials. No guidelines were identified at an EU level on minimum content of a cessation / decommissioning plan: therefore the following items should be considered in drafting such plans:



The cessation/decommissioning plan is usually prepared in the permit phase (permit recast)



It must be approved by the authorities

 o o

Minimum aspects that the cessation of the plant must contain: History of the activity of the company Operational time Evolution of plant engineering, structural expansions, new equipment etc. Information about remediation or similar activities Information about accidents The context in which the plant is running Identification of possible sources of environmental pollution (reservoirs / tanks / pipes / underground facilities) o Procedures provided for the disposal of pollution sources identified o Pollution prevention and reduction for the protection of the environmental compartments (Air, Water, Soil)

 o -

Additional criteria could be: Waste management / management of hazardous materials during closure Focus on hazardous waste Recovery or disposal Foreseen production of waste Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

37

o o o o

Demolition waste and storage Monitoring of emissions to the environment during and after the closing of installations Frequency of sampling and what parameters should be monitored Remediation actions on contaminated compartments Quantified comparison with baseline report Assessment of the state of the environment - soil and groundwater Information about the maintenance/demolition of the site (buildings, etc.) Measures for landscaping – does not always apply. An example of minimum content of a cessation/decontamination plan is presented in Annex 2.

7. Conclusions One finding of the IED Implementation Project is that usually the definitive cessation of operation is connected with the bankruptcy of operator. While the Directive 2010/75/UE on industrial emissions (IED) contains requirements regarding definitive cessation of operation (site closure), the bankruptcy related issues are not addressed at all. Site closure is addressed in different sections of IED, such as: basic obligations of operator (art. 11), permit conditions (art. 14), as well as site closure itself (art. 22). Setting up the operator obligations in case of definitive cessation of operation is closely connected to the preparation of the baseline report mentioned in art. 22.2. The national laws that transpose the IED establish obligations for operators to notify the competent authority in case of bankruptcy or definitive cessation of operation; the notification shall be submitted in advance (3 months in Iceland, 6 months in Finland). In this way the competent authority can take the necessary actions (assessment of environment contamination, inspections, enforcement). This approach can be seen as a good practice that can lead to a better implementation of IED. The practice shows that in the case of bankruptcy and/or site closure there are not enough resources to finance all measures meant to safeguard the environment. In such cases early preservation of financial resources through insurance, financial guarantees, bank guarantees or other means (like environmental funds) is good practice. A further example of good practice is for the competent authorities to have the power to use the secured financial resources in case of failure of the operators in fulfilling their obligations. To avoid environmental contamination in the event of definitive cessation of operation, the permit granted by the competent authority should contain conditions and measures that the operator must comply with. As good practice, the permit should contain a cessation/decontamination plan and not only conditions (in most cases a few lines in the permit). In this way the permit became more enforceable. Examples of good practices on how to deal with issues related to bankruptcy and definitive cessation of operation are given below.

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

38

Annex I

Results of survey on the use of financial guarantees In the Second Project Group Meeting (Bucharest, 1 – 2 October 2015) it was decided to carry out a survey related the use of financial guarantees to find out more information on use of this instrument in member countries involved in the project. The following questions were asked: 1. Are you using financial guarantees in your countries? If yes, please provide more information regarding the type, when it is asked (before granting a permit, after, etc.). 2. For what type of installations are the financial guarantees mandatory (e.g. IED Installations, waste installations, etc.)? 3. How is the financial guarantee calculated? (If you have a tool, please provide details). The answers received to these questions are listed below: The Netherlands Question 1 Yes, for underground storage tanks containing petrol or gasoline type of liquids. It is in the standard rules (2.10 general rules "Activiteitenbesluit"). So they must have it before starting their operations. Another item in these general rules states that a financial guarantee (6.10) can be required in case of acceptable instead of negligible risk. Most landfill sites are semi public and there is no specific bank guarantee set. But this is possible by law though (art. 4.9 and 4.10 regulation ''omgevingrecht'' meaning environmental law). Only one has this and that one is located in the Rijnmond. We calculated this by using the ''rinas model''. This model calculates the cost for replacing the cost for covering of the landfill. The manual is available in Dutch. The bank guarantee is 6.5 million euro for 17,7 hectares. The cost for this bank guarantee can rise up to 1% of the amount. The money needed for aftercare will be cared for by the province. For every waste tip a part of the fee is put aside by the province. Question 2 See above. Question 3 For underground storage tanks insurance is needed and there is a fund. The insurance company calculates the insurance fee. For landfill sites see above. Italy (ARPA Sardinia) Question 1 Yes. Without financial guarantees the permit is not effective.

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

39

Question 2 It is mandatory for waste treatment plants (both IED and not). For other kind of IED plants we are still waiting for a national decree. Question 3 There is a regional decree which describes how to calculate the financial guarantee for each type of waste treatment plant. Czech Republic Question 1 + Question 2 + Question 3 Financial guarantees are mandatory only for landfills in the Czech Republic (both IED and not IED) a.) Before starting, a landfill operation is required to: - Take out insurance for damage to the environment caused by the operation of the landfill and for damage caused because of closing down the landfill during the first phase (Phase 1 = waste disposal in a landfill), or - Save the sum of costs required to repair the damage to the environment caused by the operation of the landfill and for damage caused because of closing down the landfill during the first phase (Phase 1 = waste disposal in a landfill). b.) During operation - Operator must make a financial reserve (monthly payment), the amount of money is calculated based on the amount of waste received (35 or 100 CZK/t waste received at the installation) The financial reserve can be only used for remediation and reclamation of landfill after cessation of operation. Period care of the landfill has to be a minimum of thirty years. If the operator ceases trading the financial reserve is transferred to an environmental fund. From the environmental fund the financial reserve is used for reclamation, care of the landfill and remediation after cessation of operation. Spain (Xunta de Galicia) Question 1 Yes. Financial guarantees are mandatory before granting a permit in activities in which waste is produced and/or managed. Question 2 It is mandatory for the following activities: -

Regarding hazardous waste: o Waste production (more than 10 Tn/year) o Waste management o Disposal of waste in landfills o Collection and transport by dealers

-

Regarding non-hazardous waste: o Waste management o Disposal of waste in landfills National regulation to implement national legislation on Environmental Liability (transposed from the Directive on Environmental Liability) is being drafted, in which the Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

40

methodology to calculate the financial guarantee will be laid down: by 2017, in Spain, financial guarantees will be mandatory for those activities/installations contemplated in the legislation (including IED installations). Question 3 It is regulated in the Regional (Galicia) Decree 174/2005 of June 9th, which regulates the production and the management of waste in Galicia. The following link directs you to the online tool to calculate the financial guarantee (unfortunately there is not an English version, only a Galician one): http://sirga.cmati.xunta.es/calculo-fianza-ambiental The Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment has developed an on line tool for the estimation of the Environmental Damage Index which will be the basis for the calculation of the Financial guarantee: http://eportal.magrama.gob.es/mora/idm/editarSeleccionIdmAgentes.action Austria Question 1 Yes; financial guarantees can be mandatory or optional measures or they may not be possible measures, depending on the type of installation and the relevant material law. Under the mining law financial guarantees are foreseen for mining activities schedule, mining installations and waste facilities of category A (according to Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries). Under the waste management law financial guarantees are mandatory for landfills (except for excavated-soil landfills with a capacity below 100,000 m³). The financial guarantee may be of any kind (for example, as a deposit, insurance, a frozen bank account, a registration in the land register, a declaration of liability by a territorial entity) and usually is a bank guarantee. It must be given to the permitting authority at the start of operations. Question 2 Under the mining law the provision of an adequate financial guarantee is mandatory for waste facilities of category A or if there are doubts regarding the fulfilment of permit conditions for other mining installations. Under the waste management law financial guarantees are mandatory for landfills. Under forest law and nature protection law financial guarantees are also possible. Question 3 It has to cover the cost of measures to protect the ground surface and to ensure the normal use of the ground surface after cessation of operations. In general, the calculation is done on a case-by-case basis, based on actuarial calculation or ensuring value guarantee using the construction cost index. For landfills an Excel tool developed by the Federal Ministry is used (see the description in the attached guideline, in German). Croatia Question 1 Yes, in Croatia we are using financial guarantees before granting a permit for waste management installations and before granting notifications for transfrontier shipments of waste. Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

41

Question 2 Financial guarantees are mandatory for waste management installations. Question 3 Financial guarantee for waste management installations is calculated according to formula - minimum insurance amount = total waste amount*safety factor due to waste property*safety factor due to waste management activity*7,5kn. Iceland Question 1 + Question 2 + Question 3 In Iceland we have two types of financial guarantees that are mandatory: 1. For waste management installations and the guarantee is asked before a permit is issued. We do not have a tool for calculating the guarantee. The only stipulation is that it should cover the cost of running and monitoring the waste site for up to thirty years after closing. For smaller sites a written guarantee from the local municipality which is running the waste sites is enough which says that the municipality commits to running the waste site and will continue monitoring for at least thirty years after closing. 2. Installations that can possibly cause pollution in the ocean or on the coastline are required to have an insurance that can cover cleaning costs up to 1 million SDR (1 US$ is approximately 0,72 SDR). The type of installations are listed in Icelandic Law on ocean and coast pollution: they can range from small petrol stations up to large aluminium smelters. The insurance is provided by local insurance companies. Germany (Bremen) Question 1 + Question 2 + Question 3 In Bremen we require financial guarantees in the permit in that cases, where the costs of rebuilding after bankruptcy are high: 1. Windmills on public ground 2. Waste treatment installations dealing with waste that cannot be sold on the market, especially waste incineration plants. The level will be calculated by estimating the costs of rebuilding and cleaning the ground. Romania Question 1 We require financial guarantees for landfill sites (both IED and smaller sites). Before starting the operation landfill operator has to prove to the permitting authority that the financial resources are adequate for remediation of the environment in the case of construction or operation shortcomings or in the case of accidents. The operator of the landfill should set up a fund (bank account) for closure and after-care of site for a period of at least thirty years. The amount of this fund is established during the design stage and is topped up on a quarterly basis by retaining a certain percentage of disposal tax. A financial guarantee is required for mining activities as well (according to Directive 2006/21/CE on the management of waste from extractive industries). The financial guarantees for this kind of activities are required by the National Agency for Mineral Resources, not the Environmental Protection Agency. The financial guarantee is meant to cover the works for the environment rehabilitation itemised in the rehabilitation plan and in the technical project (both have to be permitted by Environmental Protection Agency according to EIA Directive). Question 2 Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

42

As mentioned above, the financial guarantee is required for: -

landfill sites (both IED and smaller sites)

-

mining sites. Question 3 For landfill sites financial guarantee and fund for closure and after-care of site are set up during designing stage. For mining sites the financial guarantees should be calculated according to Environmental Ministry Order 2881/2013 based on following factors:

-

potential impact of the activity on the environment, including the mining wastes treatment plant

-

the works for environmental rehabilitation, closure and after-care of site. The financial guarantee calculated in this way should be approved by both National Agency for Mineral Resources and Environmental Protection Agency. No tools for the calculation of these guarantees are available. Cyprus Question 1 In Cyprus we ask for financial guarantees before granting the permit. The guarantees are used to cover possible environmental damage or to handle untreated waste (for example after bankruptcy). Question 2 The guarantees are mandatory for IED Installations and for waste management. Question 3 The calculation of the guarantee based on case by case for waste installations using expert judgment and on formula for transport of waste. For IED facilities, we are in the process of establishing criteria, type, amount of guarantee or amount of insurance for all categories of installations included in Directive. For Mining installations, however, there is a requirement for bank guarantees for after life closure and restoration that is calculated on the basis of the mining closure and restoration plan. There is a specific Law on Mining Operations and Permits. Slovenia Question 1 We use financial guaranties, but for very limited types of installations. Question 2 Financial guarantees are mandatory only for landfills of waste. Question 3 The costs for the closing of the landfill and operations (monitoring,…) after closing of the landfill are estimated for thirty years. Italy (ARPA Lombardia) Question 1 Yes. Without financial guarantees the permit is not effective. Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

43

7

Annex II

Minimum content of a cessation/decommissioning plan7 (Aspects to be considered in the preparation of the plan for the restoration of the area at the time of the definitive cessation of operation)

The following lists the minimum aspects that the “Plan for the restoration of the area at the time of the cessation of the plant” must contain, according to paragraph 16 letter f) of art. 6 of the Decree 152/2006 (Italian environmental Law), which states that “any risk of pollution at the time of definitive cessation of activities should be spared and the site itself must be restored in accordance with local regulations of reclamation and environmental restoration”:

a. b. c. d.

e.

1. History of the activity at the facility: year in which the activity started and its duration until closing; evolution of plant engineering: structural expansions, new equipment, new systems and auxiliary services, etc.; description of any remediation or placing in security that occurred before the activities began; description of any accidents that have affected the activity and that led the manager to put in place procedures for remediation or commissioning safety, during the period of exercise of the activity; description of the context in which the plant is running. 2. Identification of possible sources of environmental pollution at the time of termination of the operation of the system (reservoirs / tanks / pipes / underground facilities, or any other potential source of pollution, if they have been used to store or carry substances that can cause soil and groundwater contamination), 3. Procedures provided for the disposal of pollution sources identified in point 2.

4. Pollution prevention and reduction for the protection of the environmental compartments following the implementation of the procedures referred to in points 3: a. Matrix Air: describe the activities for the prevention and / or reduction of emissions into the atmosphere possibly produced by the operations for the achievement of recovery (example: wetting of the surfaces which generate airborne dust to the passage of vehicles, etc.); b. Matrix Water: describe the activities for the prevention and / or reduction of any emissions into receiving surface waters as a result of atmospheric events or cleaning or other operations on the structures or equipment where water resource are used. If there is a generation of water discharge, describe the quality of it and determine the possible treatment modalities adopted until their final removal in order to comply with applicable law; c. Matrix Soil and Groundwater:

This document has been produced by the Italian Province of Siena

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

44

i.

indicate the characteristics of both the materials produced by the disposal that are not configurable as a waste and the materials that are considered as waste (EWC and description of waste, indication of the operations of disposal or recovery), the morphological characteristics of the areas in which they are stored temporarily; ii. indicate modality and features (volumes and systems containment spills, etc.) of all the storage for materials produced during the operations referred to in point 3, both if they are waste or not (indicate the recovery or disposal operations or the external or internal re-use). d. Matrix Waste / raw materials (hazardous): i. focus on hazardous wastes; ii. disposal or recovery (including pre-treatment operations, if needed); iii. foreseen production of wastes; iv. storage areas of demolition wastes (separate). 5. Monitoring of emissions to environment during and after closing of installations a. frequency of sampling and what parameters should be monitored; b. integrity of hazardous wastes/substances storing devices (tanks for liquid wastes) c. waste classification (hazardous/non-hazardous; recoverable/non-recoverable) monitoring

and

6. Restoration measures: a. state of soil and groundwater contamination; b. quantified comparison with baseline report (according to EC COM 2014/C 136/03); c. necessary measures to address that pollution so as to return the site to that state.

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

45

Annex III

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

46

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

47

Annex IV

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

48

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

49

Annex V

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

50

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

51

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

52

Annex VI

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

53

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

54

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

55

Annex VII

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

56

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

57

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

58

Draft final report IED Implementation, Part 2, Version 2015-11-08

59

ANNEX 6

DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON LEVELS OF NON-COMPLIANCE

Note of sub group discussion in Bucharest on levels of non-compliance Following on from the discussions in Mons and those which took place after that meeting a new draft of the section on ‘non-compliance’ for the planned guidance book was produced. It was presented at the Bucharest meeting and discussed in detail there. The sub group proposed a few changes to the draft. It was seen as too long and complicated and the examples of good practice from individual countries should instead be concentrated in a few principles. A careful reading of the IED shows that Article 23(5) IED requires non-routine environmental inspections in any case of non-compliance, not only where serious cases of non-compliance have occurred. However, these additional non-routine environmental inspections do not have to be site visits. Article 23(4) IED requires an additional site visit if an inspection detected an important case of non-compliance. So in the IED there is no difference between ‘serious’ and ‘important’ noncompliances. There are therefore two types of inspection following on from a non-compliance: the normal one as a reaction to any case of non-compliance and the one in reaction to an important noncompliance which has to include a site visit. Consequently, the sub group decided to concentrate mainly on the definition of cases where an additional on-site inspection is needed within six months.

60

2015 Report on the IMPEL project IED Implementation, Part 3 Content

Content ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 ANNEX 7 DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON REPORTING TO THE PUBLIC ................................................... 4 ANNEX 8

DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON CLOSURE OF INSTALLATIONS ............................................. 10

ANNEX 9

DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON BAT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS............................................ 14

ANNEX 10 SUB GROUP DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON SELF MONITORING ........................................ 20 DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................................................ 21 SELF MONITORING PLAN: WHAT IS IN THE PERMIT? ............................................................................. 21 CONTENTS OF SELF MONITORING REPORT ............................................................................................ 22 RECORDING OF DATA AND DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................... 23 ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT: ..................................................................................................................... 24 AUDIT AND VALIDATION ......................................................................................................................... 25 WHAT TO DO IF A NON COMPLIANCE IS DETECTED ............................................................................... 25 REPORTING OF THE EVALUATION ........................................................................................................... 25 ANNEX 11 NOTE OF PROJECT TEAM MEETING, BREMEN, 10-11 MARCH, 2015 ...................................... 26 1.

Arrival and welcome ................................................................................................................... 26

2.

Tour de table ................................................................................................................................... 26

3.

Introduction to the project ............................................................................................................. 26

4.

Implementation challenge .............................................................................................................. 26

5.

Development of a work programme .............................................................................................. 27

6.

Project organisation .................................................................................................................... 27

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

1

7.

Preparation of the workshop and Implementation Conference .................................................... 28

8.

LIFE+ application ............................................................................................................................. 29

9.

Communication strategy, timetable and milestones...................................................................... 29

10.

IED Inspections in Germany ........................................................................................................ 30

Annex ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 ANNEX 12 NOTE OF WORKSHOP, MONS, 28-29 APRIL, 2015 ................................................................... 32 1.

Welcome ......................................................................................................................................... 32

2. Presentation by Olivier Dekyvere from the Wallonia Region of Belgium on BREFs, Permitting and Inspection................................................................................................................................................ 32 3. Presentation on progress to date with the project including first results of the three working groups and aim of the workshop ............................................................................................................ 33 4.

Presentation of breakout groups to the plenary meeting .............................................................. 34

5.

How to put proposals into day-to-day work, any need for additional guidelines or a network 40

6.

Future work priorities ................................................................................................................. 40

Annex ...................................................................................................................................................... 42 ANNEX 13 NOTE OF PROJECT TEAM MEETING, BUCHAREST, 1-2 OCT., 2015 .......................................... 43 1.

Welcome ......................................................................................................................................... 43

2.

Introductions and tour de table ...................................................................................................... 43

3. Presentation by Florin Homorean of the National Environmental Guard on the Romanian handling of BREFs, Permitting and Inspection ........................................................................................ 43 4.

Presentation of the results of the three working groups ............................................................... 48

5.

Presentation of the draft guidance book content .......................................................................... 48

6.

How to implement the working group results in the guidance book ............................................. 49

7.

Possible structure of the guidance book ........................................................................................ 49

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

2

8.

Presentation on progress including first results of the two new working groups .......................... 50

9. Presentations of breakout groups to the plenary meeting on the priority areas, including identification of good practice ................................................................................................................ 51 10.

Discussion on work priorities ...................................................................................................... 51

11.

Future structure of the project and discussion of the 2016 ToR ................................................ 52

12.

Conclusions of the project .......................................................................................................... 52

Annex ...................................................................................................................................................... 53

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

3

ANNEX 7 DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON REPORTING TO THE PUBLIC

Slide 1

IMPEL Bucharest 2015 Reporting of inspections to the public Challenges Common grounds – Guidance – Split views

Slide 2

Challenge 1 Do you think IED art. 23.6 is an obligation to make the report available for the public in a passive (on demand) or an active (online) way?

Common ground: - Information should be available for the public - Facts: 12 of 22 IMPEL members publish the inspection report on internet (Horst questionnaire) Guidance: - Use it as a means of compliance promotion - In the spirit of more transparency, active publication on internet is the way forward

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

4

Slide 3

Challenge 2 If publication is through internet, should there be a defined period during which the inspection report and possible non-compliances are available? (a trimester, forever, only until the non-compliance has been solved,…) Common ground: - It is an important principle that there should be transparency in reporting and that therefore the inspection reports should be made public for a minimum period of time (taking into account local legal obligations) Guidance: - Three years is considered as a minimum publication period as it fits the inspection cycle (all installations inspected after three years)

Slide 4

Challenge 3 What should be the target audience of the published report? (for a general public, only for the more educated and or interested people, …).

Split view: Some think inspection reports should be written for a general public, some for an interested public.

Slide 5

Challenge 4 Should there be 1 or 2 versions of the inspection report, one for the operator and one for the public?

Common ground: There should be one inspection report. A summary of the report can be extracted for publication.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

5

Slide 6

Challenge 5 What should be the level of detail of the summary? Common ground: - Only basic information, without too many technical details, not more than 1 to 3 pages in length. Guidance: - The use of a fixed template is preferred/proposed. - It is a good practice to exchange internet links between IMPEL members where inspection reports can be found.

Slide 7

Challenge 6 Should we mention the inspection was a random sample check? Should we mention that not everything has been inspected?

Common ground: - Information on the type of inspection (scope and depth) should be in the report (full, partial (some areas), random sample check, in depth…) Guidance: - The scope of the inspection should be mentioned in the inspection report

Slide 8

Challenge 7 If we also mention the scope of the inspection, how do we label ‘no noncompliances’ ? (good, no non-compliances, …).

Guidance: - As a minimum, only areas of non-compliance need to be included in the published report

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

6

Slide 9

Challenge 8 Should there be an opportunity for the company to react to the publication? And if so, in what way? (consider both ‘prior to’ and ‘after’ publication)

Common ground: - Before: it is a good practice to use the legal obligation to notify the inspection report to the operator (within 2 months) for getting comments on it (mistakes, commercial information, privacy legislation…) - After: once the report is published on the internet, it is final and no further opportunity should be given to the operator to give comments

Slide 10

Challenge 8 Should there be an opportunity for the company to react in the publication? And if so, in what way ? (consider both ‘prior to’ and ‘after’ publication) Guidance: - Operator - should have an opportunity to react to the inspection report before publication - should have a minimum time to do so (1 month is considered as reasonable) - should be warned about the intention to put it on internet

Slide 11

Challenge 9 Should the published report be changed if the non-compliance has been solved? Should it be mentioned on the website if after the publication but before an following inspection the non-compliance has been solved? Guidance: - A non-compliance that is solved, should be put in the next inspection report as this finding is the result of a new inspection

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

7

Slide 12

Challenge 10 Should desk surveys, similar as site visit reports, also be made available for the public? (assesment of base line reports, eprtr emission reports, reports on incidents, energy saving reports, …) Common ground: - Article 23.6 of the IED doesn’t oblige inspectors to publish findings from desk surveys.

Slide 13

Challenge 11 Should we put the level of non-compliance in the report or only that there was a non-compliance?

Split view: The level of non-compliance has to be assessed anyway because for serious non-compliances the inspector has to do a follow-up site visit within a period of 6 months. But: Some do not put the level of non-compliance in the inspection report Some do it and put it as structured information in the report (also for management information purpose)

Slide 14

Challenge 12 In the IED it is stated that further actions should be included in the inspection report. What is the meaning? Only the actions of the operator? Or the enforcement actions of the inspectors organization? Or both? Common ground: The general idea is that both have to be mentioned in the inspection report: 1. The enforcement actions of the inspector (see also RCMEI) 2. The measures the operator has to undertake Guidance: To avoid potential problems in subsequent judicial action, it is recommended that details on future enforcement actions should be reported but kept to a minimum.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

8

Slide 15

Challenge 13 Should the name of the inspector be included in the report or only the name of the inspection organization?

Guidance: The name of the inspector should not be included in the inspection report, only the name of the inspection organization.

Slide 16

Challenge 14 In the case that the site visit lasts more than 1 day: are the periods for notification to the operator (within 2 months) and for making available to the public (within 4 months) starting at the first site visit day or at the last one? Common ground: From practical point of view, the last day of site visit is the starting point of the 2/4 month period.

Slide 17

That’s all Folks…

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

9

ANNEX 8

DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON CLOSURE OF INSTALLATIONS

Slide 1

Bankruptcy & cessation of IED Installations Final report of subgroup 3 of IMPEL Project on Supporting IED Implementation Supporting IED Implementation, Bucharest, 1 - 2 October 2015

1

Slide 2

Progress from Mons • Scrutinise the information collected from previous meetings (Bremen, Mons, &between) • Discussions with consultant (Terry) on how to merge our findings with proposed structure of IED implementation guidance book • Put the new report on IMPEL Basecamp for remarks from group members (firstly) and form plenary (secondly) • Remarks from Iñaki & Romano were incorporated Supporting IED Implementation, Bucharest, 1 - 2 October 2015

2

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

10

Slide 3

General remarks • Definitive cessation of operation is connected with the bankruptcy of operator; IED is not referring at all to bankruptcy related issues • Obligation to notify the competent authority in case of bankruptcy or definitive cessation o operation • The practice shows that in case of bankruptcy and/or site closure there are not available enough resources to finance all measures meant to safeguard the environment • IED permit should contain a cessation/decontamination plan not only conditions (few lines)

Supporting IED Implementation, Bucharest, 1 - 2 October 2015

Slide 4

3

How to find out if a company is going to bankruptcy • No annual reports coming • Temporary closure of the company or simplification of operations, significant changes in amount of staff and lowering of salaries • Many non-compliances and no effort from the company to change them (don’t have the money) • Problems in day to day operation • Can possible weakness signals be reflected in the risk assessment of the company? • No payment of the annual inspection fee Supporting IED Implementation, Bucharest, 1 - 2 October 2015

4

Slide 5

Financial guarantee • Not obligatory but could be a good tool to take care of problems • Good practises – Environmental Fund (Portugal) – Italy: financial guarantee is mandatory upon IED implementation for all IED plants – national decision (waiting for decree) – Xunta de Galicia (Spain): a financial guarantee is needed for companies producing waste & within 2 years for all IED installations – Finland: financial guarantee is mandatory only for waste management sites – Cyprus: financial guarantee insurance within 3 months from permit

• Make use by art. 14 of Environmental Liability Directive Supporting IED Implementation, Bucharest, 1 - 2 October 2015

5

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

11

Slide 6

How to determine the financial guarantee? • Online tool for determination of the amount of financial guarantee from Xunta de Galicia (Spain) – Intensity of the damage the operator can cause – Extension of the damage the operator can cause – Criteria set by authorities (type of the activity; amount of waste produced; correction factors: EMAS, Insurance, Recovery, Storage, etc.)

• Size of the site, the waste classes and the cost of the waste management (Finland) Supporting IED Implementation, Bucharest, 1 - 2 October 2015

Slide 7

6

Permit condition regarding definitive cessation of operation • Examples: Finland & Romania and Galicia • Romanian example is very comprehensive – Operational permits are very detailed – Contains both general and particular conditions on cessation of operation – The particular conditions for a refinery: preliminary activities; cessation of the installation; leakage flow from pipes, hazardous substances; maintenance/conservation; dismantling of installation/equipments; demolition & remediation actions Supporting IED Implementation, Bucharest, 1 - 2 October 2015

Slide 8

7

Minimum content of a cessation/decommissioning plan • It is usually prepared in the permit phase (permit recast) • It must be approved by competent authorities • Minimum aspects that the cessation of the plant – History of the activity of the company – Identification of possible sources of environmental pollution – Procedures provided for the disposal of pollution sources identified – Pollution prevention and reduction for the protection of the environmental compartments (Air, Water, Soil)

• Example proposed by Italian Province of Siena Supporting IED Implementation, Bucharest, 1 - 2 October 2015

8

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

12

Slide 9

Supporting IED Implementation, Bucharest, 1 - 2 October 2015

9

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

13

ANNEX 9

DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON BAT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

Slide 1

IED Implementation Subgroup BREFs Progress Report Pieter Roos

3 November 2015

Slide 2 Steps taken 1. Bremen: topics inventory and setting priorities – BREFs writing and application – Application of emission ranges BAT conclusions 2. Mons: – Forming subgroup – Brainstorm 3. Between Mons and Bucharest: – Formulating challenges – Gathering national practices – Dialogue with DG ENV / IPPC Bureau

2

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

14

Slide 3 Subgroup BREFs António Quintas

Carlos Bernácer

Dave Canham Jaakko Vesivalo

Fabio Colonna, Maria Enroth

Nazzareno Santilli

Pieter Roos

Please Join!

3

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

Slide 4 Challenges to deal with now (1) How to translate a BAT-AEL (emission range in BREF – BAT conclusion) into an emission limit value (ELV), an exact number?

4

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

Slide 5 Challenges to deal with now (2) How to set compliance rules like reference periods and allowed exceedance, for example during operation which is not normal?

5

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

15

Slide 6 Challenges to deal with now (3) How to set monitoring methods including frequency where BAT Conclusions allow alternatives?

6

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

Slide 7 Challenges to deal with later 1. What are the implications for setting ELVs when an installation has significant impact on achieving an environmental quality standard (EQS) which is or could be exceeded (art 18 IED going beyond BAT-AELs or beyond BAT)?

2. How to determine permit conditions other than ELVs with the BAT conclusions as the reference (art 14, para 1b and 3 IED)? 3. How to determine permit conditions other than ELVs when an environmental quality standard (EQS) is or could be exceeded (art 18 IED)? 4. How to consider and where necessary update conditions within four years after publication of BAT conclusions (art 23, para 3)

7

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

Slide 8 Gathering national practices application BREFs So far: Italy Netherlands Portugal Sweden UK Please send information!

8

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

16

Slide 9 Dialogue DG ENV / IPPC Bureau 1. We collected questions and issues for feedback 2. Workloads did not allow a contribution of DG ENV and IPPC Bureau 3. How to proceed?

9

Slide 10 Things to do To be discussed in the Bucharest meeting (of the subgroup) • • • •

Gather more national practices Analyse national practices Draft guidance for guidance book Continue with next challenges

10

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

Slide 11 Results break out group BREFs 1. What can(‘t) IMPEL do 2. Small technical exchange 3. Next steps Some observations

11

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

17

Slide 12 What can(’t) IMPEL do • • • •

Improving BREFs and their implementation has policy elements Policy is not the role of IMPEL Focus on practicability and enforceability Feedback based on experiences practitioners

12

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

Slide 13 Small technical exchange • Implementing BREFs in general rules has more or less the same challenges as in permit conditions • Rol of operator: making plan, provide information on installation and emissions • The better the information the smoother the implementation • Different approach new and existing installation • Is taking the upper emission level of BAT conclusion sufficient? • (non-)continuous operation and monitoring and yes/no normal operating condition are important factors

13

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

Slide 14 Next steps • Continu gathering practices through base camp (everybody) • Try to find common ground (Pieter) • Proposal for common ground to be discussed (subgroup)

14

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

18

Slide 15 Thank you for your attention

Questions and comments are welcome!

15

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

3 November 2015

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

19

ANNEX 10 SUB GROUP DISCUSSIONS IN BUCHAREST ON SELF MONITORING

IMPEL Project on Supporting IED Implementation Subgroup “Self Monitoring” – Minutes of Bucharest meeting What has been done in Bucharest In the Bucharest meeting the results of the survey have been presented. A logical path was followed to define the main points to be discussed and included in a final Report on self-monitoring. The identified points make up the chapters of the final Report; discussion was held about how to fit conclusions in the Guidance Book. Some of the points have not been fully discussed in Bucharest, therefore further “homework” has to be done by the subgroup. How do we want to go further For each of the identified topics (see Report on Self-Monitoring) we should define: 1) What is done in my Agency (MS): identification of best practices. 2) Which common approach should be suggested to be shared in EU; the choice has not necessarily to be the best practice, but we should define what can be easily afforded by each MS, furtherly giving examples of best practices. With reference to the content of the Report on Self-Monitoring (see document), each participant to the sub-group will answer to question 1, while we have to identify small groups (2-3 people), taking care of each of the chapters of the Report. Identified contents of the Report (Possible index of the Guidance Book) 1)

Legislative references

2)

Self-monitoring principles

3)

Definitions

4)

Self-monitoring plan: what is in the permit

5)

Contents of self-monitoring report

6)

Recording of data and documents

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

20

7)

Analysis of the report

8)

Audit and validation

9)

What to do when a noncompliance is detected

10)

Reporting of the evaluation

11)

Publication of the operator report

12)

Results of the survey

13)

Proposal for Guidance Book

Discussion of the Subgroup: results

DEFINITIONS - Self-monitoring plan - Self-monitoring report: document produced by operator containing information foreseen in art. 14; art. 3 point 22

SELF MONITORING PLAN: WHAT IS IN THE PERMIT? - Need of a Template for self-monitoring (in the permit): minimum contents Slovenia: in the permit: frequencies, parameters about air emission, water etc. Methodologies are not in the permit Romania: Chapter in the permit with self-monitoring – parameters, frequencies, methodologies (air, water, noise, soil quality, groundwater, waste produced – dealing, quantities). Ask for concentration. Finland: Conditions for monitoring and reporting (emissions, not consumptions). Parameters to be checked are defined. Big plants (IED): prepare a self-monitoring plan approved by inspection authority. Poland: content of self-monitoring is in permit and regulations. Parameters and frequencies are set (air water noise) Spain: Plan is included in the permit. Emissions are included; obligations to submit online database direct input of data of the emissions of air emission (Galicia). Obligation to submit to PRTR. Frequencies parameters and methods are included in the plan. Report in Galicia is submitted biannually

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

21

Portugal: self-monitoring is in a plan included in the permit. ELV are set for air waste water, manure (poultry farm), slurry (pig farm). Frequencies parameters and methods are included in the plan. Italy: self-monitoring plan is drafted according to a document provided by national inspection authority. Consumptions, Frequencies parameters and methods are included in the plan. Czech Republic: In the permit are stated parameters frequencies, ELV (emission monitoring). Report includes information about compliance with all prescriptions of the permit Belgium (Flemish region): self-monitoring requirements sectorial (all companies belonging to that sector), general (all companies) and specific (tailor made to the company, they are in the permit). Requirements are about emissions and not about consumptions. Frequencies parameters and methods are included. The operator does not send a report, just on request. Results should be available in the company and every time the inspection authority requires them. Belgium (Walloon Region): self-monitoring requirements are fixed in the permit (frequencies and parameters). In IPPC sectorial conditions, it is requested to the operator to present a plan including info about methods. Operator draft a plan approved by the inspectorate. To sum up: -

Self-monitoring requirements are fixed in the permit (in many cases in a separate plan) Consumption data are generally not asked in the permit Usually operator sends the report to competent authority by himself Frequencies and parameters are always set; methods in some cases

CONTENTS OF SELF MONITORING REPORT

-

A. Emission monitoring Air/odour : concentration and mass flow Waste Water: concentration and mass flow Noise Soil and groundwater

-

B. Other required data Energy consumption Water consumption Waste production Fuel consumption Maintenance actions Performance indicators

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

22

C. Other required data - Analysis of the permit compliance Examples of tools/templates: - Content of the report: ISPRA document - Format of the report: Excel file Arpa Veneto; REGADE-CAPCA online application (direct input by operators/authorized control bodies in an online DB of emissions into air) - Other required data for compliance to the permit: Czech example Further considerations: - Reference to the survey: QUESTION 1 - Is the annual report (containing the results of emission monitoring) produced by the company using a template commonly used and made available by the competent authority? - Template for self-monitoring report (operator): minimum contents, format (paper, pdf, excel, database) - Self-monitoring report and EPRTR: connection To sum up: - IED mandatory data request - Additional data could be asked (in the permit) – consumption, performance indicator etc. - Report has to include 2 parts: emission monitoring results and other required data for compliance check of permit - Idea: template in excel of self-monitoring report + indications/examples of other required data for compliance check of permit - PRTR information cannot be used by inspectorate to check compliance. They can be additional information.

RECORDING OF DATA AND DOCUMENTS - Reference to the survey: QUESTION 2 - Where the annual reports are stored? Are the monitoring data included in the report, stored in an environmental database? - Elaboration of data permitted by the system (filtering etc.) - Format of data (digital, paper, pdf, excel,? ) - Direct input in a database: warning bell to inspector in case of breach of ELV - Link with GIS systems - E-PRTR

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

23

ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT: List of actions: -

-

Compliance with ELV set in the permit (conclusions of lab analysis) Check qualification of the third certified lab. Methods used by the lab are checked Audit in the laboratory Trends: increase/decrease of values Cross check with other information: check if changes in the site (known from outside sources) are consistent Comparing with previous year’s performance Comparing performance with similar plants Respect of frequencies, parameters checked and in general, if monitoring is performed according to the permit (methods, parameters, frequencies) Check deadline to submit the report Determine the parameters that should be measured because of the industrial process (input raw materials, product): check if permit is covering all aspects (in terms of parameters, frequencies etc.) and ask the permit writer to reconsider the permit according to the findings. In case the operator takes measurements by himself, check if he qualified himself In case of CMS (air emission) check if calibration etc. are performed by certified lab and if the operator fulfils the requirements of certified lab Check of obligation of communication in case of exceeding of ELV Check measurements taken in case of incidents and in case of emission values close to the ELV Transfer of waste from one facility to another Imposing higher frequencies in case emission values overcomes 75% of ELV (Romania) Check the performance trends (waste production, consumptions) Audit in waste sampling, air emission monitoring , water discharge Check of performance of industrial sectors

Check of the report: When? -

To prepare site visit To prepare a plan; not planned After complaints, incidents, to prepare site visit Preparing scenario Future approach: electronic system for direct input and automatic check of ELV: warning bell Check of the report once it arrives according to human resources Every report arriving to the inspectorate For some important facilities check of report is performed every year Campaign of sectors

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

24

- CZ - Inspectors check emission monitoring during the year (Emission report is an annex of the selfmonitoring report). Emission report is sent to inspectorate, self-monitoring report is sent to permit writer and put later in the database - To prepare the inspection looking to the report in a database and, on site visit, check self-monitoring report and compare with inspection findings. Further considerations: -

Mandatory to send/not to send the report to inspection authority. Sometimes it is checked by permitting authority Who is going to evaluate the self-monitoring report Compliance with permit; Deadline compliance Reference to the survey: QUESTION 3 - Which kind of analysis is performed by the Inspection Authority on the annual report and which frequency is followed for that? Feedback, responsibilities performance compliance QUESTION 4 - Do the annual report findings give feedback and input in the routine environmental inspections provided in Article 23.4 of IED and how? - Outcome indicators, performance trends, lab methods, non-compliances

AUDIT AND VALIDATION - Evaluation of the lab methodologies? Sampling procedures? Audit to measurements of external lab in situ (water and air emissions, waste sampling, EMS calibration etc.)? - Reference to the survey: QUESTION 5: Is there any formal procedure for the validation of the results of emission monitoring in which the inspectors participate?

WHAT TO DO IF A NON COMPLIANCE IS DETECTED - Inspection reports in the Inspection Plan - Reference to the survey: QUESTION 6: Which actions are taken by the Inspection Authority in case non-compliance is detected from the annual report?

REPORTING OF THE EVALUATION - Analysis of the self-monitoring report: content of the inspection report (feedback for operator, permit writer, amendments to self-monitoring plan). To whom address the inspection report? Template

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

25

ANNEX 11 NOTE OF PROJECT TEAM MEETING, BREMEN, 10-11 MARCH, 2015 IMPEL Project on IED Implementation Support Note of Project Team meeting held in Bremen, Germany, on 10 and 11 March 2015 (The list of those present at the meeting is in the Annex)

1.

Arrival and welcome

Horst Büther welcomed those present to the meeting. Those present in effect constituted the Project Team though budgetary constraints might mean that there would need to be fewer people at the second Project Team meeting later in the year.

2.

Tour de table

Those present introduced themselves and the agenda was adopted

3.

Introduction to the project

Horst introduced the project. He listed the previous relevant IMPEL projects including Doing the Right Things, Easy Tools, IED Inspections; Transition to IED Permits and IED/IRAM Inspection Programmes. He also mentioned projects which were still to be completed including Derogations from BAT. He said that the desired outcome of the work was a level playing field for IED implementation through:       

Identified risks for implementation gaps Mitigation of the most serious types of non-compliance with the IED Application of BAT conclusions Common understanding of inspections Use of electronic records for inspection work Optimised cooperation between different competent authorities Appropriate public participation

For the implementation of the Seveso Directives there was the Committee of Competent Authorities and it was desirable to achieve a level playing field for the implementation of IED.

4.

Implementation challenge

Terry Shears gave a presentation on the findings of the IMPEL Project on the Challenge of Implementing EU Environmental Law. There had been three parts to the project: a review of relevant documents, a questionnaire to IMPEL members and other relevant networks and organisations and a workshop to

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

26

consolidate the findings of the project. The project had made clear that there remained considerable implementation challenges across the whole spectrum of environmental law. Interestingly the main problem was not so much a lack of clarity in the laws themselves but rather a lack of resources and insufficient data and evidence. Furthermore, the level of fines imposed for infringement of environmental law were often seen as insufficient. Challenges highlighted in the project included: -

Waste Framework Directive- achievement of waste targets Hazardous waste enforcement Integrated regulatory approach for the agriculture sector Permitting of installations to reflect Industrial Emissions Directive requirements (BAT Conclusions) and air quality standards Inspections and enforcement of Birds and Habitats Directives Water Framework Directive – achievement of ‘good ecological status’ (physical modification; over abstraction)

The intention is that the IMPEL Expert Teams will use these findings to help decide upon future work programmes. (Since the meeting the report has been adopted and is available on the IMPEL website).

5.

Development of a work programme

There would be three phases in the work programme. Phase 1 would develop the work programme, and look at approaches in different countries, best practice, joint inspections, guidance and a possible application under LIFE+. Phase 2 would be concerned with strategic risk criteria, electronic records, special topics, publication of results, cooperation between competent authorities and public participation. Phase 3 would look at application of risk criteria, country visits and peer reviews, application of electronic records, special topics and dissemination of the results.

6.

Project organisation

The meeting had been divided into three groups to look further at the work programme and to identify priorities. Group 1 said that the project should consider both inspections and permitting (as covered by the IED). In particular, permit writers should be invited to join the project. It would also be useful to learn more about the process of identifying and BAT and writing BREF documents.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

27

Group 2 considered presentation of inspection results, self-monitoring results, base line concerning soil contamination, definitions of ‘normal operating conditions’, levels of non-compliance, derogation of BAT, charging for inspections, visibility of IMPEL in the BREF procedure and joint inspections for specific sectors. Group 2 mentioned in particular the risk based approach and suggested looking at work already done in this area. They were also interested in cooperation between environmental authorities. Group 3 looked at three areas – inspections, permitting and the structure of the project. In terms of planning inspections they saw a need to define a strategy which should help with the question of a lack of resources. For the structure they suggested there was a need for a meeting twice a year though there was a question over how big the group should be. There was also a suggestion that there might be a workshop in 2016. It was agreed that there would be voting on the priority topics. The topics are listed below together with the number of votes for each: there was no restriction on the number of times people were able to vote. Topic BREFs Application of emission ranges Application of Article 18 (ELVs and Air Quality limits) Baseline report – soil contamination Levels of non-compliance Charging regimes Self-monitoring and operator reporting Reporting to the public Definitions Dealing with installations closing down/bankruptcy

Number of votes 3 2 2 4 20 3 7 20 6 8

The topics identified as immediate priorities as a result of this exercise were: Levels of non-compliance; Reporting to the public; and Dealing with installations closing down/bankruptcy.

7.

Preparation of the workshop and Implementation Conference

Following the kind invitation from Olivier Dekyvere it was agreed that the workshop would be held in Mons, Belgium on 27 and 28 April. It would be held back-to-back with the Implementation Conference which would be on 28 and 29 April. It would begin with a presentation by the host country covering topics such as BREF documents, permitting and inspections. Three groups would identify would identify challenges and best practices in each of the three priority areas identifies under Item 6 and would prepare presentations for the workshop in Mons. The list of attendees in the Annex also identifies who is in which of the three groups. Horst would discuss preparation of the workshop with the group leaders, namely Florin Homorean (Installations closing down), Marinus Jordaan (Reporting to the public) and Hartmut Teutsch (Levels of non-compliance).

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

28

8.

LIFE+ application

The relevant criteria are set out below which would be appropriate for an application under LIFE+ are set out below:

All present at the meeting would check whether there was someone in their organisation with experience in seeking funding under LIFE+ who would be able to help with making an application.

9.

Communication strategy, timetable and milestones

John Seager gave a presentation on the IMPEL Communication Strategy. This had begun with the external evaluation of IMPEL two years ago which had found that IMPEL was doing very good work but not communicating it well such that many people were unaware of it. Nancy Isarin was now working in the IMPEL Secretariat with Michael Nicholson and one of her main tasks was Communication. A Communications Group had been established with volunteers from IMPEL. E-newsletters were now being produced though John said that he would discuss this with Nancy as it was apparent that not all those present at the meeting were aware of the E-newsletter. Nancy was also working to promote IMPEL on Linked In and Twitter. There were also leaflets and outputs from projects (including potentially this project). She was working on a redesign of the website to make it more interactive. Planned activities for 2015 included the following:     

Launch of new website Updated IMPEL brochure Promotional video 2 meetings of the Communications Group Link up with Green Spiders network

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

29

 

Overall promotion of IMPEL and project communication Participation in relevant events by partners

Horst then spoke about how this project would be communicated. An interim report to IMPEL was due in June 2015 which would include the outcome of the Workshop: the progress report would be written at the same time. The project report would be needed by late October in time for the General Assembly at the beginning of December. A press release had been issued for this meeting (and there had been interest from the local television station): a press release should also be issued for the Workshop in Mons as well as for the Project Team meeting later in the year (which, it was provisionally agreed, would be in Romania on 1 and 2 October. A project abstract summarising the main findings of the project would be prepared at the end of the year which those taking part in the project should translate into their own languages. A PowerPoint presentation which could be used to present the project would be available for discussion at the second project team meeting. When the results of the project were available they should be shared with industry. It was agreed also that there should be an Air and Industry expert team on basecamp which could be used to identify and share good practice in particular areas. The project report would include a review of relevant earlier IMPEL Projects including Doing the Right Things (Step by step Guidance Book for Planning of Environmental Inspections), Easy Tools, IED Inspections and the IED/IRAM Inspections Programme. There were also some projects not yet completed which would also be relevant.

10.

IED Inspections in Germany

Hartmut Teutsch gave a presentation about IED Inspections in Germany. There were no integrated inspections in Bremen and there were different inspectors for air, water and waste (and separate administrative bodies as well). Nonetheless, single permits were issued to IED facilities. The GAA inspected small facilities (where there had been complaints) and facilities with permits of which there were 390 in Bremen and of those 75 were IED installations. Hartmut demonstrated the use of the risk assessment procedure and said that in Bremen inspection reports were made available to the public. (A report to the public would be translated into English and would be made available on the website). After every on-site inspection there was a check of whether the evaluation should be changed and it was necessary to know how the site was performing overall.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

30

Annex List of those present at the IED Implementation Project Team meeting in Bremen, Germany, on 10 and 11 March 2015. The list indicates which Topic Group the person is involved in, thus: 1.

Levels of non-compliance

2.

Reporting to the public

3.

Company closing down/bankruptcy

Name Romano Ruggeri Florin Homorean Tomáš Augustin Vladimir Kaiser Dubravka Pajkin Tučkar Jaakko Vesivalo Olivier Dekyvere Fabio Colonna Maria Jesús Mallada Viana Iñaki Bergareche Urdampilleta Carlos Bernácer Urdampilleta Maria Milagros Pereira Carnero Nazzareno Santilli Terry Shears John Seager Reeli Sildnik Sigridur Kristjansdottir Antonio Quintas Francisco Negrao David Canham Robert Gross Maria Enroth Wulf Böckenhaupt Marinus Jordaan Pieter Roos Martine Blondeel Horst Büther Hartmut Teutsch

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

Topic Group 3 3 (Group leader) 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 n/a n/a 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 (Group leader) 1 2 n/a 1 (Group leader)

31

ANNEX 12 NOTE OF WORKSHOP, MONS, 28-29 APRIL, 2015 IMPEL Project on IED Implementation Support Note of Workshop held in Mons, Belgium, on 28 and 29 April 2015

1.

Welcome

Horst Büther welcomed those present to the meeting and thanked Olivier Dekyvere and colleagues for hosting the meeting.

2. Presentation by Olivier Dekyvere from the Wallonia Region of Belgium on BREFs, Permitting and Inspection Olivier gave the presentation on behalf of the Police and Controls Department of the Public Services of Wallonia. In the presentation he looked at how a permit may be requested and granted, how the permit conditions may be changed and how the competent authority manages environmental inspections. He explained that Belgium is a federal state divided into three communities (Dutchspeaking, French-speaking and German-speaking) and three regions (Brussels region, Flemish region and Walloon region). Environmental permit writing and inspections are mainly managed by an operational general directorate from the Walloon public services. A major principle is that the inspection department is completely independent from the permit writing departments and the inspection department is not involved in permit writing. Permits may be amended at any time: the municipality receives all requests from the plant manager for a new permit and these are transferred to the regional level when necessary. Permit Inspections are mainly managed by the Police and Control Department which is divided into four districts. The department is available at any time, every day of the year and the Department has an emergency call service for members of the public and plant managers. When an inspector finds a non-compliance there are two possible courses of action. The inspector can send a warning letter to the offender with a time limit to resolve the situation. If it is not resolved within the deadline, the inspector has to report to the authorities. Alternatively the inspector can send a report to the authorities immediately. In order to decide between these two options the inspector makes an environmental risk assessment of the situation with a tool developed by the Department. The inspector can also report to the mayor and ask, for example, for the full or partial closure of a plant or activity. If the mayor takes no action, or in in the case of an emergency, the inspector has the same powers as the mayor.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

32

There are four levels of non-compliance with level 1 being the most serious and level 4 the least serious. Level 1 requires a non-compliance of at least level 2 which has been done knowingly and where human health has been or may be endangered. Punishment and fines: Level of non-compliance

Criminal penalties

Administrative sanctions

1

Imprisonment: 10 to 15 y

-

2

Fines: 100.000 to 10.000.000 € Imprisonment: 8 d to 3 y

Fines: 50 to 100.000 €

3

Fines: 100 to 1.000.000 € Imprisonment: 8 d to 6 m

Fines: 50 to 10.000 €

4

Fines: 100 to 100.000 € Imprisonment: -

Fines: 50 to 1.000 €

Fines: 1 to 1.000 € In Wallonia there are more than 300 IPPC installations with 40 Inspectors. Installations are in three Classes and IED installations are all in Class 1. Inspectors and Permit Writers are separate in Wallonia though there are discussions between the two when the permits are being written. The permit can be amended at any time, for instance when it is necessary to take a new BAT requirement into account. There was a discussion about the definition of an inspection. One suggestion was that it might be better to look at how inspections were carried out and what inspectors did when they were on site. Joint inspections could be carried out with small groups in specific sectors.

3. Presentation on progress to date with the project including first results of the three working groups and aim of the workshop Horst said that 28 people had attended the project meeting in Bremen where the first three topics to be considered by the Working Groups had been identified. The three topics were: Levels of noncompliance; Reporting of inspections to the public; and Dealing with installations closing down through bankruptcy. Work had been started on the topics at the Bremen meeting and the results would be presented later in the meeting. The eventual aim was to create a guidance book for those working in these areas. There would probably be another ToR next year. Subject to the project going ahead it would be necessary to have a meeting place for the first Project Team meeting next year.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

33

In terms of what people had learnt from the Bremen meeting, it was apparent that there was considerable enthusiasm for joint inspections to begin immediately. There had been a visit to a site in Bremen though that had not been a joint inspection. The question remained of how to do a technical exchange on inspections. It had become clear that some countries were already publishing inspection reports and others were considering the possibility. The Bremen meeting had given priority to the three areas identified for examination but it was clear that other areas (permitting, for example) were also important. It would be useful to reach out to other parts of IMPEL to see whether they would want to deal with other aspects of the IED. It had been reassuring for participants to find that they were not alone in trying to deal with the challenges they faced and that they were perhaps not as hard as they seemed. The IED was not perfect. It would be good to share the perspective of Inspectors with the Commission which might help bring about a better Directive in the future. John Seager pointed out that IMPEL had recently met the Environment Director General in the Commission (Karl Falkenberg) and that he had said that it was dominating their thinking (and their work programme) that there should be better implementation. If projects such as this one were able to identify gaps in the legislation, the Commission would be happy to listen to us. However, we would need to have hard evidence and ideas for solutions. In any event, it was a lengthy process to amend Directives.

4.

Presentation of breakout groups to the plenary meeting

Group 1: Levels of non-compliance The subgroup aimed to develop guidance on how to determine important cases of non-compliance leading to an additional inspection within six months (article 23 para 4 of the IED). To prevent inventing the same approach twice, they used the levels of non-compliance and their descriptions in the IMPEL report on IED inspections1 as the starting point. The levels or cases of non-compliance in this report are: 1. minor 2. significant or relevant 3. important or serious. The proposal of the subgroup was to split level 3 into two parts:

1

p. 34 http://impel.eu/projects/environmental-inspections-of-industrial-installations-in-accordance-with-theindustrial-emissions-directive-ied/

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

34

- 3a ‘serious’ using/maintaining the description of the IMPEL report on IED inspections - 3b ‘important’ with a new description to be developed (including examples) focused on implementing article 23 para 4 of the IED and in particular determining what is an important case of non-compliance leading to an additional inspection within six months. Based on national experiences and the wording of the IED the subgroup proposed the following guidance: If a non-compliance detected during a routine inspection leads to an increase in inspection frequency based on the criteria for environment risk assessment set out in article 23 para 4 of the IED: (a) the potential and actual impacts of the installations concerned on human health and the environment taking into account the levels and types of emissions, the sensitivity of the local environment and the risk of accidents (b) the record of compliance with permit conditions (c) the participation of the operator in the Union eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 then this non-compliance is considered to be important leading to the requirement of an additional inspection within six months as set out in para 4 article 23 of the IED. The subgroup collected for each criterion examples of situations that could trigger an increased inspection frequency (by itself or in combination) leading to defining a non-compliance that is important: (a) the potential and actual impacts of the installations concerned on human health and the environment taking into account the levels and types of emissions, the sensitivity of the local environment and the risk of accidents; -

Violation of an environmental quality standard or non-compliance that could lead to a maximum potential impact

-

Non-compliance hazardous to (public) health

-

Non-compliance important in terms of complaints and public perception

-

Non-compliance with irreversible damage to public/human health and/or environment/damage

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

35

(b) the record of compliance with permit conditions -

Non-compliance related to abatement not being properly maintained leading to a significant impact (significance depends on pollution before abatement)

-

Incorrect operation with potential big impact

-

Repetition and number of non-compliances

-

Operating without a permit and unpermitted emissions to air, water, soil and handling of waste

-

Exceeding emission limit values (based on BAT-AELs) that could lead to significant impacts on public health and environment

(c) the participation of the operator in the Union eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 -

Non-compliance related to abatement not being properly maintained leading to a significant impact (significance depends on pollution before abatement)

-

Incorrect operation with potential big impact

-

Non-compliance important in terms of complaints and public perception

-

Attitude of the operator (measures taken by the operator, yes/no/cautiously)

According to IMPEL guidance2 the risk assessment should be updated (directly) after each inspection. A higher inspection frequency could be the outcome. However the update of the full inspection programme can be done later, according to the practice of the competent authority (for example, each year). Outstanding issues (identified during the plenary presentation and discussion of the proposal) -

How to deal with installations which are already in the highest risk group? Check your risk assessment.

-

How to deal with non-compliances with significant impacts that do not lead to a higher frequency? Check your risk assessment, is this possible?

2

IRAM http://impel.eu/projects/supporting-the-implementation-of-the-integrated-risk-assessment-methodiram/

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

36

-

How to fit in the additional inspection after six months in the inspection cycle? Is it part of the cycle of the routine inspection that triggered it or does the additional (non-routine) inspection start a new cycle, including (making available to the public) a separate report.

Group 2: Reporting to the public The Group had reduced the number of challenges identified to twelve. These were: 1. Should the report be made available actively (on the internet) or passively (available in paper format in the office)? Information should be made available to the public and, according to the questionnaire, 12 out of 22 IMPEL members publish the report on the internet. In the spirit of transparency this is seen as the way forward. 2. How long should it be on the internet? Three years is seen as the minimum period which also fits in with the inspection cycle. 3. Interaction with the company before the report goes on the internet. It is good practice to seek comments from the operator within two months from the inspection on matters such as mistakes, commercial information and privacy legislation etc. Once it is published, it is final and no further opportunity should be given to the operator for comments. The operator should have a reasonable time to make comments (a month would be reasonable) and should be warned about the intention to put it on the internet. 4. Who is the target group? Should there be one or two reports (the latter more readily understood by the general public). There should be one inspection report from which a summary could be extracted for publication. There was a difference of opinion over whether inspection reports should be written for a general public or an interested public. 5. Level of detail in summary. The summary should be 1-3 pages in length, contain only basic information and not have too many details. It would be preferable to have a fixed template and it would be good practice to exchange internet links between IMPEL members where inspection reports can be found. 6. Scope of inspection. Information on the type of inspection (scope and depth) should be included in the report. As a minimum, only areas of non-compliance should be included in the published report. 7. Should the report be amended if any non-compliances have been resolved? A noncompliance that is resolved should be included in the next inspection report as this would be the finding of a new inspection. 8. Should desk surveys also be published? Article 23.6 of the IED does not oblige inspectors to publish findings from desk surveys. 9. Should we make public the levels of non-compliance? There has to be an assessment of the level of non-compliance because, for important non-compliances, the inspector has to do a follow-up site visit within a period of six months. However, some do not put the level of noncompliance in the report while others put it as structured information in the report where it also serves for management information purposes.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

37

10. IED states that further actions should be included in the report. What does this mean in practice – only the actions of the operator or of the inspector’s organisation, or both? Both the enforcement actions of the inspector and the measures the operator has to undertake should be mentioned in the report. In order to avoid potential problems in any subsequent judicial action, details on future enforcement actions should be reported but kept to a minimum. 11. Should the inspector’s name be included in the report or only the name of the inspection organisation? Only the name of the inspection organisation should be included in the report. 12. In the case of site visits lasting more than one day, would the periods for notification to the operator (within two months) and for making the report available to the public (within four months) start on the first or final day of the site visit? For practical reasons, the starting point of the two and four month period is the final day of the site visit. Group 3: Dealing with installations closing down First, the group looked at various examples of practice in different countries. Finland had had a case where an oil regeneration company had gone bankrupt. The bankruptcy had come as a surprise and the company had not informed the authority. As a result, and because the computers had not been secured, information on production control and reporting had been lost. In Romania, operational permits were very detailed. In each permit there was an obligation to have a cessation plan: the plan must be agreed by the EPA and was a part of the permit. The plan contained both particular and general conditions and for refineries, for example, these included:       

Preliminary activities Cessation of the installation Leakage flow from pipes, hazardous substances Maintenance/conservation Dismantling of installation/equipment Demolition Remediation actions

Romania also had an example of bankruptcy. The bankruptcy was notified to the EPA by the bankruptcy estate in connection with establishing site-related environmental liabilities. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the site had been carried out by a competent/specialised body: environmental liabilities (soil contamination, water and waste management) were established based on the EIA. Regular inspections were carried out after cessation for follow up. In an example from Spain of voluntary bankruptcy, a simplification plan was provided by the operator and an inspection was planned. The date for closure was reported to the authorities during inspections and Spanish bank took over the company. There were follow up inspections to monitor the site and closure measures.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

38

The difficulty was in identifying whether a company was likely to go bankrupt and it was important to identify whether there were any warning signs such as, for instance, a failure to provide an adequate Annual Report. Other signs were temporary closure of the company, simplification of operations or significant changes in the number of staff and lowering of salaries. There might be many instances of non-compliance and no effort on the part of the company to rectify them (since they lacked the money to do so). There could also be problems in day-to-day operation. There was a question over whether possible signs of weakness in a company could be reflected in the risk assessment of the company. For the content of the baseline report the Guidance from the Commission (2014/C 136/03) was seen as a starting point. Italy had a national law giving the obligations for the minimum content of the report and special procedures for screening different kinds of companies based on the environmental risk of the company. Some countries required financial guarantees and cessation plans from companies: they were not obligatory but could be a useful tool to take care of problems when companies have to close down, especially in bankruptcy cases. Portugal had an environmental fund to pay for remediation work which was built up from half the money received in fines, though it had been used infrequently. In Italy it was proposed that a financial guarantee should be mandatory upon implementation of the implementation of IED. In Spain, a financial guarantee was needed at present for companies producing waste and for waste management companies. In accordance with art.14 of the Environmental Liability Directive, in two years’ time all IED installations would need to have a guarantee. In Finland, a financial guarantee was mandatory only for waste management sites. Finland calculated the financial guarantee on the basis of the size of the site, the waste classes and the cost of waste management (on waste management sites). In Cyprus, a financial guarantee insurance had to be obtained within three months of the permit being issued. Spain had a methodology for calculating what the financial guarantee should be which looked at the intensity and extent of the damage the operator could potentially cause. Criteria set by the authorities covered the activity of the company, the amount of waste produced and correction factors including:       

Waste in solid state Inert waste EMAS system Insurance Industrial State (not in rural areas) Recovery Storage

The group looked at the question of the minimum content of a cessation/decommissioning/restoration plan. In Italy, the decommissioning plan was usually prepared in the permit phase and needed to be approved by the authorities. It had to contain information on the history of the activity of the company (operational time; evolution of plant engineering, structural expansions, new equipment etc.; remediation or similar activities, accidents; and the context in which the plant is running. It was also

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

39

necessary to identify possible sources of environmental pollution (reservoirs, tanks, pipes, underground facilities) and procedures provided for the disposal of pollution sources identified. Additional criteria could be waste management and the management of hazardous materials during closure. There could be a focus on hazardous waste and recovery or disposal together with the foreseen production of waste and demolition waste and storage. There should be monitoring of emissions to the environment during and after the closing of installations and the question here was what should be the frequency of sampling and which parameters should be monitored. For remediation actions on contaminated compartments there should be a quantified comparison with the baseline report. A question was raised about the case in Romania where there was a requirement for a cessation plan and what happened if a company became larger: in that case, the permit would be updated. The cessation plan was part of the permit in Romania.

5. How to put proposals into day-to-day work, any need for additional guidelines or a network Horst circulated a draft structure for a document that would include a set of practical guidelines on different aspects of the IED. This could be built up over time and include appropriate links to guidance that has already been developed. The length of time it would take to complete the structure would depend on the number of participants and the speed at which they operated. Some of the topics would need other experts – permit writers, for example. The principal audience for the report would be the people in the group and also inspectors and permit writers. There was general support for the proposed structure though it was seen as very ambitious and challenging. Terry and John would put forward further proposals on structure for the guidance document which could be discussed on Basecamp.

6.

Future work priorities

It was agreed that BAT would be one of the future work priorities. Pieter Ross would lead and others interested in taking part included Chrystalla, David, Maria, Nazzareno and Antonio. Romano Ruggeri would lead a group to look at Self monitoring and operator reporting. This would look at, amongst other things, how the information was caught and what was done with it. Others interested in this group included Martine, Iñaki, Carlos, Vladimir, Maria Milagro and Tomáš. A third group would look at Baseline report subject to what was contained in a ToR expected on this topic. Jean-Pierre Janssens was leading on this and Chrystalla would contact him and let Horst know the outcome. Chrystalla and Sigridur would lead on this. For the LIFE+ application it was agreed that the Group would consider ideas for match funding. There was a suggestion that the issue could be put onto Basecamp to encourage further responses. It would

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

40

be helpful to identify people in national administrations who had experience of seeking funding under LIFE+. Romano had uploaded an abstract of the project onto Basecamp. It was open to all to suggest comments on it, by the end of June. Any final comments should be given at the meeting in Bucharest. The purpose of the abstract was to make the project attractive to others. Vladimir offered to prepare a Powerpoint presentation on the project when the abstract had been finalised. The purpose of the Powerpoint was to make the project interesting to the public. Koen invited all in the project to join LinkedIn and to become part of the IMPEL Group there. This would also be a useful place to announce meetings of this sort. He added that IMPEL would shortly have a new website where it would be easier to find the results of projects. It would be more product-oriented with plenty of opportunities to interact. He suggested that the Chairs of Expert Teams should build links with the relevant policy teams in the Commission. Koen requested that his email address should be included in this note: it is [email protected] Those present would be added to the circulation of the IMPEL newsletter unless they made clear that they did not want to receive it.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

41

Annex List of those present at the IED Implementation Workshop in Mons, Belgium, on 28 and 29 April 2015.

Name Romano Ruggeri Florin Homorean Tomáš Augustin Vladimir Kaiser Dubravka Pajkin Tučkar Jaakko Vesivalo Olivier Dekyvere Fabio Colonna Koen de Kruif Iñaki Bergareche Urdampilleta Carlos Bernácer Sales Maria Milagros Pereira Carnero Nazzareno Santilli Terry Shears John Seager Reeli Sildnik Sigridur Kristjansdottir Antonio Quintas Francisco Negrao David Canham Robert Gross Maria Enroth Wulf Böckenhaupt Marinus Jordaan Pieter Roos Martine Blondeel Horst Büther Hatmut Teutsch Michael Nicholson Marcin Jaros Chrystalla Styliano

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

42

ANNEX 13 NOTE OF PROJECT TEAM MEETING, BUCHAREST, 1-2 OCT., 2015 IMPEL Project on IED Implementation Support Note of Project Team Meeting held in Bucharest, Romania, on 1 and 2 October 2015

1.

Welcome

Horst Büther welcomed those present to the meeting and thanked Florin Homorean and colleagues for hosting the meeting. He also thanked Olivier Dekyvere for hosting the workshop in Mons and Hartmut Teutsch for hosting the project team meeting in Bremen. The agenda of the meeting was adopted and the draft note of the meeting in Mons was agreed as a correct record.

2.

Introductions and tour de table

Those present (listed in the Annex) introduced themselves and described lessons learnt from the Mons meeting and how they had taken them back to their colleagues.

3. Presentation by Florin Homorean of the National Environmental Guard on the Romanian handling of BREFs, Permitting and Inspection The organisational framework in Romania is: • • • • •

Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forests (MEWF) National Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Environmental Guard (NEG) “Romanian Waters” National Administration (RWNA) Environmental Fund

The duties of the MEWF are to set strategies and make policy and to integrate environment policy into the other sectorial policies. They draft regulations and approve draft regulations developed by other ministries and authorities of the central and local public administration. They act as coordinator for the activities of approval, promotion, fulfilment and monitoring of objectives. The EPA is responsible for the permitting of plans, projects and activities (installations) that endanger the environment. They carry out surveillance and monitoring of the environment and reporting on the state of the environment. They also manage environmental information (including facilitating public access).

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

43

The NEG carries out inspection and enforcement of environmental laws (industrial pollution, waste & TFS, REACH, nature conservation, CITES,etc.) They are responsible for checking compliance (including complaints) and compliance promotion. They carry out public information and education. RWNA manages water resources (river basins management plans) and is responsible for flooding protection and permitting of water abstraction, use & discharges (IED Installations). It carries out surveillance and monitoring of water abstraction, use and discharges and inspection and enforcement of water law and subsequent legislation. It reports on the state of water resources. The Environmental Fund collects taxes, charges and contributions (air pollution, packaging wastes, waste landfill, hazardous substances, hunting etc.) It finances “green projects” (Green house, forestations, replacing of polluting vehicles, waste water treatment plants, parks, renewable energy, etc.) IED Permitting The National Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for permit granting for industrial installations. For new IED installations the environmental permit is granted according to the EIA Directive: it is valid during construction work with the condition that construction work shall begin within 2 years after the date it was granted. For existing IED Installations falling under art. 10 of IED (Annex 1) an integrated environmental authorisation is granted according to IED Permitting Rules and is valid for 10 years. For other installations an environmental authorisation is granted according to the General Permitting Rule and is valid for 5 years. An assessment is made against BREFs and emission limit values are established in accordance with the relevant BREFs. In order to help permit writers, the following BREFs were translated into Romanian: Common Waste Water and Waste Gas Treatment / Management Systems in the Chemical Sector; Ferrous Metals Processing Industry; Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs; Large Combustion Plants; Management of Tailings and Waste-Rock in Mining Activities; Non Ferrous Metals Industries; Production of Iron and Steel; and Mineral Oil and Gas Refineries. Other authorities may be involved in the process including the NEG, Romanian Waters National Administration, Health Authorities, Emergency Inspectorates, Labour Inspectorates and local authorities. Public participation can include public hearings, decisions on granting and reconsideration or updating of a permit publicly available on EPA website for 30 days from issuing. The integrated environmental authorisations are publicly available on the Romanian website. Provisions for reconsideration and updating of Integrated Environmental Authorisation conditions include: • • •

Pollution level is too high (ELVs are reconsidered) Security reasons (new techniques are required) Compliance with a new or updated environmental quality standard

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

44



New regulations (new BREFs-within 4 years)

IED Inspections IED Inspections are carried out by the NEG and are organised and performed in accordance with the recommendation on minimum criteria for environmental inspections ((2001/331/EC). Outputs from the IMPEL IED Inspection Project were implemented into the NEG inspection System. New IED inspection technical guidelines were drafted in co-operation with Health Authorities and submitted to the Ministry (MEWF). An Annual Inspection Activity Plan is drafted and submitted for approval to the Ministry (MEWF). It consists of a Diagnosis of activity; Proposed objectives; Action plan; Inspection plan: and Budget. The Annual Inspection Activity Plan is regularly assessed and updated, where appropriate. Objectives for inspection activity are based on information gathered from previous objectives. These objectives are drafted in a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely) way. The Action plan brings together all objectives identified following the principles described above and establishes the actions necessary for achieving objectives, expected results, resources allocated, deadlines and persons responsible for carrying out the different aspects of the plan. The Yearly Inspection Plan consists of: the updated Registry of installations; the list of installations that are going to be inspected during the current year (inspection programme); and the Synoptic table of inspections. The installations are ranked on the basis of risk assessment. The risk assessment looks at environmental impact criteria, which take into consideration: installation complexity; location related to sensitive areas (residential and / or natural protected areas); air emissions (qualitative, not quantitative); water emissions (qualitative, not quantitative); area of polluted soil; amount of hazardous waste; amount of non-hazardous waste; category of sewers; smells; noise and vibrations and the inspector’s score. It also looks at performance of installation criteria which take into consideration: applying BAT, EMAS/ISO; number of fines issued; amount of fines issued; number and types of complementary follow-up actions; number of penal offence, number of incidents and accidents; air emissions monitoring frequency; water emissions’ monitoring frequency; soil emissions’ monitoring frequency; number of complaints and the inspector’s score. The budget is drafted on the base of set up objectives, drawn up actions and inspection programme. The budget covers: • Staff costs (wages, state budget taxes, etc.) • Costs for maintaining and operation of technical means used to perform inspections (cars, computers, printers, etc.) • Investment expenses to increase the inspection capacity (building constructions for offices, purchase new cars and IT equipment, etc.)

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

45

IED Inspections can be Routine (carried out according to the inspection programme) or Non-routine (complaints; incident and accidents; granting or updating of IEA, thematic; follow-up). Each IED inspection is carried out by a team of inspection consist of at least 2 inspectors Inspection steps include the following: Preparation: (collecting and assessment of available data on concerning installation, including self monitoring reports, findings from previous inspections; setting of inspection objectives – which environmental aspects or parts of installation are going to be inspected, including co-operation with other authorities). In the case of routine inspections an inspection notification is sent to the operator of the relevant installation (date of site visit; inspection objectives); the notification is not sent if there are suspicions of an illegal breaching of permit conditions that have caused pollution. Site visit: (opening meeting; inspection of installations; drafting the inspection report and penalty report, if appropriate; closing meeting) Completion of the inspection: (register of inspection reports both on paper and electronically; notification of EPA for permit suspension, in case of breaching of permit conditions; notification of prosecutor in case of criminal offences; monitoring penalties collection) Inspection reports are not yet publicly available but paper registers are. NEG commissars are competent to inspect: • • • • • • • • •

Compliance with environmental permits Air protection Soil and groundwater protection Water abstraction & use; waste water discharges Waste management Noise REACH Nature conservation Hunting

Commissars can go any time to installations or establishments where there is reason to believe that activities with a negative impact on the environment are being carried out. They can carry out inspections, checks, investigation and request any document and information. They can request identity documents, with a view to establishing identity, from the persons who are infringing, or are suspected of infringing, the law’s provisions. They may perform, where the case may be, together with the police bodies, checks on means of transport where there are clues related to infringements. They are able to seize the goods and the means of transport used or resulting from the committing of an infringement. They may participate, together with the competent authorities, in specific controls at the border checkpoints. They take samples and analyses.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

46

Enforcement tools include: warnings; imposing remediation measures/actions; penalties; notification for suspension and cancellation of IEA; suspension of activity; seizure of goods (used or resulting from infringements); and notification of the prosecutor for criminal offences. There is a gradation of non compliance and associated penalties and sanctions: Level of non-compliance 1. Operation of installation after suspension of activity, where the environment and human health has been or may be endangered 2. Operation of installation after permit suspension where the environment and human health has been or may be endangered 3. Accidental pollution of environment by unsupervised operation of abatement devices indicated in environmental permit, where the environment and human health has been or may be endangered 4. Breaching IED permit conditions

Criminal penalties Imprisonment: 1 to 5 years

Administrative sanctions

Imprisonment: 6 months to 3 years Fines: 12,500€ to 25,000€ Imprisonment: 3 m to 1 year Fines: 7,500€ to 15,000€

Fines: 12,500€ to 25,000€ & notification of EPA in view of permit suspension for 6 m Fines: 7,500€ to 15,000€ & temporary suspension of installation operation

5. Operation of an IED installation without holding a permit

There are Indicators to monitor inspection activities, mostly based on input and output indicators (number of commissars; number of inspections carried out; number of installation inspected; number of fines issued). The extent to which the Annual Activity Plan is met is monitored twice a year.

IED (IPPC) inspections Total environmental inspections No of fines (IPPC) No of fines (total) Amount of fines (IPPC) € Amount of fines (total) €

2013 651 37,136 20 2,884 98,778 7,391,515

2014 993 32,171 25 2,018 165,628 5,580,708

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

2015 368 13,651 10 942 45,350 2,049,723

47

Conclusions • Different regulators are involved in IED Implementation in Romania • BREFs are taken in account on establishing biding conditions (including ELVs) in IED permits • A wide range of tools for enforcement is available • There is as yet no specific way to work for IED installations, but a new regulation on this matter is awaiting approval.

4.

Presentation of the results of the three working groups

Marinus said that his group (reporting to the public) had already presented results in Mons and he had subsequently taken part in a teleconference on how to make use of the results. Horst said that the results were very good and should go on the IMPEL website in open format. The publicly available results would show only where there was common ground and not the split views. Horst and Marinus would make a proposal on how it could be shown on the IMPEL website and seek comments. Hartmut spoke about his group’s work on levels of non-compliance. There were some concerns and it was agreed that it would be appropriate to look at the criteria again during the course of the meeting. Florin’s group looked at installations closing down. It was agreed that the results could go in the guidance book but that it would be helpful to have information about financial guarantees required in other countries.

5.

Presentation of the draft guidance book content

John had begun work on the guidance book using material already available within IMPEL and also Commission guidance (for example on baseline reporting). It was in fact a compilation of 34 documents. The outline structure of the guidance book had been considered since the Mons meeting and the structure had been revised in the light of comments received. Most IMPEL projects brought practitioners together and gave an opportunity to share experience but few had produced technical guidance. There were exceptions to this such as the project on IED Inspections. In any event, the guidance book should be a dynamic document which could be added to and amended over time. The main areas to be considered for the future were: • • • • •

BAT application (and how it was translated into emission limit values) Derogations ‘Beyond BAT’ where environmental quality standards are not met Permitting Baseline reporting (the Commission has produced some guidance)

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

48

More work was needed in Chapter 5.5 on site visits, checking of internal reports and verification of self monitoring. Related topics were IED and REACH, Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive, Seveso, Air Quality Directive and Environmental Liability Directive. It was important to agree the principles for guidance, the status of it and who was expected to use it. It came from a group of practitioners from some IMPEL member countries and was not a formal statement of what should be done. It represented good practice rather than best practice which was very difficult to define and always shifting. It was necessary to decide what should be included in terms of current practice (which was not guidance but background). There was general agreement on these points. One suggestion was that this might not become a living document and it could be described as good practice at a particular date. It would only be a living document if that was what members wanted. The Inspectors Guidance Book was seen as good practice to follow. The target audience would be regulators rather than Member States. There was a suggestion that Enforcement should be included as the final stage in the guidance book since inspectors also took measures to enforce. Feedback from inspectors to help improve the BAT process was lacking and this was something that Pieter’s group might consider. There was a question about the gaps in the guidance book. If they were to be looked at, other people would need to join the project as it was currently weighted towards inspectors.

6.

How to implement the working group results in the guidance book

Terry said that he, Horst and John had spoken with each of the group leaders and discussed with them how their findings might be adapted that it would fit into the guidance book. It was clear from the earlier discussions that guidance was more than a comparison of practice in different countries, valuable though that was as part of the process. The three groups that had begun work in Bremen considered that they were near to completing their guidance though it might be necessary to have some further discussions during the Bucharest meeting and on basecamp following the meeting.

7.

Possible structure of the guidance book

Horst was very happy with the first draft of the guidance book which gave a good overview of what was already done. The project on Doing the Right Things had included a guidance book on carrying out inspections. In this book it was possible to click on items which would then present the information you wanted to have. This could be more attractive for people to work with. Marinus gave a brief presentation of a mind map he had drawn up on how to use the guidance book, looking at it from the point of view of the users. Questions included who the users are, what do they

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

49

want and where, the structure of the information, the approach to be used, how to communicate it and how to keep it up-to-date. It was agreed that much of this would need to be put to Communications and IT experts, first of all to the IMPEL Communications Group. Front line inspectors were unlikely to use the guidance themselves as the approach set out in the guidance book would first need to be adopted by their organisations. It was more likely that organisations would check their own guidance against that in the guidance book and this could have an influence on the format. The Commission had made clear that projects like this should be designed to help all IMPEL members.

8.

Presentation on progress including first results of the two new working groups

Pieter described progress so far in the group working on BREFs. Challenges identified included: • • •

How to translate the emissions range into an emission limit value How to set compliance rules like reference periods and allowed exceedances How to set monitoring methods

He had invited more views which would be the basis for drawing up guidance. More information would be needed to identify good practice but so far it had proved difficult to engage the Commission. Since Member States were seconding staff to Seville to write BREF notes, it should be possible to involve one of those people (who also had experience with IED). On the group on self monitoring, Romano said that 10 member states had replied to the survey. Opportunities identified from self monitoring included: • • • • • • •

Trends in environmental performance Overview of the evolution of emissions over the year Establish critical situations for next inspections Check adequacy of operator to self monitor its operations Compliance with permit Input to risk assessment Audit of operator’s measurements

Some open questions included the content of the report (not only measurements but also consumption, calibration of the tools) and use of a template, the possible connection between self monitoring reports and PPTR, what do we want to achieve with evaluation of the report, who receives and evaluates the report. There could be issues over competitiveness on trends on resource efficiencies such that one member country had stopped collecting this information on a mandatory basis on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

50

A meeting of the baseline reporting project had taken place the previous day in Brussels. They had identified serious issues that were not clear in the Commission’s guidance. They were preparing a questionnaire and would produce additional guidance on baseline reporting to feed into the IED Guidance Book.

9. Presentations of breakout groups to the plenary meeting on the priority areas, including identification of good practice Hartmut reported back from the group that had looked at compliance levels. He said that they had looked again at the wording of the IED and concluded that it was not necessary to divide infringements between serious and important. Therefore, they would retain the system with three levels, namely minor, significant and serious. He would seek to make the conclusions of the group into guidance and would shorten the part giving examples. Marinus agreed that it would be important to have a single format for the guidance book. He would also include examples in his group’s section on reporting to the public. Horst suggested that the examples could be included as an annex to the guidance book. Horst said that the guidance book and the report would need to be ready by the end of October so contributions would be needed before then. Pieter spoke for the group on BREFs. They had looked at what IMPEL might do, had a small technical exchange and then considered possible next steps. There was a policy element to improving the BREFs and policy was not the role of IMPEL. They had therefore focused on practicability and enforceability with feedback based on the experience of practitioners. They would continue to gather information on practices through basecamp and would put the questionnaire on basecamp. They would aim to find common ground but considered that it would be necessary to have another face-to-face meeting of the group. Wulf spoke on behalf of the group looking at Tools. The group had identified two main goals: to find a good basic tool and explain why it is good; and build up a list of the other helpful tools (and possibly procedures too). There had recently been a project in Scotland on the use of new technology in tools and the results of that were on basecamp. It was agreed that compliance promotion would be included in the guidance book.

10.

Discussion on work priorities

It was agreed that the follow up project should, if possible, be on the same basis as the current one and not a smaller project.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

51

Marinus suggested that there should be joint inspections to provide an exchange of knowledge in small groups (maximum of three). The visiting inspectors should be involved in the preparation and reporting as well as taking part in the inspection itself. There could be three joint inspections in any one year and the two visitors could host the next inspections in their countries to provide continuity. These could be based on certain sectors which would mean that the focus would be on how to do inspections. Horst suggested that the Benelux area might be a good place to begin. It would be necessary to encourage organisations to want to do it and with minimum risk to make sure that people wanted to offer their time. The idea was supported though in some countries it would currently have low priority because of the amount of other work at present. In any event it would be helpful if those who took part could produce a short report of what they found different and similar. Colleagues in TFS already carried out joint inspections and it would be useful to ask them how they organized them. It was important to be clear on what the goals of the exercise would be. If any cases of non-compliance were found the leader should be the local inspector. It was agreed that a small working group was needed to take this forward. It could clarify the objectives (for instance, would this be a review or an audit)? The joint inspections should help identify minimum criteria for IED inspections and produce examples of good practice.

11.

Future structure of the project and discussion of the 2016 ToR

It was agreed that the ToR for 2016 should go forward for adoption in Luxembourg. The gaps mentioned in the guidance book would be considered as possible areas of work in 2016. As this year, there would be two project meetings and a workshop though the intention would be to have the workshop in September/October.

12.

Conclusions of the project

Much good work had been done. The topic groups (on reporting to the public, installations closing down and levels of non-compliance) would prepare guidance that John would be able to look at when he was back at the end of October.

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

52

Annex List of those present at the IED Implementation Project Team meeting in Bucharest, Romania on 1 and 2 October 2015. Romano Ruggeri Tomáš Augustin Vladimir Kaiser Jaakko Vesivalo Fabio Colonna Iñaki Bergareche Urdampilleta Maria Milagros Pereira Carnero John Seager Olivier Dekyvere Maria Enroth Antonio Quintas Francisco Negrao Chrystalla Stylianou Hartmut Teutsch Joanna Stępień David Canham Terry Shears Wulf Böckenhaupt Horst Büther Pieter Roos Marinus Jordaan Martine Blondeel Florin Homorean

2015 Report IED Implementation, Part 3, Version 2015-12-06

53