Analysis of the reports submitted by Member States on the
implementation of directive 2008/1/EC, Directive
2000/76/EC, Directive 1999/13/EC and further development
of the web platform to publish the information
Draft report on subtask 3: Analysis of Member States
implementation of IPPC and WI Directives – Annex A:
Member States IPPC factsheets
Report to the European Commission
Unrestricted Commercial
Issue1
April 2010
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Title
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States and the further
development of the web platform to publish the information
Customer
European Commission
Customer reference
ANV.C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Confidentiality,
copyright and
reproduction
Unrestricted
File reference
Reference number
Marie Leverton
AEA
Gemini Building
Harwell IBC
Didcot OX110QR
UK
t: 0870 190 2817
f: 0870 190 5545
AEA is a business name of AEA Technology plc
AEA is certificated to ISO9001 and ISO14001
Author
Name
Approved by
Name
Liesbet Goovaerts (VITO)
Katrijn Alaerts (VITO
Ive Vanderreydt (VITO)
Signature
Date
AEA Energy & Environment
iii
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Table of contents
Annex A
iv
5
AEA
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Annex A
Annex A sets out the detailed overviews of the Member States responses to the questionnaire.
For each Member State a individual fact sheet is drafted containing:
-
The main text given in the response to each qualitative question by means of a short
summary. This short summary presents the most relevant information provided by the MS in
relation to each question. The responses of the Member States are compared with the data
given in the previous reporting exercise, to see whether important changes have been made
during this reporting period. The questions are structured using the 5 main categories, used
in the reporting tool. The qualitative questions are further split into subcategories providing
an overview of specific practical approach and experiences of the Member States for each
of the main categories.
-
Presentation of the Member States quantitative data in tables;
-
The completeness table, which indicates the degree to which the answers comply with the
requirements of the questionnaire. The method described in the main report is used;
-
A summary on the status of implementation. This summary describes whether or not all
requirements are implemented into a functional and effective practical systems. In particular
the recent progress since the previous reporting made by the MS is assessed and the
implementation issues solved are enlightened.
These fact sheets were presented to the Member States for approval. All comments, clarifications
and additional information provided by the Member States were taken into account.
These fact sheets are used as the basis for the analysis made in previous chapters.
AEA Group
5
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Portugal
Overview of the answers
The table below presents the detailed analysis of Austria’s responses to each question of the
questionnaire, by means of a short summary or standardised answer where appropriate. Comments
regarding the adequacy of the answers in relation to the requirements of the questionnaire are
added where necessary.
AEA Group
6
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Table 1: Portugal – overview of the answers
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
1
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
Category: general description
Subcategory: National legislation and legal provisions
1.1
Have any significant changes been made since the last reporting
period (2003-2005) to national or sub-national legislation and to the
permitting system(s) that implement Directive 2008/1/EC?
No
Remarks
Reference to legislation (2003-2005)
The current reporting period (2006-2008) saw the publication of
Decree-Law No 173/2008 of 26 August (new IPPC Act) repealing
Decree-Law No 194/2000 of 21 August; of the new rules for the
licensing of industrial activities, known in Portuguese as REAI
(Decree-Law No 209/2008 of 29 October), applicable to the
licensing of IPPC and non-IPPC industrial units; and of the new
rules for the licensing of livestock activities, known in Portuguese
as REAP (Decree-Law No 214/2008 of 10 November), also
applicable to the licensing of IPPC and non-IPPC installations.
However, the method of implementation of the IPPC Directive
was maintained.
Decree-Law No 173/2008 of 26 August (new IPPC Act).
Level at which legislation apply
National.
Please describe the changes in 2006-2008
Amendment of existing legislation; new legislation.
Please describe the reasons for these changes
Part of an overall revision of the environmental legislative
framework; shift of competences between authorities (e.g. from a
national to a regional level).
AEA Group
7
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
Reference to new legislation or legislative framework
1.3
Describe any legally binding measures or administrative plans
established to ensure compliance with the requirements referred to
in Article 5(1) by 30 October 2007
1.4
Have operators been obliged to submit, or could competent
authorities request from operators the submission of, permit
applications for this purpose?
Remarks
AEA Group
The new IPPC Act: a) consolidates the legislation on IPPC that
had already been amended by Decree-Law 152/2002,
transposing Council Directive 1999/31/EC (Landfill Directive);
Decree-Law No 69/2003 (new rules on industrial licensing);
Decree-Law No 233/2004 and Decree-Law No 243-A/2004
transposing Directive 2003/87/EC on emission allowance trading;
Decree-Law 130/2005 transposing those parts of Directive
2003/35/EC concerning public participation; Decree-Law
178/2006 transposing Directives 2006/12/EC and 91/689/EEC of
on waste. b) Makes changes to the powers of the authorities on
the mainland: the Portuguese Environment Agency (APA), which
succeeded the defunct Environment Institute, remains the only
authority competent to issue environmental permits. c) Enhances
the role of the BREFs in the environmental licensing process,
clarifying that one of the reasons for refusing an application for an
environmental permit is the non-compliance of the installation's
operating conditions with the best available techniques (BATs),
specifically the failure of the installation to attain emissions levels
within the range of associated emission values (AEVs) for the
said techniques. d) The environmental permit is no longer
included in the installation permit (permit for the construction or
alteration of the installation) and is now included in the operating
permit (before the start of operations).
The relevant national legislation (IPPC decree) states that
applications must be made in good time to ensure that permits
will be granted before October 2007. The IPPC Consultative
Committee has taken actions mainly on BAT determination issues
with a view to help installation being in compliance in due time.
Financial incentives are also provided (under CSF III programme)
to encourage operators to obtain the permit before October 2007
(available till the end of 2006). Though the administrative state
authority together with the operators have addressed the concern
of speeding up the permit granting process and proposed a set of
actions, none gave rise to administrative plans.
No
The deadline for the submission of applications for environmental
permits was not defined by law.
8
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
1.4.1
1.5
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Comments
Question (Q)
If Yes, please explain:
Describe any changes made since the last reporting period in the
organizational structure of the permitting procedures (levels of
authorities, distribution of competencies, etc.):
Are there changes considering the involved competent authorities?
Remarks
1.5.1
Summary of MS response
If Yes, please explain:
AEA Group
The new IPPC Act changes the environmental licensing
procedures on the mainland and leaves one single authority with
responsibility for issuing the environmental permit – namely the
Portuguese Environment Agency, which also takes on
responsibility for ensuring public participation, disseminating
information and liaising directly with the entities responsible for
licensing
the
activity.
Coordination
with
other
licensing/authorisation arrangements in the environmental sphere
is also clarified - installations where waste management
operations take place are subject to licensing in accordance with
the applicable legal rules and the environmental permit;
Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits and Water Resource Use
Permits must be issued before the environmental permit and be
annexed thereto, although they remain in force as autonomous
and independent permits.
Yes
The five regional authorities are no longer included in the
licensing process and are merely consulted on matters falling
within their area of responsibility. Provision has now been made
for calling on accredited entities for the preparation of the
application for the environmental permit. The APA has also taken
over the public consultation. Coordination with other rules has
been clarified, and IPPC installations that are subject to licensing
or authorisation in the area of waste management, greenhouse
gas emissions and water resource use, must obtain the permits in
accordance with the specific instruments applicable, while the
environmental permit cannot be issued without the prior issue of
the greenhouse gas emission permit or the water resource use
permits. The "Single Report" was created: this provides that,
whenever operators are required to submit reports, data or
information to the Portuguese Environment Agency concerning
the monitoring of emissions in the installation in compliance with
various legal rules, they can submit a single report covering the
elements necessary for compliance with these rules, and the
frequency of the submissions must whenever possible be
9
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
established in the Environmental Permit.
1.6
Are there any particular difficulties in ensuring full co-ordination of
the permitting procedure and conditions, especially where more
than one competent authority is involved, as required by Article 7?
No
Remarks
1.6.1
If Yes, please explain:
1.7
Are there any legislation or guidance documents produced on this
issue?
No.
Remarks
1.7.1
If Yes, please explain:
1.8
What legal provisions, procedures or guidance are used to ensure
that competent authorities refuse to grant a permit in cases where
an installation does not comply with the requirements of Directive
2008/1/EC?
1.9
Have permits been refused so far?
AEA Group
The IPPC Act states that applications for environmental permits
can be refused on the grounds of the incapacity of the installation
to attain the emission limit values shown in the legal and
regulatory provisions in force; non-compliance by the installation's
operating conditions with the BATs, specifically the failure of the
installation to attain emission values within the range associated
with the BATs; unfavourable Environmental Impact Statement, in
cases where the procedure is subject to an environmental impact
assessment; unfavourable opinion on the location or rejection of
the Safety Report in cases where the serious accident prevention
procedure is used; refusal of the application for a water resource
use permit or a greenhouse gas emission permit.
Yes.
10
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
Remarks
Applications may be refused during the application processing
stage (refusal to examine the application because it does not
include sufficient elements to permit analysis) or at the technical
assessment stage (refusal because it does not meet the IPPC
requirements). They can also be considered as abandoned if the
operator does not reply to the queries raised.
If available, give information on the numbers and circumstances in
which permits have been refused (optional):
1.9.1
Total numbers of permits that have been refused within the reporting
period
55
1.9.2
Circumstances in which permits have been refused
IPPC requirements could not be met (BAT based permit
conditions); local environmental quality standards could not be
met (local environmental QS require permit conditions that are
stricter than BAT based permit conditions); installation did not
follow correctly the application procedure.
Subcategory: Specific Member States approach
Subcategory: Experiences of Member States
1.2
Have Member States experienced any difficulties in implementing
the Directive 2008/1/EC associated with the availability and capacity
of staff resources?
Yes.
Remarks
1.2.1
If yes, Describe these difficulties, for instance illustrated as
appropriate by data on current resources.
AEA Group
It has not been possible to retain human resources: high levels of
mobility have been observed. The specialists contracted did not
have any knowledge or experience of the industrial processes
covered by the ICCP, or of the documents relating to the best
available techniques (BREFs). The team has little experience in
environmental licensing and monitoring.
11
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
1.2.2
2
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
If yes, Describe any plans to address these difficulties.
Raise staff capacity; streamline implementing procedure; other.
Category: Permit application and determination process
Subcategory: National legislation and legal provisions
2.1
Describe any general binding rules, guidance documents or
application forms produced to ensure that applications contain all the
information required by Article 6, either generally or in relation to
specific issues (e.g. methodology for the assessment of significant
emissions from installations).
2.2
Describe any general binding rules or specific guidelines for
competent authorities that have been issued on the following issues:
2.2.1
the procedures and criteria for setting emission limit values and
other permit conditions
2.2.2
the general principles for the determination of best available
techniques
2.2.3
the implementation of Article 9(4)
AEA Group
The information contained in Article 6 of the IPPC Directive on the
content of the application is covered in national legislation - Article
11 of the new IPPC Act. The application form is provided for in a
specialised executive order (Ministerial Order 1047/2001 on
model permit application). The procedure for updating the
information contained therein is specified in a separate executive
order (Ministerial Order No 1252/2001) which confers powers on
the IPPC to update the permit application form.
For existing installations: examine historical figures for emissions
under normal operating conditions, determine the emission value
that the installation consistently attains and verify whether this is
within the range of emission values associated with the BATs
provided for in the applicable BREF. If this is the case, set this
value as an ELV. If it is higher, allow an adaptation period (to be
examined on a case-by-case basis with the IPPC operator) for
attaining the emission values associated with the BATs.
Analysis of the applicable BREF.
New installations - environmental permit issued only if the
operator uses BATs and anticipates emissions within the range of
emission values associated with the BATs. Existing installations:
adaptation period is allowed (examined on a case-by-case basis
with the operator) for implementation of all of the BATs and
attainment of emission values within the range associated with
the BATs.

12
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
2.13
2.14
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
For which categories of installations and which requirements, if any,
have general binding rules been established, as provided for by
Article 9(8)? (Q 8.1.1) Provide reference to the general binding rules.
No general binding rules have been established.
What form do such rules take (e.g. who establishes them and what
legal status do they have)?
No general binding rules have been established.
Who establishes them?
What legal status do they have?
Remarks
2.15
When applying such rules, is provision still made for taking into
account the local factors (mentioned in Article 9(4))?
No general binding rules have been established.
Remarks
2.16
If known, how many installations (either as an absolute number or a
percentage) were subject to these rules by the end of the
reporting period?
2.18
How do competent authorities decide in practice, under Article 12,
whether a “change in operation” may have consequences for the
environment (Article 10), and whether such a change is a
“substantial change” which may have significant negative effects on
human beings or the environment (Article 11)?
Changes leading to increased production capacity, the
consumption of new or more raw materials or fuel, or the
introduction of new technologies, may be considered substantial,
unless it is proven that they will have no significant and harmful
effects on humans and the environment.
2.20
Is the frequency of reconsideration and, where necessary, updating
of permit conditions (Article 13) specified in national or sub-national
law?
Yes.
AEA Group
13
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
2.22
Comments
Question (Q)
Remarks
2.21
Summary of MS response
Is there a time limit in the permits?
The maximum frequency of re-examination of environmental
permits cannot exceed 10 years (Article 18.2g of the IPPC Act), if
none of the situations described in Article 13(2) of the IPPC
Directive, as transposed by Article 20(3) of the IPPC Act, occurs.
Depends for each individual permit.
Remarks
The permits are valid for longer in cases where the IPPC
installation implements BATs and its emission values are within
the range associated with the BATs.
If determined by other means: What are those other means?
All of the permits have a period of validity: this period may not
exceed 10 years.
Give reference to relevant legislation, guidance or procedures
Permits need to be renewed in the case of expiry of the existing
permit or in case any of the cases described under Article 13 of
the Directive, occurs. There is also provision for the reexamination of a permit, set by legislation, at 10 years.
The IPPC operator must submit a new application for an
environmental permit no fewer than 75 days before the expiry
date set therein. Only those elements requiring updating need to
be submitted (Article 20(1) and (2) of the IPPC Act).
As there are no cases of substantial changes in the BATs arising
out of revisions of the BREFs, this legal provision has not yet
been implemented. When this occurs the operators of the IPPC
installations involved will be notified individually, through the
licensing coordination body, so that they can apply for a renewal
of their environmental permit (Article 20(4) of the IPPC Act) and
they must present a plan for the adaptation to the new BATs (and
any emission values associated with the BATs).
Article 20(4) of the IPPC Act.
2.24
What does the process of reconsidering and updating permit
conditions consist of?
2.25
How is the provision to reconsider permit conditions in cases of
substantial changes in the best available techniques implemented?
Give reference to relevant legislation, guidance or procedures
Subcategory: Specific Member States approach
AEA Group
14
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
2.3
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
How, in general terms, is the information published by the
Commission pursuant to Article 17 taken into account generally or in
specific cases when determining best available techniques?
2.4
How are the BREFs concretely used for setting permit conditions?
2.5
Are the BREFs (or part of them) translated?
The documents adopted by the Commission on BATs (BREF)
provided for in Article 17(2) are always taken into account for the
definition of licensing conditions both as regards the BATs to be
used in the installation and in the definition of the ELVs.
The production process is analysed with the corresponding
sectoral BREF used as a reference document for the BATs to be
applied. The ELVs are defined in the light of national legislation
(minimum requirement - if this is not met the environmental permit
is not issued) and the emission values associated with the BATs
defined in the BREF. For existing installations, if the emissions
history shows that the emission values associated with the BATs
have been complied with, an ELV is set within the range of the
emission values associated with the BATs, in accordance with the
emissions value under normal operating conditions. If the
operator does not attain emission values within the range of the
associated emission values and has not implemented all of the
BATs an adaptation period is granted, defined on a case-by-case
basis. If the operator has not implemented any BATs or does not
attain emission values within the range associated with BATs the
environmental permit is not issued.
No.
If available, provide a weblink on where these translations can be
found
2.8
Have environmental management systems been taken into account
in setting permit conditions?
No.
Remarks
Generally, within the same sector, no major differences were
found in the environmental performance of IPPC installations that
had an Environmental Management System (EMS) and those that
had none, with the exception of sectors 2.6 and 6.7.
If Yes, please explain how
AEA Group
15
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
2.9
2.10
2.11
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
What types of permit conditions or other measures have typically
been applied for the purposes of Article 3(f) (site restoration upon
definitive cessation of activities) and how have they been
implemented in practice?
What types of permit conditions relating to energy efficiency have
typically been determined (Article 3(d))?
How has the possibility set in Article 9(3) to choose not to impose
requirements relating to energy efficiency been used?
No IPPC installations have yet been definitively deactivated.
In addition to possible emission values associated with the BATs
related to energy consumption, defined in sectoral BREFs,
checks were performed on the application of national legislation in
relation to major energy consumers (installations consuming more
than 500 tonnes of oil equivalent: installations with lower
consumption can apply this legislation voluntarily), taking account
of the objectives defined in Directive 2006/32/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council.
All installations covered by EU ETS were not subject to
requirements relating to energy efficient.
Remarks
2.12
Have any steps been taken to ensure that, in accordance with Article
11, competent authorities follow or are informed of developments in
best available techniques?
Yes.
Remarks
If so, provide details
The authority competent to issue the environmental permits (the
Portuguese Environment Agency) is also the authority competent
to follow up the BREFs.
If not, what plans are there to meet this requirement?
2.17
Have cases arisen where Article 10 applies and the use of best
available techniques is insufficient to satisfy an environmental quality
standard set out in Community legislation (as defined in Article
2(7))?
AEA Group
No.
16
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
2.23
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
What is the representative frequency (or expected representative
frequency) for the reconsideration of permit conditions?
6 – 10 years.
Subcategory: Experiences of Member States
2.6
How useful, as a source of information for determining emission limit
values, equivalent parameters and technical measures based on
the best available techniques, is the information published by the
Commission pursuant to Articles 17?
Useful to very useful.
BREF Ceramic Manufacturing Industry: In the light of the date of
adoption (August 2007) an adaptation period was granted so that
operators could bring their emissions into line with the range of
emission values associated with the BATs defined in the BREFs,
specifically as regards particulate emissions. Additionally, a
conflict has been detected between the BATs (and associated
emission values) for this pollutant, which promote the use of
gaseous fuels, and the need to reduce CO2 emission permits
which promote energy recovery from biomass.
BREF General principles of Monitoring: not much used.
BREF Intensive Rearing of Poultry an Pigs; BREF Large
Combustion Plants; BREF Mineral Oil and Gas Refineries; BREF
Non-Ferrous Metals Industries; BREF Slaughterhouses and
Animals By-products Industries; BREF Surface Treatment of
Metals and Plastics and BREF Textiles Industry: significant
shortcomings.
BREF Production of Polymers: very general.
2.7
How could it be improved?
2.19
How many applications for ‘substantial changes’ were determined
during the reporting period? Provide the data by activity type,
referring to the template and notes laid down in part 2.
For most of the emission values associated with the BATs listed
in the various sectoral BREFs it is important to clarify the
conditions for checking the compliance of the emissions from
IPPC installations under normal operating conditions against the
emission values associated with the BATs listed in the BREFs,
particularly
as
regards
the
definition
of
average
daily/monthly/annual values, O2 levels in gases, etc.
8
activity IPPC 1.2 - 2; activity IPPC 2.6 - 1; activity IPPC 4.1a) - 3;
activity IPPC 5.4 - 1; activity IPPC 6.1b) - 1
3
Category: Compliance and enforcement
AEA Group
17
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
Subcategory: National legislation and legal provisions
3.4
Give reference to any specific regulations, procedures or guidelines
for competent authorities on this subject.
Atmospheric emissions: Decree-Law 78/2004 laying down
arrangements for the prevention and control of emission of
pollutants into the atmosphere, as well as another regulation
specifically applicable to the discharge of wastewater: DecreeLaw 236/98 establishing general emission limit values, as well as
other sectoral regulations.
Subcategory: Specific Member States approach
3.1
3.2
How do operators regularly inform authorities of the results of
release monitoring?
Electronically e-mail; information on paper.
Remarks
Data relating to the continuous monitoring of atmospheric
pollutants are sent electronically by e-mail. All other data are sent
in hard copy.
Provide information on the representative frequency for the
submission of such information.
Annual
Remarks
3.3
Is a periodic monitoring report submitted by operators?
AEA Group
In accordance with national legislation, the operators are required
to send reports on the monitoring of atmospheric emissions
(measurements must be taken twice a year a minimum of two
months apart, as a general rule) 60 days after the measurements
have been taken, to the competent CCDR (Commissions for
Regional Coordination – CCDR) in cases of regular monitoring.
Regarding the discharge of wastewater, the frequency of
monitoring and of the communication of results is defined in the
Water Resource Use Permit. The competent authorities (CCDR
and ARH) can increase the frequencies of monitoring. The
Portuguese Environment Agency can also require this to be
increased on the basis of the Environmental Permit. In the
Environmental Permit the operators are required to submit the
18
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
compilation of the emission values, in the Annual Environmental
Reports (AERs) to which the reports of any monitoring carried out
can be attached. Once the Portuguese Environment Agency has
checked the quality of the data provided the monitoring reports
are requested or the competent authority is contacted so that they
can be verified (CCDR in the case of emissions to air and the
River Basin District Administration for discharge of wastewater
into water or soil).
Remarks
3.5
To the extent available, and if not submitted in the reporting under
the Recommendation providing for minimum criteria for
environmental inspections in the Member States, provide
representative information, as regards installations falling under the
scope of Directive 2008/1/EC, on the carrying-out of on-site
inspections and the taking of samples (type, number, frequency).
The information requested was provided in response to questions
3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3 and 3.5.4.
3.6
What types of actions (e.g. sanctions or other measures) have been
taken as a result of accidents, incidents and non-compliance with
permit conditions.
Warning notice
Order remediation
Fine or penalty
(temporary) Restriction or suspension of activity
Subcategory: Experiences of Member States
3.5.1
(Optional) If available, provide the total number of site visits during
the reporting period.
2006: 313
2007: 134
2008: 189
3.5.2
(Optional) If available, provide the number of installations where site
visits took place.
2006: 313
2007: 134
2008: 189
3.5.3
(Optional) Are samples taken during site visits?
In some cases.
AEA Group
19
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
3.5.4
4
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
(Optional) If available, provide information on the type and number of
samples taken.
Samples of wastewater were collected as follows: 2006 - 56;
2007 - 24; 2008 - 24.
Category: Access to information, public participation
and transboundary cooperation
Subcategory: National legislation and legal provisions
4.1
What, if any, significant changes have there been since the last
reporting period to transposing legislation providing for information
and participation of the public in the permit procedure, as required by
Directive 2008/1/EC (Articles 15 and 16) ?
The only change was the transfer of responsibility for carrying out
the public consultation from the CCDR to the Portuguese
Environment Agency.
If there have been significant changes, please describe these
There have been no significant changes.
Subcategory: Specific Member States approach
Subcategory: Experiences of Member States
4.2
If there have been significant changes, what has been the effect
upon competent authorities, permit applicants and the public
concerned of the amended requirements?
No changes
Remarks
4.3
Have there been instances in the reporting period of the use of
Article 18 requirements in respect of transboundary information and
cooperation?
No.
If Yes, provide examples illustrative of the general procedures used.
AEA Group
20
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
5
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
Category: Other
Subcategory: National legislation and legal provisions
Subcategory: Specific Member States approach
5.3
What measures have been taken within national or sub-national
legislation or administrative arrangements to increase coherence
between implementation of the Directive 2008/1/EC and other
instruments?
Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment
Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident
hazards involving dangerous substances
Council Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of
emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the
use of organic solvents in certain activities and
installations
Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of
waste
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council establishing a framework for
Community action in the field of water policy
Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the incineration of waste
AEA Group
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA Directive) can run
concurrently with the environmental permit (IPPC Directive)
including the public consultation, but the decision pursuant to the
EIA Directive must always precede the decision pursuant to the
IPPC Directive (Article 16 of the IPPC Act).
The Risk Assessment (Hazards Directive) can run concurrently
with the environmental permit (IPPC Directive) including the
public consultation, but the opinion on the location or approval of
the safety report pursuant to the Hazards Directive must always
be issued prior to the decision pursuant to the IPPC Directive
(Article 16 of the IPPC Act).
The VOC Directive constitutes the minimum requirement for the
decision pursuant to the IPPC directive, which also includes the
provisions of the STS BREF.
The landfill Directive constitutes the minimum requirement, along
with the BAT, for the decision pursuant to the IPPC Directive.
The WP Directive constitutes the minimum requirement for the
decision pursuant to the IPPC directive, which also includes the
provisions of the sectoral BREFs (emission values associated
with the BATs) for the discharge of wastewater.
The WI Directive constitutes the minimum requirement for the
decision pursuant to the IPPC directive, which also includes the
provisions of the LCP BREF.
21
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants
into the air from large combustion plants
The LCP Directive constitutes the minimum requirement for the
decision pursuant to the IPPC Directive.
Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council establishing a scheme for
greenhouse gas emission allowance trading
If the IPPC installation is also covered by the Emissions Trading
Directive, ELVs applicable to direct emissions of greenhouse
gases, covered by the Emissions Trading Directive (Article 18(7)),
are not defined.
-
Regulation (EC) No. 166/2006 of the European
Parliament and of the Council establishing the
European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
Other:
5.4
Have measures been introduced at national or sub-national levels to
streamline the reporting requested by competent authorities from
operators under the Directive 2008/1/EC and other Community
instruments?
Remarks
No.
-
If yes,
(Optional) If available, provide reference to such measures, and any
possibilities that you see for improvement of the EU requirements in
this area.
Subcategory: Experiences of Member States
5.1
How do Member States generally view the effectiveness of Directive
2008/1/EC, inter alia in comparison with other Community
environmental instruments?
Remarks
AEA Group
Effective tool in combating industrial pollution
Tool is complementary to other community environmental
instruments
Tool overlaps with other community environmental instruments
such as:___ (please enter in remarks box below)
This is complementary to: Emission Ceilings (Directive
2001/81/EC of 23 October 2001), Protection of water resources
(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). It overlaps with:
The LCP Directive (Directive 2001/80/EC of the European
22
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
5.2
Based on relevant studies and analysis, if available, what have been
the estimated environmental benefits and costs (including
administrative and compliance costs) of implementing the Directive
2008/1/EC? Give references to these studies and analyses.
5.3
What is your practical experience regarding the interface between
the permitting requirements under the Directive 2008/1/EC and
other Community instruments which can apply to installations falling
under scope of Directive 2008/1/EC?
Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001); The WI
Directive (Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 4 December 2000), the Landfill Directive
(Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of
waste).
No.
Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment
Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident
hazards involving dangerous substances
Council Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of
emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the
use of organic solvents in certain activities and
installations
Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of
waste
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council establishing a framework for
Community action in the field of water policy
Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the incineration of waste
Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants
into the air from large combustion plants
AEA Group
23
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number
–
sub
question
reporting
tool
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council establishing a scheme for
greenhouse gas emission allowance trading
Regulation (EC) No. 166/2006 of the European
Parliament and of the Council establishing the
European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
Other:
5.5
Are there any particular implementation issues that give rise to
concerns in your country?
Yes
Remarks
If yes, please specify
AEA Group
Verification of the relevance of the IPPC thresholds established in
Annex I . And the use of the BREFs in the issue of environmental
permits.
24
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Member State quantitative data
The table below presents the data related to ‘Numbers of installations and permits’ (question 2.1 of the original questionnaire).
Ins tallation type
Installation type based on A nnex I activity to
Directive 96/61/EC
Pe r m its for ne w ins tallations
Pe r m its for e xis ting ins tallations
1. No. Of new
installation at the
end 2008
2. No. of permits
granted by end
2008
3. No. of existing
installations
operating at end
2008
4. No. of permits
granted under
A rts. 6 and 8 by
end 2008
11
11
5. No. of IPPC
permits
reconsidered but
not updated by
end 2008
Othe r data
6. No. of permits
reconsidered and
updated by end
2008
7. No., if any, of
outstanding
permits at end
2008 (in conf lict
w ith Directive)
8. No; of
installations
9. No of
applications f or
‘substantial
changes’
determined during
the reporting
period
1. Ene r gy
1.1. Combustion
18
15
1.2 Mineral oil and gas ref ining
2
2
1.3. Coke ovens
0
0
1.4. Coal gasif ication and liquef action
0
0
2.1. Metal ore roasting/sintering
0
0
2.2. Producing pig iron or steel
2
2
2.3 (a) Hot-rolling mills
0
0
0
0
3
29
2
0
0
2. Fe r r ous m e tals
2.3 (b) Smitheries
2.3 (c) A pplying f used metal coats
4
3
1
2.4. Foundries
9
4
5
2.5 (a) Producing non-f errous crude metals
0
0
2.5 (b) Smelting non-f errous metals
2.6. Surf ace treatment of metals and plastic
2
2
2
2
11
6
5
10
10
44
36
7
11
11
0
0
0
2
0
0
6
9
0
13
54
3. M ine r als
3.1. Producing cement or lime
3.2. Producing asbestos
3.3. Manuf acture of glass
8
8
3.4. Melting minerals
1
1
2
1
1
3.5. Manuf acture of ceramics
1
1
54
42
9
4.1. Producing organic chemicals
4
4
19
18
4.2 Producing inorganic chemicals
1
1
4. Che m icals (s e e note 8)
10
9
4.3 Producing f ertilisers
2
2
4.4 Producing plant health products/biocides
0
0
4.5 Producing pharmaceuticals
3
3
4.6 Producing explosives
0
0
20
17
2
2
11
0
8
3
55
0
23
11
2
0
3
0
5. Was te
5.1. Disposal or recovery of hazardous w aste
10
10
5.2. Incineration of municipal w aste
5.3. Disposal of non-hazardous w aste
5.4. Landf ills
18
18
3
1
0
1
29
25
3
5
4
1
16
13
3
19
17
2
30
2
1
47
6. Othe r
6.1 (a) Producing pulp
(b) Producing paper and board
1
1
6.2. Pretreatment or dyeing of f ibres or textiles
6.3. Tanning hides and skins
6.4. (a) Slaughterhouses
0
0
25
19
3
5
17
19
0
25
1
67
6.4 (b) Treatment and processing of f ood
products
5
5
62
61
6.4 (c) Treatment and processing of milk
1
1
8
8
6.5. Disposal or recycling of animal carcasses
2
2
6
5
1
6.6 (a) Intensive rearing of poultry
3
3
100
52
41
6.6 (b) Intensive rearing of production pigs
2
2
61
21
14
6.6 (c) Intensive rearing of sow s
1
1
13
10
6.7. Surf ace treatment using organic solvents
5
5
13
10
0
0
579
426
6.8. Producing carbon or electrographite
Totals
80
80
3
0
0
107
9
8
103
63
14
18
0
659
0
25
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Analysis of completeness
Table presents the level of completeness of the report of Portugal
Table 2: Portugal – Completeness analysis table
Question
number,
subquestion
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
26
Level of
completeness
Comments
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number,
subquestion
Level of
completeness
Comments
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
3.1
3.2.
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
27
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Analysis of implementation status
Portugal provides a good overview of the national legislation and the legal provisions in place to
ensure compliance with the IPPC Directive (including art 5(1)).
In Portugal, no significant changes have been made since the last reporting period (2003 - 2005)
to national legislation and to the permitting system(s) that implement the IPPC Directive.
Portugal has experienced difficulties in implementing the IPPC Directive associated with the
availability and capacity of staff resources. Plans to address these difficulties consist of raising
staff capacity and streamlining the implementing procedure.
Regarding the permit application and determination procedures, Portugal describes all relevant
procedures, criteria and general principles.
In general, the BREFs are regarded as useful - very useful, depending on the BREF. Portugal
notice also shortcomings in some BREFs. BREFs are used for setting permit conditions (ELVs).
To improve their usefulness/practicability To improve the BREFs, the normal operation
conditions, for which ELVs are determined, should be described.
Regulations, procedures, guidelines to ensure compliance with permit conditions and
enforcement are in place. Operators are obliged to report the results of release monitoring at the
annually. On-site inspections are regularly organised, and in some cases samples are taken.
Regarding information, public participation and transboundary cooperation no significant changes
have been made in Portugal since the previous reporting period. There was only an internal
change of responsibilities.
In general, Malta views the IPPC Directive as an effective tool in combating industrial pollution.
However the tool, i.e. the IPPC Directive, overlaps with other community environmental
instruments.
In Malta there are implementation issues that give rise to concerns. Verification of the relevance
the thresholds established in Annex I.
28
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
The Gemini Building
Fermi Avenue
Harwell International Business Centre
Didcot
Oxfordshire
OX11 0QR
Tel: 0845 345 3302
Fax: 0870 190 6138
E-mail: info@aeat.co,uk
www.aeat-env.com
29