Page 1 of 7
Screening Regulatory Impact Analysis – Industrial Emissions Directive
Summary of Responses
1.
Introduction
In April 2008, the Screening Regulatory Impact Analysis on the proposed Industrial
Emissions Directive was published by the Department of the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government on its website (www.environ.ie). Comments were
invited from interested parties.
At the same time, the Department invited comments and circulated a copy of the
consultation paper to over 140 relevant stakeholders including Government
Departments/Offices, State Agencies, Regulatory Authorities including local
authorities, environmental NGOs, representative groups and associations and
private enterprises.
This document is a narrative overview of responses received as part of that
consultation process. It does not purport to be a comprehensive summary of those
views, but rather it identifies common points and issues which have implications for
transposition. Interested parties are advised to read the full text of respective
responses to get a comprehensive account of the views expressed by the various
respondents.
2.
Overview of Responses
6 responses were received by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and
Local Government in response to its Screening Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
on the proposed Industrial Emissions Directive.
The full list of respondents is outlined at Appendix 1.
categorised as follows:
The respondents are
State Agencies/Regulatory Authorities (4);
Representative Groups/Associations (2).
The acronyms used in referring to some of these respondents are also detailed in
Appendix 1.
In general, the responses welcomed the opportunity to comment on the proposed
Directive. The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) welcomed the proposal to
combine existing legislation into one proposal. All respondents identified issues of
concern, some common to more than one respondent. Bord na Móna (BnM)
expressed their concern for the future of 2 peat briquetting operations in the event
that smaller combustion plants (between 20 and 50 megawatt (th)) are to be
included in the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) system as is
proposed under the new Directive. The Enterprise Development Agencies asked
that elements of the proposed Directive should lead to specific discernible
environmental benefits without adversely affecting industry competitiveness. The
Environmental Protection Agency commented that it will require additional
Summary of Responses to Version 1 of the Screening RIA
Page 2 of 7
resources to deal with licensing a number of new activities proposed for licensing
under the recast IPPC Directive.
While the Irish Business Employers
Confederation supports the overall objective of the proposed Directive, they believe
that it is premature to recast the current IPPC Directive as it has yet to demonstrate
its full potential in terms of emissions reductions and it is essential to have more
experience before significant conclusions are drawn about its workability,
consistency and efficiency. The Wood Marketing Federation (WMF) confined its
comments to the inclusion of a new IPPC category on preservation of wood and
wood products with a production capacity exceeding 75 m3 per day compared to
the current threshold of 10 tonnes.
3.
Summary of Analysis of Responses
The responses submitted are presented below under broad headings, reflecting
the implications of the proposed Directive discussed in the consultation paper.
4.
Content of the RIA
Main Amendments to the Existing Legislation – Appendix I to RIA
Operators and Permits (Articles 4(2), 3(10), 5, 3(3))
The HSA is of the view that the proposed Directive should only permit two or more
installations operated by the same operator if the environmental conditions are
similar. The HSA asked what transitional arrangements would be put in place to
assist existing installations to assist Member States ensure compliance with Article
4 of the proposed Directive which obliges Member States to ensure that no
installation or combustion plant, waste incineration plant or waste co-incineration
plant is operated without a permit.
Best Available Techniques (BAT)
The Enterprise Development Agencies consider the elements of flexibility in the
present IPPC Directive as an important aspect of the Directive and consider that
this flexibility has worked well to date. The Agencies are of the view that flexibility
in the grant of installation permits and setting of Emission Limit Values (ELVs) and
derogations from BAT reference documents (BREFs) is an important part of
achieving a high level of environmental protection. Any change to this flexibility
may lead to reduced efficiency. While the agencies consider the BREF documents
as useful implementation tools their proposed more binding nature should not
occur at the expense of this flexibility. IBEC shares this view and advises that the
current Commission proposal to make BREFs more binding is not practical,
undermines the principles of cooperation and consensus, and cannot be supported
by industry. BATAELs-based permitting with a legally binding character and
without enough consideration of local conditions would impose a massive cost
burden on industry, in particular to small and medium sized enterprises and this
could lead to production cuts rather than encouraging investment in cleaner
technologies, and without a commensurate benefit for the environment as a whole.
IBEC is of the view that Member States should be able to set ELVs that exceed
values determined in relation to the BATAELs as described in the BREFs on the
basis of an assessment of the environmental and economic costs and benefits
taking into account the technical characteristics of the installation, its geographical
Summary of Responses to Version 1 of the Screening RIA
Page 3 of 7
location and the local environmental conditions. The HSA commented that
consideration should be given to allowing more stringent emission limit values
where such values would be required to protect man and the environment.
The Enterprise Development Agencies consider that in terms of information
exchange, stakeholders should have a central role to play in the selection of BATs
and their corresponding emission levels and that information exchange should
continue to be done on a collective and ongoing basis. The Agencies would prefer
the current Seville process, which is based on consultation with all relevant
stakeholders, to continue for producing BATs and ELVs rather than an increased
use of comitology. IBEC is anxious that the current structured and continuous
dialogue with stakeholders which they view as important for the IPPC Directive
should not be disrupted. IBEC is of the view that if comitology is the route chosen
by the European institutions, an explicit mechanism for consultation of
stakeholders must be introduced in the proposal following the principles of better
regulation and simplification and that, in addition, decisions taken by comitology
committees should be made subject to an impact assessment. IBEC is opposed to
any proposal that BAT would only be defined by the Commission. IBEC advised
that this would not be acceptable to industry and that the Commission Technical
Working Group comprising experts from various stakeholder groups, must continue
to define BAT.
IBEC is opposed to the proposal that when a new or updated BREF is adopted,
Member States would, within four years of publication, where necessary, have to
reconsider and update the general binding rules and permit conditions for the
installations concerned. IBEC considers that the proposed time period of four
years does not take into account the duration of investment cycles and service life
of equipment and will therefore lead to legal uncertainty that will trigger
disinvestments and possible plant closures and that this time period should be
defined on a case-by-case basis.
The EPA advised that Ireland has been an active participant in the Seville BREF
process, and close regard had been to the BREF documents in the development of
the National BAT Guidance Notes. The Agency further advised that the IPPC
licences they grant are written with the current BAT in mind and appropriate ELVs
and technological requirements are being faithfully observed in the licensing
process.
Compliance and Reporting Requirements
The EPA commented that they have achieved a very high standard in the areas of
compliance, enforcement and environmental improvements. All IPPC licences
granted by the Agency carry a requirement for the putting in place of an
Environmental Management System (EMS), of which continuous improvement is
an integral part. The Agency has developed and deploys a Risk Based
Assessment Methodology to determine the frequency of site inspections and audits
and the likely risk of environmental impact is weighted into decision making on
frequency of inspection.
The Enterprise Development Agencies support a streamlining of the existing
Directives dealing with industrial emissions with minimal substantive changes in
terms of reporting requirements. The Agencies view the additional information
Summary of Responses to Version 1 of the Screening RIA
Page 4 of 7
obligations in Chapter I and II of the proposed Directive (for example those relating
to the production of an annual compliance report or a soil status report) as matters
of concern.
The Enterprise Development Agencies advise that while it is important that small
and medium sized enterprises adapt to environmental challenges, it is of equal
importance that the compliance requirements of environmental legislation is
proportionate to expected benefits for the environment.
The EPA advised that they have no interest in adding to the administrative burden
of those licensed under the IPPC regime or indeed operators liable to the
provisions of other EU Directives.
The Agency commented that where
opportunities exist to cut the administrative burden on individual licensees as a
result of streamlining the EU legislation, parallel reductions in the resource inputs
by the Agency may also be possible.
Soil Monitoring and Remediation (Articles 15, 17 and 23)
IBEC questioned the rationale for introducing new soil and groundwater reporting
and monitoring requirements and the obligation to return the site to an initial state
defined in a baseline report. IBEC believes that very detailed descriptions of
measures (baseline reports) jeopardise the subsidiarity principle.
IPPC Activities (Chapters I, II, III & Annex I))
Bord na Móna (BnM) is opposed to the proposal in the Directive to include
combustion installations between 20 and 50 megawatt within the scope of the
IPPC licensing system. BnM operates two combustion plants both rated at a
nominal 20 megawatt thermal input in order to provide the power and heat to
facilitate peat briquetting at Derrinlough, Co. Offaly and Littleton, Co. Tipperary.
BnM advises that the technology required to lower emissions to newer and more
restricted levels is not readily available and consequently it would be extremely
expensive to replace the boilers currently in use at these facilities. An unbearable
burden on the economics of the peat briquetting operation where 250 people are
employed would result from the inclusion of these combustion plants in the IPPC
licensing system together with a resultant burden on the public who use this fuel.
IBEC commented that considering small combustion plants and operators
(including hospitals and universities) account for a fairly limited percentage of
environmental impacts, the inclusion of such plants in the IPPC system would
cause unnecessary bureaucratic burden and costs.
The Enterprise Development Agencies commented that for smaller industrial
activities which currently fall under the auspices of individual Directives and for
which IPPC licences are inappropriate, the Commission must ensure that such
entities remain similarly affected under the new proposals and that if this is not the
case that exemptions should be sought for these activities. The Agencies are of
the view that since 2007 existing installations have had to comply with the
provisions of the IPPC Directive and that industry here is seen to be well on the
path towards Best Available Techniques (BAT). The agencies would be keen to
see that the amalgamation of the Directives should avoid going beyond their
original scope.
Summary of Responses to Version 1 of the Screening RIA
Page 5 of 7
IBEC advised that they have always supported a streamlining of these Directives
with minimal substantive changes only. IBEC are of the view that the proposed
changes are far from being minimal since they constitute a complete change in the
philosophy of the respective Directives and introduce new fundamental
requirements such as lower Emission Limit Values (ELVs) or an extension of the
scope of the legislation. IBEC proposes that the original ELVs, definitions,
clarifications and guidance of the existing sectoral Directives should be maintained.
WMF expressed concern at the current situation in the EU, whereby in Northern
Ireland an IPPC licence or equivalent is not currently required if a water based
preservative is used. The WMF estimate that water based preservatives are now
used in 90% of the Republic’s wood treatment industry and given the current safe
design and operation of timber treatment plants and the fact that certain
substances are no longer in use in timber preservation, there is a strong argument
to remove treatment plants from the IPPC licensing system operating in the
Republic. The proposed Directive proposes to include the preservation of wood
and wood products with a production capacity exceeding 75 m3 per day within the
IPPC system. The WMF would welcome a level playing pitch throughout the EU in
terms of preservative usage, environmental protection and competition. The WMF
is seeking to have no volume threshold in the new IPPC category on preservation
of wood and wood products throughout the EU. However, the WMF recognises
that there may be valid reasons why the Commission would wish to retain a
threshold. If these reasons are satisfactorily outlined, the WMF can support the
proposal for the introduction of a production capacity threshold of 75 m3 per day, on
the basis that the same procedure would apply throughout the EU.
Other Miscellaneous Comments
The HSA asked that the proposed Directive should define what is meant by
significant pollution in Article 12 and also sought clarity as to whether odours are
considered emissions within the definition of pollution. The HSA asked that a
reference to the REACH Regulation be made within the proposed Directive. Under
Article 62.5 (b) of REACH an applicant for an authorisation may include a
justification for not considering risks to human health and the environment arising
from an IPPC permitted facility. The HSA recommended that an IPPC permit
application should outline (1) if substances listed in the candidate list of REACH
are used as part of the activity and (2) consider the risk to man and the
environment for substances listed in Annex XIV of the REACH Regulation that are
used in the process.
Costs
The HSA commented that they are not in a position to determine the cost
implications of the proposed Directive on Irish industrial activities and that
consultation with current IPPC licensed facilities and other key stakeholders would
be required to determine this impact. IBEC advised that the full extent of the cost
implications for business will depend on the final negotiated text when the
proposed Directive is adapted.
The EPA advised that the changes suggested in Annex I of the proposed Directive
which deals with IPPC activities will result in a number of new activities falling to be
licensed under the recast Directive, over and above what was required under the
IPPC Directive. The Agency advised that this will inevitably lead to additional
Summary of Responses to Version 1 of the Screening RIA
Page 6 of 7
resource requirements for the Agency in terms of licensing the ‘new’ licensable
activities.
5.
Conclusion
Most respondents welcomed the opportunity to express their views on the
consultation document and the proposed Directive.
The comments submitted will be considered as part of the negotiations on the
proposed Directive taking place at European level.
It is hoped that, having engaged in this consultation process, it will assist in
ensuring a greater understanding of the implications of the proposed Directive.
The Screening RIA will be subject to further amendment and refinement in light of
the final negotiated text when (and if) the Directive is adopted by the Environment
Council and the European Parliament, and as part of the subsequent transposition
of the adopted Directive into Irish law.
Environment Policy Section
15 September, 2008
Summary of Responses to Version 1 of the Screening RIA
Page 7 of 7
Appendix 1
List of Respondents
The following are the list of those who submitted comments on the Screening Regulatory
Impact Analysis on the proposed Industrial Emissions Directive.
Acronyms
Respondents
BnM
HSA
IBEC
EPA
Bord na Móna
Health and Safety Authority
Irish Business and Employers Confederation
Environmental Protection Agency
Enterprise Development Agencies (Enterprise Ireland, Forfás and
IDA Ireland)
Wood Marketing Federation
WMF
The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the Revenue
Commissioners, the Department of Health and Children and the National Roads
Authority also responded to the consultation paper but noted that they had no
observations to offer.
A copy of individual responses is available on request from: Environment Policy Section,
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Ardcavan Business
Park, Ardcavan, Wexford. (email: environmentpolicy@environ.ie)
Summary of Responses to Version 1 of the Screening RIA