Analysis of Member States first implementation reports on the IPPC Directive (EU-15)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT Directorate G: Sustainable Development and Integration Unit G.2 Industry and Environment Analysis of s first implementation reports on the IPPC Directive (EU-15) Final Report June 2004 LDK-ECO Environmental Consultants S.A. Athens, Greece

This report has been prepared by LDK-ECO Environmental Consultants S.A. It does not necessarily represent the views of the European Commission and therefore should not be considered as an official statement by the Commission as to whether a has implemented the IPPC Directive correctly or not.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the analysis of the completed questionnaires relating to the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive which were submitted by the s pursuant to the reporting requirements laid down in Article 16(3) of the Directive. The report covers the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 and is therefore limited to the fifteen countries that were EU s during that period. The information in the Sate replies was checked for completeness and compiled in tables. Any shortcomings in the replies were identified, and a comparison of the data was performed, question by question. Most reports submitted by the s (with the exception of Luxembourg, which did not submit a report) were of a satisfactory standard and completeness, but there were variations in the reporting standards, notably in the level of detail provided. A greater harmonisation in the scope of the replies in future reporting would be welcome, perhaps by the introduction of detailed reporting guidelines. Specific shortcomings identified in the replies are reported in detail in Table A: Completeness of Questionnaires, in chapter 2. This subsequently led to a detailed analysis of the status of implementation of the Directive in every, based on the information provided in the replies. The evaluation aimed to assess: (a) whether all the requirements of the Directive had been adequately transposed into national legislation and, (b) whether the requirements laid down in the Directive and the corresponding national legislation were being implemented in practice, i.e. applied by means of a functional and effective permitting system, to the degree that this was made possible by the replies. The results of this analysis are presented in detail, point by point, in chapter 3 and in particular in Table B: Status of Implementation of the IPPC Directive. Overall, it was established that the Directive had been adequately transposed in most s, but its implementation had been slow in some of them, particularly in those without prior experience in integrated environmental permitting, as witnessed by the limited number of permits issued for substantially changed or new installations during the reporting period. There are some specific requirements stemming from the Directive that had not been transposed or implemented adequately, but these generally vary from to. A requirement that was found to be lacking in a considerable number of s relates to the reconsideration and updating of permit conditions. Many s had not yet established clear reconsideration procedures that take into account all the criteria specified in Article 13 of the Directive. LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 3

EU-wide, 5545 installations were granted permits for substantial changes or as new installations during the reporting period, or approximately 12.6 % of all installations, but there is substantial variation between s. Many southern s s were lagging in the Directive s practical implementation, as construed from the data provided. The Directive requires all existing installations to achieve compliance by October 2007. There is a concern is that a disproportionate number of permit applications will be filed immediately prior to the deadline in s that have not adopted a phased approach for the review or updating of existing licences leading to the deadline. This may result in a disproportional load on the competent authorities, which may not be able to cope. A final point of concern is the fact that in many s no cases were reported where it was necessary to take additional measures because the use of best available techniques was insufficient to satisfy an environmental quality standard set out in or defined pursuant to Community legislation. This leads to some question marks as to whether this provision is actually implemented in practice in those s, although a possible explanation is that the best available techniques were in each case sufficient to meet the environmental quality standard. In judging the effectiveness of the Directive, the general view among s was that it is an effective tool in combating pollution from industrial installations, bringing a number of benefits, but some expressed the wish for greater uniformity and technical coherence with other Community legislation. LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction...7 1.1. Background... 7 1.2. Methodology... 8 1.3. The Project Team... 9 1.4. Structure of the Report... 9 2. Analysis of completed member state questionnaires... 10 2.1. General comments on the reports... 11 2.2. Recommendations on the reporting questionnaire... 11 2.3. Completeness of questionnaires... 14 2.4. Compiled information from the questionnaires... 23 3. Analysis of the status of implementation in the s... 107 4. Summary report on emission limit values... 118 4.1. Introduction... 118 4.2. General comments on the elv reporting... 119 4.3. Degree of response by... 121 4.4. Comparison of the ELVs by... 126 5. Summary of most important outcomes of the analysis... 133 ANNEX I: ANNEX II: EXAMPLES OF PERMIT CONDITIONS OTHER THAN ELVS THAT HAVE BEEN SET DIFFERENCES MEMBER STATE BY MEMBER STATE -OF ELV DATA AS REGARDS ITEM 7.3.1 OF 1999/391/EEC AND ARTICLE 16(1) ANNEX IIIA: COMPARISON OF AGGREGATED TABLES OF ELVS AT POLLUTANT LEVEL EXISTING INSTALLATIONS ANNEX IIIB: COMPARISON OF AGGREGATED TABLES OF ELVS AT POLLUTANT LEVEL NEW AND SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED INSTALLATIONS LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 5

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ALARA = As Low As Reasonably Achievable BAT = Best Available Techniques BREF = BAT Reference Document EIA = Environmental Impact Assessment EIPPCB = European IPPC Bureau ELV = Emission Limit Value EQS = Environmental Quality Standard IPPC = Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control MS = (s) MEMBER STATE ABBREVIATIONS AT BE/B BE/F BE/W DK FI FR DE EL IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK Austria Belgium - Brussels Region Belgium - Flemish Region Belgium - Walloon Region Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 6

1. INTRODUCTION The aim of this report is to present the findings of the analysis of the completed reporting questionnaires relating to the Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (the IPPC Directive). The report presents the outcome of a general survey and comparison of the data that was carried out, and provides detailed information about the implementation of the Directive in the 15 countries that were EU s during the reporting period 2000-2002. (The next reporting exercise in 2006 will cover all 25 EU s.) 1.1. BACKGROUND Council Directive 96/61/EC Council Directive 96/61/EC (also known as the IPPC Directive, and hereafter referred to in this report as the Directive ) entered into force in October 1996, and came into effect 3 years later. Its objective is to apply the principle of integrated permitting to prevent or minimise air, water and soil pollution by emissions from certain categories of industrial installations in the Community, with a view to achieving a high level of environmental protection. In order to achieve this, the Directive lays down: a) the general principles governing the basic obligations of operators; b) requirements for the application for, issuing, reconsideration and updating of permits; c) minimum requirements to be included in any such permit; d) measures to ensure compliance with permit conditions; e) requirements relating to access to information and public participation in the permit procedure. An eight-year transition period is provided for during which existing installations have to be brought into conformity with the requirements of the Directive. Reporting Questionnaire (Commission Decision 1999/391/EC) Commission Decision 1999/391/EC established a questionnaire for the s to use as a basis for drawing up the report pursuant to Article 16(3) of the Directive. s were required to use this format for the first report, covering the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. The questionnaire consists of 45 questions grouped under 16 headings. The questions fall into three categories: a) Questions aiming to establish whether the has implemented the requirements of the Directive adequately and in coherence with other Community environmental instruments. LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 7

b) Questions aiming to gather useful information and data, and shed light on the different approaches used by the s to implement the Directive. c) Question 16.1, which asks s to judge the effectiveness of the Directive. The analysis of the questionnaires was carried in such a way so as to: Provide the reader with a concise but complete overview of the status of implementation of the Directive in the various s, highlighting any shortcomings in the implementation of individual provisions of the Directive. Summarise the essence of the information contained within each completed questionnaire, in the form of tables, enabling rapid reference and comparison between different approaches used in different s. These tables are supplemented by additional commentary whenever necessary. 1.2. METHODOLOGY The following tasks were undertaken in the process of the analysis of the questionnaires: 1. The data and information in the questionnaires was compiled in tables grouping the most important information provided by the s, in such a format as to enable easy comparisons to be made. 2. The data and information in the questionnaires was checked for completeness and shortcomings were identified. 3. A discussion of the data was performed, where appropriate. 4. A detailed analysis of the status of implementation of the IPPC Directive in every was performed, as far as this was possible from the answers in the questionnaires. 5. A summary report was prepared regarding item 7.3.1, and the differences compared to the data sent by the s pursuant to Article 16 (1) of the IPPC Directive were examined, by. 6. A summary of the most important outcomes of the analysis was drafted. LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 8

1.3. THE PROJECT TEAM The project was prepared by LDK-ECO Environmental Consultants S.A. (Greece). The full project team and their respective roles are shown in the table below. Expert Demetrios Economides Nikolaos Sellas Panayotis Triantafyllopoulos Katerina Korizi Sophia Papageorgiou Alexis Tsalas Fotis Evangelatos Position and responsibilities Team leader Industrial and IPPC expert Industrial and IPPC expert Expert in IPPC and EU Environmental Legislation Expert in IPPC and EU Environmental Legislation Environmental expert Environmental expert 1.4. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT This report comprises four main sections in addition to this introduction. Chapter 2 presents the analysis of completed s questionnaires, Chapter 3 analyses the status of implementation of IPPC Directive in the s, Chapter 4 gives an overview of the key findings in regards to the emission limit values (ELVs) and Chapter 5 summarises the most important outcomes of the study. Annex 1 provides examples of permit conditions other than ELVs, and Annexes 2 and 3 give analytical information on the examination of differences of data as regards item 7.3.1 of questionnaire (subject to Article 16(3)) and article 16(1) of IPPC Directive. LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 9

2. ANALYSIS OF COMPLETED MEMBER STATE QUESTIONNAIRES In this chapter, the information compiled from the s reports is presented and discussed. Tables have been used to present the compiled information in a more reader-friendly way and to enable ready comparisons to be made. The text in each cell is a summary of the most important relevant information in the s reply. The tables are accompanied by a brief discussion of the information, where appropriate. During the compilation process the s replies were checked for completeness. Data gaps or shortcomings that were identified are reported in Table A: Completeness of Questionnaires. A number of general comments and recommendations regarding the reporting questionnaire are also included in this chapter. Examples of permit conditions other than ELVs which have been set, provided by the s under item 7.3.2, have been grouped in Annex I, with little or no editing, considered unnecessary in view of their intended use as reference information. Notes: 1. The consultant s comments are in italics. 2. Luxembourg has not submitted a report; hence all relevant table cells are blank. LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 10

2.1. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE MEMBER STATE REPORTS The difficulties encountered by the consultant during the analysis of the completed questionnaires related mainly to the different reporting styles adopted by different s. Some Sates provided detailed answers to most of the questions, while others adopted a more laconic reporting style. While, in the latter cases, the answers were sometimes short but to the point, answering fully the item in question, on other occasions the answers were too brief and limited to provide any significant insight and a definite impression regarding the status of implementation of the particular requirement in that. Extensive answers were sometimes as much a problem as extremely laconic ones. In some replies no effort was made to organise and present the information in concise answers. Instead, some answers were unnecessarily lengthy and detailed, sometimes quoting entire sections from national legislation, making the consultant s task much more arduous. The consultant has not made any judgments based on the quality of the reporting when evaluating the status of implementation of the Directive. The assessment is based solely on the objective evaluation of the actual information provided in the replies. As a result, on many occasions it has not been possible to make an effective and solidly-based assessment, as the answers to some questions were very brief and generic, and did not provide enough detail or specific factual information, or in a few cases did not answer the question at all. It should be kept in mind that while the analysis of the completed questionnaires can highlight shortcomings in the implementation of the Directive, it cannot replace the insight and factual information, particularly regarding the effectiveness of the actual practical implementation of the integrated permitting system. The questionnaire does provide information relating to the transposition of the Directive, the adoption of its specific requirements and, to some extent, the setting up of the administrative mechanisms and procedures to implement them, but it cannot provide an insight into whether the competent authorities have an adequate level of technical and administrative capacity, and whether the administrative procedures in place are effective; in short, the actual real-world effectiveness of the integrated permitting system. 2.2. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REPORTING QUESTIONNAIRE In this section, the consultant formulates a number of recommendations on the reporting questionnaire, with view to more informative and efficient reporting in the future. The questionnaire for the second reporting period (2003-2005) had already been established (Commission Decision 2003/241/EC), prior to the preparation of the present report. However, the consultant believes that the consideration of the following recommendations for the third reporting period, or, if possible, through an amendment or through the adoption of reporting guidelines, for the second reporting period, will bring about improvements in the quality of reporting by the s. LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 11

Some questions may need to become more specific in their formulation: The second part of question 7.1.1 proved to be problematic, probably because it was not clear exactly what kind of information was expected (particularly in view of question 7.2.1 for emission limit values). Many s simply replied that national legislation requires these items to be addressed in the permit, while others provided more information, some detailing a specific methodology that is used to provide for those items. Overall, as a result of the ambiguity of the question, there was little coherence or uniformity between the answers provided to this question. The formulation of some questions can be altered so as to obtain more specific answers: For example, in question 7.2.2, many s felt it was not necessary to specify whether the guidance is binding or non-binding. Re-phrasing the question would make it more obvious that this specific information is also required (assuming that was indeed the intention): What kind of guidance exists in s concerning the release monitoring requirements to be included in the permit? Is it binding or non-binding?. This is also true for question 7.2.6. Other problematic questions were those with the following composition: What are the legislative provisions, procedures and practice for.... Where such questions were asked, s often simply made reference to the national legislation transposing the requirements covered by the question, and refrained from providing additional information regarding the actual procedures and practice. In the consultant s opinion, rephrasing the question using one different sentence for each fragment of the question would guide the s towards providing more pertinent and complete answers (e.g. What are the legislative provisions for.? Detail the procedures for. What is the actual practice for? ). This would have to be supplemented by specific answering directions, to ensure that those formulating the replies do not simply repeat the same information in the three different replies. A more standardised form of reporting could be sought, by offering more detailed directions on the information sought by each question, and the level of detail envisaged: The replies given vary greatly in length and detail between s. Achieving a more standardized form of reporting would result in greater homogeneity and harmonisation between replies from the different s. This would in turn enable a more precise general survey and comparison of the data during future reporting. More specific guidelines for formulating the replies could be provided, for example concerning the level of detail required and the indicative length of reply expected. This would lead to greater homogeneity and consistency between the answers from the different s. LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 12

Tables with tick boxes could be introduced for checking certain specific elements of the Directive s implementation: One idea would be the introduction of standardised tables, or even tick boxes with yes/no answers to specific questions, where possible. These could be supplemented by an additional section where the s are given the opportunity to elaborate. This would divide the information provided under the questions concerned into primary information and secondary (explanatory) information. Of course, it is not possible to apply this approach to all the items in the questionnaire. In the consultant s opinion the above changes should enable the Commission to extract more specific and useful information from s replies during future reporting. A final comment concerns question 2.1, which requires s to report permits issued to new or substantially changed installations during the reporting period, but not permits issued to existing installations (in cases where the have decided to implement this requirement before the 2007 deadline for certain categories of installations) or permits issued prior to the reporting period (in cases where permits were issued prior to 1999). Thus, three useful pieces of information cannot be determined from the data provided: (a) the total number of installations operating with an IPPC permit, (b) the total number of permits granted during the reporting period, and (c) the number of permits granted to existing installations during the reporting period. LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 13

2.3. COMPLETENESS OF QUESTIONNAIRES The reporting questionnaire used by the s is laid down in Commission Decision 1999/391/EC. It is provided here below to assist the reader of the report: QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 96/61/EC CONCERNING INTEGRATED POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL (IPPC) 1. General description 1.1. What are the main changes to national legislation and to the licensing system that were necessary in order to meet the overall aim of achieving integrated prevention and control of pollution arising from the activities listed in Annex I of the Directive? 2. Coverage of installations 2.1. For each of the six sections of Annex I, how many installations fall into the categories set out below? all existing installations, within the meaning of Article 2(4), in operation at the end of the reporting period, existing installations for which a substantial change was notified to the competent authority and for which a permit was granted during the reporting period, new installations (including those not yet in operation (for which a permit was granted during the reporting period)). 3. Basic operator obligations 3.1. What measures have been taken to provide that the competent authorities ensure that the installations are operated in accordance with the general principles set out in Article 3? 4. Existing installations 4.1. Is it envisaged to apply the requirements referred to in Article 5(1) to certain categories of existing installations before the end of the transition period mentioned therein? 4.2. By what date will new applications or supplementary information from existing installations be required in order to ensure that the requirements referred to in Article 5(1) are complied with by the end of the transition period mentioned therein? LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 14

5. Permit applications 5.1. How does national law ensure that permit applications contain all the information required by Article 6? 6. Coordination of the permitting procedure and conditions 6.1. Which competent authority or authorities are involved in permitting IPPC installations? 6.2. How does national law ensure that the permitting procedure and conditions are fully coordinated where more than one competent authorities are involved? How does this coordination work in practice? 7. Permit conditions 7.1. Completeness of permit conditions 7.1.1. How does national law ensure that the permit contains all the requirements specified in Article 9? In particular, give details on how each of the following items is provided for: limit values for emissions to air and water, minimisation of long-distance or transboundary pollution, protection of soil and groundwater, waste management, release monitoring requirements, measures relating to abnormal operating conditions. 7.2. Appropriateness and adequacy of permit conditions 7.2.1. What are the legislative provisions, procedures and criteria for setting emission limit values and other permit conditions, ensuring that they lead to a high level of protection for the environment as a whole? 7.2.2. What kind of (binding or non-binding) guidance exists in s for determining best available techniques? 7.2.3. How are the considerations mentioned in Annex IV of the Directive taken into account generally or in specific cases when determining best available techniques? 7.2.4. In particular, how is the information published by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(2) or by international organisations taken into account generally or in specific cases when determining best available techniques? LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 15

7.2.5. What measures have been taken to ensure that the emission limit values and the equivalent parameters and technical measures referred to in Article 9(3) are based on the best available techniques, without prescribing the use of any technique or specific technology, but taking into account the technical characteristics of the installation, its geographical location, and the local environmental conditions? 7.2.6. What kind of (binding or non-binding) guidance exists in s concerning the release monitoring requirements to be included in the permit? 7.3. Available representative data 7.3.1. Provide available representative data on the limits values laid down by specific category of activities in accordance with Annex I and, if appropriate, the best available techniques from which those values are derived. Describe how these data have been chosen and collected. The Commission may, before or during the reporting period, suggest guidance for responding to this question, for certain sectors, in particular on the basis of the information published pursuant to Article 16(2). In the absence of such guidance, the data may for example be expressed as ranges of limit values. 7.3.2. What types of permit conditions other than emission limit values have been set? In particular, give examples of: equivalent parameters and technical measures that supplement emission limit values set in the permit, equivalent parameters and technical measures that replace emission limit values, conditions concerning the protection of soil and groundwater, waste management, release monitoring requirements and measures relating to abnormal operating conditions. 8. General binding rules 8.1. Does national law contain the possibility of laying down certain requirements for certain categories of installations in general binding rules instead of including them in individual permit conditions? 8.2. For which categories of installations have general binding rules been established? What form do such rules take? 9. Environmental quality standards 9.1. How does national law address the need for additional measures in cases where use of best available techniques is sufficient to satisfy an environmental quality standard set out in or defined pursuant to Community legislation? LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 16

9.2. Have such cases arisen? If so, what kind of additional measures were taken? 10. Developments in best available techniques 10.1. What steps have been taken to ensure that competent authorities follow or are informed of developments in best available techniques? 11. Changes to installations 11.1. What are the legislative provisions, procedures and practice for dealing with changes made by operators to installations? 11.2. How do competent authorities decide whether a change in operation may have consequences for the environment (Article 2(10)(a), and/or whether such a change may have significant negative effects on human beings or the environment (Article 2(10)(b))? 12. Reconsideration and updating of permit conditions 12.1. What are the legislative provisions, procedures and practice concerning reconsideration and updating of permits conditions by the competent authority? 12.2. Is the frequency of reconsideration and, where necessary, updating of permits specified in national law, or is this determined by other means? 12.3. How do competent authorities decide whether the criteria specified in Article 13(2) are met? 13. Compliance with permit conditions 13.1. Describe in general terms the legislative provisions, procedures and practice ensuring compliance with the permit requirements. 13.2. Which legislative provisions, procedures and practice ensure that operators regularly inform authorities of the results of release monitoring, and without delay of any incident or accident significantly affecting the environment? 13.3. Does national law give the competent authorities the right and/or the obligation to carry out on-site inspections? 13.4. What are the procedures and practice concerning regular on-site inspections by competent authorities? If regular on-site inspections are not carried out, how do competent authorities verify the information provided by the operator? LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 17

13.5. What sanctions or other measures are available in cases of non-compliance with the permit conditions? Where such sanctions or other measures applied during the reporting period? 14. Information and participation of the public 14.1. How does national law provide for information and participation of the public in the permit procedure? 14.2. How is the information about applications, decisions, and the results of release monitoring made available to the public? 14.3. What measures have been taken to ensure that the public is aware of its right to comment on the documents referred to in Article 15(1)? 14.4. How much time is there for the public to comment on permit applications before the competent authority reaches its decision? 14.5. How do the authorities consider the comments of the public when taking their decisions? 14.6. In what circumstances can members of the public lodge an appeal to another authority or court against a permit? 14.7. What influence have the restrictions laid down in Article 3(2) and (3) of Directive 90/313/EEC had on access to information and public participation in the permit procedure? 15. Transboundary cooperation 15.1. Does national law provide for transboundary information and cooperation or is the subject being left to bilateral or multilateral relations between or to administrative practice? 15.2. How is it established in practice whether the operation of an installation is likely to have significant negative effects on the environment of another? 15.3. How does national legislation and/or practice ensure adequate access to information and participation in the permit procedure of the public in the likely to be affected? Is such participation supplemented by a right of appeal? 15.4. How many such cases arose during the reporting period? LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 18

16. Relationship with other Community instruments 16.1. How do s view the effectiveness of the Directive, inter alia in comparison with other Community environmental instruments? 16.2. What measures have been taken to ensure that implementation of the Directive is coherent with the implementation of other Community environmental instruments? LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 19

TABLE A: COMPLETENESS OF QUESTIONNAIRES Key: Question is answered in a satisfactory manner. Question is only partially answered (data gap) or the answer lacks clarity or is inconsistent. Answer to the question is acceptable in itself but is inconsistent compared to other answers in the questionnaire. Question is not answered in a satisfactory manner (data gap). Not enough information is provided to enable the consultant to assess the status of implementation of the IPPC Directive regarding this particular point. Item AT BE/B BE/F BE/W DK FI FR DE EL IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK Item 1.1 1.1 2.1 2.1 3.1 3.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.2 5.1 5.1 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.2 7.1.1 7.1.1 7.2.1 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.2.4 7.2.5 7.2.5 7.2.6 7.2.6 7.3.1 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.2 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.2 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.2 10.1 10.1 11.1 11.1 11.2 11.2 12.1 12.1 12.2 12.2 12.3 12.3 13.1 13.1 13.2 13.2 13.3 13.3 13.4 13.4 13.5 13.5 14.1 14.1 14.2 14.2 14.3 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.5 14.5 14.6 14.6 14.7 14.7 15.1 15.1 15.2 15.2 15.3 15.3 15.4 15.4 16.1 16.1 16.2 16.2 Item AT BE/W BE/B BE/F DK FI FR DE EL IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK Item LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 20

Item Comments 1.1 IE: it is not clear, from the answer provided, whether the new legislation mentioned (PoE Act 2003) actually transposes the remaining Directive requirements, or merely provides for their future transposition. 2.1 BE/W: the data is not reported under the six Annex I sections. FR: available statistics in France do not distinguish between permits issued for substantially changed and new installations. DE: Germany reported numbers of activities, not installations (except for the total number of installations). The German data was additionally provided in the more detailed format specified in the new reporting questionnaire for the second reporting period (2003-2005). EL: no data was provided on substantially changed and new installations. IT: Italy reported the data under different categories than the ones specified in questionnaire; also, the data provided is provisional. 3.1 BE/B: requirement (d) from Article 3 of the Directive is not explicitly covered in the reply. BE/W: the question is not answered. EL: the answer is not very clear on whether all the general principles set out in Article 3 are actually taken into account. ES: the answer provided does not seem to correspond to the question. 4.1 IT: the answer is not consistent with the information provided under item 4.2. 4.2 BE/B: the question is not answered. BE/F: the question is not answered in sufficient detail. IT: the answer is not consistent with the information provided under item 4.1. 5.1 BE/B: the reply does not specify if all Article 6 information is covered by regional legislation. IT: while it is stated that "all" Article 6 information must be contained in the permit application, the list in the reply misses two of the requirements. 6.1 IT: the answer provided does not clarify what the exact situation is regarding large combustion plants; also, it appears that not all regions have identified competent authorities. ES: only the authority granting the permits is mentioned. 6.2 AT: it is not specified how the coordination works in practice. ES: the answer is inconsistent, as only one competent permitting authority is mentioned under item 6.1 7.1.1 BE/B: the answer lists the elements taken into account when setting permit conditions, not the permit's contents. BE/W: the answer does not cover all Article 9 requirements, and no details are given for the items listed in the question. DK, FI, DE, EL: the first part of the question is not answered. NL: the answer lacks clarity. 7.2.1 BE/W: questions 7.2.1 to 7.2.6 have been answered with a single reply, lacking clarity. BE/W, EL, IE, UK: the question is not answered in sufficient detail. 7.2.2 AT: the answer lacks clarity. BE/W: questions 7.2.1 to 7.2.6 have been answered with a single reply, lacking clarity. FI: the answer lacks clarity. NL: it is not clear whether these guidelines are used to determine BAT or whether they are more general guidelines. 7.2.3 BE/W: not specified. DK: reference is made to Denmark's reply to the letter of formal notice. ES, NL: the answer lacks clarity. AT, BE/B, IE, PT: the reply does not answer the "how?" part of the question. 7.2.4 BE/W: questions 7.2.1 to 7.2.6 have been answered with a single reply, lacking clarity. 7.2.5 BE/B, FI: the question is not answered. BE/W: questions 7.2.1 to 7.2.6 have been answered with a single reply, lacking clarity. NL: the answer lacks clarity. ES: no mention is made of the local environmental conditions. 7.2.6 BE/B: the question is not adequately answered. BE/W: questions 7.2.1 to 7.2.6 have been answered with a single reply, lacking clarity. 7.3.1 AT, FR, IT, NL, SE: it is not specified how the data was chosen. BE/B, BE/F, EL: no representative data was provided. ES: "See information enclosed in the TABLE and in the additional documents sent to the Commission" - the information is in Spanish. BE/W: Did not follow the format recommended by the Commission, data incomplete. IE: Data probably not really representative. 7.3.2 AT, BE/B, BE/W, FR, SE: examples are not provided for all categories, and are not provided under the categories specified. BE/F: no examples are provided. DK, DE: examples are not provided under the categories specified. PT, ES: the question is not adequately answered and no LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 21

examples are provided. 8.2 BE/W: the categories of installations for which general binding rules have been established are not specified. NL: the answer lacks clarity. 9.1 BE/B: it is not clearly specified whether this is provided for in regional legislation. 9.2 IE: the additional measures taken are not specified. 11.1 NL: the answer lacks clarity as it contains too many references to specific legislation. ES: the procedures and practice are not specified. 12.1 BE/W, DK, DE, PT, ES, UK: the practice is not specified. 12.2 FI: the answer lacks clarity. DE: it is not specified how the frequency of reconsideration is determined. SE: no indication of the frequency of reconsideration and how it is determined is provided (although it is stated in the reply to item 12.3 that the need for reconsideration is assessed, among other things, from the annual environmental reports that all operators have to submit). 12.3 BE/F, BE/W, IE, IT, NL, ES: it is not explained how competent authorities decide whether the criteria specified in Article 13(2) are met. PT: the answer lacks clarity. 13.1 NL, ES: the procedures for ensuring compliance are not detailed. 13.2 FI: the second part of the question is not answered. 13.3 DE: this question is not answered in the report. 13.4 BE/B: the answer lacks clarity. EL: only inspections to verify the information submitted in the permit application are mentioned in the reply. ES: the regularity or periodicity of inspections is not clearly specified. 13.5 DE: no information on sanctions applied during the reporting period has been provided (the answer refers the reader to the forthcoming implementation report regarding the Recommendation on minimum criteria for environmental inspections in s). EL, ES: it is not stated whether sanctions have been applied during the reporting period. 14.1 IT: the question is not answered. 14.2 PT: it is not specified how (by what means) the information is made available to the public (whether it is publicised). 14.3 IT: the part of the answer stating "...can on his own initiative..." needs to be verified. 14.4 FI: the period available for the public to comment is not clearly specified - one can only assume from the reply that it is 30 days. 14.5 FI: the question is not answered. PT: the question is answered indirectly. 14.6 BE/B: the reply is not considered appropriate, as it simply consists of a large excerpt from a legal text. BE/W, FI, FR, ES: the circumstances in which appeals can be lodged are not specified. 14.7 BE/W, IE, IT, PT, ES, SE: the influence of the restrictions is not specified. 15.1 BE/W: the reply does not specifically answer the question. 15.2 BE/F: the way in which this is established in practice for installations not requiring an Environmental Impact ment is not clearly specified. DK, ES: the way in which this is established in practice is not specified. 15.3 BE/B: the question is not adequately answered. BE/W: the answer lacks clarity and the right of appeal is not specified. DK: the answer lacks clarity. EL: the question is not answered correctly. DE, PT: the right of appeal is not clearly specified. IT: the second question is not answered. ES: the right of appeal is not specified. 15.4 FI: no precise data exists, and the reply is somewhat unclear/contradictory. EL: the question is not answered correctly. 16.2 AT: the answer lacks clarity. LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 22

2.4. COMPILED INFORMATION FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRES 1. General description 1.1. What are the main changes to national legislation and to the licensing system that were necessary in order to meet the overall aim of achieving integrated prevention and control of pollution arising from the activities listed in Annex I of the Directive? AT BE/B BE/F BE/W DK FI FR DE EL IE Main changes to national legislation and to the licensing system necessary to meet the overall aim of achieving IPPC Austria implemented the IPPC Directive by amending sectoral laws on installations, grouping and coordinating permit procedures. Changes were also made to provincial law. These changes differed from province to province. Most provinces created their own IPPC installation laws (although some of them were passed after the reporting period), but in some implementation has been via sectoral laws (it should be noted that in some provinces few, if any, installations fall under the provincial law regime). The requirements of the Directive have been integrated into national permitting legislation. IPPC installations were already subject to permit requirements since 1992, but the list of IPPC installations was modified in 1999 to cover the Directive s requirements more closely. No substantial changes were made, as an integrated permitting system already existed since 1991, and covered all Annex I activities, as it is wider in scope. New legislation was introduced in 1999 to bring national legislation more in line with the Directive and ensure compliance. The general objectives of IPPC are assured by the decree of 11 th March 1999 on the environmental permit, which entered into force in October 2002. Amendments were made to existing national legislation in order to incorporate the exact provisions of the Directive. A new (2000) general environmental protection law brought together previously dispersed legislative environmental protection provisions and introduced a uniform system of environmental permits and a single permit procedure. The main provisions of the Directive were already covered by pre-existing national legislation. Only minor changes were required to transpose the Directive and meet the overall aim of achieving IPPC. These concern the contents of the impact study: monitoring of emissions, remediation and the obligation to submit an operational report every 10 years. Permitting for Annex I installations had long existed. The Directive was transposed into national legislation together with other EC environmental protection directives mainly by means of a wider 2001 law, and through amendments to three sectoral laws. IPPC requirements now apply to a larger number of installations than those specified in Annex I, or installations with lower threshold values. A new law was adopted which amended the existing framework law for the environment. Pursuant to that new law two ministerial decrees were also adopted, to complete that transposition of the Directive. An integrated permitting system existed, covering many of the Directive s requirements. However, new legislation was required to transpose all the requirements of the Directive. Drafting of this legislation was in progress during the reporting period. That said, the competent authority adopted the principle of direct effect from when the Directive came into effect in October 1999, taking into account the Directive s provisions and requirements when issuing new permits. LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 23

IT LU NL PT ES SE UK Main changes to national legislation and to the licensing system necessary to meet the overall aim of achieving IPPC The IPPC Directive was transposed into national legislation by means of a new legislative decree. Subsequent regulations concerning permits refer to the general permitting system introduced by this decree. National legislation covers many of the Directive s requirements, and a number of changes have already been made to the national regulatory framework to comply with the overall aim of achieving IPPC. Further modifications are underway to bring national legislation more in line with the Directive. The Directive was transposed by means of a new decree-law. A Consultative Commission for IPPC, made up of representatives of relevant Ministries and business associations has been set up for the following, analysis, promotion and publication of BAT. The Directive was transposed by means of a new law. Old legislation was repealed for Annex I activities. Few changes were required to the Swedish legislation to meet the overall aim of achieving IPPC, as an integrated environmental examination of certain types of activities was already applied. New (1999) integrated environmental legislation introduced the requirements relating to energy usage and the requirement to take account of waste management. New primary legislation, together with specific Regulations for England, Wales and Scotland, replacing the 1990 IPC system: 1. Pollution Prevention Control Act 1999 (England, Wales and Scotland); 2. The Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (England and Wales) 2000; 3. The Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Scotland) 2000; 4. The Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002; 5. The Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003; 6. The Offshore Combustion Installations (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Regulations 2001; 7. Pollution Prevention and Control Ordinance 2001 (Gibraltar); (italics = primary legislation) A number of different approaches have been used by the various s in order to transpose the Directive. Those that already had an integrated environmental permitting system in place usually modified or supplemented existing legislation to cover any additional provisions and requirements brought about by the Directive. Some s chose to integrate the requirements of the Directive into wider environmental legislation or a wider permitting system (covering non-ippc installations as well). On the other hand, s without pre-existing integrated permitting systems introduced new legislation, directly transposing the Directive. LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 24

2. Coverage of installations 2.1. For each of the six sections of Annex I, how many installations fall into the categories set out below? all existing installations, within the meaning of Article 2(4), in operation at the end of the reporting period, existing installations for which a substantial change was notified to the competent authority and for which a permit was granted during the reporting period, new installations (including those not yet in operation (for which a permit was granted during the reporting period)). Data reported under this section by the s is summarised in the following table. In general, the information provided by the s covered the requirements defined in the reporting questionnaire, with a few exceptions. These cases are noted in the table. (comment) Annex I section Existing installations Permits for substantially changed installations issued during the reporting period Permits for new installations issued during the reporting period Installations for which a substantial change permit was issued during the reporting period as a percentage of total installations New installations for which a permit was issued during the reporting period as a percentage of total installations AT 1. Energy industries 42 4 0 9,5 0,0 2. Production and processing 63 2 3 3,2 4,8 of metals 3. Mineral industry 31 5 1 16,1 3,2 4. Chemical industry 65 4 5 6,2 7,7 5. Waste management 117 12 25 10,3 21,4 6. Other activities 88 8 2 9,1 2,3 Total: 406 35 36 8,6 8,9 BE/B 1. Energy industries 0 0 0 2. Production and processing of metals 3 0 0 0,0 0,0 3. Mineral industry 0 0 0 4. Chemical industry 1 0 0 0,0 0,0 5. Waste management 3 0 1 0,0 33,3 6. Other activities 4 0 0 0,0 0,0 Total: 11 0 1 0,0 9,1 BE/F 1. Energy industries 30 19 0 63,3 0,0 2. Production and processing 57 41 0 71,9 0,0 of metals 3. Mineral industry 13 8 0 61,5 0,0 4. Chemical industry 152 130 0 85,5 0,0 5. Waste management 48 37 0 77,1 0,0 6. Other activities 712 304 0 42,7 0,0 Total: 1012 539 0 53,3 0,0 LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 25

(comment) Annex I section Existing installations Permits for substantially changed installations issued during the reporting period Permits for new installations issued during the reporting period Installations for which a substantial change permit was issued during the reporting period as a percentage of total installations New installations for which a permit was issued during the reporting period as a percentage of total installations BE/W 1. Energy industries 2. Production and processing of metals 3. Mineral industry 4. Chemical industry 5. Waste management 6. Other activities Total: 201 18 2 9,0 1,0 DK 1. Energy industries 65 12 1 18,5 1,5 2. Production and processing 83 14 1 16,9 1,2 of metals 3. Mineral industry 52 2 0 3,8 0,0 4. Chemical industry 112 24 3 21,4 2,7 5. Waste management 259 33 3 12,7 1,2 6. Other activities 575 155 11 27,0 1,9 Total: 1146 240 19 20,9 1,7 FI 1. Energy industries 128 12 2 9,4 1,6 2. Production and processing 69 6 0 8,7 0,0 of metals FR (statistics available do not distinguish between permits issued for substantially changed and new installations) 3. Mineral industry 22 0 1 0,0 4,5 4. Chemical industry 81 11 3 13,6 3,7 5. Waste management 101 10 3 9,9 3,0 6. Other activities 241 13 6 5,4 2,5 Total: 642 52 15 8,1 2,3 1. Energy industries 274 84 2. Production and processing of metals 1303 351 3. Mineral industry 166 32 4. Chemical industry 1326 181 5. Waste management 523 21 6. Other activities 2826 174 Total: 6418 843 LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 26

(comment) Annex I section Existing installations Permits for substantially changed installations issued during the reporting period Permits for new installations issued during the reporting period Installations for which a substantial change permit was issued during the reporting period as a percentage of total installations New installations for which a permit was issued during the reporting period as a percentage of total installations DE (the numbers refer to activities, not installations) EL (the numbers refer to activities, not installations) 1. Energy industries 1093 238 22 21,8 2,0 2. Production and processing of metals 1908 289 66 15,1 3,5 3. Mineral industry 589 113 15 19,2 2,5 4. Chemical industry 2257 468 119 20,7 5,3 5. Waste management 1322 217 90 16,4 6,8 6. Other activities 2590 326 117 12,6 4,5 Total installations: 7705 1651 429 21,4 5,6 1. Energy industries 21 2. Production and processing of metals 42 3. Mineral industry 55 4. Chemical industry 54 5. Waste management 33 6. Other activities 142 Total installations: 324 IE 1. Energy industries 6 0 0 0,0 0,0 2. Production and processing 39 2 4 5,1 10,3 of metals IT (provisional data) 3. Mineral industry 13 0 1 0,0 7,7 4. Chemical industry 88 16 7 18,2 8,0 5. Waste management 79 10 6 12,7 7,6 6. Other activities 228 13 14 5,7 6,1 Total: 453 41 32 9,1 7,1 1. Energy industries 352 6 12 1,7 3,4 2. Production and processing of metals 1227 0 0 0,0 0,0 3. Mineral industry 678 0 0 0,0 0,0 4. Chemical industry 2065 0 0 0,0 0,0 5. Waste management 806 0 2 0,0 0,2 6. Other activities 3695 0 0 0,0 0,0 Total: 8823 6 14 0,1 0,2 LDK-ECO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 27