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
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
Sweden
Overview of the answers
The table below presents the detailed analysis of Sweden’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: Sweden – 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
1.3
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)
-
No answer.
Level at which legislation apply
-
No answer.
Please describe the changes in 2006-2008
-
Please describe the reasons for these changes
-
Reference to new legislation or legislative framework
-
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
(See answer to question 4.1 in 2003-05 report.)
AEA Group
In 2005, the operators had to submit an environmental report
specifying how all the requirements would be met by 30 October
2007. The report also evaluated the extent to which the existing
permits or other binding documents of the installation covered the
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)
requirements and contained conditions on release monitoring and
abnormal operations.
The competent authority had to evaluate the report and all the
binding documentation referred to the operation of the installation
and review the permit, where necessary, to ensure compliance no
later than 30 October 2007.
(Ordinance 2004:989).
1.4
Have operators been obliged to submit, or could competent
authorities request from operators the submission of, permit
applications for this purpose?
No.
Remarks
The competent authorities can request an examination of the
permit conditions, to ensure the permit meets the requirements
referred in Art. 5(1) of the IPPC Directive.
1.4.1
If Yes, please explain:
-
1.5
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
If Yes, please explain:
Certain activities previously examined by the environmental court
in first instance, are now examined by the county administrative
board for permit purposes and vice versa.
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
(See answer to question 6 in 2003-05 report.)
For IPPC activities the competent authority is either:

the Environmental Court (A activities), or

the County Administration (B activities),
Other authorities (Environment Protection Agency, Administrative
AEA Group
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
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Question (Q)
Services
Agency,
Rescue
Services
Agency,
county
administration, municipal board, and board of Fisheries) may also
be party to the case to look after specific environmental and
public interests and comment during the case.
-
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?
If the application is not complete, than the examining authority
may reject the application (Chapter 22, Section 2 of the
Environmental Code).
1.9
Comments
Have permits been refused so far?
If the requested activity is not in accordance with the BAT or the
general rules of the Environmental Code, Chapter 2, than the
application must be rejected.
However, under certain circumstances the government may still
approve the activity (Environmental Code, Chapter 2, Sections 910).
Yes.
Remarks
-
If available, give information on the numbers and circumstances in
which permits have been refused (optional):
-
AEA Group
No answer.
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
1.9.1
Main category
Summary of MS response
Comments
Total numbers of permits that have been refused within the reporting
period
-
No answer.
Circumstances in which permits have been refused
-
No answer.
Have Member States experienced any difficulties in implementing
the Directive 2008/1/EC associated with the availability and capacity
of staff resources?
No.
Answer in contradiction with remark.
Remarks
Difficulties in implementing art. 5(1) of the IPPC Directive for all
installations.
1.2.1
If yes, Describe these difficulties, for instance illustrated as
appropriate by data on current resources.
-
No answer.
1.2.2
If yes, Describe any plans to address these difficulties.
-
No answer.
2
Category: Permit application and determination process
1.9.2
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Question (Q)
Subcategory: Specific Member States approach
Subcategory: Experiences of Member States
1.2
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).
AEA Group
(See answer to question 5 in the 2003-05 report.)
The content of permit applications is specified in national
legislation (Environment Code, chapter 19 and 22).
The competent authority may also prescribe conditions by virtue
of the provisions of art. 3 of IPPC Directive (Environment Code,
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)
chapter 2).
The requirements depend to a great extent on the type and extent
of the activity in each individual case. The competent authority
must supervise and continuously assess whether the conditions
are adequate (Environmental Code, chapter 26).
If the competent authority finds the application incomplete, it will
order the applicant to rectify the deficiency by a specific deadline.
The application undergoes a procedure, in accordance with
established long-standing practice, in which the application is
submitted to various authorities to judge whether the application
needs to be supplemented before the case is notified for
evaluation.
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
(See answer to question 7.2.1 in the 2003-05 report.)
ELVs and other permit conditions are set for IPPC installation as
required by the national legislation.
In addition, a large number of general binding rules concerning
ELVs, protective and precautionary measures for different types
of activities also apply.
The competent authorities are obliged to ensure that permit
conditions are thoroughly examined and that all documentation
required for consideration is available. BREF documents are also
taken into account, while the national requirement for BAT goes
much further than the IPPC Directive’s application of BAT.
(See answer to questions 7.1, 7.2.1d and 7.2.2 in the 2003-05
report.)
BREFs, research reports, general advice and handbooks issued
by various expert authorities, as well as trade information sheets
are used for the determination of BAT.
2.2.3
the implementation of Article 9(4)
(See answer to question 7.2.5 in the 2003-05 report.)
National legislation provides for the consideration of the technical
characteristics of the installation, its geographical location, and
the local environmental conditions when determining permit
conditions. However, the technique to be used, may also be
AEA Group
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
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
specified in the conditions.
2.13
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.
2.14
What form do such rules take (e.g. who establishes them and what
legal status do they have)?
Who establishes them?
AEA Group

Combustion installations with a rated thermal input
exceeding 50 MW.
→ Emissions of NOx, SO2 and dust from combustion plants
with a rated thermal input of 50 MW or more; EPA rules
NFS 2002:26.
→ VOC emissions caused by use of organic solvents in
certain activities and plants, EPA rules NFS 2001:11.
Storage of inflammable liquids in open tanks in fields, EPA
rules NFS 2003:24.
→ Discharge of industrial waste water containing certain
substances, EPA rules NFS 1995:7.
→ Storage, processing, recycling and disposal of waste
comprising electrical and electronic products, EPA rules
NFS 2005:10.
→ Waste combustion, Ordinance SFS 2002:1060 and EPA
rules NFS 2002:28.
→ Landfill of waste, Ordinance 2001:512 and EPA rules
NFS 2004:10.
→ Handling of inflammable waste and organic waste, EPA
rules NFS 2004:4.
→ Own checks and measuring and sampling in certain
activities, Ordinance SFS 1998:901 and EPA rules NFS
2000:15.
→ Checks on discharges of NOx and SOx to the air from
combustion in fixed installations, EPA rules NFS 1991:4.

Installations for the incineration of municipal waste
(household waste and similar commercial, industrial and
institutional wastes) with a capacity exceeding 3 tonnes per
hour.
See Ordinance SFS 2002:1060 and EPA rules NFS 2002:28
Binding rules.
Frequently it is possible for examining or supervisory authorities
to set more stringent requirements.
In some case it is possible to derogate from requirements in
individual cases.
The Government or an authority authorised to do so by the
Government.
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
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
What legal status do they have?
Binding to operators.
Remarks
-
When applying such rules, is provision still made for taking into
account the local factors (mentioned in Article 9(4))?
Yes.
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?
-
No answer.
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)?
(See answer to question 11.2 in the 2003-05 report.)
(See answer to question 11.1 in the 2003-05 report.)
No description
added.
2.15
2.20
Is the frequency of reconsideration and, where necessary, updating
of permit conditions (Article 13) specified in national or sub-national
law?
AEA Group
of
substantial
The competent authority examines the permit application or
notification submitted, which both have to include the necessary
information for an assessment to be made. The threshold for
changes, for which a permit is not required, is significantly lower
than in the IPPC Directive. Not only the impacts but also the
extent of the change is assessed, which means that an increase
in production always requires a permit. National legislation
stipulates that changes intended for IPPC installations may not be
realised without a permit or notification (minor changes do not
apply). A description of what constitutes a substantial change is
included in legislation. In such cases, the competent authority
must be notified in order to examine the proposed change. Since
July 2005, a revision permit is issued in the case of a change in
an installation. A simplified procedure for insubstantial changes, is
in place.
No.
13
changes
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?
(See answer to question 12.2 in the 2003-05 report.)
The frequency is not set by national law, however, it is prescribed
that competent authorities may carry out a review (but are not
bound to) when 10 years have elapsed from issuing a permit (or 4
years for certain activities).
The competent authority is required to continuously assess the
sufficiency of the permit conditions granted, and initiate
reconsideration if necessary, for example based on the
examination of the annual environmental reports that all operators
have to submit.
No.
Remarks
It is possible to put a time limit on permits (Chapter 16, Section 2
of the Environmental Code), but this is not normally done.
If determined by other means: What are those other means?
(See answer to question 12.2 in the 2003-05 report.)
See 2.20.
Give reference to relevant legislation, guidance or procedures
(See answer to question 12.1 in the 2003-05 report.)
See 2.20.
2.24
What does the process of reconsidering and updating permit
conditions consist of?
(See answer to question 12.1 in the 2003-05 report.)
No answer to question.
See 2.20.
2.25
How is the provision to reconsider permit conditions in cases of
substantial changes in the best available techniques implemented?
Substantial changes to BAT are a reason for re-examining permit
conditions.
Give reference to relevant legislation, guidance or procedures
Environmental Code, Chapter 24, Section 5(1), (7), (8) and (10).
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
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?
(See answer to question 7.2.1c in the 2003-05 report.)
BREFs are used as a basis for the competent authorities' decision
on choosing the appropriate BAT for each case, together with
information from other international organisations.
The BREFs are used as laid down in Annex IV to the IPPC
Directive.
They are not specifically used for setting permit conditions. Nor
are they produced for that purpose.
No.
If available, provide a weblink on where these translations can be
found
-
Have environmental management systems been taken into account
in setting permit conditions?
No.
Remarks
-
If Yes, please explain how
-
2.9
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?
The submission of a closure plan:

in advance of the cessation of all or part of the activity.

to the supervisory authority for its approval.

containing necessary measures to avoid any pollution risk
and to return the site of operation to satisfactory state.
2.10
What types of permit conditions relating to energy efficiency have
typically been determined (Article 3(d))?
Permit conditions focus on e.g.:

a limitation of the energy consumption/use.

the installation of energy-friendly techniques.

the submission of an energy plan, regular energy audits and
energy reporting.
Sometimes these conditions fall under the general condition that
'the undertaking must be operated in the way the undertaking
2.8
Comments
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
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
indicated or committed to in the dossier'.
2.11
2.12
2.17
2.23
How has the possibility set in Article 9(3) to choose not to impose
requirements relating to energy efficiency been used?
All installations covered by EU ETS were subject to requirements
relating to energy efficiency.
Remarks
The possibility has not been used.
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
Letters have been sent to the competent authorities containing
information on the content of the BREFs, their legal status and
where they can be found.
If not, what plans are there to meet this requirement?
-
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))?
What is the representative frequency (or expected representative
frequency) for the reconsideration of permit conditions?
No (not for the 2006-08 reporting period).
No clear answer.
Answer in contradiction with remark?!?
Not possible to provide representative frequency.
Subcategory: Experiences of Member States
AEA Group
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
2.6
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Question (Q)
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?
How could it be improved?
Depending on the BREF: not useful ↔ very useful (as a source of
information when establishing BAT in individual cases).
Note: The information in the BREFs is not intended to be used
directly to establish emission conditions.
The production of new BREFs will be affected by the changed
role which BREFs appear to have in the Directive on industrial
emissions.
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.
No answer.
Not only 'substantial' changes are subject to a permit under
Swedish rules.
If a change is not to be subject to a permit, it must be a 'minor'
change and it must not result in the possibility of a nuisance to
human health or the environment.
3
Category: Compliance and enforcement
2.7
Comments
No clear answer.
No answer to question.
Subcategory: National legislation and legal provisions
3.4
Give reference to any specific regulations, procedures or guidelines
for competent authorities on this subject.






Ordinance (1998:901) on operators' in-house checks.
Ordinance (1998:908) on supervision under the
Environmental Code.
EPA rules SNFS 2006:9 on the environmental report,
Handbook 2001:3 on in-house checks,
Handbook 2001:4 on operational supervision.
EPA rules NFS 2000:15 on the implementation of
measurements and sampling in certain activities. Guidance
on the EPA rules on environmental reports (6.3.2009).
Subcategory: Specific Member States approach
3.1
How do operators regularly inform authorities of the results of
release monitoring?


Remarks
Reporting is increasingly being done electronically, e.g. to the
Swedish environmental portal (SMP). From 2007 all activities
subject to permit have been able to submit their annual
environmental report electronically.
AEA Group
electronically - on-line database.
Information on paper.
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
3.2
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Question (Q)
Provide information on the representative frequency for the
submission of such information.


Remarks
Relatively large activities report monthly as well as annually.
Is a periodic monitoring report submitted by operators?
Yes.
Remarks
See 3.2.
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).
Reference made to the information submitted under the
Recommendation.
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.
Inform prosecutor.
(temporary) Restriction or suspension of activity.
Suspension or revocation of (part of) permit.
Closure of activity.
3.3
Comments
Annual.
More frequently than annually.
No clear answer.
Subcategory: Experiences of Member States
3.5.1
(Optional) If available, provide the total number of site visits during
the reporting period.



2006: 2007: 2008: -
No answer.
3.5.2
(Optional) If available, provide the number of installations where site
visits took place.



2006: 2007: 2008: -
No answer.
AEA Group
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
3.5.3
3.5.4
4
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
(Optional) Are samples taken during site visits?
(Optional) If available, provide information on the type and number of
samples taken.
No.
The operational supervisory authority may require that samples
be taken by independent consultants at the expense of the
operator.
-
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) ?
Significant changes.
If there have been significant changes, please describe these
Act (2005:581) on environmental information held by certain
individual bodies has been added.
The act permits the public to have access to environmental
information kept by 'fishery conservation and game conservation
associations, water management associations and other private
bodies, if the information relates to an activity operated by the
private body which constitutes the performance of a public
management duty'.
In addition, non-State environmental protection organisations'
right to appeal has been extended by an amendment to Chapter
16, Section 13 of the Environmental Code.
Under the new provisions they may also appeal against, e.g.

rulings and decisions concerning individual conditions or
amendments to conditions (Chapter 24, Section 8 of the
Environmental Code),

the permissibility of an activity (Chapter 22, Section 26),

and the re-examination and revocation of permits (Chapter
24, Sections 3 and 5 respectively, of the Environmental
Code).
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
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
Subcategory: Specific Member States approach
Subcategory: Experiences of Member States
4.2
4.3
If there have been significant changes, what has been the effect
upon competent authorities, permit applicants and the public
concerned of the amended requirements?
Other.
Remarks
More information is accessible since even some private bodies
are covered by the duty to provide information. The general rule is
that information should be provided in the required form.
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.
5
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
AEA Group
No answer.
-
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
5.4
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
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
-
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:
-
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.
AEA Group
-
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)
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?
Effective tool in combating industrial pollution.
Remarks
-
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?
No answer.
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
-
AEA Group
No answer.
-
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
5.5
Main category
Subcategory: approach or experiences
Summary of MS response
Comments
Question (Q)
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
-
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:
-
Are there any particular implementation issues that give rise to
concerns in your country?
No.
Remarks
-
If yes, please specify
-
AEA Group
23
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).
Installation type
Installation type based on
Annex I activity to Directive
96/61/EC
Permits for new installations
1. No. Of new
installation at
the end 2008
2. No. of
permits
granted by end
2008
Permits for existing installations
3. No. of
existing
installations
operating at
end 2008
4. No. of
permits
granted under
Arts. 6 and 8
by end 2008
5. No. of IPPC
permits
reconsidered
but not
updated by
end 2008
6. No. of
permits
reconsidered
and updated
by end 2008
Other data
7. No., if any, of
outstanding
permits at end
2008 (in conflict
with Directive)
8. No; of
installations
(1+3)
9. No of
applications for
‘substantial
changes’
determined
during the
reporting
period
1. Energy
1.1. Combustion
1.2 Mineral oil and gas refining
1.3. Coke ovens
1.4. Coal gasification and
liquefaction
2. Ferrous metals
2.1. Metal ore
roasting/sintering
2.2. Producing pig iron or steel
2.3 (a) Hot-rolling mills
2.3 (b) Smitheries
2.3 (c) Applying fused metal
coats
2.4. Foundries
2.5 (a) Producing non-ferrous
crude metals
2.5 (b) Smelting non-ferrous
metals
AEA Group
24
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Installation type
Installation type based on
Annex I activity to Directive
96/61/EC
Permits for new installations
1. No. Of new
installation at
the end 2008
2. No. of
permits
granted by end
2008
Permits for existing installations
3. No. of
existing
installations
operating at
end 2008
4. No. of
permits
granted under
Arts. 6 and 8
by end 2008
5. No. of IPPC
permits
reconsidered
but not
updated by
end 2008
6. No. of
permits
reconsidered
and updated
by end 2008
Other data
7. No., if any, of
outstanding
permits at end
2008 (in conflict
with Directive)
8. No; of
installations
(1+3)
9. No of
applications for
‘substantial
changes’
determined
during the
reporting
period
2.6. Surface treatment of
metals and plastic
3. Minerals
3.1. Producing cement or lime
3.2. Producing asbestos
3.3. Manufacture of glass
3.4. Melting minerals
3.5. Manufacture of ceramics
4. Chemicals (see note 8)
4.1. Producing organic
chemicals
4.2 Producing inorganic
chemicals
4.3 Producing fertilisers
4.4 Producing plant health
products/biocides
4.5 Producing pharmaceuticals
4.6 Producing explosives
5. Waste
5.1. Disposal or recovery of
hazardous waste
25
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Installation type
Installation type based on
Annex I activity to Directive
96/61/EC
Permits for new installations
1. No. Of new
installation at
the end 2008
2. No. of
permits
granted by end
2008
Permits for existing installations
3. No. of
existing
installations
operating at
end 2008
4. No. of
permits
granted under
Arts. 6 and 8
by end 2008
5. No. of IPPC
permits
reconsidered
but not
updated by
end 2008
6. No. of
permits
reconsidered
and updated
by end 2008
Other data
7. No., if any, of
outstanding
permits at end
2008 (in conflict
with Directive)
8. No; of
installations
(1+3)
9. No of
applications for
‘substantial
changes’
determined
during the
reporting
period
5.2. Incineration of municipal
waste
5.3. Disposal of non-hazardous
waste
5.4. Landfills
6. Other
6.1 (a) Producing pulp
(b) Producing paper and board
6.2. Pretreatment or dyeing of
fibres or textiles
6.3. Tanning hides and skins
6.4. (a) Slaughterhouses
6.4 (b) Treatment and
processing of food products
6.4 (c) Treatment and
processing of milk
6.5. Disposal or recycling of
animal carcasses
6.6 (a) Intensive rearing of
poultry
6.6 (b) Intensive rearing of
production pigs
AEA Group
26
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Installation type
Installation type based on
Annex I activity to Directive
96/61/EC
Permits for new installations
1. No. Of new
installation at
the end 2008
2. No. of
permits
granted by end
2008
Permits for existing installations
3. No. of
existing
installations
operating at
end 2008
4. No. of
permits
granted under
Arts. 6 and 8
by end 2008
5. No. of IPPC
permits
reconsidered
but not
updated by
end 2008
6. No. of
permits
reconsidered
and updated
by end 2008
Other data
7. No., if any, of
outstanding
permits at end
2008 (in conflict
with Directive)
8. No; of
installations
(1+3)
9. No of
applications for
‘substantial
changes’
determined
during the
reporting
period
6.6 (c) Intensive rearing of
sows
6.7. Surface treatment using
organic solvents
6.8. Producing carbon or
electrographite
Totals
conditional formatting
columns
1
cell turns red
when > than
column 2
cell turns red
when > than
column 4
cell turns red
when > than
column 4
cell turns red
when > than
column 4
cell turns
cell turns
cell turns
orange when
orange when
orange when
sum (5,6,7,8) > sum (5,6,7,8) > sum (5,6,7,8) >
than column 4 than column 4 than column 4
cell turns red
when > than
column 4
cell turns
orange when
sum (5,6,7,8) >
than column 4
27
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 Sweden
Table 2: Sweden – Completeness analysis table
Question
number,
subquestion
Level of
completeness
Comments
1.1
The answer is not complete.
No reference made to legislation 2003 - 2005.
Level at which legislation applies is not mentioned.
1.2
Answer in contradiction with remark/No answer provided.
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
The answer is not complete.
Numbers and circumstances in which permits have been refused are not mentioned
(answer however optional).
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
No clear answer.
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
28
No clear answer.
Answer in contradiction with remark?!?
Unrestricted
Analysis of the reports submitted by the Member States
Framework contract No. ENV/C.4/FRA/2007/0011
Draft Report
Question
number,
subquestion
2.16
Level of
completeness
Comments
No answer provided (answer however optional).
2.17
2.18
No description of substantial changes added.
2.19
No answer to question.
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
No answer to question.
2.25
3.1
3.2.
3.3
3.4
3.5
No clear answer/No answer provided (answer however optional)
3.6
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.1
5.2
No answer provided.
5.3
No answer provided.
5.4
5.5
29
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
Sweden provides a concise overview of the national legislation and the legal provisions in place
to ensure compliance with the IPPC Directive (including art 5(1)). Some of Sweden’s answers are
however not clear/complete (see table above).
In Sweden, 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. Sweden
does not make reference to the legislation in 2003 - 2005 (question 1.1) and does not mention the
level at which the legislation applies.
Sweden has experienced no difficulties in implementing the IPPC Directive associated with the
availability and capacity of staff resources.
Regarding the permit application and determination procedures, Sweden describes all relevant
procedures, criteria and general principles.
In general, the BREFs are regarded as not useful - useful, depending on the BREF. BREFs are
however not specifically used for setting permit conditions. Ways to improve their
usefulness/practicability are not mentioned.
Regarding the follow-up of developments in BAT by competent authorities, Sweden has taken
steps. Letters containing information on the content of BREFs and their legal status are sent to
the competent authorities.
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
minimum annually. Operators of relatively large activities are obliged to report monthly.
Information regarding on-site inspections and taking of samples was not made available (question
3.5).
Regarding information, public participation and transboundary cooperation significant changes
have been made in Sweden since the previous reporting period, changes related to the
availability of environmental information to the public and the right to appeal against e.g.
individual permits conditions and the permissibility of an activity.
In general, Sweden views the IPPC Directive as an effective tool in combating industrial pollution.
30
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
31