EPA-100-K-08-003
July 2008
An In-depth Look at the United Kingdom
Integrated Permitting System
Exploring Global Environmental
Protection Perspectives /
NCEI
$
NATIONAL CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION
%
-------
-------
An In-depth Look at the United Kingdom
Integrated Permitting System
Exploring Global Environmental Protection
Perspectives
July 2008
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, Economics & Innovation
National Center for Environmental Innovation
www.epa.gov/permits/integrated.htm
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is the culmination of a two-year effort to research, assess, and document the United
Kingdom (UK) integrated permitting system. The report is based on literature reviews and
research along with site visits undertaken by United States (US) Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) staff, materials and feedback provided by officials from the Environment Agency
for England and Wales (EA), and input from additional EPA office personnel, state
environmental agency representatives, and other interested parties. In addition to personal
communications, sources of information for the report include material from EPA's research
efforts, UK internet and agency files, and texts and treatises by UK and US experts in the field.
EPA takes responsibility for any inconsistencies or misstatements in the report. We have striven
to incorporate comments and consider feedback from those knowledgeable and willing to
provide input about the topics discussed. To that end, we appreciate any additional thoughts
readers may have to offer regarding this report specifically or the collaborative effort more
generally.
We, the principal authors of this report, wish to acknowledge our sincerest appreciation to our
UK EA colleagues for their generous support of this effort, especially Jim Gray, Tim James,
Terry Shears, and the many others listed in Appendix A. The UK colleagues contributed
numerous documents, sound and thoughtful advice, and untold weeks of personal time (including
traveling to the US to support EPA conferences and hosting the EPA team in the UK).
We also wish to extend our gratitude to our state and EPA research team, network members and
others who may have provided written text and comments on this report and/or participated in
workshops supporting this effort (see the full list in Appendix A).
In closing, we wish to posthumously recognize Brenda Collington, a dedicated public servant for
29 years, for her enthusiastic participation in this effort. Brenda had a profoundly colorful,
energetic, and creative spirit, and she is deeply missed by all.
David Beck, EPA National Center for Environmental Innovation (NCEI)
Dave Bray, EPA Region 10
Lisa Comer, EPA NCEI
Shari Grossarth, EPA NCEI
Kristina Heinemann, EPA NCEI
George Wyeth, EPA NCEI
-------
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS
AFD
BAT
BACT
BATNEEC
BCT
BPEO
BMPs
BOD
BPT
BRE
BREF
CAA
CAFO
CAP
CAR1
CCS
CERCLA
CIA
CO
C02
COD
COMAH
CoPA
CWA
DEFRA
EA
EAL
EC
EU
EIPPCB
ELY
EMS
EPA
EPAC
EPP
EPOPRA
EP Regulations
EQS
ETS
GBP
HI
H2S
Air Framework Directive (EU)
Best Available Techniques (UK), Best Available Technology (US)
Best Available Control Technology (US)
Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost (UK)
Best Conventional Control Technology (US)
Best Practicable Environmental Option (UK)
Best Management Practices (US)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Best Practicable Control Technology (US)
Better Regulation Executive (UK)
BAT Reference Document (EU)
Clean Air Act (US)
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (US)
Compliance Assessment Plan (UK)
Compliance Assessment Report (UK)
Compliance Classification Scheme (UK)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(US)
Chemical Industries Association (UK)
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Control of Major Accident Hazards (UK)
Control of Pollution Act of 1974 (UK)
Clean Water Act (US)
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK)
Environment Agency (UK)
Environmental Assessment Level (UK)
European Commission
European Union
European IPPC Bureau
Emission Limit Value (EU) (UK)
Environmental Management System
Environmental Protection Agency (US)
Environmental Protection Advisory Committee (UK)
Environmental Permitting Programme (UK)
Environmental Protection Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal (UK)
Environmental Permitting Regulations (UK)
Environmental Quality Standards (EU)
Emission Trading Scheme (EU)
Great Britain Pound
IPPC Horizontal Guidance Note for Environmental Assessment and
Appraisal of BAT (UK)
Hydrogen Sulfide
in
-------
HAP
HMIP
HSE
IPC
IPPC
IP ICE
ISO
LA
LAER
MACT
MCERTS
MPP
NACEPT
NEPA
NCEI
NGO
NMVOC
NOV
NOX
NPDES
NPS
NSR
NSSC
OMA
P4
PM2.5, PM10
PPC
PPC Act
PPC Regulations
PPD
PSD
RACT
RCEP
RCRA
SIP
SPG
SPP
S02
TCM
TRI
TRS
TWO
UK
UKEA
UK EPA
Hazardous Air Pollutant (US)
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (UK)
Health and Safety Executive (UK)
Integrated Pollution Control (UK)
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control - EU Directive 96/6I/EC
Integrated Permitting International Collaboration Effort (US)
International Organization for Standardization
Local Authorities (UK)
Lowest Achievable Emission Rates (US)
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (US)
Monitoring Certification Scheme (UK)
Multi-Product Protocol (UK)
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (US)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (US)
US EPA National Center for Environmental Innovation
Non-Governmental Organization
Non-methane volatile organic compound
Notice of Violation (US)
Nitrogen Oxides
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (US)
National Permitting Service (UK)
New Source Review (US)
Neutral Sulfite Semi-Chemical
Operator Monitoring Assessment (UK)
Pollution Prevention in Permitting Program (US)
Particulate Matter (of 2.5 or 10 micrometers or less, respectively)
Pollution Prevention and Control (UK)
The Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1999 (UK)
The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations of
2000 (UK)
Public Participation Directive (EU)
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (US)
Reasonably Available Control Technology (US)
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (UK)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (US)
State Implementation Plan (US)
Strategic Permitting Group (UK)
Sector Permitting Plan (UK)
Sulfur Dioxide
Technically Competent Management (UK)
Toxics Release Inventory (US)
Total Reduced Sulfur
Technical Working Group (EU)
United Kingdom
United Kingdom Environment Agency
United Kingdom Environmental Protection Act of 1990
IV
-------
US United States
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WET Whole Effluent Toxicity (US)
WHO World Health Organization
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Permitting industrial facilities is essential for regulating environmental pollution in the United
States (US) and in many nations across the globe. Presently in the US, permitting is carried out
through multiple regulatory programs organized by environmental media (air, water, land). In
contrast, an increasing number of governments, most notably in the European Union (EU), have
been transforming their industrial pollution permitting regimes to an integrated approach, thus
regulating facilities in a more comprehensive and holistic way.
At the invitation of the UK Environment Agency (EA), the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) initiated the Integrated Permitting International Collaboration Effort (IP ICE).
The UK EA has been a dedicated partner throughout the effort. The objective of the effort was
to study the EU-mandated Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) permitting system
as implemented in the UK. In order to carry out the study, a network was created consisting of
interested EPA and state environmental agency representatives, as well as a multi-disciplinary
research team led by EPA's National Center for Environmental Innovation (NCEI) and including
members from EPA headquarters, EPA regional offices, and a state. The research team
embarked on a detailed analysis of the UK IPPC permitting system; the report is the product of
that effort. In order to accomplish this undertaking, the research team drew on available
literature and personal interactions and site visits with EA officials, UK industry representatives,
and members of the IP ICE network.
In brief, the report introduces the historical and cultural setting for the UK integrated permitting
system and provides information regarding the legal and organizational permitting structure and
function. In order to understand the UK system, detailed information is offered about the
permitting process and permit requirements. In addition, a comparative analysis is provided of
several individual permits in the UK and US for the pulp and paper sector and the specialty
organic chemical sector. Finally, the report delivers a series of findings regarding features of the
UK permitting system that are of particular note to US observers.
The report is not intended to render overall judgments on the relative merits of either the US or
UK system, and it does not represent or recommend changes in any current EPA permitting
policy, practice, or procedure. Rather, the report provides a foundation for - and hopefully will
further stimulate - additional consideration of innovative permitting practices in both countries.
UK Integrated Permitting
The UK integrated approach to permitting is more than just a consolidation or "stapling together"
of single-media permits. An integrated permit addresses each aspect of a facility's operation that
has an environmental impact, including energy, water, and raw material use. Integrated permits
also address pollution prevention, multi-media or cross-media interactions, facility management,
and long-term effects of facility operation.
Integrated permits were officially mandated in the EU in 1996 by the IPPC Directive. The IPPC
Directive establishes a goal of first preventing emissions to air, water, and soil (also taking into
vn
-------
account waste management) and second (where prevention is not practicable) reducing emissions
"to achieve a high level of protection for the environment as a whole." The IPPC Directive also
defines key permitting terms (including pollution and Best Available Techniques - BAT),
creating a permitting institution with common terminology EU-wide. The UK translated the
IPPC Directive into national law, passing the Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1999
(PPC). Building on the preceding UK Integrated Pollution Control regime, the PPC Act provides
the statutory framework for issuing integrated permits in the UK. The resulting UK IPPC system
is managed and implemented using a risk-based and sector-based approach.
The central component of an IPPC permit is the application of the common standard BAT
designed to prevent, abate, and control substance emissions to all three environmental media (air,
water, and land); address sensory effects and non-substance emissions (e.g., odor, noise, heat,
vibration); and ensure sound facility management practices and sustainable use of natural
resources. BAT in the UK context is a broader concept than similar standard-setting terms in US
statutes (which tend to emphasize specific technology-based pollution controls). Determination
of BAT in a UK permit relies on EU sector-specific technical guidance (BAT Reference
Documents or BREFs) and corresponding UK Technical Guidance Notes, while also talcing into
account site-specific factors, such as geographic, local, and facility-specific conditions.
Given the expanded scope of the IPPC Directive, IPPC permits contain a number of provisions
not found in most US media-specific permits. A typical IPPC permit includes conditions for the
following:
Management techniques (e.g., use of an environmental management system)
Materials inputs
Main activities and abatement
Emissions to groundwater
Waste handling
Waste recovery and disposal
Energy
Accidents and their consequences
Noise and vibration
Monitoring
Decommissioning
Emission benchmarks (including emission and effluent limits like those in US permits)
Vlll
-------
To obtain a permit, a UK facility operator must demonstrate in the permit application that BAT
has been, and on an ongoing basis will be, systematically applied to all activities with
environmental consequences. Final permit terms are fashioned by the EA subsequent to further
information exchange and negotiation with the operator as well as review and comment by
government and public stakeholders. The EA also maintains a public register throughout the
permit process and life of the permit.
The EA relies on the Environmental Protection Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal (EP
OPRA) tool, which provides approximate risk information, to plan and manage the internal EA
permitting workload and resources, target inspection and monitoring activities, and set permit
fees. EP OPRA does not assess risk directly but consists of a scoring system based on five
attributes that gauge the potential for environmental hazard and demand for agency resources
from the facility, operator performance, and compliance. EP OPRA is a central component to
what the EU and UK term "better" and "modern" regulation, that is, the government-wide effort
for regulation to be risk-based, targeted, and proportionate.
Lastly, the UK culture itself supports a collegial partnership between the regulatory agency and
the regulated community. The cooperative approach relies on continuing dialogue and
consensus-building between the EA and an individual regulated facility, beginning with permit
application and lasting throughout the life of a permit. For example, while the PPC regulations
contain formal enforcement mechanisms, the EA uses such actions rarely and tends to rely
instead on a setting of mutual cooperation. Generally, the EA views its primary objective as
ensuring the safety and protection of the environment and public health rather than punishing
polluters.
Findings
As noted earlier, EPA's goal for this report is to foster increased understanding both of the IPPC
system as a whole and of specific practices that, if successfully tested in the context of US
permitting systems, might improve permitting in this country. It is important to remember that
the UK system operates within a social, political, and historical context different than that of the
US. Therefore, it is unlikely that the UK permitting model could be replicated in the US
wholesale, even if that were deemed desirable. Rather, it is the hope of the research team that
these findings might stimulate thinking about ways to improve the US environmental permitting
system.
To that end, certain aspects of the UK integrated permitting system may interest policy and
permit experts alike. The findings that follow may assist the reader in (1) better understanding
and assessing the potential benefits and drawbacks of an integrated system in the context of the
US permitting approach; (2) identifying additional research and analysis on integrated permitting
approaches; and (3) exploring opportunities for applying lessons and aspects of the IPPC
approach and methodology in the US. Chapter 8 explores the following key findings in greater
detail.
IX
-------
UK Integrated System Uses Single Standard-Setting Concept to Set Limits and
Address Pollution Prevention and Sustainability
Fundamentally, the IPPC permitting system is a comprehensive multi-media, pollution-
prevention approach to environmental protection that also promotes sustainable practices (e.g.,
consideration of water and raw material use and energy efficiency). Implementation of the IPPC
system is based on a single standard-setting approach, BAT. In short, BAT is based on the most
effective and advanced stage of techniques and their associated performance ranges. BAT is
designed to achieve a high level of protection for the environment as a whole. In order to
facilitate the determination of BAT at each facility, the UK relies on a variety of cross-cutting
tools that support standard-setting across all environmental media. In contrast to the UK system,
the US approach relies on statutes that operate independently with relatively little
comprehensive, national direction by overarching statutes. In most cases, pollution prevention
and sustainability objectives, if considered at all, are approached through non-regulatory
partnership strategies. However, in many cases, the performance of US technology-based
standards is consistent with and falls within IPPC BA T performance ranges. On the other hand,
in contrast to the UK, cross-cutting multi-media tools and methodologies are applied rarely in
the US permitting process.
Regulation of Whole-facility Footprint is Foundation of UK Permits
A single IPPC permit is used to address all aspects of a facility's environmental footprint,
including conditions that prevent or reduce air, water, and land emissions; manage, recover, and
dispose of waste; and address pollution prevention and sustainability considerations. In contrast,
the US relies on separate media-specific permits for air, water, and waste, which in some cases
include conditions that address only certain portions of a regulated facility's operations. As
such, several US permits may be needed for any one facility, each focusing on individual media
and the impacts of specific pollutants. Few US permits, if any, include sustainability or pollution
prevention factors as permit conditions.
UK Permits Tailor Standards to Facility-Specific Conditions
Through the permit issuance process, a UK permit writer fits plant-specific conditions (facility
characteristics and local conditions) with sector-wide BAT indicated in the BREF or UK
technical guidance. For example, BAT-based numeric limits (known as Emission Limit Values
or ELVs and derived from sector benchmarks) may be adjusted in a permit to reflect local and
site-specific conditions. This includes both BAT-based limits adjusted to reflect environmental
quality standards or local geographic conditions (e.g., depletion of local aquifer) and facility-
specific characteristics and conditions (e.g., equipment and technology already in use at the
facility). Using this approach, IPPC permitting is able to mesh local and facility-specific
conditions with sector-wide considerations. In addition, existing UK facilities not operating to
BAT indicated in guidance may be subject to improvement program conditions tailored to the
individual facility that move the facility towards (but not necessarily always as far as) the
indicated BAT. On the other hand, because of the facility-specific nature of the BAT
determination, some facilities will be able, and therefore required, to achieve or even surpass the
BAT indicated in guidance for some aspects of facility operation. In comparison, US
technology-based standards are established through national regulations and apply broadly to
sectors (with some accommodations within a sector, but not to the level of an individual facility).
-------
US regulators may make adjustments to national standards within a permit based on
environmental quality considerations; but except under limited circumstances, US standards are
not changed in a permit to take into account the circumstances of an individual facility, nor are
facilities legally subject to permit requirements for performance beyond the national or state
standards.
UK Permits Require Ongoing Focus on Continual Improvement
An IPPC permit is a living document - both reflecting the current performance at a facility and
driving continual improvement on the part of the operator. Permit conditions that include
implementation of an environmental management system and scrutiny of material inputs require
operators on an ongoing basis to seek opportunities for performance improvement. Moreover,
regulators and industry alike have an ongoing responsibility to keep abreast of the latest
developments and improvements in BAT. On a real-time basis this knowledge may be directly
applied to permit terms. In contrast, a US permit typically contains nationwide, sector-specific
emission limitations that offer little regulatory incentive for improving performance beyond
applicable limits. On a voluntary basis, US companies may participate in leadership programs
designed to motivate continual improvement, beyond-compliance performance, and stewardship
practices. In the US, rulemaking is often a necessary step for keeping standards aligned with
new technologies.
UK System Manages Environmental Permitting on a Sector Basis
Sectors play a significant role in the regulation of industrial emissions for both the EU and UK.
Sectors are the basis for the delivery of integrated and multimedia standards for IPPC (through
sector-based technical guidance on BAT). The UK also phased roll out of BAT standards on a
sector basis (through the PPC regulations that required demonstration of BAT in permit
applications within a specific window of time). On a strategic level, the UK manages IPPC
permitting and compliance assessment through sector-based planning, priority-setting, indicators,
and performance targets. In a number of cases, the US also uses sectors in the delivery of
regulatory requirements for media-specific statutes; however, except on very limited occasions,
promulgation of media-specific standards is not coordinated across a sector. Using sectors as
an overarching strategic management tool (e.g., for prioritizing, targeting, and measuring) is at
best piecemeal in the US - more often than not driven by narrower federal (sometimes
voluntary) program or state interests.
UK Legal and Permitting Structure is Flexible and Fluid
The PPC legal authority in the UK is less prescriptive and detailed than corresponding legal
authorities in the US (even the PPC regulations do not contain the complex detail of many US
statutes). Detail on determining BAT conditions is contained in non-binding guidance
documents, which allows the regulator to exercise additional technical discretion in setting
permit conditions. Such discretion is not generally provided to similar agencies in the US. In
part, the overarching legal framework in the UK results in a greater capacity to expeditiously
address new issues. The US does not have a corresponding, all-inclusive environmental statute
to address emerging challenges on a comprehensive, ongoing, and straightforward basis.
XI
-------
New Sources, Existing Source Modifications, and Permit Changes are Treated
Differently than in the US
For a new source in the UK, no IPPC permit or review is required until the source begins
operation (i.e., the facility operator does not obtain a construction permit). As a practical matter,
most new sources apply for their IPPC permit well before operation is scheduled to begin, and
often even before construction begins, so that BAT requirements can be ascertained prior to
committing resources to construction. Construction permits are not required by the US water
permitting program, but by contrast, the US has extensive pre-construction review for air
emission sources, which means that permits must be obtained before construction begins.
All permitted UK facilities must employ BAT. While new facilities will normally be expected to
comply with, or go beyond BAT indicated in the BREF or UK technical guidance, existing
facilities may be allowed to operate initially using techniques not at the indicated BAT. Where
existing facility operations fall significantly short of the indicated BAT, an improvement
program may be required. Despite this allowance for variation at particular existing installations,
the presumption under IPPC is that all facilities, new and existing, are subject to BAT standards.
In the US, it is typical for separate federal standards to be set for new and existing facilities
(where both types of facilities are regulated), with new facility standards being the more
stringent and roughly on a level with IPPC BA Tperformance ranges. As in the UK, new
facilities must meet standards upon startup; while existing sources will be given time to install
controls to meet applicable standards. However, particularly in the air program, some existing
facilities may be subject to little or no regulation, despite the fact that new facility counterparts
are subject to a federal standard. In general, the US federal system does not require existing
facility upgrades in areas of good air quality, unless an existing source makes a modification.
Changes to IPPC permits may be initiated by the facility or the EA to reflect operational or
process changes at the facility, changes in BAT, or changes in facility performance. Permit
revisions can tighten or loosen permit obligations, but must continue to reflect BAT for the
facility. Prior to making an operational or process change, an operator must notify the EA and
assess the environmental effect of the proposed change before it is actualized. The EA (usually
the area inspector) then determines whether a change requires a permit variation. In the US,
permit modifications are not generally initiated by the permitting authority to reflect changes in
facility performance. In contrast to the UK system, the US air permitting system includes
complex applicability provisions and thresholds to determine what permits are required before
physical (construction) or operational modifications may occur.
UK System Fosters High Expectations and Shared Responsibility by Operators
and Regulators
Fundamentally, the IPPC system requires facility operators to assume responsibility for the entire
footprint of a facility. The onus is on the operator (in the permit application) to propose and
demonstrate BAT for all environmental impacts of facility operations (rather than leave it
exclusively to the regulator to prescribe controls for specific sources and emissions). On an
ongoing basis, operators must also identify, and where feasible, implement performance
improvements. UK integrated permits also include a requirement of implied BAT whereby
facility operators are expected to prevent or reduce emissions from an activity, even if that
xn
-------
activity is not explicitly covered by a permit condition. Cumulatively, these comprehensive
requirements and expectations under the IPPC system are designed to promote a stewardship
ethic among facility operators. At the same time, EA staff must be technically equipped to
regulate all aspects of a facility covered by IPPC. On a facility-specific basis, EA permit writers
both set performance targets and evaluate techniques used to achieve targets. Some of the time,
this level of expertise results from prior experience in industry. Generally, US facility operators
have relatively limited obligations beyond the need to meet emission standards and do not have
to determine and address sources left unregulated or residual environmental effects. In contrast
to the UK, most attempts to influence stewardship behavior in the US stem from federal and/or
state voluntary programs, company or industry initiatives, international business standards, or
citizen group pressures - and are distinctly extra-regulatory. Additionally, broad, cross-media
technical expertise is not typically required of US permit writers, where permits usually are
media-specific and not generally subject to determination of emission limits on a facility-specific
basis.
UK Compliance and Enforcement Model Emphasizes Consultation and
Underlying Behavior Changes
The UK approach to compliance and enforcement can be described as a collaborative
negotiation. Beginning with the permit process, there is continual dialogue between the UK EA
and a regulated facility. Maintained throughout the permit cycle, this partnership is supported by
the IPPC system's reporting, monitoring, and inspection regime and the respective expectations
and responsibilities of both the UK regulators and the regulated community. During inspections,
EA inspectors and facility representatives may openly discuss operational issues. The facility
receives written results at the end of an inspection and can expect prompt written notification of
violations within days following the inspection. Once in the enforcement mode, cooperative
consultation (buttressed by the significant threats of unilateral, permit variation and revocation,
and ultimately criminal prosecution) continues to be the preferred method for addressing
noncompliance. Currently, no administrative penalty authority exists in the UK for the EA. In
practice, US federal and state permitting authorities also engage infrequent dialogue with
permitees during the permitting process. It is standard procedure for US inspectors to hold
closing conferences with facility representatives; however, a formal notification of violation may
take an extended period of time to arrive. For addressing issues of noncompliance, the US
system usually relies on its civil enforcement authorities, including judicial and administrative
penalty authority, as well as criminal sanctions where warranted.
All IPPC permit terms and conditions are enforceable and include traditional numerical limits;
equipment and work practice standards; and details on management system plans, pollution
prevention programs, waste minimization programs, and energy efficiency programs. Each
permit condition has accompanying requirements for testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting. In fact, the EA places more emphasis on "upstream" facility management, than on
"downstream" limit violations. In this regard, the EA prefers to bring an enforcement action for
underlying behavior, such as a failure to train employees adequately or to maintain and operate
equipment properly, in order to prevent a more significant environmental breach and
consequence. In comparison, because US permits seldom include requirements related to
activities such as management systems and pollution prevention and resource use, US
Xlll
-------
enforcement actions tend to focus on violations of numerical limits and other specific permit
terms, rather than on the underlying beha^nor that might lead to a violation.
UK Culture of Trust Shapes Public Expectations and Involvement
The degree of public involvement in the UK appears inextricably linked to its cultural and
historical backdrop - that is, one of public trust in the government complemented by a strong
cooperative relationship between regulators and regulated. Formally, the UK IPPC public
participation procedures are generally analogous to those in the US. The EA keeps the public
informed of permitting determinations by public registry and regular national reports. However
despite the effort, environmental groups (one type of public entity) appear less likely to
challenge national rulemakings, permit issuance or enforcement decisions than in the US. US
environmental groups frequently take legal action at the federal level to challenge the validity
and substance of national rules and at the state level to challenge individual permits.
Agency Organization and Management Differs from that in the US
In the UK, regulatory responsibilities are split between the political, rulemaking Government
department, DEFRA, and the implementing agency, the EA. As the corporate body financially
responsible for environmental permitting, the EA must offset permitting expenses with revenues
- EP OPRA being the tool that allows the EA to do this. In contrast, at the federal level in the
US, political leadership and national rulemaking are functions of the US EPA whereas
implementation and enforcement are shared between EPA and the states. The EPA is also not
subject to the same revenues and expenses balance sheet pressures on a program-by-program
basis as is the EA.
UK System Linked to Broad Technological and Regulatory Developments and
Trends
The EU and UK IPPC system is designed to track changing conditions. On the standard-setting
front, the EU EC periodically updates BREFs in response to advances and changes to sector-
level BAT. Once this EU process is complete, the UK will reflect these changes in domestic
technical guidance on BAT. Ideally these changes will coincide with the EA periodic review of
individual IPPC permits, which would then be modified to reflect updated BAT standards.
Similar requirements and expectations exist in the US for updating standards and adjusting
permits to reflect such change; however, this is primarily a regulatory process which may occur
over a longer time period.
Additionally, in order to reduce burden on both business and government resources, the EU and
the UK are engaged in carrying out a "Better Regulation Agenda" in an effort to modernize,
rationalize, simplify and streamline government regulation. This has a significant influence on
the design and functioning of UK environmental regulatory programs (including integrated
permitting). Similar regulatory reform initiatives have been launched in the past in the US and,
although less clearly identifiable, may be present today.
xiv
-------
Next Steps
At this time, EPA is not recommending specific actions relative to the findings of this report.
Rather, we extend the work as a platform for encouraging further dialogue and possible
expansion of the integrated permitting experience in the US. Specifically, EPA continues to
invite interested stakeholders to develop opportunities for future research and for experimenting
with UK IPPC concepts that may lead to improvements in the US permitting system.
Readers interested in learning more can visit the EPA website at
www.epa.gov/permits/integrated.htm. In addition to the complete report and appendices, other
documents discussing potential research, programmatic, and policy options for experimenting
with integrated permitting approaches in the US will be available online. The report appendices
housed online include a great deal of supplemental information, such as the history of US
multimedia permitting efforts, further details on enforcement authorities and procedures in the
UK, among other topics.
xv
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to Integrated Permitting 1
The Expanding Use of Integrated Permitting in the EU and UK 2
Relevance of Integrated Permitting in the US 2
Potential Advantages of the Integrated Approach 3
Goal of the Study 4
Methodology for Research and Analysis 4
The Report in Brief 6
2. OVERVIEW OF IPPC AND PPC IN THE UK 7
Background of IPPC and PPC 7
Beginnings of Pollution Control in the UK 7
Shifting Toward More Integrated Pollution Control in the UK 7
EU Air Framework Directive 9
The UK Integrated Pollution Control System 9
EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive 10
UK Pollution Prevention and Control Act 10
Brief Description of IPPC and PPC 11
The EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive of 1996 ... 11
The UK Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1999 12
The Evolving Integrated Permitting Regime 13
"Better Regulation" 13
"Modern Regulation" 14
Organizations Responsible for Integrated Permitting 17
EU 17
XVll
-------
UK 17
Cultural Factors in Regulatory Implementation 19
3. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATED PERMITTING 21
The UK Integrated Permitting Regime: General Structure 21
TheEU IPPC Directive 22
UK Statutory Framework 24
UK Regulatory Framework 27
Threshold Permit Applicability Criteria 30
Setting Permit Limits: Emissions, Pollution Prevention,
and Sustainability 31
Permit Cessation and Site Closure 33
Regulating Authorities and Roles of Government 34
Relationship between EA and Operators 35
Enforcement and Compliance 36
The Enforcement Pyramid and Principles 37
Preventive/Remedial Actions 39
The Appellate Process 41
The Ombudsman 43
Public Information and Participation 44
Specific UK Requirements 45
4. OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATED PERMITTING 49
Implementing IPPC in the UK - Setting Permitting Priorities and Targeting
Resources 49
Sector Approach and Priorities 49
Sector Plans 52
PPC Sector Permitting Plans 53
Targeting the Greatest Potential for Environmental Harm 53
EP OPRA-A Brief Introduction 54
XVlll
-------
IPPC Permits: EU and UK Standard Setting 54
BAT 55
BAT Determination and Permit Requirements 56
Establishing BAT in the EU 59
Translating EU BAT in the UK: Technical Guidance Notes 63
Indicative BAT Standards 63
Emission Limit Values and Environmental Quality Standards 64
IPPC Permits: Conditions 65
Overview 65
Typical Perm it Contents 65
IPPC Focus on Pollution Prevention, Resource Use, Non-Substance
Emissions, and Continuous Improvement 67
UK Permitting Process and Tools 69
Overview 69
IPPC/PPC Process: Pre-Application Discussions 69
IPPC/PPC Process: Application 70
EPOPRA 73
UK Horizontal Guidance 75
H1: Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT 76
Determination of the Application 77
Improvement Programs 78
The Public's Role 79
5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF UK AND US PERMITS IN THE PULP AND
PAPER SECTOR 81
Methodology 82
Overview of Requirements in the UK and US 83
UK Perm it Requirements 83
US Perm it Requirements 83
Cross-walk and Analysis of UK Integrated and US Media-Specific
Requirements and Permits 84
Scope of UK and US Permits and Requirements 84
Relative Stringency 90
Comprehensiveness 90
XIX
-------
Numeric Limits 91
Pollutant Analysis 93
Abatement Techniques 95
Effect of Site-Specific and Local Conditions 96
Black Liquor Effluent at the UK Sudbrook Mill - An Example of a
Site-Specific Determination 97
Pollution Prevention and Continuous Improvement 98
Role of Econom ic Factors 100
Flexibility 102
Flexibility in Setting Permit Requirements 102
Operational Flexibility 103
Monitoring, Testing, and Reporting Requirements 106
EU/UK Monitoring Program 106
US Monitoring 108
Discussion and Conclusions on Monitoring and Testing 108
Integrated Decision-making at the UK Facilities 109
6. POST PERMIT ISSUANCE ACTIVITY 111
Compliance Assessment 111
Role of EP OPRA Scores in Compliance Assessment 112
Compliance Assessment Plans 113
Compliance Classification Scheme 114
Assessment Methodology 115
Enforcement of IPPC Permits 118
Enforcement Resources 118
Cultural Context and Mindset 118
Enforcing IPPC Permit Conditions 120
Perm it Review and Variations 121
Review 121
Variations 122
XX
-------
7. IPPC RESULTS 123
Environmental Outcomes in the UK 123
Regulated Sites Performing Better 123
Fewer Pollution Incidents 124
Fewer Releases to the Environment 124
Impacts on the UK Regulated Community 126
Industry Participation in BREF and Technical
Guidance Development 127
Perm it Application Costs 127
Annual Fees 128
Costs Required by Operators to Meet Permit Conditions 129
EA Contact and Facility Assistance 129
Improved Environmental Management 130
Competitiveness 130
EU IPPC Review and Future Direction of Directive 131
IPPC Review Issues and Discussion 131
Proposal for a New IPPC Directive on
Industrial Emissions 133
8. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS 135
Observations 135
Findings 137
UK Integrated System Uses Single Standard-Setting Concept
to Set Limits and Address Pollution Prevention and Sustainability 137
Regulation of Whole-facility Footprint is Foundation of UK Permits 138
UK Permits Tailor Standards to Facility-Specific Conditions 138
UK Permits Require Ongoing Focus on Continual Improvement 140
UK Manages Environmental Permitting on a Sector Basis 140
UK Legal and Permitting Structure is Flexible and Fluid 141
New Sources, Existing Source Modifications, and Permit Changes
are Treated Differently than in the US 142
UK System Fosters High Expectations and Shared Responsibility
by Operators and Regulators 143
UK Compliance and Enforcement Model Emphasizes Consultation
and Change in Underlying Behavior 144
UK Culture of Trust Shapes Public Expectations and Involvement 146
Agency Organization and Management Differs from that in the US 147
XXI
-------
UK System Linked to Broad Technological and Regulatory
Developments and Trends 147
Concluding Remarks 147
Next Steps 148
GLOSSARY 151
REFERENCES
159
APPENDICES (The following appendices, referenced in the report, are available online
at http://www.epa.gov/permits/integrated.htm.)
Appendix A: Supplement to Acknowledgements
Appendix B: EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive 1996
Appendix C: UK Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (Outline)
Appendix D: Integrated Regulation - Experiences of IPPC in England and Wales
Appendix E: US Experience: Integrated and Cross-Media Environmental
Regulation
Appendix F: Timeline of Integrated Permitting International Collaboration Effort
Activities
Appendix G: UK Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales)
Regulations 2000 (Outline)
Appendix H: EA Organizational Models for Permitting
Appendix I: Overview of Facility Type, Regulator, and Industrial Activity
Relationships
Appendix J: Additional Information on Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal
Appendix K: Additional Information on H1: IPPC Horizontal Guidance Note for
Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of Best Available
Techniques
Appendix L: Pollution Prevention and Control Permit Schedule 1 - Notification of
Abnormal Emissions
Appendix M: Compliance Assessment Report (CAR1) Form
XXll
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Permitting industrial facilities is an essential tool for regulating environmental pollution in the
US and in many nations across the globe. In almost all these countries, permitting programs
were first designed to separately address specific environmental media (e.g., water, air, and land)
or specific environmental concerns (e.g., smog or hazardous waste management and disposal).
Under this type of regime, a major facility might be permitted, or otherwise regulated, under a
variety of different controls - even by different regulators. However, an increasing number of
governments, most notably in the European Union (EU), have been transforming their industrial
pollution permitting regimes to a more integrated approach. In order to learn how this approach
works, and at the invitation of the United Kingdom (UK) Environment Agency (EA),1 the United
States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated the Integrated Permitting
International Collaboration Effort (IP ICE) - an extended exploration of the environmental
permitting system being adopted across the EU and in particular in the UK.
The report that follows is the final product of that effort. The report includes (1) a summary of
the statutory, regulatory, and institutional structure for integrated permitting; (2) a comparison of
UK and US permits for facilities in two sectors (a UK and US pulp and paper mill, and a UK and
US specialty organic chemical plant);2 (3) findings comparing the US and UK systems; and (4) a
platform for discussion of potential application of the UK integrated permitting approach in the
US.
The report does not seek to judge the overall merits of either the US or the UK permitting system
as a whole (for each is too complex to make such an assessment), but rather aims to describe the
UK system for those interested in US permitting approaches and policy. In highlighting
noteworthy components of the UK system, EPA hopes to identify and inspire opportunities for
testing integrated permitting tools and ideas in the US. Indeed, this work builds on more than
two decades of interest in the US regarding the potential to improve environmental permitting
and examines the UK approach in the context of that history. While much more remains to be
learned about the integrated approach, this investigation has brought to light a substantial body
of information that may help inform future policy development in the US. This report is
primarily a research and comparative study and does not represent a position on current EPA
policy or permitting practices in the US.
Introduction to Integrated Permitting
An integrated approach to permitting is more than just a consolidation or a "stapling together" of
single-media permits. Integrated permits address each aspect of a facility's operation that has an
environmental impact. In addition to standard pollution control found in US permits, integrated
permits address pollution prevention, multi-media or cross-media effects and interactions,
1 The EA. with which US EPA worked on this study, has jurisdiction in England and Wales but not in Scotland or
Northern Ireland. For simplicity throughout this document, where the context refers to the E A's jurisdiction, the
abbreviation UK is used as shorthand for England and Wales and not as a reference to the UK in its entirety.
2 The integrated permits for facilities in the UK are compared to permits issued under the regulatory structure
governing similar facilities in the US.
-------
facility management systems, and those aspects of facility operation that affect long-term
sustainability.
The Expanding Use of Integrated Permitting in the EU and UK
The integrated permitting regime in England and Wales, the focus of this report, was established
by the UK Environmental Protection Act of 1990 and enhanced in the Pollution Prevention and
Control (PPC) Act of 1999 (PPC Act), which moved the permitting system from multi-media to
a fully integrated approach.3 In fact, the UK describes its approach as "integrated regulation,"
employing the EA as the single institution responsible for environmental regulation, including
compliance and enforcement and sector management and communication, as well as permitting.4
During the same timeframe, and largely based on the UK experience, the EU issued its
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive of 1996 (TPPC) requiring adoption of
integrated pollution control in all of the EU member states5 by 2007. The IPPC Directive is
included as Appendix B.
Relevance of Integrated Permitting in the US
Environmental permitting in the US is not integrated; separate, well-established permit programs
address air, water, waste, and other environmental concerns, on top of which facilities are subject
to a variety of regulatory requirements not incorporated into permits. Therefore, the relevance of
the UK integrated permitting experience to the US may not be obvious to some readers.
Certainly, adoption of an integrated approach does not appear to be on the near-term horizon in
the US. Existing permitting systems are well institutionalized in regulatory agencies, regulated
industry, and environmental advocacy organizations, and results of previous efforts to
experiment with integrated and multi-media approaches in the US have been mixed. The
transaction costs alone of overhauling the current system would make it unlikely that such a
dramatic change would be undertaken without strong and compelling reasons to do so.
However, permitting has been a subject of much discussion and debate in the US practically
since the inception of the current system. Any given permitting approach (integrated or media-
specific) has benefits and limitations, advantages and drawbacks. Criticisms of the US system
have included the expense associated with developing several permits for one facility, industry
concerns about the economic burden of regulatory requirements, community concerns about
effective access to permit information and participation in decision making, agency concerns
about the administrative costs of reviewing and approving large numbers of permits in times of
budgetary constraint, and objections that a model focused largely on compliance fails to
encourage pollution prevention and resource efficiency. For these reasons alone, there has been
considerable domestic interest and dialogue about alternative permitting strategies for decades.
3 The PPC Act is outlined in Appendix C.
4 Appendix D contains an article by key EA managers responsible for the transition to integrated regulation and
permitting in the UK.
5 An EU member state is one of the 27 countries that comprise the EU since its inception in 1957 with the creation
of the European Economic Community. For more information see http://europa.eu/abc/history/index en.htm.
-------
In the context of this dialogue, regulating and permitting on a multi-media basis has been
discussed with some regularity as a potential reform, and several efforts have even been
undertaken to explore and test the idea. Appendix E summarizes the history of such efforts in
the US. Furthermore, despite the "stove-piped" and single-media national permitting framework,
multi-media or cross-cutting strategies are not completely absent in US practice. For instance, a
growing number of organizations (private and public) are using comprehensive environmental
management systems (EMSs) to assess their impacts and environmental footprints, and to
develop appropriate responses. EPA and state agencies also have developed voluntary programs
that address environmental concerns outside of traditionally regulated areas, such as energy use
and waste reduction.6 Some states have organized their permitting staff and activities along
cross-media lines, such as by sector, or provide single points of contact to help permit applicants
navigate multiple permitting processes simultaneously.7
Moreover, the growth of integrated permitting overseas makes it important for those in the US to
understand how that system works and to assess possible lessons and opportunities for US
policy. While it may be going too far to say that integrated permitting is the "wave of the
future," it is likely that economic globalization will create increasing pressure for uniformity
across national systems and for streamlined (while effective) systems of environmental
protection. Therefore, as a result of all the factors that have been mentioned, EPA believed the
time was ripe to begin documenting the operations of an integrated permitting system.
Potential Advantages of the Integrated Approach
Advocates for an integrated approach have argued that it has a variety of potential advantages,
including the following:
Developing better overall solutions. Reviewing facility operations comprehensively
may help identify better ways of controlling the overall environmental impact of
production processes than examining air, land, water, and other impacts separately. For
example, permitting pollution to a single environmental medium (e.g., air, land, water)
can impact and sometimes increase environmental pollution to other environmental
media. Thus, decreasing pollution to air using standards established in an air permit
could (knowingly or unknowingly) increase pollution to water and/or increase the amount
of solid waste generated at a facility. Therefore, permitting regimes implemented
medium-by-medium may fall short of effectively achieving overall environmental and
pollution reduction goals.
6 See EPA's Partnership Programs (www.epa.gov/partners/') for information about and descriptions of EPA
voluntary programs. Also see EPA's National Environmental Performance Track State Programs
(www.epa.gov/performancetrack/partners/linkage.htm') for information on state performance-based programs (one
type of voluntary program).
7 For example, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Environmental Permitting Division organizes
permitting by sector and issues multi-media general permits for selected operations, such as concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) (http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEO.nsf/page/epd_epdhome): and the Washington
Department of Ecology Industrial Section handles permitting for all media for selected industries
(http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/swfa/industrial/).
-------
Creating efficiencies. An integrated permitting system may reduce administrative costs
both for regulatory agencies and for regulated facilities by consolidating multiple permits
and overlapping permitting processes into a single permit and process. An integrated
permit may also create opportunities for operational cost savings for regulated facilities -
finding possible process efficiencies via the comprehensive, cross-media management of
pollution control requirements.
Promoting pollution prevention. It has been argued that an integrated facility
assessment is more likely to promote pollution prevention and fundamental changes to
production processes than simply imposing end-of-pipe controls.
Promoting sustainability. In addition to the potential to encourage pollution prevention,
because integrated permits address facility operational aspects, such as natural resource
use, the generation and recovery of waste, and habitat impact, an integrated approach
may promote long-term sustainability. Moreover, an integrated approach may also be
more likely to emphasize environmental management practices in addition to
environmental impacts.
Enhancing public participation. In theory, an integrated permitting system may make
public participation more meaningful by providing stakeholders with a broad facility-
wide assessment of environmental impacts. An integrated approach may also foster
greater dialogue among industry and other stakeholders.
Goal of this Study
While not intended to be a comprehensive study, this report represents a first step toward a
systematic, comparative assessment of the two regulatory models. In this regard, the report
seeks to shed light for US practitioners on how integrated permitting in the UK works, and to the
extent possible, on what results are achieved. On the basis of the findings at the conclusion of
this report, EPA hopes in the future to identify specific actions that US regulators might consider
to explore the potential for a more integrated system to protect the environment.
In light of this goal, it is important to note that integrated systems, and the UK system in
particular, have developed and operate in social, historical, legal, and political contexts very
different from that in the US. Therefore, it is unlikely, for instance, that the UK model would be
replicated in the US wholesale no matter what its effectiveness. Rather, as noted above, the
intent of this report is not necessarily to form an overall opinion on the value of the UK
approach, but to learn about the approach and identify lessons that could be applied to improve
(if not transform) the permitting system in the US.
Methodology for Research and Analysis
To conduct this study and support this effort overall, EPA formed a research team based in the
National Center for Environmental Innovation (NCEI) (in the agency's Office of Policy,
Economics and Innovation). The research team included representatives from national program
-------
and regional offices with expertise in air, water, and waste permitting, international
environmental affairs, and the law.
The research team's principal activities were (1) gathering and analyzing information from
available literature provided by the UK; (2) selecting UK and US facilities and permits for a
comparative analysis; and (3) performing a detailed comparison of four permits issued to similar
UK and US facilities in the pulp and paper and specialty organic chemicals sectors. The permit
analysis included a comparison of requirements contained in each facility's permit (which in the
UK includes a detailed review of the permit application, agency decision documents, as well as
the permit itself).8 Following that analysis, the team conducted extensive interviews in the UK
with representatives of the EA and of the facilities whose permits were reviewed.9
EPA also formed an extended national integrated permitting network that includes states as well
as additional EPA staff. Members of this network participated in a seminar in June 2005
designed to begin sharing information about the UK permitting system with EPA and state staff.
Since then, the network has been updated on the research effort on a regular basis. The network
also periodically shares information regarding relevant policy initiatives going on within the
states.
In addition to the established network, EPA has conducted a complementary strategy to reach out
to additional stakeholders in industry, academia, and other private and public organizations (such
as the non-government organizations) as well as in additional states. Through this outreach
effort, EPA has shared the research team's evolving understanding and gathered ideas for
possible opportunities for testing integrated practices. At several national innovation
conferences, EPA has presented preliminary observations and possible ideas for application and
transferability of IPPC tools and practices in the US - in order to gain stakeholder reactions to,
concerns with, and ideas about the report and the direction it should take. This outreach
culminated in a workshop held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in
October 2007. The workshop brought together a diverse group of participants from academia,
private and public organizations, and federal and state governments, to learn about the UK
system and consider opportunities for practical application of UK integrated permitting tools and
practices in the US.
In all aspects of this effort, the UK EA has supported EPA by providing written materials,
making staff available for discussion and review of various drafts of this report, and organizing
the interviews conducted by research team members when they visited the UK. In addition, and
of particular value to the effort, senior EA representatives visited the US on several occasions to
make presentations and participate in discussions with EPA's Innovation Action Council and in
the seminar, innovation conference and workshop described above. Appendix F contains a
detailed listing of the milestones associated with the entire methodology just described.
8 To directly compare environmental requirements for each pair of similar facilities, the research team constructed a
permit matrix to show a side-by-side listing of detailed requirements under each system. The permit matrix is
available as a companion document to this report at www. epa. gov/permits.
9 See Appendix F for details of EPA's 2007 UK site visits.
-------
The Report in Brief
The report is organized as follows:
Chapter 1 - Briefly introduces the concept of integrated permitting and explains the goal
of this study.
Chapter 2 - Provides historic background and an overview of integrated permitting in
the UK.
Chapter 3 - Describes the legal system for the UK integrated permitting regime.
Chapter 4 - Discusses the operational framework for integrated permitting in the UK.
Chapter 5 - Presents a comparative analysis of UK and US permits in the pulp and paper
and specialty organic chemicals sectors.
Chapter 6 - Discusses the activities that take place following permit issuance.
Chapter 7 - Discusses some of the overall outcomes of IPPC implementation in the UK.
Chapter 8 - Presents findings and observations resulting from EPA's research and
analysis that create a platform for exploring potential application of integrated permitting
tools and practices in the US.
-------
2. OVERVIEW OF IPPC AND PPC IN THE UK
This chapter provides an overview of the history and framework for the IPPC system as it is
implemented in the UK, namely under the PPC regime. The history of environmental protection
in the UK is briefly summarized - that is, how the integrated system developed, was ultimately
adopted, and evolved along with the EU EPPC Directive. The chapter also discusses the
contextual factors that have influenced the development of the integrated permitting system.
Lastly, it takes a quick look at the organizational structure supporting the integrated permitting
system, including the cultural elements that define relationships between regulators, the
regulated community, and the public.
Background of IPPC and PPC
Beginnings of Pollution Control in the UK
Pollution control legislation in the UK began in the late nineteenth century with the passage of
laws and establishment of government agencies aimed at controlling pollution over specific
geographical areas or for specific activities. For example in 1863, the Alkali Act was passed and
the Parliament established the Alkali Inspectorate, the world's first pollution-control agency.
Two years later, the UK Public Health Act of 1875 declared "black" smoke a nuisance. This
trend continued through much of the twentieth century with the passage of the Town and
Country Planning Act of 1947, the UK Clean Air Act of 1956, and several water pollution-
related laws in the 1950s and 1960s. Throughout these decades, there was no consideration
given to possible transfers from one environmental medium to another resulting from controlling
one type of pollution at a time. However, by the mid- to late-twentieth century, UK policy-
making began to shift towards looking across media and moving in the direction of integrating
pollution control. (See Figure 2.1 for a graphic illustration of the EU/UK integrated pollution
control history.)
Shifting Toward More Integrated Pollution Control in the UK
The transition to integrated pollution control in the UK was initiated by the passage of the
Control of Pollution Act in 1974 (CoPA). This law sought to draw together earlier separate
legislative strands and to treat pollution and waste together as a unified concept.10 The CoPA
addressed waste disposal, water pollution, noise nuisance and air pollution, and was described as
"the first formal recognition of the environment as a single entity."11 Thus, the CoPA served as a
conduit for integrating and coordinating environmental regulation among media (i.e., air, land,
and water) as well as for providing information to the public on air emissions and water
discharges.
10 Vogel, D. National Styles of Business Regulation: A Case Study of Environmental Policy. (Washington, DC:
Beard Books, 1986) p. 44.
11 Bennett G. "Pollution Control in England and Wales." Environmental Policy and Law 5 (1979): p. 95.
-------
Figure 2.1 - Integrating Pollution Control in the EU and UK
2007: IPPC Directive:
Full Implementation
1999: IPPC Directive
came into force
1996: IPPC Directive adopted
1993: IPPC Directive drafting began
1984: AFD passed
2007: PPC Act and Regulations:
Full Implementation
European Union
2000
1990
-
1980
1970
X
2000: PPC Regulations passed
1999: PPC Act passed
1995: EA established
1991: Environmental Protection
Regulations passed for the IPC
system
1990: UK EPA passed and
IPC system established
1988: RCEP issued 12th Report
1987: HMIP established
1976: RCEP issued 5th Report
1974: CoPA passed
United Kingdom
-------
In addition to the CoPA serving as an early driver for integrating environmental regulation, the
UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) published its fifth report in 1976
entitled Air Pollution Control: An Integrated Approach12'13 This report made a significant
impact in promoting integration through its analysis of integrated pollution control, sustainable
development, and use of "best practicable environmental option" (BPEO) when combating
pollution. BPEO established the idea of seeking the option that would lead to the least overall
damage to the environment when considering all emissions from a process and all the
environmental outcomes. Specifically, the Commission stated that, "pollution of air cannot be
looked at in isolation from pollution of land or water" and that media-specific pollution control
did not solve the problem of environmental pollution; it merely pushed it in a different direction.
Therefore, the RCEP recommended that to achieve effective pollution control, it was necessary
to take an integrated approach. One of the steps toward reaching this goal was to have an
integrated pollution control system implemented by a unified pollution inspectorate.
EU Air Framework Directive
In the meantime, the EU started its transition toward integrated pollution control with the
enactment of the Air Framework Directive (AFD) in 1984.14 The AFD suggested a shift in the
nature of environmental permitting legislation from single-media to cross-media and integrated.
This directive introduced the concept of using the best available technology not entailing
excessive costs (BATNEEC) to control pollution (emphasis is added to highlight that the
BATNEEC concept articulated in the EU AFD was focused narrowly by using the word
technologies rather than the broader word techniques found in subsequent legislation). By 1988,
the RCEP published its twelfth report, which explored and further discussed the concept of the
BPEO.15 These technological concepts have evolved and are present in other permutations in the
current EU/UK integrated permitting system.
The UK Integrated Pollution Control System
The RCEP reports and the EU AFD were catalysts in the development of the UK 1990
Environmental Protection Act (UK EPA). Part I of the UK EPA mandated a system of
"Integrated Pollution Control" (IPC) for all environmental media (i.e., air, land, and water).16
This new IPC system was established to augment and update pollution controls established by
12 UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP), established in 1970, is an independent standing body
that advises the Queen, the Government, Parliament, and the public on environmental issues. The RCEP issues
reports or special new releases to share its advice. Its main role, contributing to policy development, is served "by
providing an authoritative factual basis for policy-making and debate and setting new policy agendas and priorities."
Along with scientific and technological aspects of any proposed measure it reviews, it considers economic, ethical,
and social issues in order to reach balanced conclusions that account for wide societal implications. See
http://www.rcep.org.uk/.
13 RCEP, 1976. Air Pollution Control: An Integrated Approach. http://www.rcep.org.uk/reports2.htm#5.
14 Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31984L0360:EN:HTML.
15 RCEP, 1988. Best Practicable Environmental Option, http://www.rcep.org.uk/reports2.htm -12.
16 The Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) system was implemented by both a centralized regulatory body as well as
Local Authorities. Initially, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP), established in April 1987 by
combining the functions of several regulatory bodies including the Alkali and Clear Air Inspectorate, implemented
the IPC system on a national level for "Part A" processes. Local Authorities implemented the IPC system for "Part
B" processes. Part A and Part B processes are discussed in chapters 3 and 4.
-------
the 1974 CoPA.17 Borrowing from the EU AFD, the IPC system required that facility
owners/operators be granted an IPC authorization (permit) based on a demonstration that they
were using BATNEEC, at this point defined as the best available techniques not entailing
excessive costs with regards to the BPEO.18
In 1995, the Environment Act mandated the creation of the EA, which came into being in April
1996. The UK government's intent was to create a unified environmental protection agency to
carry out statutory obligations, responsibilities, and powers.19'20 The EA was named as the
central authority, albeit not the exclusive entity, responsible for protecting and enhancing the
environment - and attaining the objective of sustainable development.21
EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive
As the UK was implementing the IPC system, the EU was in the midst of composing a directive
that integrated pollution control efforts. The EU looked to the UK delegation to provide
experience and insight for mandating and implementing an integrated regime across the EU. UK
representation lobbied for and supported the EU institution of an integrated system in order to
protect UK industry's competitive economic position within the EU.22 The UK had a vested
interest in ensuring that not only the EU adopt an integrated pollution control regime, but also
that it be similar to the UK approach in order to facilitate a smooth transition to the EU regime.
The EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC Directive) was passed in
October 1996 (included as Appendix C of this report).23 The EU required that all member states
transpose this directive into national law by October 1999 and fully implement it by October
2007.
UK Pollution Prevention and Control Act
To come into compliance with the IPPC Directive, the UK government passed the PPC Act of
1999 (outlined in Appendix D of this report). This new law replaced the original IPC system
established in 1990 by Part I of the UK EPA. Further, the UK government instituted the
Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations in 2000 (PPC Regulations) (outlined in Appendix
17 Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations, 2000.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/researcli/pdf res notes/rnOO-69.pdf.
18 Environmental Protection Act, 1990. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts 1990/ukpga 19900043 en 1. (See Part 1,
Section 7 at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts 1990/ukpga_l9900043_en_2#pt 1 -pb2-l 1 g6t.)
19 Earlier attempts (in the late 1980s) to create a unified environmental agency had been rejected - maintaining
independent, local authority responsibility for environmental matters. Bell, S. and D. McGillivray. Environmental
Law, Sixth Edition. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006) pp. 124-129.
20 The EA was the result of combining several existing regulatory agencies - the National Rivers Authority, the
Waste Regulation Authorities, and HMIP.
21 The EA is not responsible for drinking water matters, conservation, or landscape protection. That said, "the EA is
one of the largest environmental regulators in the world and its responsibilities range from issuing fishing licenses to
regulating the disposal of hazardous waste." (Bell and McGillivray, p. 125)
22 Farthing, I, B. Marshall, and P. Kellet. Pollution Prevention and Control - the New Regime. (London:
LexisNexis Butterworths, 2003) 2, pp. 4-5.
23 IPPC Directive (Council Directive 96/6 I/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention
and control). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0061 :EN:HTML.
10
-------
G of this report) to establish more detailed requirements for implementing the 1999 PPC Act.24
By 2007 the UK was required to fulfill all of its mandates through the PPC Act and PPC
Regulations. In moving from IPC to IPPC/PPC, the UK took a significant step advancing
beyond multi-media environmental permitting towards more integrated, sustainability-focused
"modern regulation."23
Brief Description of IPPC and PPC
The EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive of 1996
The purpose of the IPPC Directive is to achieve "integrated prevention and control of pollution"
from certain industrial activities in order to attain "a high level of protection for the environment
taken as a whole."26 This is to be accomplished by preventing or reducing emissions to air,
water, and land, including measures concerning waste. In practice, a system of permitting is to
be implemented using Best Available Techniques (BAT) as the standard. The directive applies
to six main industrial categories:
Energy;
Production and processing of metals;
Minerals;
Chemicals;
Waste management; and
Other (including pulp and paper production, textile treatment, tanning, food
production, and the intensive rearing of poultry and pigs).
Since its original adoption in 1996, the IPPC Directive has been amended several times. Most
notably, it has been updated to (1) reinforce public participation procedures; and (2) clarify the
relationship between the IPPC permit conditions established in accordance with the IPPC
Directive and the EU greenhouse gas Emission Trading Scheme (ETS).27 Subsequent chapters
of this report will discuss how the IPPC has been transposed into UK law and regulations, and
how it applies to the UK permitting process.
24 As of April 6, 2008, the PPC Regulations have been replaced by the Environmental Permitting (EP) Regulations.
Because the research and analysis for this report focused on the initial transposition of the IPPC Directive into UK
law through the PPC Act and Regulations, it does not consider the EP Regulations in any detail. Information about
the EP Regulations can be found at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/epp. Please also note that because the PPC
permitting regime has been superseded by EP, some PPC materials and documentation referenced in this report may
no longer be available through UK and EA web pages. Copies of any documents no longer available may be
obtained from EPA through www.epa.gov/pennits/integrated.htm.
25 Gray, I, T. James, and J. Dickson. "Integrated Regulation - Experiences of IPPC in England and Wales." Water
and Environment Journal 21 (2007): pp. 69-73.
26 IPPC Directive, Article 1.
27 For further information on ETS, see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission.htm.
11
-------
It is interesting to note that in practice individual EU countries exercise some degree of
flexibility implementing the IPPC Directive. Thus, although EU directives are binding, the EU
recognizes the sovereignty of each member state. Member states also have some latitude
interpreting and applying selected aspects in the directive, such as BAT. Moreover, there is no
guarantee of absolute consistency in IPPC implementation. In the UK, for instance, sector-
specific guidance documents (known as UK technical guidance notes) are issued based on the
BAT information exchange mandated by the IPPC Directive.28 The UK technical guidance notes
provide information by industry and take into consideration national environmental conditions
and priorities.29 The UK-specific implementation of IPPC - including the use of guidance - is
discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
The UK Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1999
The UK adopted the PPC Act of 1999 in order to transpose the IPPC Directive into national law.
This new law set into place the steps necessary to update the IPC system established by the UK
EPA, though from its passage in 1999 until October 2007, both systems (i.e., IPC and PPC) co-
existed in the UK. (As of October 2007, the permitting system established by the PPC Act
superseded prior regimes.) The UK government adopted the PPC Regulations in 2000 to
establish more detailed requirements for implementing the PPC Act of 1999.
Under the PPC Act and Regulations, a facility owner/operator is granted an IPPC permit when it
demonstrates that its operation meets the standard of BAT, which minimizes pollution to air,
land and water. In a nutshell, determining BAT can be thought of as a tool to drive
environmental performance at industrial facilities. BAT is not focused only on techniques
currently in use at the facility, but it is also encourages facilities to find "emerging techniques"
that will drive innovation in techniques and technologies to minimize all types of pollution in all
media.30 BAT incorporates and balances both the cost to the operator of the facility and the
benefits to the environment.
The PPC Regulations apply to a wide range of industrial activities, including food and drink
manufacturers, large-scale intensive livestock production (pigs and poultry), and landfills.31
Using tools (such as Environmental Protection Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal (EP
OPRA) and IPPC Horizontal Guidance Note for Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of
BAT(R\)., both discussed in Chapter 4), industry must assess all environmental impacts expected
to water, air, and land as well as other effects, such as energy efficiency, site restoration, noise,
odor, waste minimization, accident prevention, heat and vibrations.
IPPC Directive, Article 16(2): "The [European] Commission shall organize an exchange of information between
member states and the industries concerned on best available techniques."
29 See Chapter 4 for more on the relationship between EU-level reference documents and ultimate permit terms.
30 Joachim, L. and K. Sander. "Is the BREF Process a Success or a Failure? - an NGO Perspective." Paper presented
at the European Conference on The Sevilla Process: A Driver for Environmental Performance in Industry.
Stuttgart, Germany. 6-7 April 2000. http://www.ecologic-events.de/sevillal/en/documents/Lohse_en.PDF.
31 DEFPvA. Industrial Pollution Control Regimes.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc^ackground/pdf/indpollution-controlre gimes.pdf.
12
-------
Based on the IPPC Directive's expansive coverage of environmental impacts, the UK system
takes into account cross-media and sustainability factors in the development and implementation
of environmental permitting controls. In short, the UK permitting structure is more than just
"multi-media" in nature and the permitting system more expansive than just permit issuance. In
fact, the UK actually refers to its approach as an integrated regulatory (not just permitting)
regime - of which the intent is to enhance and modernize the traditional permitting process by
incorporating holistic management, operation, compliance assessment, and implementation of
environmental protection in its entirety.32
The Evolving Integrated Permitting Regime
"Better Regulation"
In March 2000, the European Council meeting in Lisbon, Portugal, launched what has become
known as the "Lisbon Strategy:" a series of targets and actions designed to make the EU the
most competitive economy in the world. A desire to reconcile economic growth and
competitiveness with government regulation - particularly with environmental laws and
regulations - has been a long-standing global interest for both industry and government.33 In
Europe, and in the UK, reconciling these two pressures has been the goal of what has been
labeled as the "Better Regulation Agenda."
In the UK, oversight of "better regulation" is the responsibility of the Better Regulation
Executive (BRE).34 The BRE is charged with driving regulatory programs toward greater
efficiency and effectiveness through strategies that "regulate only when necessary and in
proportion to risk; measure and then reduce administrative burdens; and rationalize inspection
and enforcement arrangements for business."35'36 Importantly, these strategies have influenced
and shaped the development of the UK integrated permitting system - the legislation, guidance
and tools. What the EA calls "modern regulation" is the response to "better regulation" for
England and Wales.
32Grayetal., pp. 69-73.
33 See Network of Heads of European Environmental Protection Agencies, 2005. The Contribution of Good
Environmental Regulation to Competitiveness.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/documents/prague_statement/prague_statement-en.pdf: "We [the network] conclude that
there is now significant evidence from international research that good environmental management and regulation
does not impede overall competitiveness and economic development. On the contrary, it can be beneficial by
creating pressure that drives innovation and alerts business about resource inefficiencies and new opportunities."
34 The BRE, formerly in the Cabinet Office, is now located within the government department of Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The UK is also in the process of establishing a Local Better Regulation Office
(LBRO) that is charged with driving forward best regulatory practices at the local level - "reducing burdens on
business that comply with the law while targeting those who flout it" (see http://www.lbro.org/introducing/'). With
the passage of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill, the LBRO will convert to a statutory Non-
Departmental Public Body in 2009.
35 Kellett, P. " 'Better Regulation': What the Modernising Agenda Might Mean for UK Environmental Laws."
Environmental Law & Management 18 (2006): p. 174.
36 UK regulating agencies are audited against a government-wide target to reduce administrative burden by 25
percent. The outcome of the EA audit may influence whether or not it is awarded the authority to levy
administrative penalties against violators.
13
-------
"Modem Regulation"
The EA describes its approach to "modern regulation" as risk-based (or proportionate), results-
focused (or targeted), consistent, transparent, and accountable.37 Table 2.1 below describes these
goals and principles along with their practical applications in the integrated permitting system.
For example, the EA EP OPRA tool is both a cornerstone of "modern regulation" as well as an
integral part of integrated permitting. The EP OPRA tool and many of the other permitting
applications and tools listed below are discussed in subsequent chapters of this report.
Table 2.1 - "Modern Regulation" Goals and
Practical Application in Integrated Permitting
.38
"Modern Regulation" Goals
("Better Regulation" Principles)
Risk-based (proportionate): Allocating resources
according to a risk assessment and explaining [the EA]
decision not to focus on low risks
Results-focused (targeted): Focused on ensuring the
best possible environmental outcomes.
Consistent: Common ways of licensing and permitting
across all activities and geographic areas.
Transparent: Better communications with customers.
Accountable: Explaining decisions.
Practical Application
Environmental Protection Operator and Pollution Risk
Appraisal ( EP OPRA)
Compliance assessment tools
Core regulation
Environmental Permitting Programme (EPP)
Enforcement and Prosecution Policy
Building Trust with communities toolkit
What's in my backyard
Spotlight report
Compliance Assessment Plans
Industry sector plans
"Modern regulation" has also made it relatively easy for the UK integrated system to adapt and
evolve in order to meet the steady flow of new legislative requirements coming from the EU.39
Current PPC legislation has successfully incorporated or delivered a number of pieces of EU
legislation within the confines of a single system.
37 EA, 2006c. A Guide to Modern Regulation, Getting Better Results. EA Document No. GEHO0806BLCQ-E-P.
38 Table adapted from EA, 2006c, p. 3.
39 This finding has been relayed to EPA on multiple occasions by colleagues at the UK EA.
14
-------
This trend also continued with the release of the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EP
Regulations, also known as the Environmental Permitting Programme (EPP)) in April 2008. The
EP Regulations represent a capstone to the UK's recent efforts to modernize environmental
permitting. The 2008 EP Regulations deliver a total of 11 different EU directives. They
incorporate IPPC requirements but in addition, streamline, simplify and combine IPPC
permitting with waste management licensing so that only a single permit is required. The EP
Regulations contain new provisions for standard permits and a streamlined consultation
process.40 Figure 2.2 below schematically illustrates modernization and the expanded (as well as
expanding) umbrella of integrated industrial regulation in the UK. With IPPC nested at the core,
UK regulation has moved outward to harmonize and consolidate an increasing number of
requirements that once operated independently of each other.
Figure 2.2 - Modernization of Integrated Industrial Regulation in the UK41
Other Regimes, Voluntary Agreements etc
40 For more information on the 2008 EP Regulations, see www.defra.gov.uk/environment/epp.
41 James, T. "Integrated Regulation in the UK." Presentation at the workshop Lessons from the United Kingdom's
Integrated Permitting Experience: Exploring New Directions for Environmental Permitting in the US. Washington,
DC. 25 October 2007.
15
-------
Some at the EA view this "modern" integrated regulatory system as having resulted in a
relatively smooth, gradual and even path to environmental improvement over time.42 Once into
the system, improvements or "ratcheting up" occurs somewhat automatically as a result of
features built into the regulatory system. In contrast, EA officials interviewed for this report
perceive the US as having followed a much less even course - progress and improvement in the
US occurs in bigger jumps and mainly as a result of exogenous factors. This is illustrated
diagrammatically in Figure 2.3 below.
Figure 2.3 - Path to Progress under IPPC and US Regulatory Programs
43
X
0)
C
0
0
Q_
120
100
80
60
0
US Rules
7 9
Time
11 13 15
The two systems may, and probably do, reach similar environmental endpoints - in both cases
ultimately determined by politics and technology, but the journey there may be rough or smooth,
painful or less painful depending on system design. This observation may be useful food for
thought as US readers learn more about the UK integrated permitting system in the remainder of
this report.
" James, T. "Integrated Regulation in the UK." Presentation at the workshop Lessons from the United Kingdom's
Integrated Permitting Experience: Exploring New Directions for Environmental Permitting in the US. Washington,
DC. 25 October 2007.
43 James, T. "Integrated Regulation in the UK." Presentation at the workshop Lessons from the United Kingdom's
Integrated Permitting Experience: Exploring New Directions for Environmental Permitting in the US. Washington,
DC. 25 October 2007.
16
-------
Organizations Responsible for Integrated Permitting
This section takes a closer look at the primary actors in the permitting process from EU
legislators to UK national and local authorities.
EU
In the EU, as in the US, a "federal-state" relationship exists in establishing and implementing
environmental protection mandates and requirements. The European Commission (EC)
(including the Directorate-General for Environment and the European IPPC Bureau (EIPPCB) in
Brussels and Seville) constitutes the "federal" authority, and the individual EU member states
(and sub-national authorities in the case of the UK) play a role very similar to the US states in
implementing EU-wide legislation.44
The role of the EC is to define and initiate new legislation that mandates measures and practices
that have been agreed to collectively by EU member states (e.g., in the form of environmental
directives such as the IPPC). Member states must in turn translate EU mandates into domestic
law and systems, much like states may do in the US.45 As much as 80 percent of environmental
legislation in the UK results from EU mandates.46
UK
In the UK, the work of implementing the EU IPPC Directive falls to the government's
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the DEFRA-sponsored EA.
DEFRA is the environmental policy-making body 47 while the EA, under some direction from
DEFRA, is the agency with the technical and administrative expertise and responsibility for
determining (issuing) permits to facilities covered by the IPPC Directive. While DEFRA and the
EA are clearly differentiated organizationally, the lines dividing responsibility between them are
not always as precise or brightly defined. Nominally the EA role is to translate government
policy into practice, but the reality is that the EA contributes to policy making as well as to
policy implementation.
DEFRA is headed by a Secretary of State, an Under-Secretary and three Ministers of State who
are members of Parliament, all of whom report to the Prime Minister. In contrast to DEFRA and
to EPA in the US, the EA is an independent regulatory agency - a "Non-Departmental Public
Body" - that operates at arm's length from the political arm of government (DEFRA).48 The EA
is governed by a board which legally constitutes the agency, and which is directly responsible to
44 Vogel, D., M. Toffel, and D. Post, "Environmental Federalism in the European Union and the United States." In
Handbook of Globalization in Environmental Policy: National Governments Interventions in a Global Arena, eds.,
Frank Wijen, Kees Zoeteman, Jan Peters, and B.C.S. Zoeteman (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2005).
45 US states have the option of implementing federal programs. In some cases, the federal government retains the
authority to implement an environmental program at the state level.
46 Wolf, S. andN. Stanley. Wolf and Stanley on Environmental Law. Fourth Edition. (Coogee: Cavendish
Publishing, 2003) p. 3.
47 Among other things, DEFPvA develops and implements policy and drafts environmental laws, and on an annual
basis informs Parliament of its plans for new legislation. With most of the legislative mandates now coming from
the EU, DEFPvA is doing less legislatively.
48 See http://www.environment-agencv.gov.uk/ and http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/index.htm.
17
-------
the government ministers (and in turn to Parliament through the ministers) for all aspects of the
EA operations and performance. The EA Board delegates day-to-day management of the agency
to the Chief Executive and staff. Thus, the EA functions much more like a private corporation
than any environmental agency - state or federal - in the US. Consequences of this arrangement
are discussed in subsequent chapters of this report.
The EA jurisdiction extends to England and Wales only.49 The EA territory is divided up into
eight regions and regional offices and approximately 20 area offices in England and Wales.50
The EA has a budget of approximately $2 billion and 11,800 staff51 Its funding comes through
three main sources: grants from DEFRA, regulatory charges (approximately $600 million), and
flood defense levies.52 Additional support comes through grants for capital expenditures and
unspecified other sources.
The EA consists of a Head Office, and the aforementioned eight Regions and 20 or so area
offices. The area offices are staffed by local area inspectors. At the start of the IPPC permitting
process, the area office Inspectors were responsible for issuing IPPC permits. This function was
eventually transferred away from the area offices to a centrally-located Strategic Permitting
Group (SPG).53 Centralizing the permitting function resulted in significant efficiency
improvements.54 Specifically, consistency and quality improved along with efficiency and it
became easier to provide training and guidance to permit writers. The EA was also better able to
manage its resource use against the income generated from permitting fees.55 With the
completion of the initial round of IPPC permitting in October 2007, the EA scaled back its
permitting operations and replaced the SPG with a new (eventually smaller) National Permitting
Service (NFS).56 The NFS will focus on any residual IPPC permitting and assume responsibility
for new applications, permit variations and permit review - permit variations and review are
discussed in Chapter 6.
Traditionally, EA permitting personnel brought a significant amount of prior (private) industry
experience to the job of regulating. As will be discussed in later sections of this report, the
nature of integrated permitting - from standard-setting process to the comprehensive scope of the
permits themselves - requires that local area inspectors as well as permit writers be particularly
knowledgeable about the industry and facility they are regulating. While the ability of the EA to
attract people from industry has diminished over time, this experience and expertise tends to be
concentrated in the local area offices. As a result, area office inspectors are often called upon
49 Permitting in Scotland and Northern Ireland is regulated by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
(SEP A) and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (DOENI), respectively. (Bell and McGillivray,
pp. 120-123) This report focuses on IPPC permitting in England and Wales exclusively.
50 The eight EA regions are Anglian, Midlands, North East, North West, South West, Southern, Thames, and Wales.
51 EA, 2006b. Corporate Plan: Translating Strategy! into Action. http://www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/aboutus/275292/234823/?version=l&lang=e.
52 Bell and McGillivray, p. 129.
53 The SPG was managed by a single overall manager with four locations across England, in Warrington, Bristol,
Bedford and Nottingham.
54 The EA reported that hours spent per application went from 184 to 85 once the SPG took over the function.
55 The organizational details of the initial and current models for permitting are found in Appendix H.
56 The NFS was due to begin operations on November 1, 2007. SPG staff would remain a part of the NPS until
April 2008 in order to complete any remaining processing of the initial round of IPPC permits.
18
-------
to contribute to permitting operations in the central offices. In general, there is a fair amount of
interchange between different parts of the EA - staff move frequently. Figure 2.4 summarizes
the organizational roles and relationships that have just been described.
Figure 2.4 - Organizational Roles in Industrial Regulation
57
EU/EC
Initiates most
environmental
legislation
Oversees
implementation
of legislative
mandates
Develops
EU-wide
technical
guidance
+
UK Government
(DEFRA)
Represents the
UK to the EU
Initiates and
develops
UK-wide
regulation and
policy
i
EA Policy
(England and
Wales)
Translates
government
policy
Sector-based
communications
Resource
allocation
-
EA Operations
National Process . , ,
^ Cjuidance and
and Technical ^ , , , ,
technical support
Services
Strategic
Permitting ^ Permitting
Group
Regional and ^ Compliance
Area Offices and enforcement
^ INDUSTRY
The largest and most complex industrial facilities that must obtain an integrated permit under the
IPPC Directive38 are overseen and regulated by the EA. These facilities constitute approximately
85 percent of the IPPC facilities - and are the facilities central to discussion in this report.
Local authorities (LA) are those UK local agencies with specialized functions that focus on
planning, public health, noise and air pollution control, waste collection and disposal,
contaminated land, and sustainable development. Organizationally they include district, London
or metropolitan borough councils in England, and county and borough councils in Wales.
The UK designates certain facilities (generally those that are smaller and less complex) to be
regulated by LAs. These smaller facilities generally pose a lower risk or potential to pollute. In
addition, the EA is required to consult with LAs - the "statutory consultee" role is described in
Chapter 3 -on each IPPC permit application (not regulated directly by LAs).
Cultural Factors in Regulatory Implementation
In understanding the UK integrated permitting regulatory structure, underlying and less tangible
cultural factors should not be overlooked. Even limited exposure to the UK system reveals a
cultural context that is quite different than that in the US. In particular, the UK system appears
to rely more heavily on cooperation - a partnership of the regulator and regulated that capitalizes
on relevant sector expertise applied to a facility's "technical characteristics" as well as a
facility's "geographical location" and the "local environmental conditions."59 A key theme of
James, T., EA Policy Manger. Personal communication. 16 July 2007.
58 In the UK, IPPC facilities are classified as Part A facilities under the PPC Act and Regulations (as will be
discussed in Chapter 3).
59 Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) (England and Wales) Regulations, 2000.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20001973.htm. §2(12)(6).
19
-------
IPPC permitting in the UK is the flexible approach to setting individualized emission and process
60
standards. This entails a continuing, collaborative relationship between the regulator and
regulated parties for purposes of permit development and permit implementation.
A leading comparative study of the UK and US regulatory systems drew the following
conclusions:61 "Business participation in the making and implementation of [UK] environmental
policy is both assumed and assured.. .While business does not always win, its views are always
given careful consideration by government officials and its access to policy makers is assured by
both law and custom.. .In America, however, the importance given to economic considerations is
in large measure dependent on the lobbying and litigation skills of business... As a result,
American executives have been forced to devote far more political and legal resources to
influence environmental policy than their [UK] counterparts."62 "In general [UK]
policymakers.. .have relied far more on the technical and scientific expertise and experience of
industry than have their counterparts in the US."63
The UK is characterized by a "highly respected civil service," a business community that "to a
great extent is prepared to cooperate with government officials," and a public that is "not
particularly mistrustful of large corporations." These three components are interrelated; each
stems from the "relatively subordinate role played by business and business values in British
society and culture." In contrast, America is a nation whose "business community remains
suspicious of public authority and whose public has little confidence in either the ability or
willingness of government officials to control corporate conduct effectively."64
The UK's less adversarial regulatory system affects the permitting process in a number of ways,
as will be apparent throughout the remainder of this report. As these introductory chapters have
described, the UK framework for environmental permitting consists of a foundation of UK
national statutes built over time and influenced by EU directives, upon which is built a structure
shaped by UK/EU guidance, applicable regulations, business and industry dynamics and
pressures, organizational relationships, and finally, cultural factors. The next chapter will
explore in detail the key components of the EU IPPC Directive and the UK PPC Act and
regulations and the relationships between them.
60 Bell and McGillivray, p. 298.
61 The two ideas described in the text derive from observations from Vogel, 1986. Although Vogel's book is dated,
it is useful in offering a general picture of the culture and society supporting UK environmental policy. (Changes in
both the EU and UK may lead to updates and revisions to Vogel's assessment. For commentary in support of this
later point of view, see Bell and McGillivray, p. 252-253.)
62 Vogel, 1986, p. 172.
63 Vogel, 1986, p. 186.
64 Vogel, 1986, pp. 142-180, 226-258.
20
-------
3. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATED PERMITTING
The UK system is intended to be a comprehensive, cross-media scheme - integrating across all
media and all aspects of a regulated facility's operations with the goal of ecological
sustainability. This chapter describes the legal structure for permitting in the UK, beginning with
the requirements of the IPPC Directive and describing how those terms are carried forward and
implemented in the PPC Act and the PPC Regulations (for England and Wales65). Focusing on
the written law, regulations, and relevant ties to the IPPC Directive, this chapter sets the stage for
exploring how the UK permitting process works in practice (Chapter 4).66
The UK Integrated Permitting Regime: General Structure
As Chapter 2 describes, the current integrated permitting system in the UK has evolved over
nearly two decades. The UK implemented the 1996 EU IPPC Directive with the enactment of
the PPC Act 1999.67 The PPC Act builds on the UK IPC regime (enacted in 1990) and provides
the statutory framework for the issuance of integrated permits in which a range of multi-media
emissions and other environmental impacts are considered together. Under the PPC Act,
regulations were adopted that define procedures for the operation and management of the
permitting system: enforcement, permit conditions and variations, public notice, licensing fees,
along with other pertinent elements.68 Beyond the regulations, significant reliance on guidance
is key for carrying out the procedural and substantive details of integrated permitting.69 The
IPPC system (in England and Wales) is implemented jointly by the UK EA and LAs.
The EU IPPC Directive is fundamental to the UK permitting structure - and works in tandem
with the UK statutory authority (PPC Act) and implementing regulations. For instance, the UK
relies on the IPPC Directive and other EU directives to define the permitting process and create
timelines for implementation. The IPPC Directive definitions (including the terms pollution,
emission, BAT, installation) support an integrated permitting institution that promotes ecological
sustainability and covers emissions to air, water, and land; generation and recovery of waste; raw
materials use; energy efficiency; noise; and the prevention of accidents and site remediation on
closure.70 Other related EU directives and UK statutes create an underpinning for the UK system
as well, such as providing for further permitting authority.71 The interaction of domestic and
65 PPC Regulations 2000 apply only to England and Wales. The Secretary of State for the DEFRA must consult
SEPA and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, as well as the EA for England and Wales,
before applying regulations under this Act. The Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Act, 1999.
http://www'.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/actsl999/19990024.htm. §§2(4), 5, 7.
66 There are numerous authorities describing, exploring, and critiquing the UK system and EU/UK relationship. See
references cited in report bibliography, in particular, Bell and McGillivray.
67 All member states of the EU were required to adopt necessary laws, regulations, and administrative provisions in
compliance with the IPPC Directive within 3 years of its "entry into force." The IPPC Directive was required to be
implemented in all EU member states by October 2007.
68 See the DEFRA website for PPC Regulations, guidance, and other information, at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/index.htm.
69 Bell and McGillivray, p. 97.
70 Farthing et al, p. 7.
71 For EU directives and UK statutes relevant to the implementation of IPPC, see the discussion in the following
sections of this chapter: EU IPPC Directive and UK Statutory Framework.
21
-------
international sources for environmental law in the EU creates an overlapping, general framework
for integrated permitting in the UK (and other member states).72
The EU IPPC Directive
This section outlines the main features of the 1996 EU IPPC Directive, which provides the major
underpinning for the UK legal framework (see Appendix C for the full text of the IPPC
Directive). The stated purpose of the IPPC Directive is
.. .to achieve integrated prevention and control of pollution arising from [listed activities,
through] measures designed to prevent or, where that is not practicable, to reduce
emissions in the air, water and land.. .in order to achieve a high level of protection of the
environment taken as a whole... ,73
The IPPC Directive requires member states to ensure that facilities74 prevent pollution first and
control pollution second by requiring the following:
"All the appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution, in particular through
the application of BAT;
No significant pollution is caused;
Waste production is avoided...; where waste is produced, it is recovered or, where that is
technically and economically impossible, it is disposed of while avoiding or reducing any
impact on the environment;
Energy is used efficiently;
The necessary measures are taken to prevent accidents and their consequences; and
The necessary measures are taken upon definitive cessation of activities to avoid any
pollution risk and return the site of operation to a satisfactory state."75
Member states are required to ensure that the IPPC Directive is fully implemented within a set
time period.76 The IPPC Directive does not state specifically that all permits must be fully
72 Bell and McGillivray, p. 90.
73 IPPC Directive, Article 1.
74 To simplify, this report uses the term "facility" to stand in for both "installation" and "mobile plant" throughout
this chapter, except where directly quoting the EU/UK laws or regulations. The IPPC Directive, Article 2.3 defines
the term "installation" to mean "a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I are carried
out, and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on
that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution." In the UK, the terms "installation" and
"mobile plant" translate roughly to the terms "facility" and "mobile source" as used in US environmental law. Note
that the term "facility" may not be defined identically in all US environmental statutes.
75 IPPC Directive, Article 3.
76 Requirements went into effect immediately for new installations (IPPC Directive, Article 4), with up to eight
years allowed for new or revised permits at existing installations (IPPC Directive, Article 5).
22
-------
integrated, but does provide that "the permit" must include "all measures necessary for
compliance with the requirements" listed above.77 The IPPC Directive then specifies essential
permit conditions, ranging from emissions limits to conditions for waste management,
monitoring, malfunction contingencies, and other terms.78 Of particular importance is the
following requirement:
The permit shall include emission limit values for pollutants.. .likely to be emitted from
the installation.. .in significant quantities, having regard to their nature and their
potential to transfer pollution from one medium to another... [These requirements] shall
be 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 concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions...
In all circumstances the conditions of the permit shall... ensure a high level of protection
for the environment as a whole [emphasis added].79
By way of the IPPC Directive, the BAT requirement takes on a central role in the integrated
permitting process. If BAT does not achieve ambient "environmental quality standards," the
IPPC Directive requires additional measures be taken to ensure a high level of protection.80
These terms and requirements may sound familiar to a reader knowledgeable about US
environmental permitting. In general, the US system relies on a mix of technology-based
standards and environmental quality standards to determine the requirements applicable to a
particular facility. These standards often use similar sounding terms, such as Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) or Best Available Technology
under the Clean Water Act (CWA).81 However, the similarity in terminology may be
misleading: the UK term "best available techniques" is broader than the variations on "best
available technology" as typically used in the US. Chapters 4 and 5 will explore further the UK
practices for determining and using BAT and other permit requirements.
Other fundamental differences exist between the EU IPPC permitting and US environmental
permitting systems:
In IPPC, all permit requirements are addressed together to achieve "a high level of
protection for the environment as a whole" (emphasis added);
77 Where more than one "competent authority" is involved (issuing separate permits), both the conditions of and the
procedure for issuing permits must be "fully coordinated.. .in order to guarantee an effective integrated approach."
IPPC Directive, Article 7.
78 IPPC Directive, Article 9 (Conditions of the permit).
79 IPPC Directive, Article 9(3) and 9(4).
80 IPPC Directive, Article 10.
81 It should be noted that despite the single-media focus of US technology-based standards under the CWA and
CAA, national air and water standards do take into account considerations beyond the individual medium. For
example, energy use is inherent in the technology assessment done under CWA National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) effluent limitations guideline development inasmuch as it is linked to goals of the
CWA. The same is true for CAA technology-based standard development.
23
-------
In IPPC, the same general standard (BAT supplemented by environmental quality
standards (EQSs) where applicable) is used for all media and aspects of facility
operation;82
The IPPC Directive pulls together elements that are scattered across different statutes in
the US, including not only pollution control, but also matters such as waste management
and facility closure;
IPPC permits address matters not within the scope of US federal environmental permits,
such as energy efficiency, noise, odor, hazardous waste management,83 and safety (and as
will be shown below, the UK brings even more matters within the scope of its system);
and
A significant degree of discretion is granted to set facility-level requirements based on
economic and local environmental considerations in IPPC implementation.
The IPPC Directive also includes requirements regarding public participation; this process is
summarized later in this chapter.
UK Statutory Framework
The PPC Act can be described as an umbrella statute that organizes overall UK environmental
protection laws based on EU directives, national sector standards derived from those directives,
and existing media-specific statutes.84 (See Appendix D for an outline of the PPC Act.) The
PPC Act's stated purpose is to implement the IPPC Directive "concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control."85 Rather than elaborating on the terms in the IPPC Directive or
specifying details of a national permitting regime, the PPC Act simply gives the Secretary of
State for DEFRA the power to promulgate regulations for achieving the objective of
"progressive improvement," such as the following:86
82 In the US, similar terms appear in most statutes. However, because rales and practices are developed separately
under different regulatory programs, the terms have taken on somewhat different meanings in those programs.
Furthermore, the US statutes address these issues in very different ways. Under the CAA, for example, air quality
standards are set at a national level, whereas under the CWA, water quality standards can vary from state to state
and even within a state.
83 Hazardous waste permits are required in the US for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Many other
facilities are subject to hazardous waste regulation but are not required to obtain permits.
84 As such, the PPC Act serves as a mechanism for delivering new (and incorporating existing) regulatory
requirements to affected facilities. James, T. "Integrated Regulation in the UK." Presentation at the workshop
Lessons from the United Kingdom's Integrated Permitting Experience: Exploring New Directions for
Environmental Permitting in the US. Washington, DC. 25 October 2007.
85 PPC Act 1999, §l(l)(a).
86 The PPC Act invests in the Secretary of State the authority to create regulations to provide for a range of relevant
purposes, enumerated in PPC Act 1999, Sch I, Part I. For instance, the Secretary of State is given the authority for
prescribing and imposing the conditions of permits; inspecting, monitoring, and enforcing activities related to
permits; and other relevant activities. PPC Act 1999, Sch 1, Part 1, §§6-8,14-18. While the PPC Act provides
specific purposes for which regulations may be issued by the Secretary of State, the PPC Act concurrently vests the
24
-------
"Establishing standards, objectives, or requirements in relation to emissions;"
Making plans for "the setting of overall limits," "allocation of quotas," and "progressive
improvement of standards or objectives;"
"Prohibiting persons from operating any installation or plant... or otherwise carrying on
any activities, except (a) under a permit in force under the regulations, and (b) in
accordance with any conditions to which the permit is subject";
Prescribing the contents of permits and authorizing permits to be granted, modified and
revoked by regulators;
Determining which authorities have regulatory authority;
Allowing the government to require the compilation of information on emissions, energy
use, efficiency of energy use, and other matters; and
Providing for the ETS.87
The PPC Act also provides the general authorization for activities such as enforcement,
information gathering, and permit variation. It articulates the relationship between the PPC Act
and other relevant and applicable statutory authorities, supplementing the Act by incorporating
by reference media-specific UK environmental statutes and declaring PPC requirements
Secretary with the power to attach to regulations "consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving
provisions...as the Secretary of State considers appropriate." PPC Act 1999, §2(3)(a).
87 This report does not include discussion regarding the ETS concept in detail. In general, "[o]ver 1,000 installations
throughout England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are covered by the EU ETS. To be compliant, each
installation is required to obtain a greenhouse gas (GHG) permit and to monitor and report its carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions. The full consultation on the proposed U.K. auction design for use in the EU ETS is available at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/euets-phase2auction/index.htm." BNA (The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc.) Daily Environment Report, Number 248, 28 December 2007 (ISSN 1521-9402), p. A-5. The ETS is comprised
of two phases: Phase II runs form 2008-2012 coinciding with the first Kyoto commitment period. Allocations are set
forth in the UK National Allocation Plan, approved by the European Commission (EC) in November 2006 and
published in final in March 2007. The UK allocated 246 million allowances (one allowance is equivalent to one
tons/year of (CO2)), designed to deliver reductions amounting to 29 million tons/year of CO2. The results of all
member states' actions to reduce emissions under ETS were reported on the EC's website in May 2006
(http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/deprep/2007/chapter02.pdf at pp. 14-15). Using auctioning as an allocation
methodology in its own right is discussed in the ETS consultation report - now open for comment until March 2008
(http://www.defra.gov.ul^/corporate/consult/euets-phase2auction/consultation.pdf). ETS or GHG permits are
separate from IPPC permits. EPA is not aware of plans to fold GHG permits into IPPC permits - or into the
Environmental Permitting Program permits effective as of April 2008
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20073538_en_l). Also, see the 2004 and 2005 Explanatory Memoranda to
the Gas Emissions Trading Scheme at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/em2004/uksiem_20043390_en.pdf and
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/em2005/ulcsiem 20050925 en.pdf.
25
-------
incorporated into certain UK statutes.88'89 In essence, the PPC Act acts as a "tool box,"
coordinating existing and delivering new EU requirements to the UK regulated community.90
Thus, the PPC Act is far more general in scope and direction than most US environmental
statutes. It is less detailed, in fact, than the IPPC Directive (although the IPPC Directive is cross-
referenced). The actual operational details of the integrated permitting system in the UK,
including the terms applying key concepts in the IPPC Directive, appear in the PPC
implementing regulations, discussed below (and are expanded upon in related UK guidance
documents).
Another distinctive feature of the PPC Act is the very broad scope of regulatory authority given
to the government. The statute authorizes regulation with regard to any of the following matters:
Implementing the IPPC Directive concerning integrated pollution prevention and control;
"Regulating... activities which are capable of causing any environmental pollution;"91 and
"Otherwise preventing or controlling emissions capable of causing any such pollution."92
In regulating industrial and commercial activities, the PPC Act defines key terms in a manner
that tends to maximize the scope of potential regulatory authority.93 For instance,
"environmental pollution" is defined as "any" pollution that "may" give rise to "any" harm on
land, in the water and in the air (including air in buildings and air above or below ground in
natural or man-made structures).94 Environmental pollution also includes noise, heat, vibrations,
or any other kind of energy release, in addition to a wide range of harms to the health of humans
and "other living organisms" (e.g., harm to the quality of the environment, including interference
88 Schedules 2 and 3 of the PPC Act 1999 organize the amendments for and relationships with other
relevant/applicable statutory authorities. For instance, the PPC Act discusses off-shore pollution (PPC Act 1999,
§3), disposal licenses (PPC Act 1999, §4) and emissions permits (PPC Act 1999, Sch 1, Part 1, para 7) with some
greater detail, but relies on cross references to the underlying statute that addresses each pollution area head-on.
Schedule 3 contains a chart of the language repealed from other statutes in order to implement the PPC.
89 Parliament intended mat provisions made under the PPC Act should comply with other government agreements
including the following:
-Implementing Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended (PPC Act 1999, Sch I, Part I, para 20(2));
-Implementing any directive of the Council of European Communities designated by the Secretary of State by order
made by statutory instrument (PPC Act 1999, Sch I, Part I, para 20(2));
-Applying the regulations of the Crown (PPC Act 1999, Sch I, Part I, para 20(3)); and
-Creating provisions in connection with a relevant directive of the 1999 PPC Act that are similar to any provision
made by, under, or capable of being made under Part I, Part II, or sections 157, 158, or 160 of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 (UK EPA) as well as under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (PPC Act
1999, Sch 1, Part 1, para 20(1)).
90 James, T., EA Policy Manager. Personal communication. 16 July 2007.
91 PPC Act 1999, §1(1).
92 PPC Act 1999, §1(1).
93 PPC Act 1999, §1(2).
94 PPC Act 1999, §1(2).
26
-------
95
with ecological systems), "offence to the senses of human beings," damage to property, and
impairment or interference with "amenities or other legitimate uses of the environment..."
.96
To the reader familiar with US federal environmental statutes, this grant of authority appears
expansive. Collectively, the same quantity and quality of activities may be regulated in the US,
but throughout the entire system of federal, state, and local environmental, health-related, land-
use and natural resource system of authorities - as opposed to via one comprehensive national
mandate, such as the PPC Act. The PPC Act is an enabling and mandatory authority that leaves
the details of regulatory requirements to agency judgment. The PPC Act does not contain
deadlines, define minimum acceptable risk levels, or impose "hammers" such as found in US
statutes to ensure or constrain action by US EPA or other authorized federal or state agencies.97
Nor does the PPC Act prescribe how cost may (or may not) be considered in regulation,
potentially leaving the government much discretion in balancing economic and environmental
goals. These issues are explored further in chapters 4 and 5.
UK Regulatory Framework
The regulations promulgated in the UK pursuant to the PPC Act are known as the Pollution
Prevention and Control Regulations 2000 (see Appendix G for PPC Regulations - referenced are
the PPC Regulations promulgated in 2000 and additional regulations promulgated after 2000
pursuant to the PPC Act98'99). As discussed in Chapter 2, a revised set of EP Regulations came
into effect in April 2008.10° The discussion of the existing regulations in this section focuses on
the PPC regime. As stated above, the PPC statutory authority establishing such regulations is
general:101 the Act lays the foundation for regulations created to prevent and control "any" kind
of environmental pollution caused by "any" substance.102
95 PPC Act 1999, §1(3): "harm" includes harm to the health of humans and living organisms and harm to the quality
of the environment (calculated as a whole; calculated individually with respect to air, water, or land; other
impairments of, or interference with, ecological systems of which any living organisms form a part); an offense to
the sense of human beings; damage to property; impairment or interference with amenities or legitimate uses of the
environment referencing IPPC Directive.
96 PPC Act 1999, §1(3).
97 Another consequence of the single overarching statute is that there are not separate and inconsistent lists of
regulated substances for different media (as is the case under US media-based statutes). One study has argued that
these statutory differences are largely arbitrary and due to lack of legislative coordination rather than objective
differences in environmental concerns between media. See Dernbach, J. "The Unfocused Regulation of Toxic and
Hazardous Pollutants," HarvardEnvtl. Law Review, Vol. 21 (1997): p. 1.
98 See PPC Regulations 2000 at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20001973.htm.
99 For an unofficial, consolidated version of the PPC Regulations, see
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/regs/pdf/ppcregs-consolidated.pdf.
100 In 2007, the PPC Regulations were amended by and incorporated into the Environmental Permitting Regulations,
which come into force April 2008. See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi 20073538 en 1.
101 Regulations created pursuant to the PPC Act must be "exercised by statutory instrument." The PPC Act
establishes that if such a regulatory instrument is made without a draft of the instrument having been approved by
each House of Parliament, then that instrument may be subject to invalidation by a resolution of either House.
Further, where a regulatory instrument is the first under the PPC Act to apply to England or Wales, or is one which
"create[s] an offence or increase[s] a penalty for an existing offence," or "amend[s] or repeal[s] any provision of an
Act," the instrument is without authority unless a draft of the instrument has been approved by each House of
Parliament. PPC Act 1999, §2(6)-(9).
102 PPC Act 1999, §1(1).
27
-------
The PPC Regulations (based on principles established in the IPPC Directive), set out a unified
overarching framework, summarized as the following:
Controlling pollution to the level attainable by BAT;
Increasing controls further where necessary to reduce/avoid "significant" pollution;
Adopting the pollution prevention hierarchy of prevention followed by reuse followed by
safe disposal;
Using energy efficiently;
Preventing accidents; and
Returning sites to a "satisfactory" condition upon closure.
The threshold procedural provision of the regulations is that "[n]o person shall operate an
installation.. .except under and to the extent authorized by a permit granted by the regulator."103
The regulatory substantive provisions are remarkably brief by US standards. Key provisions of
the IPPC Directive are restated as general principles that the regulator is to "take account of in
determining permit conditions:
"All the appropriate preventative measures are taken against pollution, in particular
through application of the [BAT]; and
No significant pollution is caused."
104
For "major" (Part A) facilities (described below in Threshold Permit Applicability Criteria), the
following additional principles apply:
"Waste production is avoided in accordance with [the relevant EU directive on waste];
and where waste is produced, it is recovered or, where that is technically and
economically impossible, it is disposed of while avoiding or reducing an impact on the
environment;
Energy is used efficiently;
The necessary measures are taken to prevent accidents and limit their consequences, and
that, upon the definitive cessation of activities, the necessary measures should be taken to
avoid any pollution risk and to return the site.. .to a satisfactory state."105
; 2000, §9. There are slightly different provisions for "mobile plant;" the discussion here
addresses only requirements for stationary installations.
104 PPC Regulations 2000, §2(ll)(l)-(2).
105 PPC Regulations 2000, §2(11)(3).
28
-------
The PPC Regulations contain some prescriptive detail regarding permit conditions, although
even these are brief and relatively general by US standards (approximately four pages of text).
To a great extent they track the elements of the IPPC Directive. Some of the key required
conditions include the following:106
Emission limit values (ELVs) must be included for pollutants "likely to be emitted.. .in
significant quantities, having regard to their nature and.. .potential to transfer pollution
from one environmental medium to another;"
ELVs are to be based on BAT, "but shall take account of the technical characteristics of
the particular installation.. .and.. .its geographical location and the local environmental
conditions;"
Where necessary to comply with EQSs issued by the EU, stricter ELVs must be imposed;
Conditions shall also be imposed "ensuring... appropriate protection of the soil and
groundwater, and appropriate management of waste;"
Additional conditions must address "periods when the installation.. .is not operating
normally," and periods prior to operation and after cessation of operations; and
Monitoring, measurement and evaluation, and reporting requirements.
Embellishing further the conditions above, the PPC Regulations go on to state that "implied in
every permit [is] a condition that.. .the operator shall use the [BAT] for preventing, or where that
is not practicable, reducing emissions from the installation..." Furthermore, the regulator shall
impose such other conditions "as appear to be appropriate, when taken with the [implied
condition of BAT], for the purpose of ensuring a high level of protection for the environment as
a whole," taking into account the general principles described earlier.107 Together, these
provisions create a very broad "catch-all" requirement for the permit to address matters not
otherwise listed.
Beyond the required conditions, regulators may add conditions imposing limits on the "amount
or composition of any substance, produced or utilized during the operation of the installation,"
and any other conditions "supplemental or incidental" to the permit. Terms such as "pollution"
and "harm" are defined broadly in the PPC Act and such definitions are repeated in the
regulations. The PPC Regulations add the broad definition of "substance" as "any chemical
element and its compounds and any biological entity or micro-organism, with the exception of
radioactive substances.. .and genetically modified organisms," which are covered by other EU
directives. Taken as a whole, the PPC Regulations, like the underlying PPC Act, carve out a
comprehensive range of potential regulatory authority.
106 All the listed conditions are contained in PPC Regulations 2000, §2(12).
107 PPC Regulations 2000, §2(12)(l)(b)(ii).
29
-------
Threshold Permit Applicability Criteria
The IPPC system does not apply to all facilities. Certain qualitative and quantitative criteria are
used to determine whether a UK facility need apply for an IPPC permit.108 (See Appendix I for
industry activities categorized for Part A and B permits.)
Qualitative Threshold. The integrated
permitting scheme as determined by the
EU applies to certain categories of
industrial activities prescribed initially in
the IPPC Directive.109 Having some
operational discretion implementing the
IPPC Directive, the UK has prioritized
and ranked the applicable sectors, for
instance, setting forth a regulatory sector
schedule for transitioning existing Part A
facilities to IPPC permits.110 (See Table
4.1 in Chapter 4.)
Integrated Permits for Defined Class
of Facilities Only
To a practical extent, Part A facilities must consider
multi-media emissions, while Part B facilities focus only
on air. Part A facilities' integrated permits
"shall... achiev[e] a high level of protection of the
environment taken as a whole by.. .preventing or, where
that is not practicable, reducing emission into the air,
water and land."1 Part B facilities "shall.. .prevent.. .or,
where that is not practicable, reduce [e] emissions into
the air," but not other media.2 Thus, although the PPC
is the legal delivery mechanism for Part B permits, such
permits are not considered integrated for purposes of the
EU IPPC Directive.
Quantitative Threshold. Based on the
IPPC Directive, the PPC Regulations
establish quantitative thresholds triggering
the application of integrated permitting by
dividing industry into three categories
based on the activities undertaken at the
facility level.111 The PPC categories, Part
A (1), Part A (2), and Part B,112 are roughly similar to the designations of "major" and "minor"
sources under US statutes.113 Part A facilities are those with the most polluting and complex
1 PPC Regulations 2000, §2(12)(l)(b)(ii)
2 PPC Regulations 2000, §2(12)(2)
108 Industry-specific examples of Part A facilities include pulp and paper mills with a production capacity over 20
tons/day, which includes 60 facilities in the UK, and any pharmaceutical facility that produces "pharmaceutical
products using a chemical or biological process or formulating such products [that] ... result in the release into water
of any substance listed ... in a quantity which, in any period of 12 months, is greater than the background quantity
by more than the amount specified...," which includes 38 facilities in the UK. (PPC Regulations 2000, Sch I, Part
2: Interpretation of Part 1, 13.) Substances include compounds and amounts (in grams) such as mercury and its
compounds in amounts greater than background, 200; cadmium and its compounds, 1,000; isomers of
hexachlorocyclohexane, 20; isomers of DDT, 5; pentachlorophenol and its compounds, 350 PCP;
hexachlorobenzene, 5; etc.
109 The IPPC Directive, Article I, Annex 1 lists the following categories of industry: energy production and
processing of metals; minerals; chemicals; waste management; and "other." The "other" category includes pulp and
paper production, textile treatment, tanning, food production, and the intensive rearing of poultry and pigs.
110 PPC Regulations 2000, Sch 3, Ch 1, para2(2).
111 The PPC Regulations state that "[n]o person shall operate an installation or mobile plant.. .except under and to
the extent authorized by a permit granted by [the appropriate] regulator." PPC Regulations 2000, §2(9)(1). Different
types of installations and mobile plants must come into accord with this dictate at different times set out in Schedule
3 of the PPC Regulations. PPC Regulations 2000, §2(9)(2).
112 A(l) facilities appear to include a much larger area of activities than A(2). In some cases it seems that facilities
that might otherwise have an A(2) designation are swallowed up by an A(l) designation. An overview of the three
categories and breakdown of the specific activities covered is detailed in Schedule 1 of the PPC Regulations. See
Appendix I.
30
-------
industrial activities, while Part B are comparatively smaller and have less polluting potential than
114
Part A facilities. The PPC Regulations set forth a detailed set of criteria, originating from the
IPPC Directive, that vary from sector to sector115 for designating facilities covered by IPPC,
including the type of facility operation, the production level, the kind and nature of the pollutant
emitted, and the amount of the pollutant emitted.116
Setting Permit Limits: Emissions, Pollution Prevention, and Sustainability
As introduced earlier, a key component of an IPPC permit is its ELVs, which are determined by
the application of BAT (and where necessary, ensure attainment of EU-imposed EQSs). The
regulatory definition of BAT, which restates the definition in the IPPC Directive, is as follows.
"Best" means the techniques most effective in achieving a high general level of
protection to the environment as a whole.
"Available techniques" mean those developed on a scale allowing implementation in the
relevant sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into account
both cost and advantages. The techniques need not be used or produced inside the UK
must be reasonably accessible to the permitted.
"Techniques" include both the technology used as well as the way the facility is
designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned.
The PPC Regulations also list 12 specific criteria to be taken into consideration in determining
BAT for Part A facilities.117 BAT provides in "principle the basis for emission limit values
designed to prevent, and where that is not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and the
impact on the environment as a whole."118 Where relevant, the aim of BAT is to control
pollution through the imposition of ELVs.119 Factors to be considered in determining ELVs
include the potential to transfer pollution from one environmental medium to another; limits may
apply to groups of pollutants as well as to individual ones. "In other words, in striving to reduce
emissions to one environmental medium, emissions to others should not increase as a result,
leading to a worsened environmental impact overall; rather, the release of emissions from a
113 See, for example, section 104 of the CAA for Title V (distinguishing between major and minor sources); section
of 3 001 (d) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA - distinguishing between "large quantity
generators" and "small quantity generators").
114 The statutory authority for Part A covers the potentially most polluting and complex industrial activities
conducted in England, Wales and Scotland. It controls releases made to all three media to minimize pollution to the
environment as a whole. Some industrial processes, known as Part B, were excerpted from IPPC permitting
regulation on the ground that possible releases to air water or land were considered trivial or insignificant. These
Part B processes tend to be smaller and less polluting than Part A sites and mainly have potential air pollution
impacts. Farthing et al., p. 20.
115 Examples of criteria for certain sectors are provided in footnote 108.
116 PPC Regulations 2000, Sch 1, Ch 1, para 2.
117 PPC Regulations 2000, Sch 2, Ch 1.
118 PPC Regulations 2000, §1(3)(1).
119 Farthing et al., p. 74.
-------
process should be optimi[z]ed across all environmental media."120 It is important to understand
that in applying BAT, the UK permitting system allows for flexibility for and input by industry
on a facility-specific basis. In essence, the BAT/ELV concept is complex and site-specific - the
standard establishes an expectation for high-level protection by sector and then applies it to an
individual facility's operations in a reasonable fashion. Addressing problems on a case-by-case
basis, BAT/ELV makes room for consideration of the surrounding environment (e.g.,
geographic, demographic) as well as sector specific factors (e.g., cost effectiveness of expected
controls and performance characteristics of a facility). Chapters 4 and 5 will discuss in some
detail this standard-setting process for IPPC permits in the UK.
BAT Considerations for Part A Facilities
"[S]pecial consideration shall be given to the following matters, bearing in mind the likely costs and benefits of a
measure and the principles of precaution and prevention:
(1) The use of low-waste technology;
(2) The use of less hazardous substances;
(3) The furthering of recovery and recycling of substances generated and used in the process and of waste,
where appropriate;
(4) Comparable processes, facilities or methods of operation which have been tried with success on an industrial
scale;
(5) Technological advances and changes in scientific knowledge and understanding;
(6) The nature, effects and volume of the emissions concerned;
(7) The commissioning dates for new or existing installations or mobile plant;
(8) The length of time needed to introduce the best available technique;
(9) The consumption and nature of raw materials (including water) used in the process and the energy efficiency
of the process;
(10) The need to prevent or reduce to a minimum the overall impact of the emissions on the environment and the
risks to it;
(11) The need to prevent accidents and to minimise the consequences for the environment;
(12) The information published by the Commission pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Directive or by international
organisations."
PPC Regulations 2000, Sch 2, Chapter 1
120 "In addition, BAT cannot usefully be considered in isolation from the provisions in reg 12 which govern the
imposition of permit conditions. In particular, reg 12(6) states that ELVs are to be 'based on BAT for the description
of the installation concerned, but also taking account of its technical characteristics, geographical location and the
local environmental conditions'. Interestingly, the way this is put and the terms of the regulation 3 definition itself,
raise the possibility that BAT itself only operates at a sector level rather than a site-specific level. However, the
approaches which have so far been taken to the meaning of BAT, and which are described below, seem generally to
presume that it operates on both levels. Finally, it may be noted that the wording 'designed to prevent and where that
is not practicable, generally to reduce' is less precise and arguably less rigorous than the wording used in the UK
EPA which also includes the term 'minimise'. (DEFRA, 2005b. IPPC. Practical Guide, Fourth Edition.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/envagency/pubs/pdf/ippcguide_ed4.pdf.) does not, however, mention this
difference or indicate that standards will be any less rigorous than under IPC/LAPC. Thus, it can perhaps be
assumed that this change of wording of itself is not likely to lead to a different approach." (Farthing et al., pp. 75-
76.)
32
-------
As illustrated above (and mandated by the IPPC Directive and PPC Act), the concept of pollution
prevention is central to the permitting process in the UK. In determining permit conditions, the
EA should ensure that facilities do the following:121
Operate in such a way that all appropriate preventative measures are taken against
pollution through the application of BAT;
Cause no significant pollution;
Avoid waste production or, if generated, recover if possible;122 and
Use energy efficiently.123
Moreover, Part A facility permits must include conditions aimed at minimizing long distance and
transboundary pollution.124 The principles of sustainable development and pollution prevention
are mandated by the IPPC Directive125 and carried throughout the UK implementing authorities.
An environmental management system (EMS) is one tool that assists a facility's operation in
such a way to identify problems and employ necessary preventative measures. As will be
discussed in chapters 4 and 5, UK facilities use management systems - facilitated by an ongoing,
working relationship between the regulator and the facility - to routinely monitor operation and
adjust permit conditions, if needed.
Permit Cessation and Site Closure
The UK permitting system covers the life of a facility's operation126 from its opening through
cessation, somewhat similar to the cradle-to-grave concept provided for in the US, under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). From pre-permit facility activity (assessing
the impacts of the facility in preparation for an IPPC permit) to facility shutdown (responsibility
for cleaning up the operational footprint upon closure), the IPPC system guides industry. As part
of an IPPC permit application, a facility must include a site plan for use in the event the facility
closes.127
12' PPC Regulations 2000, §2(11)(1), (2).
122 Where the regulator is determining the conditions of a permit for a Part A installation or mobile plant, the
regulator shall also take notice that such an installation or mobile plant "should be operated in such a way that (a)
waste production is avoided in accordance with [European] Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste; and where
waste is produced, it is recovered or, where that is technically and economically impossible, it is disposed of while
avoiding or reducing any impact on the environment." PPC Regulations 2000, §2(11)(3).
123 A Part A facility should also be operated in such a way that "energy is used efficiently... [and] the necessary
measures are taken to prevent accidents and limit their consequences." PPC Regulations 2000, §2(11)(3).
124 PPC Regulations 2000, §2(12)(9).
125 IPPC Directive, (preamble), paras 8,9; Articles 1,3.
126 Chapters 4 and 5 will cover the operational stage - permit development and implementation - relying on the
example and experience of UK facilities in the Pulp and Paper and Specialty Organic Chemical sectors.
127 Notification of surrender of a permit shall include certain information:
-Operator's telephone number and any addresses to which correspondence relating to the notification should be sent;
-For partial surrender, a description of the surrender unit and a map or plan identifying the part of the site used for
the operation of the surrender unit;
-A site report describing the condition of the site; and
-------
In brief, when closing a Part A facility, an operator must take "necessary measures.. .to avoid
any pollution risk and to return the site ... to a satisfactory state."128 The regulator has the
responsibility to review the surrender notice, assure that the site plan is acceptable, and if
necessary, make variations to existing permit conditions to account for the closure (in the case of
a partial surrender).
Regulating Authorities and Roles of Government
As introduced in Chapter 2, the EA and LA129 have significant roles in the UK permitting
process. Depending on specific industrial activities, the PPC Regulations identify either the EA
or LA as the responsible regulator.130 (See Table 3.1 for a summary of the UK permitting
scheme.)
The EA is responsible for the larger and more complex Part A(l) facilities, which require IPPC
permits (see Appendix I).131 As described in the Threshold Permit Applicability Criteria section
above, these facilities are distinguished by a higher potential to pollute and/or production
capacities that exceed certain thresholds identified in the IPPC Directive and the PPC
Regulations. IPPC permits (the EA has permitted approximately 3500 such permits) for these
facilities were required to be issued by October 2007.
The generally smaller and less complex Part A(2) and Part B facilities are under the regulatory
authority of LAs.132 The LAs are also responsible for air quality management under the UK
permitting system.133 Part A(2) facilities represent approximately 15 percent of the IPPC
facilities in England and Wales.134 In addition under the IPPC regime, LAs are responsible for
"re-permitting" approximately 10,000 facilities that already had permits under the earlier IPC
regime.
-A description of the steps taken to avoid pollution risk.
PPC Regulations 2000, §2(19)(3)(d).
128 pp£ Regulations 2000, §2(11)(3). However, the PPC Regulations do not make clear whether this direction refers
to the cessation of pre-permit activities upon which the granting of an IPPC-compliant permit is conditioned, or
whether it refers to the conditions to be included in such a permit that address future cessation of activities that are to
be permitted. Where a Part B facility "ceases or intends to cease" operating the entirety of the facilities covered by a
permit, the operator may notify the regulator that the operator is surrendering the entire permit or undertaking a
partial surrender. PPC Regulations 2000, §2(20)(1,2). Part B facilities have a separate provision devoted to their
closure. PPC Regulations 2000, §2(20).
129 The PPC Regulations specifically define "local authority." PPC Regulations 2000, §1(8)(15). Local authority
pertaining to greater London is defined as "a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London,
the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple and the Under Treasurer of the Middle Temple." PPC Regulations 2000,
§l(8)(15)(a). Local authority pertaining to England outside Greater London is defined as "a district council or, in
relation to an area for which there is a county council but no district council, the county council, and the Council of
the Isles of Scilly." PPC Regulations 2000, §l(8)(15)(b). Local authority pertaining to Wales is defined as "a county
council or county borough council." PPC Regulations 2000, §8(15)(c).
130 While a permit issued under the PPC Regulations "is in force[,] it shall be the duty of the regulator to take such
action under [the PPC Regulations] as may be necessary for the purpose of ensuring that the conditions of the permit
are complied with." PPC Regulations 2000, §3(23).
131 PPC Regulations 2000, §1(8)(2).
132 PPC Regulations 2000, §1(8)(3,4).
133 Part A(2) permits are integrated like Part A(l) facilities, whereas permits for Part B facilities include just air
pollution control.
134 There are no Part A(2) or Part B covered facilities in the pulp and paper or pharmaceutical sectors.
34
-------
Table 3.1 - UK IPPC Permitting Schemes
Permit
System Regulator
IPPC
EA
Class of Industrial
Process/Activity
Part A (1)
LA-IPPC Local Part A (2)
authorities
LA PPC Local Part B
authorities
Scope
All media & in addition odor,
energy, accident prevention, noise,
vibration
All media & in addition odor,
energy, accident prevention, noise,
vibration
Air
Number of
Facilities
~ 4,000
-500
-23,000
By regulation, where the EA is responsible for administering the IPPC permit (Part A(l)), LAs
are frequently consulted by the EA as permit standards are negotiated and established for Part A
(1) facilities. While LAs have a required period of time to make representations about such
permits, their role appears to be advisory and consultative. Despite the fact that such advice is
non-binding, the EA is required to "consider" representations from the LA (or any other
organization or person who submits comments). There is no regulatory provision regarding an
oversight role between the UK government (i.e., DEFRA and the EA) and LAs implementing the
permitting regime, although the PPC Regulations do allow DEFRA's Secretary of State to
redirect regulatory functions exercised by the LA to the EA135 and vice versa.136
Relationship between EA and Operators
Lastly, a transfer of responsibility from the EA to the operator helps to facilitate the UK
permitting process. Operators know more about their facilities than do regulators and industry
shares available techniques. Furthermore, the EA's primary objective in the case of a problem is
to "put things right" rather than punish.137 In addition, much emphasis is placed on setting the
initial permit conditions; if regulator and operator mutually agree on the terms, it is hoped there
will be fewer breaches down the road. Major issues are identified and dealt with early on in the
pre-application process, limiting the need for enforcement later on. Since the permit is
inherently flexible, variations and adjustments can be made easily. Regulation 17 states "the
regulator may at any time vary the conditions of a permit."138 Along with a great deal of
135 PPC Regulations 2000, §1(8)(6).
136 The Secretary of State may direct a transfer of regulatory functions from a LA to the EA in the form of a "general
direction" (affecting any or all facilities by description) or "specific direction" (identifying a specific facility). PPC
Regulations 2000,§ 1(8)(9). Where regulatory function is transferred from LA to the EA (or where such direction is
to withdrawn), the Secretary of State must "(a) serve notice.. .on the Environment Agency and on the local
authorities affected... and; (b) cause notice.. .to be published as soon as practicable in the London Gazette and in at
least one newspaper circulating in the area of each authority affected by the direction." PPC Regulations 2000,
§1(8)(11). This notice must provide the date of effect and duration. A transfer of regulatory function from the EA to
LA (only a specific direction is allowed) must meet the same provisions above, and additionally, the Secretary of
State must serve notice on the "the operator of the installation or mobile plant affected." PPC Regulations
2000,§8(12). Notice may be foregone where the Secretary of State decides that such publication would be "contrary
to the interests of national security." PPC Regulations 2000, §1(8)(13).
137 Mitchell, D., EA Solicitor. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
138 PPC Regulations 2000, Regulation 17.
35
-------
discretion, this variation provision provides leverage during negotiation; for instance, the
regulator may threaten more stringent conditions if the operator does not comply with current
levels. On the other hand, if the resulting permit does not "fit" the operation as planned, a
variation notice can serve to alleviate the need for enforcement measures later on. In this way,
an IPPC permit is inherently flexible - a living, breathing entity.
Enforcement and Compliance
While the PPC Regulations contain enforcement mechanisms, it appears that UK regulators use
such mechanisms less frequently than their US counterparts. This approach is consistent with
the "culture of cooperation" described in Chapter 2. One UK commentator described the
relationship as follows:
The cooperative approach is typically characterized in environmental enforcement
by the development of a continuing relationship between enforcement agency and
'polluter.' At one extreme this might involve a patient, persuasive, educative role
for the enforcer almost acting as an external advisor. In this case, mutual respect
and trust can develop which can be used to ensure compliance with laws or
standards. At the other extreme, the relationship might be more detached with the
regulator seeking compliance within strict time limits (e.g., installing pollution
abatement equipment or applying for a requisite license).139
Discussions with UK EA solicitors conducted as part of this study confirmed that permit
issuance and compliance are accomplished via a continual dialogue between the EA and the
regulated facility.140 These cultural differences help to explain how somewhat "softer"
enforcement mechanisms are relied upon in the UK than in the US.141 From an American
perspective, the UK "collaborative" approach may be difficult to envision: it is not overstating
the point to say that the principle of "command and control" has been viewed in the US as
critical for assuring compliance with environmental protection requirements for over 30 years.
In 2006, for instance, 278 defendants were charged under the US EPA criminal program with
154 sentences resulting.142 These figures do not include EPA civil enforcement cases, or any of
the enforcement cases brought by states. The UK statistics differ markedly: of 25,000 breaches
in 2002 (under IPC), only 36 enforcement actions were taken - three of which resulted in
prosecutions.143 This does not mean that the UK lacks the means or will to see that permit terms
are adhered to. However, the general focus of enforcement efforts in the UK is to see that any
breaches are "put right," with less emphasis on obtaining penalties. In fact, the EA does not
currently have authority to assess administrative penalties; it can obtain penalties only through
criminal prosecution (although it appears that such prosecution does not require a showing of
mens rea or criminal intent as would be required in the US). The UK system does include
139 Bell and McGillivray, p. 296.
140 Mitchell, D., EA Solicitor. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
141 It is also important to note that in managing federally delegated environmental programs, practice among US
states can vary, and some may employ cooperative compliance methods similar to those used in the UK.
142 EPA, 2006. Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results: FY2006 Numbers at a Glance.
http://epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/endofyear/eoy2006/2006numbers.html.
143 Bell and McGillivray, p. 295 (reporting on numbers of enforcement actions under IPC).
36
-------
important deterrents, which include the EA unilateral power of permit variation and revocation
and the ultimate threat of prosecution.
The scope of enforcement authority in the UK may be changing; the government appears to have
accepted144 several recommendations regarding the adoption of administrative penalties (along
with other enforcement and compliance reforms) as part of the "Better Regulation Agenda"
described in Chapter 2. These reforms recommend principles more akin to practices that appear
in US civil penally protocol. Based on a 2006 report entitled Regulatory Justice: Making
Sanctions Effective (the "Macrory review"),145 legislation146 was introduced in 2007 adding
administrative penalties to the UK regulatory and compliance toolbox. Along with instituting
risk-based administrative penalties, the Macrory review also advised strengthening statutory
notices to enhance the current criminal law scheme.147 Even if these changes are adopted,
however, there is no apparent reason to expect a significant change in the EA general approach
to enforcement. Interviews with EA staff did not indicate that they foresaw the proposed
legislation effecting a fundamental change in their enforcement culture.
The Enforcement Pyramid and Principles
A central concept in the UK enforcement approach is "responsive regulation" or "modern
regulation."148 Responsive regulation can be viewed in terms of an enforcement pyramid. (See
Figure 3.1 below.)149
"The essence of responsive regulation is that an enforcement officer will use the minimum
amount of formal regulation as possible in order to achieve compliance."150 For most operators
in the UK, education and persuasion are useful tools to achieve compliance. However, when
minimal approaches fail, an approach higher up on the pyramid is utilized. Indeed, the UK EA
confirms that "businesses do not want regulation to impinge on their ability to innovate and
grow" and thus views "modern regulation... [as] fmd[ing] the right balance - a proportionate,
risk-based response, that will drive environmental improvements, reward good performance, but
still provide the ultimate reassurance that tough action will be taken on those who fail to meet
acceptable standards."151
144 The UK government has accepted four of the nine recommendations from Macrory, R., 2006. Regulatory Justice:
Making Sanctions Effective. http://www.berr. gov.uk/files/file44593 .pdf.
145 The final Macrory report can be found at http://bre.berr.gov.uk/regulation/documents/pdf/macrorv_penalties.pdf.
146 The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on November 8, 2007, will
give UK regulators the ability to make a case for access to administrative penalties, including the following: (1)
fixed monetary penalties; (2) discretionary requirements (including variable monetary penalties, compliance notices,
restoration notices); (3) cessation notices; and (4) enforcement undertakings.
http:^re.berr.gov.uk/regulation/reviewing regulation/penalties/index.asp.
147 Macrory suggests that "reliance on criminal prosecution failed to give regulators adequate means to effectively
deal with many cases in a proportionate and risk based way."
http:^re.berr.gov.uk/regulation/documents/pdf/macrory_penalties.pdf.
148 As described in Chapter 2, "modern regulation" is the EA's response to the "Better Regulation Agenda."
149 Bell and McGillivray, p. 297.
150 Bell and McGillivray, p. 297.
151 EA, 2005a. Delivering for the Environment: A 21st Century Approach to Regulation. http://www.environment-
agency . gov. uk/commondata/acrobat/dftefinal 1906007 .pdf.
37
-------
Figure 3.1 - The Enforcement Pyramid
Principles of Enforcement. The EA Enforcement and Prosecution Policy152 (Enforcement
Policy) describes four principles used to ensure firm and fair regulation: proportionality,
consistency, transparency, and targeting.
Proportionality: The enforcement action taken by the agency will be proportionate to the
risks posed to the environment and to the seriousness of any breach of the law.
Consistency: Similar approaches will be taken in similar circumstances to achieve
similar ends. While variables such as scale of environmental impact and attitude and
actions of management are taken into account, the agency aspires to give consistent
advice and responses.
Transparency: Expectations of the agency and expectations of the regulated must be
clear. This includes giving opportunities for discussion before formal enforcement action
is taken, thoroughly explaining remedial actions, and including written explanations after
any urgent action.133
152 EA, 1998. Enforcement and Prosecution Policy, http://www.environnient-agencv.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/
enfpolicv.pdf.
153 The policy ensures "transparency" procedures be developed to address the following:
Where remedial action is required, a clear explanation (in writing, if requested) is provided as to why the
action is necessary and when it must be carried out, distinguishing between best practice advice and legal
requirements
Opportunity is provided to discuss what is required to comply with die law before formal enforcement
action is taken, unless urgent action is required, for example, to protect the environment or to prevent
evidence being destroyed
Where urgent action is required, a written explanation of the reasons is provided as soon as practicable after
the event
Written explanation is given of any rights of appeal against formal enforcement action at the time the action
is taken. (See the section in this chapter entitled The Appellate Process.)
38
-------
Targeting: Regulatory efforts should be directed primarily towards those activities
giving rise to serious environmental damage. The agency will give deliberate and
organized crimes higher priority, in addition to other poorly controlled risks.
Prosecution. While regulators use prosecution minimally, certain instances call for more drastic
enforcement measures. The Enforcement Policy "is worded in such a way to leave considerable
discretion" to the EA whether or not to prosecute.154 Situations that may call for prosecution
include but are not limited to operating without a relevant license, excessive or persistent
breaches, failure to comply with remedial requirements, reckless disregard for management or
quality standards, failure to supply information without reasonable excuse or knowingly or
recklessly supplying false or misleading information, obstructing agency staff, and/or
impersonating agency staff155 Evidence used in prosecutorial proceedings must meet the
"beyond a reasonable doubt" standard:156 this evidential test is used to ensure that only
meritorious claims move forward. As mentioned earlier, there appears to be no mens rea
(criminal intent) as required in US criminal cases: arguably this could make it easier to pursue
and prosecute criminal cases in the UK.
Preventive/Remedial Actions
The duty for enforcing IPPC permitting in the UK falls to the regulator157 "to take such
action.. .as.. .necessary for.. .ensuring that the conditions of the permit are complied with."158
After a permit breach is discovered, a regulator may issue a notice to the operator. These notices
do not follow in succession but rather stand independently.159 The following is a list of the types
of notices:
Enforcement Notice: The regulator may file this type of notice when an operator has
contravened, is contravening, or is likely to contravene any permit condition. Such a
notice describes the exact contravention, specifies the remedial steps, and sets up the
remedial time frame. This type of notice can be revoked at any time.160
Suspension Notice: This type of notice is served if the regulator is of the opinion that the
operation involves a serious risk of imminent pollution. Even if permit conditions are not
contravened, the regulator can serve such a notice. A suspension notice can also be given
154 Bell and McGillivray, pp. 302-303, citingRvMetropolitan Police Commissioner, exparte Blackburn (No 3)
[1973] 1 QB 241.
155 Jewell, T., J. Lowther, N. Parpworht, and D. Hughes. Environmental Law, Fourth Edition. (London: LexisNexis
UK, 2002) p. 510.
156 Mitchell, D., EA Solicitor. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
157 This report focuses only on the EA and the relevant local authorities in England and Wales. The IPPC system is
implemented in the UK (England and Wales) by a number of different authorities. Depending on the type of facility
(e.g., Part A(l), Part A(2), or Part B), the relevant permitting authority may be the EA or a local authority.
158 PPC Regulations 2000, §23.
159 If an operation involves a serious risk of imminent pollution, the regulator has the authority to take steps to
remove such a risk. The regulator must give the operator notification within seven days before taking any remedial
measures. The operator can expect to pay for the cleanup costs, unless he or she can prove that no imminent risk of
serious pollution existed. PPC Regulations 2000, Regulation 26.
leo ppc Regulations 2000, Regulation 24.
39
-------
to one who has ceased being technically competent. As with the enforcement notice, the
regulator has the power to withdraw a suspension notice at any time.
161
Revocation Notice: The regulator may at any time revoke a permit, in whole or in part,
by serving a revocation notice on the operator. This type of notice is served when a
permit authorizes the carrying out of a specified waste management activity and it
appears to the regulator that the operator has ceased to be a fit and proper person to carry
out that activity. In addition, if the holder of the permit has ceased to be the operator of
the installation, the regulator may also serve a revocation notice.162
Variation Notice: The regulator may at any time vary the conditions of a permit and
shall do so if it appears to the regulator at that time, whether as a result of a review under
regulation 15, a notification under regulation 13 or 16 or otherwise, that regulations 11
and 12 require conditions to be included which are different from the subsisting
conditions.163 (In practice, it has been suggested that variation notices are used quite
frequently.164)
This notice protocol is critical to UK
165
enforcement since injunctive relief is
rarely granted, unless it can be shown that
no other alternative will restrain the
defendant's activity. A "balance of
Balance of Convenience Test Inquiries
» Nature of the harm created by defendant
» Number of persons affected
» Economic and employment consequences
convenience" test is used to determine " Alternative criminal remedies
,, ,. ^. .,- ** Other powers mat might remedy the
whether relief is appropriate, weighing situation
whether the claimant can obtain an
ultimately satisfactory remedy (absent
injunctive measures) against the loss to the defendant if an injunction is granted.166 This
apparently limited use of injunctive relief in the UK is markedly different than the US
enforcement practice, where federal law allows for, and regulatory authorities (at both the federal
and state level) often rely on, the use of injunctive relief granted by courts, such as temporary
restraining orders and other measures, to require operators to cease and desist harmful behavior
and activity.
Should an operator receive notice of an enforcement action, there are several grounds for appeal.
For example, an operator may appeal based on efficiency concerns, such as, where the appellant
considers the actions required under an enforcement notice to be "excessive" and believes that
"lesser" steps could adequately address the problem.167 Other objections relate to timing and
factual issues. (A few of the objections on appeal are referenced in the box below.) For
161 PPC Regulations 2000, Regulation 25.
162 PPC Regulations 2000, Regulation 21.
163 PPC Regulations 2000, Regulation 17.
164Mitchell,D.,EA Solicitor. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
165 Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., defines injunctive relief as "a court order commanding or preventing an action."
166 Jewell etal., p. 510.
167 The Planning Inspectorate, 2004. Making Your Enforcement Appeal. http://www.planning-
inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/appeals/enforcement appeals/guide making enfo appeal RL10.pdf. p. 15.
40
-------
additional information regarding enforcement actions, including penalties, consult the
Enforcement Policy.168
The Appellate Process
An unsatisfied operator may appeal a regulating authority's (EA or relevant LA implementing
IPPC) decision regarding a permit. The Town and Country Planning Act of 1990 provides the
framework for the appeals process.169 The accompanying Town and Country Planning Rules and
Regulations 2002170 govern the written appellate procedure as well as hearing and inquiry
proceedings.171 Specifically, the following persons can appeal to the Secretary of State of
DEFRA:172
A person who has been refused a permit.
A person who has been refused a variation of the conditions of a permit on an
application.
A person who is aggrieved by the conditions attached to his or her permit following an
application.
A person whose application for a regulator to transfer a permit has been refused.
A person whose application to surrender a permit has been refused, or who is aggrieved
by the conditions attached to his permit to take account of the surrender.
168 EA, 1998.
169 The Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/actsl990/Ukpga 19900008 en_l.htm.
Anyone with an interest in the land, such as an owner, tenant, lender, or leaseholder may appeal, as long as the
enforcement appeal is received before the date on which the notice takes effect.
170 The Town and Country Planning (Enforcement Notices and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2002 (SI No 2682)
contain additional requirements about the content of enforcement notices and what the parties must do if mere is an
appeal against the notice (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022682.htm). The Town and Country Planning
(Enforcement) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2002 (SI No 2683) explain the
procedures and time limits for the various stages of the written appeals procedure
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022683.htm). The Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Hearings
Procedure) (England) Rules 2002 (SI No 2684) explain the procedures and time limits for the various stages of
enforcement appeals decided by hearings. They explain the rights and responsibilities of everyone involved in an
appeal that is dealt with by a hearing (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022684.htm). The Town and Country
Planning (Enforcement) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002 (SI No 2686)
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022686.htm) and the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determinationby
Inspectors) (Enforcement) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002 (SI No 2685)
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022685.htm) explain the procedures and time limits for the various stages of
enforcement appeals decided by an inquiry and the rights and responsibilities of everyone involved in an appeal that
is dealt with by an inquiry. All these rules (and additional resources) are listed in The Planning Inspectorate, 2004,
pp. 59-60 (Appendix 6). For England, the Planning Inspectorate's Making Your Enforcement Appeal booklet
describes the appeals process in layman's terms.
171 Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Hearings) Rules, 2002.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022684.htm.
172 PPC Regulations 2000, Regulation 27.
41
-------
If a suitable appeal is made, the Planning Inspectorate (part of the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister (ODPM)) is usually responsible for rendering a decision. In the most common form of
appeal, decisions are based on written representations173 from the appellant, the local planning
authority, and anyone else I ~ ~" ~ ~ "TTT ^ ^ T
. . J . . . Grounds for Appealing an Enforcement Notice, For Example
who has an opinion on the
174
appeal. The Inspector's
written decision focuses on
the technical side of issues;
only factual issues (not issues
of law) are considered.
The Inspector may elicit
comments from "interested
persons" - such as neighbors
and local environmental
Ground (d): that, at the time the enforcement notice was issued, it
was too late to take enforcement action against the matters stated
in the notice.
Ground (e): the notice was not properly served on everyone with
an interest in the land.
Ground (f): that steps required to comply with the requirements
of the enforcement notice are excessive and lesser steps would
overcome the objections.
Ground (g): the time given to comply with the notice is too short.
The Planning Inspectorate, Making Jour Enforcement Appeal,
http://www.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/pms/appeals/enforcement appeals/guid
e making enfo appeal RL10.pdf. pp. 13-15.
groups. Any comments
from interested parties are
provided to the appellant and
the local planning authority176 (LPA) for their review and response, before the Inspector relies
upon them in the final decision. The "written procedure" is considered faster and cheaper than
either a hearing or inquiry,177 as described below.
If the written procedure described above fails, a hearing or inquiry may be pursued. Neither the
appellant nor the LPA has a right to a hearing or inquiry, but either may request one.178 A
hearing is an informal means for providing evidence and oral submissions to the Inspector.179
The most formal appellate proceeding is an inquiry, akin to an administrative court proceeding
(in the US). 18° An inquiry may occur when the Inspectorate decides one is necessary - in cases
where the written procedure or hearing were not adequate.181 Interested parties may participate
in and present their opinions to the Inspector at a hearing or an inquiry.182 In all cases, the
Inspector may make a site visit to confirm or investigate the facts rendered on appeal.183 Based
173 The Planning Inspectorate, p. 44-45 (Appendix 1).
174 The Planning Inspectorate, pp. 15, 20, 27, 37.
175 The Planning Inspectorate, p. 25.
176"' [LJocal planning authority' means in relation to -
(a) an enforcement appeal, the body who issued the relevant enforcement notice;
(b) an appeal against the refusal or non-determination of an application for a certificate of lawful use or
development, the body to whom that application was made." The Town and Country Planning (Enforcement)
(Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2002, Section 2 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022684.htm').
177 The Planning Inspectorate, p. 21.
178 The Planning Inspectorate, p. 29.
179 The Planning Inspectorate, pp. 23, 29-30, 46-47 (Appendix 2). The appellant can challenge evidence put forward
against his/her appeal, although cross-examination is not commonly allowed. The Planning Inspectorate, p. 21; The
Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2002, Section 11,
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022684.htin. While legal representatives usually do not accompany appellants
to a hearing, they may if requested by the appellant. The LPA advertises the hearing in a local newspaper in order to
inform interested parties.
180 The Planning Inspectorate, pp. 48-49 (Appendix 3).
181 The Planning Inspectorate, p. 31.
182 The appellant usually has the last word in closing the proceeding in order to address issues raised by others, but
he/she cannot introduce new arguments. The Planning Inspectorate, p.34.
42
-------
on the evidence presented, the Inspector makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State for
184
DEFRA. The Secretary of State may affirm the original decision by the Inspector or render a
185
different one. If necessary, the inquiry may be re-opened, and the appellant will be given an
opportunity to comment. A decision letter consummates the process. The very last resort for an
appellant is an appeal to the High Court.186 An Inspector's written decision may be appealed for
judicial review; however, only procedural issues and points of law are heard in this court (no
technical or factual matters are discussed).187
According to an internal EA Memorandum of 20 September 2007, a note of interest on the actual
1 QQ
use of appeals related to IPPC permit issuance follows. Since 2004, a total of 179 appeals
have been brought against IPPC determinations in the UK. Of the active appeals (as of
September 2007), 94 of these appeals were brought by landfill operators (one of the last two
sectors to come on line in the UK IPPC implementation scheme). These challenges are based on
either the EA's refusal to issue a permit (in 50 cases) or are related to permit condition(s) (44
cases). This is in stark contrast to only 15 appeals from all of the other "process" industries
combined (including five appeals from the tallow incineration and one from farming). This
disparity between appeals from the landfill sector (versus other sectors) is due in part to some
longstanding policy issues and complex technical issues associated with the sector.189 Prior to
IPPC implementation, there existed approximately 1200 landfill sites; after IPPC
implementation, there will be approximately 350 permitted sites.190 These conditions have
created a seemingly greater willingness by landfill operators to challenge permits.191
The Ombudsman
In addition to filling an appeal, an aggrieved operator may also file a complaint regarding
maladministration with the appropriate Ombudsman.192 The investigating Ombudsman for
DEFRA is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, while complaints against a LA
are dealt with by the Commissioner for Local Administration.193 While the Ombudsman is a
"quick, cheap, and often effective mechanism for channeling complaints about public
authorities," the Ombudsman does not have statutory authority to impose a damage award or to
alter the legal outcome of a case.194 However, the Ombudsman does have significant
183 The appellant and LPA may be present to answer questions of the Inspector and point areas of importance to the
appeal (except in the case of the written procedure). The Planning Inspectorate, pp. 28, 30, 34.
184 The Inspector's decision is sent to the Secretary, the LPA, and all others entitled to a copy.
185 The Planning Inspectorate, p. 37. The Secretary may grant refused authorizations, grant a varied authorization,
quash any or all conditions in an authorization, quash a revocation, and quash or affirm any variation, enforcement,
and prohibition notices. Jewell et al., p. 510.
186 The Planning Inspectorate, p. 38.
187 The Planning Inspectorate, p. 38.
188 Leinster, P., EA, Director of Operations, 2007. Drilldown on PPC Permitting Board Paper EA(07)55.
http://www.environment-agencv.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/item07bdrilldownonppc 18596Q6.pd. p. 3.
189 See Leinster, p. 3, noting specific issues, such as "continuing good performance in ... [PPC] permitting
activities," the progress for meeting the EU IPPC 2007 deadline, and several unresolved issues.
190 Mitchell, D., EA Solicitor. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
191 Mitchell, D., EA Solicitor. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
192 The Planning Inspectorate, pp. 39-40.
193 Bell and McGillivray, p. 349.
194 Bell and McGillivray, p. 349.
43
-------
investigatory powers and will make a recommendation for compensation, which is accepted in
195
95 percent of cases.
Public Information and Participation
Views in the UK regarding public participation have changed dramatically in recent years.196
Consider the following 1980 sentiment:197
British environmental managers tend to feel that the public is passive and will
accept what is thought good for it.. .Most policymakers... see themselves as
custodians of the public interest.. .Regulatory policy making... [is] executed by
selective consultation with particular interests but with no requirement to inform
the general public.
Over the years, international initiatives in addition to European legislation have begun to
transform this position, elevating and recognizing the importance of the public role.198 For
instance, Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration states the following:199
Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned
citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall
have... access to information concerning the environment that is held by public
authorities.. .and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes.
States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making
information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative
proceedings, including redress and remedy shall be provided.
In 2003, the EU updated the Directive on Freedom of Access to Information on the
Environment, hoping to address previous defects.200 The objectives of this directive are
as follows:201
195 Bell and McGillivray, p. 349.
196 We offer here a brief description of the UK public participation requirements in order to provide the reader with a
context for the UK regime, not as a point of departure for comparing the UK system to the US or for suggesting that
UK public participation provisions necessarily be tested in the US.
197 Vogel, 1986, p. 92 (quoting O'Riordan, T. Environmentalism. (London: Pion, 1980) pp. 232-33).
198 Bell and McGillivray, p. 317.
199 United Nations Environment Programme, 1992. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163. The Rio Declaration
on Environment and Development is the product of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development conference in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. The Declaration purports to "reaffirm.. .the
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,
and.. .build upon it, [w]ith the goal of establishing a new and equitable global partnership through the creation of
new levels of cooperation among States, key sectors of societies and people, [w]orking towards international
agreements which respect the interests of all and protect the integrity of the global environmental and developmental
system, [rjecognizing the integral and interdependent nature of the Earth, our home."
200 Bell and McGillivray, p. 326.
201 Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to
environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC.
http://www.ico.gov.ul^/upload/documents/library/environmental_info_reg/detailed_specialist_guides/european_direc
tive (eur-lex).pdf.
44
-------
To guarantee the right of access to environmental information held by or for
public authorities and to set out the basic terms and conditions of, and practical
arrangements for, its exercise; and
To ensure that, as a matter of course, environmental information is progressively
made available and disseminated to the public in order to achieve the widest
possible systematic availability and dissemination to the public of environmental
information. To this end, the use, in particular of computer telecommunication
and/or electronic technology, where available, shall be promoted.
Benefits of Public Participation
Improves the Quality of Decisions
Allows for Environmental Problem Solving from
the "Bottom-Up"
Promotes Environmental Citizenship and
Responsibility
Improves Procedural Legitimacy
In 2005, the EU and UK signed the Aarhus Convention, further confirming a commitment to
public input. The three pillars of the Convention aim to promote (1) access to environmental
information, (2) public participation in environmental decision-making, and (3) access to justice
in environmental matters.
202
Specific UK Requirements
The PPC Act and regulations govern the information available to the public in the EPPC process.
In 2005, the UK adopted the PPC (Public Participation) (England and Wales) Regulations 2005,
amending the procedures for public participation in the 2000 PPC Regulations.203'204 These
provisions allow persons regardless of whether or not they are permit holders205 "to compile"
any information related to emissions ("within the meaning of the regulation"), energy
consumption and efficiency, and waste and to comment at specified stages in the permit
development process.
Regulators are given the power to serve notice on any person for purposes of acquiring
information under the law, including information regarding emissions.206 For instance, during
202 Bell and McGillivray, p. 317.
203 The Pollution Prevention and Control (Public Participation) (England and Wales) Regulations, 2005.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051448.htm. amended regulation 2. Also see Schedules 4 and 7 of the PPC
Regulations 2000 and the Explanatory Memorandum of the PPC (Public Participation) Regulations 2005. DEFRA,
2005a. Explanatory Memorandum to the PPC (Public Participation) (England and Wales) Regulations 2005.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/em2005/uksiem 20051448 en.pdf.
204 In 2007, the Public Participation regulations were amended and incorporated into the Environmental Permitting
Regulations - which come into force April 2008; see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20073538_en_ 1.
205 PPC Act 1999, §11.
206 ppc Regulations 2000, Part V, Regulation 28 (2),(4).
45
-------
the permit application process, a regulator may serve notice on a permit applicant requesting
additional information for purposes of determining the application.
The permit applicant must advertise the permit application and draft determination within a
specified time period in newspapers. The advertisement must include the regulator's address
such that anyone interested may submit comments in writing.207 Similar notice and
advertisement requirements apply to permit variations and appeals.208 In addition, within 14
days of receiving a Part A permit application, the responsible regulator (whether it be the EA or
LA) must give notice to persons enumerated by regulation (such as LAs, local fisheries
commissions, the Food Standards Agency, Health Authority, relevant planning authorities, and
others).209 The regulator must then consider any representations made by the entity receiving
notice (i.e., a copy of the permit application), or any other persons,210 in its determination.211
These provisions execute the statutory mandate requiring "regulators to carry out consultation in
connection with the exercise of any of their functions and.. .take into account representations
made to them on consultation."212
The PPC Act also specifically requires regulators to maintain registers213 open for public
inspection. It is the regulator's responsibility to designate which matters require publicity in
public registers214 (excluding confidential commercial information and information affecting
national security).215 Such matters (listed in the box below) include information associated with
01^
permit application, issuance, variation, revocation, enforcement, and appeals, to name a few
key areas. The regulator may keep the registers in any form. The registers must be available
free of charge at reasonable times for public inspection, and copies must be obtainable at
reasonable charges.217
Although the PPC Act and relevant regulations arguably set the stage for a high level of public-
sharing of information regarding permit decisions and enforcement actions, it appears that in
207 A permit applicant is required to advertise within a period of 28 days (beginning 14 days after the date the
application is made to the regulator) in one or more newspapers depending on the location and type of facility. PPC
Regulations 2000, Sch 4, Part I, parag 5. The contents of an advertisement is also detailed in PPC Regulations 2000,
Sch 4, Part I, para 6. In the US, the public generally does not receive notice when a permit is applied for, only when
a regulator issues a draft permit.
208 ppc Regulations 2000, Sch 7, para 4(8) and Sch 8, par 3(1).
209 PPC Regulations 2000, Sch 4, Part 2, par 9.
210 As per regulation, "any person may make representations in writing to the regulator within the period of 28 days
beginning with the date of the advertisement." PPC Regulations Sch 4, Part I, para 6(f).
211 PPC Regulations 2000, Sch 4, Part 2, para 12(2)(a) and (b). In addition, pursuant to the DEFRAIPPC Practical
Guide (DEFRA, 2005b, p. 37) public consultation is required on draft determinations of permits for new and
substantially changed installations but not for existing installations.
212 PPC Act 1999, §13.
213 PPC Regulations 2000, Part V, Section 29(6).
214 PPC Act 1999, §12.
215 Where a permit has been issued under the PPC Regulations 2000, "it shall be the duty of each regulator, as
respects installations or mobile plants for which it is the regulator, to maintain a register containing the particulars
described...." PPC Regulations 2000, Part V, Section 29(1). The PPC Regulations identify matters to be excluded
form such registers - those affecting national security and those containing certain confidential information. PPC
Regulations 2000, Part V, Regulations 30 and 31.
216 PPC Regulations 2000, Sch 7, Part I, para 3; Part 2.
217 PPC Act 1999, §12 (a) - (c); PPC Regulation 29 Public Registers of Information.
46
-------
practice such opportunities are not utilized as extensively by the public in the UK as they are in
the US.
Moreover, there is no provision in the PPC Act specifically authorizing persons other than the
operator to appeal a permit decision, although there appears to be a general administrative law
doctrine allowing any person
with a direct interest an a
governmental decision to seek
judicial review.218 In addition,
a citizen wishing to challenge a
permit may seek recourse from
the Ombudsman, discussed
above. The 2005 amendments
to the PPC Regulations 2000
hoped to achieve "a more open
approach to taking decisions
which may be of considerable
significance to local
communities and wider
environmental interests...and
were made [in an attempt to]
reduce the overall time
between [permit] application
and determination."219 Yet,
despite the potential ability to
engage, it appears that UK
public pressure groups are not
as likely to directly challenge a
permit determination or
enforcement decision or file
amicus ("friend of the court")
briefs, whereas in the US these
practices are frequently
employed.
6.
7.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Required Information for Public Registers
2000 PPC Regulations, Schedule 9, paragraph 1
All particulars of permit applications;
All particulars of advertisements placed by applicants as part
of the application process;
All particulars of permits granted;
All particulars of applications for the transfer, variation or
surrender of a permit;
All particulars of permits which have been transferred,
varied, or surrendered;
All particulars of any permit which has been revoked;
All particulars of any enforcement or suspension notice
which has been issued;
All particulars of any notice issued by the regulator
withdrawing an enforcement or suspension notice;
All particulars of any notice of appeal;
Details of any conviction or formal caution for an offence
committed under the 2000 Regulations, reg 32 relating to the
operation of an installation/mobile plant;
All particulars of any monitoring information obtained by
the regulator as a result of its own monitoring or supplied by
the operator in accordance with a condition of a permit;
All particulars of any report published by a regulator of an
assessment of the environmental consequences of the
operation of an installation in the locality of premises where
the installation is operated under a permit granted by the
regulator;
All particulars of any direction given by the Secretary of
State;
All particulars of any representations made by any person in
response to an advertisement (added 2005).
1 Bell and McGillivray, pp. 340-349.
219
DEFRA, 2005a.
47
-------
-------
4. OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATED PERMITTING
The broad contours of the EU and UK framework for facility permitting under the IPPC
Directive and UK national law have been described in the preceding chapters. The goal of this
chapter is to provide a bridge from that overview to the permit-specific discussion and analysis
found in Chapter 5. Specifically, this chapter describes how the general requirements of the
IPPC Directive and the implementing statute and regulations in the UK are translated into
facility-level permits by the EA, what those permits typically include, and the process through
which permits are issued.
Among the questions that will be addressed in this chapter are practical matters: What strategy
did the UK adopt to permit approximately 3500 IPPC facilities by October 2007? How does the
UK EA manage its continuing workload? What considerations are involved in setting permit
terms under the IPPC system in the UK? What does an IPPC permit look like? Who is involved
in issuing an IPPC permit? What are the steps a facility operator must take to secure an IPPC
permit? What tools and guidance are available?
Implementing IPPC in the UK- Setting Permitting Priorities and
Targeting Resources
Sector Approach and Priorities
The IPPC Directive mandated that certain industrial sectors have IPPC permits by the end of
October 2007. In order to make such a large permitting effort manageable, and at the same time
be strategic, the UK (pursuant to the PPC Regulations) established a phased, sector-based
approach and schedule,220 beginning with the submission of permit applications for paper, pulp
and board manufacturing activities by June 2001, and ending with applications in the waste
disposal and intensive farming sectors by the end of January 2007.221 Under the schedule
established in the PPC Regulations, facilities in each of the 48 defined sectors had a three-month
window in which to submit an IPPC permit application.222 By September 2007 the EA had
determined (issued) more than 2,700 IPPC permits.223 This included 2,233 for process industry
and 541 for landfills. The sectors permitted ranged from the very complex (e.g., organic fine
chemicals, hazardous waste landfills and pharmaceuticals) to the relatively simple (e.g., food and
drink, textile treatment, and intensive pig and poultry farms). The EA is one of the few EU
environmental permitting authorities to have substantially met the IPPC deadline of October 30,
2007. The details of the IPPC permits issued in each sector appear in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1.
A more specific list of regulated sectors and industrial activity areas can be found in Appendix I.
" This schedule was agreed to by industry albeit with some resistance and desire on the part of individual sectors to
put off applications as long as possible. (Derwent, H., DEFRA. "Industrial Environmental Regulation in the UK."
Presentation at the conference Prevention and Control of Industrial Pollution: International Conference on Policy
Approaches. Seville, Spain. 25-26 April 2002. http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/doc/PCIPsevilla/mainpage.htm.')
221 PPC Regulations 2000, Sch 3, Regulations 9 and 10(14).
222 The EA refers to the group of applications within each of these three-month windows as a tranche.
223 Leinster, p. 3.
49
-------
Figure 4.1 - Distribution of IPPC Applications and Permits by Sector
224
Process Industry
PPC Applications Received
by Tranche
,57 ,38 ^
1 1 1 1 I 1 76 a, fl,
33 3 1 1 1 n i i II r i
-- es in3 ^ fi- 7-
i J II LJ LJ J 1 " i i n PI i ,_, ,
fffflltflliifffiMfliff
Ilisrssssl^'ssiiisls i i v I i
*I*lBilll!*i**II tin*
in i i » 1 1 1 1 1
Process Industry
PPC Applications Detenrined
by Tranche
349
->-T3 1
140 168'r-i' i"ir
n PI \ '-<3 5' '59 "-^i y^ C"'4^ T-
3 llll ifll I lll 1 1 ^
50385^99
D K S $ u Q
i ^ i 1 f 1 1
* 1 i I S" S"
i 1 1 =. 3
* 1
i ^ -11
60 ,,, ~
1 u '" rn ° .'Z t-1
S E 2 2.
^ I 1 f
Landfill PPC Applications Rece ~
by Tranche
LandfilH Landfill 2A La,ndfll 2B LandfIB 3 Laicfill-i Landfil £ -ancfill 8 Landfi!i7
Landfill PPC Applications Determined
by Tranche
120 -i
Lard-'ilh La-idffl2A Lanctf 2B Landfill 2 Landf i' 4 Landfill 5 Landr'1116 Landfil 7
224 Figure taken from Leinster, p. 8. Tranche is the term the EA uses to refer to the group of applications within each
of the three-month windows designated for submitting IPPC permit applications.
50
-------
Table 4.1 - IPPC Extant Permits, Applications as of October 31, 2007
225
Industrial Sector
Paper, pulp, and board manufacturing
Production of cement and lime
Ferrous metals
Gasification, liquefaction, and refining
Non-ferrous metals
Tar & bitumen activities
Other mineral activity
Manufacturing glass and glass fibres
Production of other mineral fibres
Coating activities, printing, and textile treatments
Treatment of animal and vegetable matter and food
industries
Organic chemicals
Disposal of waste by landfill
Production of fuel from waste
Carbon activities
Ceramic production including bricks and tiles
Surface treating metals and plastic materials
Manufacturing activities involving carbon disulphide or
ammonia
Inorganic chemicals
Recovery of waste
Disposal of waste by incineration
Chemical fertilizer production
Disposal of waste other than by incineration or landfill
including hazardous, oil. biological, and physiochemical
Combustion
Plant health products and biocides
Pharmaceutical production
Explosives production
Timber
Activities involving asbestos
Intensive fanning
Associated processes
Totals
End of
Application Window
28 February 2001
31 August 2001
31 August 2001
31 July 2002
31 August 2001
31 August 2006
31 December 2001
31 December 2001
31 March 2004
30 April 2002
31 July 2002
31 July 2002
31 July 2002
31 March 2007
31 July 2002
31 August 2004
31 March 2005
Various
31 March £ August 2003
31 March & August 2006
2003-2006
31 March 2004
31 March 2004
31 March 2004
31 July 2004
31 December 2004
Various
31 December 2004
31 August 2005
31 March 2005
31 March 2005
31 August 2005
31 August 2005
31 August 2005
30 June 2006
30 November 2006
31 January 2007
31 March 2006
31 March 2006
31 March 2006
31 March 2006
31 August 2006
31 August 2006
31 January 2007
Extant
Permits
54
25
31
74
73
4
3
15
3
55
370
325
449
1
2
2
130
8
183
27
87
7
207
260
11
36
3
0
4
829
16
3294
Applications
Pending
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
15
28
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
8
0
12
11
0
0
0
0
0
176
0
271
Total
Expected
54
25
31
82
73
4
3
15
3
55
374
340
477
1
2
2
130
8
187
32
95
7
219
271
11
36
3
0
4
1015
16
-3575
* Dates indicated in the table correspond to the end of the three-month application window for the sector. Multiple dates within a sector
correspond to application due dates for Part A( 1), Part A(2) facilities as well as various other sub-categorizations of facility within a sector.
2~ Data provided by EA. 2007a. Breakdown of Extant Permits and Duly Made Applications - by Sector (as at 31
October 2007).
51
-------
The UK, based in part on previous experience under IPC, chose a phased approach to implement
the IPPC Directive, "to spread the load on regulators and to enable experience of IPPC
permitting to be built up gradually, thus avoiding the considerable pressure - both on regulators
and consequently also on operators - which would result from leaving everything to the last
notionally possible moment."226 Implementation of the IPPC Directive in the UK required
integrated permits for several business sectors that were not already covered under the previous
IPC permitting (or process "authorization") scheme. These include intensive farming, food and
drink manufacture, and waste management facilities. Management of the application process for
these sectors required more than usual support from the EA.
Sector Plans
At a strategic level the EA begins the process of IPPC permitting with creation of a sector
plan.227 These sector plans, also described as environmental improvement plans, are developed
in partnership with industry and aim for the following:
Focus on the most significant risks and impacts the sector poses to the environment;
Deliver continuous improvement in the sector's environmental management and
performance;
Prioritize and target the EA's effort within and across sectors;
Achieve, in partnership with industry, benefits that go beyond what can be achieved
by regulation; and
Monitor progress in environmental improvement within and between sectors
228
Development of a sector plan is preceded by a strategic review of a sector's environmental issues
- environmental pressures and environmental, social and health impacts - documented in a
sector report.229 The sector plan addresses the issues identified in the sector report and in turn
identifies priorities, objectives, and progress measures and reporting for the next five to fifteen
years. In the case of the chemicals industry, the sector plan outlines ten broad sector-wide
objectives.230 Coupled with each of these objectives are a set of performance indicators - current
and proposed. In the case of the chemicals industry, some of the reporting using the identified
226 DEFRA, 2006. Implementation to 31 December 2005 in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar of Directive
96/61/EC Concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Report Required by the European Commission
Under the Terms of Article 16(3) of Directive 96/6 I/EC, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environinent/ppc/regs/pdf/ippc-
implement06.pdf.
227 Ideally there is a logical sequence to planning from the development of (and updates to) sector-based technical
guidance on BAT, to sector plans, to PPC sector permitting plans (SPPs) and finally to individual applications and
permits within a sector. Although reality has deviated from the ideal, the EA continues to work towards creating
this sequential framework for PPC permitting.
228 EA, 2005c. Improving Environmental Performance, Sector Plan for the Chemical Industry, Version 1.
http://www.environment-agencv.gov. uk/business/444251/1215866/.
229 See for example the sector report for the chemicals industry, EA, 2005c.
230 These objectives include tasks such as, develop a sustainable chemical industry, reduce the consumption of
resources in chemical manufacturing, reduce air and water emissions, and promote product stewardship as well as
wider supply chain benefits.
52
-------
indicators was to be done in conjunction with reporting against similar targets set by members of
the UK trade association, the Chemical Industries Association (CIA). The sector plan concludes
with a set of general program tasks to be completed by the EA and sector operators within a
certain timeframe.231 The EA invited interested stakeholders to comment on the first sector plan
and envisaged a process where sector plans would be "substantially" reviewed once every five
years.
PPC Sector Permitting Plans
The next step in the sector planning process is creation and publication of a PPC sector
permitting plan (SPP).232 The audience for SPPs is facility operators and, as the EA states, the
intent of an SPP is to identify "key sectoral environmental issues" and "to give operators a steer
on the priority that we [the EA] give to the various aspects of PPC and so will be of value in the
preparation of PPC applications."233 The current generation of SPPs addresses the transition
from IPC to IPPC permits (in instances where a sector was regulated under IPC) and note where
improvements may be needed to demonstrate BAT under the IPPC permitting regime.
The majority of an SPP consists of "considerations for PPC applications and determinations."
As such, the SPP includes a sector-wide analysis of emissions to air, water, sewer, land, and
groundwater as well as the other major components of an IPPC permit (see IPPC permit contents
discussion below). The SPP notes sector-wide patterns and trends for facility management
(including the range of EP OPRA scores (discussed below) for the sector), use of raw materials,
waste minimization, energy efficiency, accident prevention and control, noise and vibration,
monitoring, and decommissioning as well as overall impact on habitat and human health.
Attached to each one of these discussions and analyses is the EA ranking - a high, medium or
low priority - often with specific guidance as to what the EA will be looking for and what they
will focus on in the IPPC permit application. The SPP concludes with the EA's assessment of
future developments in both the UK and EU that might affect the sector and its facility permits.
Targeting the Greatest Potential for Environmental Harm
In addition to managing environmental permitting on a sector basis, permitting operations within
each sector are driven by a systematic approach to direct agency resources to where they matter
most, thus implementing one of the central tenets of "modern regulation" described in Chapter 2.
Integral to this approach and to managing and optimizing use of EA resources is the EP OPRA
tool.
While the EA is a governmental entity, its funding is only partially provided by the Government.
The EA must also rely on income from fees and other agency-generated funds. In particular,
IPPC permitting is required to be fully self-supporting through generation of application and
231 Examples of program tasks include: complete suite of performance indicators, record definitions of each
performance indicator, and publish annual report of sector performance as measured by each of the indicators.
232 The idea of a SPP was developed several years into IPPC permitting; therefore, some of the first sectors to be
permitted under the IPPC permitting regime, such as the pulp and paper sector, do not have a SPP. However, a SPP
has been published for the chemical sector, which provided the basis for the discussion in this report. See, EA,
2005c.
233 EA. 2005c.
53
-------
permit subsistence fees. This obligation imposes the responsibility to match permit fee revenues
with the actual cost of the IPPC system, including permit issuance, inspections and audits, and
permit management. While there are several ways that agencies can attempt to establish fee
structures to accomplish this objective, the EA uses the EP OPRA tool to establish facility-
specific fees and to determine workload elements such as the priority and frequency of facility
inspections and audits. Key to this system is that it is facility-specific and dynamic. Both fees
and workload can vary on an annual basis depending upon the facility's EP OPRA score.
EP OPRA - A Brief Introduction
EP OPRA is a facility-based scoring system that provides a measure of the potential of a facility
and its operations to cause environmental harm, or in other words, a measure of approximate
facility risk. It is important to note for the US reader, in using the term risk, the EA is not
referring to a "risk assessment" as that term is used in the US. As will be evident in the full
description later in this chapter, EP OPRA does not make use of the highly structured and
quantitative risk assessment paradigm followed in programs such as the US EPA Superfund
program.234 In other words, EP OPRA is hazard-based rather than exposure-based.
The EP OPRA profile and score result from a series of objective questions answered by facility
operators that address five attributes: facility complexity, location, emissions, operator
performance, and compliance. The EA uses the EP OPRA score as an indicator and predictor of
the regulatory effort and resources that will be required of the agency. Operators are required to
submit an EP OPRA profile (contained in an Excel spreadsheet) to the EA with the permit
application. Because EP OPRA is an intriguing and unique tool that may hold some promise for
use in the US, a more detailed discussion of it appears in the discussion of the permit application
process and in Appendix J.
IPPC Permits: EU and UK Standard Setting
Setting the terms of individual facility permits begins with the standard-setting process at the EU
level. As noted earlier, the EU legislates to set requirements that apply to each of the member
states. In the case of the IPPC Directive, the key mandates that affect individual facility permits
revolve around what it means to prevent, control, and reduce pollutant emissions in order to
protect the environment as a whole, and how this is to be accomplished.233 The primary
234 Superfund risk assessment includes risk characterization, identification of acute hazards, toxicity (hazard
identification and dose-response), exposure assessment, etc. to determine risk on a probabilistic basis. As will be
described later in Chapter 4, the approach used by EP OPRA is entirely different from that used by US EPA. For
more detail, see EPA's guidance for risk assessments conducted under the Superfund Program at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/risk superfund.htm.
235 "The [IPPC] directive incorporates a high level of demands. Permits are intended to contribute to the avoidance
of pollution, the integrated reduction of emissions in air and water, the minimization of flows of waste, the efficient
utilization of energy and precautions in case of an incident The directive is however in its core only a procedural
directive that refrains from implementing its general objectives in harmonized limits or to define other instruments
of environmental policy." (Hey, C. "Balancing Participation in Technical Working Groups: The Case of the
Information Exchange of the IPPC Directive." Presentation at the conference The Sevilla Process: A Driver for
Environmental Performance in Industry." Stuttgart, Germany. 6-7 April 2000.
http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/1823.pdf)
54
-------
mechanism used to achieve these goals is the all-important requirement for the application of
BAT.
BAT
The legal framework for BAT has been described in Chapter 3. As a reminder, by regulation,
BAT is "the most effective and advanced stage of the development of activities and their
methods of operation which indicates the practical
suitability of particular techniques for providing the
basis for ELVs designed to prevent and, where that is
not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and
Best Available Techniques
Best: Prevent, and where that is not
practicable reduce, emissions in order to
achieve a high level of protection of the
environment as a whole.
Available: Developed on a scale that allows
implementation in the relevant industrial
sector under economically and
technologically viable conditions.
Techniques: Both the technology used and
the way in which the facility is designed,
built, maintained, operated, and
decommissioned.
impact on the environment as a whole."236 In
thinking about BAT, it is important to remember that
"BAT is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The
[IPPC] Directive's purpose [the end] is 'to achieve a
high level of protection for the environment taken as
'717
a whole." Consistent with this characterization,
BAT is also not a system based on "fixed" national
emission limits, nor is it designed with the primary
purpose of meeting ambient environmental quality
standards.238 This mindset contrasts some with the
US approach to regulatory standards, where meeting a
regulatory standard is more often than not the end.
For US readers, it is also essential to understand that BAT is mandated for all aspects of facility
operations (engineering as well as behavioral aspects) that have an environmental consequence,
and that BAT extends not only to controls on pollution sources but to various methods of
mitigating and preventing adverse environmental effects, including substitution of raw materials,
use of more benign processes, and efficiency improvements. It also should be noted that BAT
consists of techniques. Techniques encompass technology as well as facility design, operation,
maintenance, and closure. For example, IPPC permits address BAT for facility management,
which often includes implementation of a comprehensive management system (usually an EMS),
thus creating the expectation that a facility operator will continually strive for environmental
performance improvements. Thus, BAT as it is applied in the EU and UK is a far more inclusive
approach than the somewhat similarly-named requirements that form the basis of US
environmental protection programs. US performance and technology-based standards and
emission and discharge limits (such as Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), Best
Available Control Technology (BACT), Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), and
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) under the C AA, and Best Practicable
Control Technology (BPT) and Best Conventional Control Technology (BCT), and Best
236 PPC Regulations 2000, §3(1).
237 Derwent, H., DEFRA. "Industrial Environmental Regulation in the UK." Presentation at the conference
Prevention and Control of Industrial Pollution: International Conference on Policy Approaches. Seville, Spain. 25-
26 April 2002. http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/doc/PCIPsevilla/mainpage.htm.
238 EA, 2000. IPPC Technical Guidance for the Pulp and Paper Sector, Version 2. http ://www. environment-
agencv.gov.uk/business/444304/444635/1778182/107293/?version=l&lang= e.
55
-------
EU BAT - The Common Standard for Environmental Protection
When one thinks of BAT and compares it to its multiple and diverse
counterparts in the US, one is reminded of the contrast between the
"English" system of weights and measures and the Metric system.
An apt analogy might be EU BAT is to a variety of terms used under
US statutes such as RACT, BACT, LAER, MACT, BPT, and BCT,
as the meter is to inch, foot, yard, and mile. Instead of a common
unit of measure (using the appropriate prefix milli-, centi- deci-, kilo-
, giga-, etc.), the US is committed to a system of unique units each
with a very particular meaning. US environmental protection
standards are characterized by this same idiosyncratic approach -
each environmental statute defines its own unique set of standards.
Available Technology
economically achievable under
the CWA) have by comparison a
relatively narrow scope.
BAT Determination and
Permit Requirements
In the UK, the assessment of
what constitutes BAT takes place
at several levels - on a sector
basis at the EU and UK national
level, and then at the local or
facility level. Ultimately, BAT is determined on a site-specific basis, taking into account EU and
UK guidance, but also reflecting local conditions and "the technical characteristics of the
01Q
installation concerned." BAT thus addresses local environmental quality issues and because
the determination of BAT takes into account technical characteristics of the installation, the
process weighs cost to the facility operator with benefit to the environment.240 This flexibility,
specified in the IPPC Directive, allows the EA to impose reasonable costs on the operator, but to
avoid costs that would be wholly out of proportion to the environmental benefit provided.241'242
BAT must also be available to the facility operator, i.e., developed and proven, but not
necessarily in widespread use. Expanding on the later two points, if a facility operator has a
choice in selecting BAT from more than one technique, the operator may choose to reject options
where the cost of employing a particular technique is disproportionately high and not balanced
by environmental benefit.243 In addition, a "technique" does not have to be in general use or
subject to a competitive market in order for it to be "available." As long as a technique is
proven, even on a small scale, it is considered available. This last aspect of BAT is particularly
239 IPPC Directive, Article 9(4).
240 It is important to note that there is a distinction between cost and individual facility/company profitability.
Profitability is not a factor in determining BAT. Also, cost is a factor, primarily on the sector level rather man on an
individual facility basis.
241 This analysis and determination is aided by the use of the EA's Horizontal Guidance 1, or HI tool, discussed later
in this chapter.
242"... it must be further pointed out mat the directive definition of BAT also incorporates consideration of the
economic viability of implementing a technique, taking into account the 'costs and advantages' of implementation
..." and "it is vitally important that we develop.. .a clear understanding of the benefits of reducing pollutant
levels...no-one will underestimate the difficulty of doing that.. .Nevertheless, and with full regard for the
'precautionary principle,' we must be prepared at some point to say that, on the available evidence, the costs of
further tightening ELVs or of imposing some other form of control upon any or every installation in any or every
industrial sector cannot be justified by the benefits." Derwent, H., DEFRA. "Industrial Environmental Regulation in
the UK." Presentation at the conference Prevention and Control of Industrial Pollution: International Conference on
Policy Approaches. Seville, Spain. 25-26 April 2002. http://eippcb.jre.es/pages/doc/PCIPsevilla/mainpage.htm.
243 The IPPC Practical Guide describes economic assessment in the following way: "An objective approach needs
to be taken to balancing costs and advantages when assessing what are BAT. The lack of profitability of a particular
business should not affect their determination.. .there may be some cases where the regulator should set different
standards (i.e., ELVs that correspond to BAT different from that determined on a sector-wide basis), for example,
because the balance of costs and benefits is different in the particular local environmental and/or technical
circumstances of a particular installation. But it would not be right to authorize lower standards, or delay the
implementation of BAT solely because an operator argued for this narrowly on the basis of its own financial
position." DEFRA, 2005b, p. 49.
56
-------
important in driving innovation and in creating new markets for emerging techniques and
technologies considered BAT in the EU.
244
Operationally, IPPC permit terms are what
conclusively define BAT for a facility. BAT is
determined for each emission generating
activity and operation that has an impact on the
environment. Permit conditions then set forth
the requirements that achieve BAT^br that
particular aspect of a facility's operation
(aspects such as management techniques and
materials inputs in addition to emissions to air,
water and land). It is the responsibility of the
facility operator to propose BAT for each aspect
of its operations in the IPPC permit application.
Once the EA determines the application, i.e.,
issues the permit, BAT outlined in the permit
(in some cases with references to the
application) and any corresponding ELVs set by
the EA become BAT for that facility.245
Generally, new facilities or "new builds" are
expected to apply "the most effective and
advanced stage" of BAT as soon as operations
begin.246 However, to the extent that certain
activities and operations (for an existing facility
at the time of permit application) do not
constitute "the most effective and advanced"
techniques, a facility may be subject to
conditions in an improvement program. In
short, PPC improvement programs require the
operator to upgrade techniques to those
indicated in the BREF or UK technical
guidance,247 or if that is not feasible within the time
program, to move in that direction.248'249 Technical
In Comparison - US Requirements for Air
Pollution Control
Typically, several different regulations and standards
apply to air emissions for a typical complex facility in
the US. Each US state must have a federally approved
State Implementation Plan (SIP) containing
requirements for criteria pollutant emission sources
that will lead to state attainment of Notional Ambient
Air Quality Standards for the criteria pollutants (e.g.,
nitrogen and sulfur oxides), or where the state has
already attained compliance, that will demonstrate
continued attainment.1 For instance pulp and paper
facilities usually emit criteria air pollutants (and may
emit all of them) from pulping, papermaking, and/or
combustion sources. Thus, pulp and paper facilities
typically are subject to SIP requirements.
Additionally, under section 111 of the CAA, EPA has
set standards of performance for new (or modified)
facilities of certain types that emit one or more criteria
air pollutants. New Source Performance Standards
that have been promulgated for certain types and sizes
of combustion sources (such as boilers firing various
fuels) may apply at pulp and paper facilities. Finally
for criteria pollutant emissions, new facilities or
facilities that modify existing processes may become
subject to BACT or LAER requirements under the
CAA new source review program. Finally, under
section 112 of the CAA, facilities are subject to several
MACT standards and other requirements for emissions
of hazardous air pollutants.
1 Under the CAA, ambient air quality standards have
been set for six criteria air pollutants: nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds (precursors
to ozone formation), particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, and lead.
period prescribed in the improvement
characteristics and conditions at a facility
James, T., EA Policy Manager. Personal communication. 2 May 2007.
245 For the role and importance of the permit application, see discussion that follows later in this chapter on the
permitting process and tools.
246 Still subject to site-specific factors allowed by IPPC Directive Article 9(4) so that BAT will vary between
facilities within a sector. In other words, "New installations will normally be expected to comply with or go
beyond indicative BAT [BAT indicated in the BREF or UK technical guidance]. However, site-specific factors may
justify a different conclusion from the normal understanding of what technique is BAT in particular cases." DEFRA,
2005b,p. 51.
247 The UK sometimes refers to BAT indicated in the BREF or UK technical guidance as "new plant" BAT and in
connection with improvement programs, directs regulators to be "concerned with establishing timescales for
upgrading existing installations to new standards, or as near to new standards as possible. How far the new plant
standards apply will depend on local and plant specific circumstances." DEFRA, 2005b, p. 51.
57
-------
(e.g., limitations imposed by the physical plant that short of
a complete tear-down, prohibitive or disproportionate
expense, cannot be overcome) can prevent an individual
operator from reaching BAT indicated in the BREF or UK
technical guidance. Over the longer term, however, the
facility still remains subject to the BAT indicated in the
BREF or UK technical guidance. In addition, as physical
and operational changes occur at a facility, including those
that are a result of internally-driven capital improvement
cycles, and/or as permits are reviewed and revised, the EA
may impose additional conditions that narrow the gap
between BAT that is achievable and BAT as indicated in
the BREF or UK technical guidance. It is also important to
note that BAT itself is a dynamic rather than a static target.
Over time BREFs and UK technical guidance incorporate
new and better techniques that become available on the EU
and national levels. This process is illustrated in the
schematic found in Figure 4.2.
BAT Determination the Same
for New and Existing Sources
All sources in the UK - both new
and existing - must work toward
BAT that constitutes "the most
effective and advanced stage of...
techniques...for protecting the
environment as a whole." While
practically speaking, final
standards and limits may differ
for new and existing sources, the
fact that all sources must consider
the same set of BAT techniques
may mean that it is very rare, or
unheard of, to find a source in the
UK untouched by regulatory
controls. This is not the case in
the US where "grandfathered"
sources remain exempt from
control for many years.
Figure 4.2 - UK Interpretation of BAT
Application determination
sets BAT for a facility.
Improvement program moves operator to what is
achievable within the typical time span of an
improvement program (approx 3 years).
Over time operator
continues on path
towards BREF BAT
for all aspects of
operations.
Improvement Program Milestones
As stated in UK sector guidance notes: "For an existing installation, it may not be reasonable to expect
compliance with indicative BAT standards immediately if the cost of doing so is disproportionate to the
environmental benefit to be achieved. In such circumstances, operating techniques that are not at the relevant
indicative BAT standard may be acceptable, provided that they represent what is considered BAT for that
installation and otherwise comply with the requirements of the Regulations." Nonetheless, "where there is a
significant difference between relevant indicative BAT and BAT for the installation, the Permit may require further
improvements on a reasonable short timescale" (i.e., through an improvement program). EA, 2003. Guidance for the
Specialty Organic Chemicals Sector, Version 6. http://publications.environment-
agencv.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO1205BJZB-e-e.pdf. p.4.
249 Improvement programs and their implementation will be discussed further at the conclusion of this chapter and in
Chapter 5.
58
-------
At the other end of the spectrum, an operator may be required to go beyond the BAT indicated in
the BREF so as not to violate an EU-established EQS or ELV. The IPPC Directive requires
regulated facilities to meet EU EQSs that specify the maximum concentration of certain
pollutants in water.250'251 However, attainment of an applicable EQS or ambient environmental
standard does not reduce the stringency of permit terms; under BAT requirements, if emissions
can be reduced or prevented altogether, then this should be done irrespective of compliance with
any applicable EQS. As UK regulators state, "[the BAT approach] requires us not to consider
the environment as a recipient of
pollutants and waste which can be filled
up to a given level, but to do all that is
practicable to minimize the impact of
industrial activities."252 Implementation
of BAT works in concert with ambient
standards to accomplish environmental
protection goals.
A Closer Look at the BREF and BAT
for the Pulp and Paper Sector1
By the threshold criteria set in the IPPC Directive the BREF for the
pulp and paper sector applies to approximately 98 percent of Europe's
pulp and paper mills. Manufacturing at these mills involves a large
variety of raw materials, products, and processes. Determination of
BAT at the EU level must address this diversity, and in many cases
involves a combination of what the Europeans refer to as process-
integrated techniques (pollution prevention) and external measures
(end-of-pipe controls). Water effluent discharge is one example of
this. The long-term solution is a drive towards effluent-free mills, but
short of reaching this goal, current BAT is designed to tighten both
the use and discharge of water from pulp and paper mills. BAT for a
certain class of mill - bleached kraft pulp mills - involves a
combination of 11 possible internal process measures and a 12th
external, end-of-pipe control, biological wastewater treatment, that
may be necessary to meet the BAT performance standard of 8 - 23 kg
COD per ton of pulp produced.
The above range of emissions for BAT is quite wide. This reflects the
interplay of both technological and economic factors in the
negotiation of BAT. A more narrow range might have reflected the
best of the best, but would not have been within reach economically
for a good segment of the sector. The result may not be the very best
environmental performance, but still "a high level of protection for the
environment as a whole."
1 Michael Suhr. 2000. Federal Environmental Agency, Germany, The BREF
in the Pulp and Paper Industry in The Sevilla Process A Driver for
Environmental Performance in Industry, pp. 111-122.
Establishing BAT in the EU
Sector-based BAT determination is done
initially at the EU level. The IPPC
Directive mandates that the EC organize
an exchange of information between
member states and industry on BAT and
publish the results.253 In practice, this
information exchange involves the
production of non-binding RA^
Reference Documents (BREFs) for each
of the thirty industrial sectors regulated
under IPPC. The purpose of the BREF
is to summarize available information on
BAT and to serve as a reference for
permitting authorities across the EU as
well as address whatever technological
differences or imbalances there may be
among the various member states. The content of the BREF provides the basis for input in
determining BAT at the national level and then, in turn, at the facility level.254In essence, BAT as
250 The EA has commented that the use of EU EQS is largely an academic exercise at this point and that ELVs are
amply protective of water quality. James, T. "Integrated Regulation in the UK." Presentation at the workshop
Lessons from the United Kingdom's Integrated Permitting Experience: Exploring New Directions for
Environmental Permitting in the US. Washington, DC. 25 October 2007.
251 In the UK, corresponding environmental air quality standards are termed Environmental Assessment Levels, or
EALs. These will be discussed later in the chapter in conjunction with the HI tool.
252 EA, 2000, p. 1.
253 IPPC Directive, Article 16.
254 The information exchange process and the resulting information base mandated by the IPPC Directive have been
described as a remnant of harmonized emissions control advocated by Germany. The combination of this BREF
information exchange and the provisions of Article 9(4) of the directive aligned most closely with the UK permitting
system thus represent a compromise between German and UK approaches. (Hey, C. "Balancing Participation in
59
-------
it is articulated in the BREF represents techniques "that are considered to be appropriate to [a]
sector as a whole and in many cases reflect the current performance of some installations within
the sector."255 BREFs address each environmental consequence of industrial operations within a
sector.
The BREF process is one of negotiation and consensus (as discussed below) and considers the
economic position of sectors in each of the member states. In part because this is so, BAT in the
BREF does not represent the absolute best performance that could be achieved by an industrial
source.256'257'258 Standard boilerplate text that appears in each BREF states, "In some cases it
may be technically possible to achieve better emission or consumption levels but due to the costs
involved or cross-media considerations, they are not considered to be appropriate as BAT for the
sector as a whole."259'260 Consistent with the UK interpretation of BAT implementation, BREF
boilerplate language goes on to state, "It is intended that the general BAT .. .are a reference point
against which to judge a proposal for a new installation. In this way, they will assist in the
determination of appropriate 'BAT-based' conditions for the [individual] installation.... It is
foreseen that new installations can be designed to perform at or even better than general BAT
levels .. .It is also considered that existing installations could move towards the general BAT
Technical Working Groups: The Case of the Information Exchange of the IPPC Directive." Presentation at the
conference The Sevilla Process: A Driver for Environmental Performance in Industry." Stuttgart, Germany. 6-7
April 2000. http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/1823.pdf.)
255 Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the Manufacture of Organic Fine Chemicals (BREF).
European Commission. August 2006, p. 371.
256 "The process of [BREF] information exchange was overshadowed for several years by the conflict on the content
of the IPPC Directive. Only in 1999 was a compromise formulation reached that makes it clear that the result of the
information exchange process does neither lie in a large range of techniques nor in a particularly ambitious standard.
Using this 'clarification,' made in 1999, of the level of the environmental policy demands in the direction of aw
above average, but not best possible environmental performance of BAT, a normative framework for further work
on the information exchange process has been created." Hey, C. "Balancing Participation in Technical Working
Groups: The Case of the Information Exchange of the IPPC Directive." Presentation at the conference The Sevilla
Process: A Driver for Environmental Performance in Industry." Stuttgart, Germany. 6-7 April 2000.
http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/1823.pdf.
257 Stated somewhat differently, "The BREF provides a general BAT on the sector level. Which means that the
presented BAT is considered to be appropriate for the sector as a whole, but not necessarily appropriate, not even
technically possible for immediate implementation at all individual sites. The IPPC Directive does not set a time
limit for when BAT should be implemented at the individual plant. Some BATs are easy to implement in the short-
term perspective, others, such as change of process, have to be considered in the long term investment planning. It
is considered that existing installations could be expected, over time, to move towards general BAT levels."
Hagstrom, P. "BAT Process Selection and Split Views." Presentation at the conference The Sevilla Process: A
Driver for Environmental Performance in Industry." Stuttgart, Germany. 6-7 April 2000.
http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/1823.pdf.
258 " [W]hat is clear, however, from that definition [of BAT] is that the use of BAT does not require the never ending
pursuit of the highest possible level of environmental protection. Rather it requires the best technology to achieve a
high - not necessarily the highest possible - level of environmental protection." Derwent, H., DEFRA. "Industrial
Environmental Regulation in the UK." Presentation at the conference Prevention and Control of Industrial Pollution:
International Conference on Policy Approaches. Seville, Spain. 25-26 April 2002.
http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/doc/PCIPsevilla/mainpage.htm.
259 Higher performance, however, may be considered and required on a site-specific basis dictated by individual site
and local conditions.
260 European IPPC Bureau, 2005. IPPC BREF Outline and Guide. http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/Boutline.htm.
60
-------
levels or do better, subject to the technical and economic applicability of the techniques in each
case/'261
For those familiar with CAA permitting in the US, BREF BAT is roughly equivalent to BACT (a
facility-specific adaptation of the "best" technology broadly available and commonly used).262
For additional perspective, the top end of performance ranges found in BREFs may be on par or
still below CAA LAER (a highly demanding, "best in class" standard based on the lowest
emission rate achieved in practice and highly unique among US environmental standards,
generally without regard to cost).263'264
To produce a BREF, the European IPPC Bureau, or EIPPCB, located in Seville, Spain, conducts
what is known as the "Sevilla" process. This process amounts to a sector-specific "negotiation"
between competent authorities from individual EU member states (i.e., the governmental entities
responsible for permit issuance), industry, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
convened as a Technical Working Group (TWG).265 Participation by practitioners and other
experts is voluntary.266 The process typically takes two to three years to complete and has been
described as a classic example of "technocratic participatory standard-setting" not purely science
and technology-based but also based on legal and political considerations.267 In other words,
"For the most part, the discussion in the [BREF] technical forums is a mixture of scientific
discourse (argument) and negotiation processes (bargaining) such that both technical and also
political qualifications are necessary."268 At times where there is disagreement among members
of the TWG, between member states or between industry and others, "split views" are
represented in the BREF. From the UK perspective, the quality, quantity and timing of the
information provided through the BREF process can be somewhat variable.269
261 European IPPC Bureau, 2005.
262 The US CAA Section 7479(3) officially defines BACT as "an emission limitation based on the maximum degree
of [pollutant] reduction .. .which the [state] permitting authority, on a case by case basis, taking into account energy,
environmental, and economic impacts and costs, determines is achievable for [the] facility."
263 The US CAA Section 7501(3) officially defines LAER as "that rate of emissions which reflects the most
stringent emission limitation which is.. .achieved in practice by such class or category of source, whichever is more
stringent."
264 These comparisons between UK and US standards are based on a qualitative analysis of information presented in
written materials, most notably in the EU BREFS and UK technical guidance along with input that resulted from
discussion with EA staff and managers. As such, this analysis represents a best interpretation, rather than a hard
number, quantitative assessment.
265 The "negotiation" character of the Sevilla process stands in contrast to the US system of standard setting through
rulemaking, although in some sense US public notice and comment procedures may involve "negotiating" among
the views (in the form of comments) of industry, NGOs, and the public.
266 The European Environmental Bureau has only a limited budget to compensate experts.
267 Bell and McGillivray, p. 782.
268 Hey, C. "Balancing Participation in Technical Working Groups: The Case of the Information Exchange of the
IPPC Directive." Presentation at the conference The Sevilla Process: A Driver for Environmental Performance in
Industry." Stuttgart, Germany. 6-7 April 2000, p. 69. http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/1823.pdf.
269 DEFRA, 2007b. Views from the UK on the IPPC Review.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/envagencv/meetings/pdf/070517-views-ippc-review.pdf. p. 2.
61
-------
Each sector BREF contains the following:
General information on the sector;
A
Current emission and [natural resource] consumption levels within the sector;
reiieitu iiiiuiiiiauon on me SC^LOI,
. listing of the industrial processes that operate within the sector;
Prevention, emission reduction, resource management, and other techniques relevant for
determining BAT and permit conditions based on BAT; and
Conclusions on BAT in conjunction with the emission and consumption levels expected
to result from the implementation of BAT.
In other words, the BREF contains methods, processes, and techniques that should be taken into
account when making BAT determinations for an individual facility.270 The BREF contains a
survey of possible BAT that has been demonstrated at facilities within the EU, and because
economic conditions vary across the EU, BAT performance targets are presented as a range
(benchmarks) for such facilities. The BREF forms the basis for individualized action in each
member state; however, member states have the ability to adapt the BREF consistent with sector
conditions nationally.
The first generation of BREFs tended to focus more on pollution abatement and end-of-pipe
technologies and techniques. Prevention, such as use of "green chemistry" techniques had
relatively little traction in the process of drafting the Large Volume Organic Chemical BREF, for
example.271 As the first round of BREFs undergo review (a process currently underway for five
industrial sectors - iron and steel, pulp and paper, cement and lime, glass and non-ferrous
metals)272 an increased understanding and availability of data on the environmental footprint of
each sector should allow greater use and focus on pollution prevention.273
The IPPC Directive requires each member state to report to the EC on its implementation of the
directive.274 In its latest report to the EC, the UK government (DEFRA) offered some
commentary on the usefulness of BREFs.275 While the general tone of the comments was
positive, DEFRA noted some potential for improvement that provides insight into the translation
of the standard-setting process from the EU to the UK. Overall, the BREFs serve as a useful
270 Actually, multiple BREFs may apply at a single facility, depending on the types of operations employed. As will
be discussed in Chapter 5, at the time of permitting the St. Regis pulp and paper mill, BREFs/technical guidance for
combustion plants and incineration plants were pertinent as well. Since then, additional generic BREFs have
become applicable including those encompassing energy considerations, cost/economic impacts, and cross-media
effects.
271 Radway, A. EA, Policy Adviser. Personal communication. 17 July 2007. Based on experience with Large
Volume Organic Chemical BREF.
272 The development of BAT described in the BREF is an ongoing process and thus is subject to periodic review by
the TWO.
273 Radway, A. EA, Policy Adviser. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
274 rppc Directive, Article 16(3).
275 DEFRA, 2006.
62
-------
basis to create the more user-friendly domestic sector-based guidance notes. Because they are a
valuable resource for the UK regulator, timeliness in BREF publication is of key importance.
However, for member state regulators, challenges arise in sectors (and BREFs) where the variety
of techniques is very wide. This reduces the impact of the BREFs and makes it difficult for
member states to set emission limits within a meaningful (narrow) range. In instances where
industrial sites and processes have evolved and matured over a long period of time, or where
there is wide variation in raw material use, BREFs have proved to be less useful. Case-by-case
assessments are often more appropriate in these instances.
In addition to sector-specific BREFs, the EIPPCB also produces horizontal BREFs, which
address issues that cut across sectors, such as BREFs that address monitoring systems, economic
and cross-media issues, and energy efficiency.
Translating EU BAT in the UK: Technical Guidance Notes
BREFs apply across the EU and so are not tailored to sector conditions in each of the member
states. However, each member state, at its discretion, can choose to take what is issued in the
BREF and translate it into national guidance. This translation creates flexibility, but at the same
time maintains consistency across the EU (i.e., national guidance is still BREF-based). In the
UK, the EA issues non-binding, sector-specific as well as horizontal (or cross-cutting) technical
guidance notes that cross-reference and complement the BREF, but also establish standards and
expectations for industry in the UK. In the UK technical guidance notes techniques considered
sector-wide BAT represent an appropriate balance of costs and benefits for a typical, well-
performing facility in the UK, and are intended to be generally affordable without making the
domestic sector uncompetitive within the EU and globally.
There are various goals stated for use of the technical guidance notes:
Ensure that operators address all requirements under the PPC Regulations;
Facilitate and ease the burden of operators and regulators by providing clear indicative
standards;
Provide consistency in regulating across the sector; and
Provide a common structure across permit applications that will enhance transparency.
Indicative BAT Standards
BAT standards and industry sector benchmark levels that are indicated by a BREF and in turn by
UK technical guidance notes without taking into account local or site-specific conditions at a
facility constitute indicative BAT.276 Local and site-specific conditions can include
environmental as well as the physical and engineering aspects of the facility itself. The latter can
influence the economics and thus the timing of BAT application through conditions in an
276 Implied BAT is an additional concept stating that a facility operator has an implied obligation to use BAT to
prevent or reduce emissions even when a specific permit condition does not require them to do so. In this way even
the most detailed, smallest scale aspect of facility operation is subject to BAT (see DEFRA, 2005b, p. 46).
63
-------
improvement program. In instances where a facility operator proposes not to implement
indicative BAT standards, the operator must provide a strong justification for an alternative
course of action. The greater the deviation from indicative BAT, the more detailed a rationale
the facility operator must provide that the alternative constitutes BAT for that facility.
Emission Limit Values and Environmental Quality Standards
The IPPC Directive differs from other,
previous EU pollution control directives in
that it does not contain specific numeric limits
TT7
for environmental emissions. The numeric
limits that are set in facility permits, ELVs,
are based on national sector level (and
ultimately on facility-level) BAT
determinations.278 ELVs imposed in a permit
also factor in EQSs.
The essence of IPPC is that operators should choose
the best option available to achieve a high level of
protection of the environment taken as a whole. IPPC
achieves this by requiring operators to use the best
available techniques (BAT). This, together with a
consideration of local circumstances, provides the
main basis for setting ELVs.
- IPPC Practical Guide, Edition 4
Specifically, ELVs are numeric limits placed on emissions produced by different industrial
processes. The limit itself is derived from what a well-performing UK facility implementing the
indicated BAT standards would be expected to emit. However, in specifying an ELV in a
permit, BAT-based ELVs may be adjusted to reflect local and site-specific conditions.
Modifying an ELV based on local conditions may result in a permit ELV that differs from the
indicated BAT-based ELV. As is the case in deviations from indicative BAT, a detailed
rationale is required in order for an operator to propose and for the EA to accept a deviation from
a BAT-based ELV. However, using this approach, IPPC permitting is able to mesh local and
facility-specific conditions with sector-wide considerations.
In addition to the site-specific aspects of BAT-based ELVs, there are requirements prescribed at
the EU level that take precedence over any domestic or locally-derived ELV. EU-imposed ELVs
must be incorporated into IPPC permits in the UK. ELVs are set at the EC level in instances
where there is an agreed-upon need for EU-wide consistency to limit certain emissions. These
EU ELVs most often originate from EU media-specific directives. Corresponding media-
specific legislation in the UK may also contain (non-BAT based) ELVs that get incorporated into
IPPC permits.
The EU also sets EQSs (also referred to as "target" or "ambient" environmental standards) based
on the effect on, or the condition of, the receiving environment or public health end point. Water
quality standards and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are equivalent standards in the
US. In the UK, EQSs are established through EU legislation in some cases,279 and in others,
T-^ 780
through UK laws and regulations. EQSs specify the maximum concentration of a pollutant
277 Bell and McGillivray, p. 771.
278 In Views from the UK on the IPPC Review, the UK reiterates, "The general principle remains that what needs to
be harmonized throughout the EU is the approach to setting BAT-based ELVs for each installation, not the ELVs
themselves" (DEFRA, 2007b, p.4).
279 For instance, in some cases EQS are established through media-specific EU directives.
280 For example, the UK Air Quality Regulations 2000 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20000928.htm') set
mandatory standards for SO2, NO2, lead, CO, benzene, 1,3-butadiene and PM10; and the UK Water Quality
64
-------
that can be released to air or water. In addition to numeric EQSs, qualitative EQSs also exist.
Where a BAT-based permit (i.e., a BAT-based ELV) violates an applicable EQS set by European
legislation, a more stringent ELV must be imposed in the permit to meet the applicable EU EQS.
In other words, an ELV based on BAT alone is not sufficient in instances where conformance
with an EU EQS is jeopardized. Violation of an EU EQS could be the basis for permit refusal if
the operator cannot meet the more stringent ELV.
In cases where UK-specific EQSs are established and apply, they do not carry the same weight
as those set by the EU. The PPC Regulations do not require a more stringent ELV solely on the
basis of a national EQS or objective. However, in instances where a UK EQS is applicable,
adherence to it may be an important determinant of local environmental quality, and in that
respect, form the basis for ELVs set in the permit. In other words, in most cases where an IPPC
facility is a significant contributor to violation of a domestic EQS, more stringent ELVs are
required.
IPPC Permits: Conditions
The permit is the legal instrument that specifies BAT for an individual facility. An IPPC permit
appears to be a very powerful tool. As previously discussed, an IPPC permit is a dynamic
document that reflects the current performance of a facility and over time, is also a forcing
mechanism for continuous improvement.
Overview
The BAT determination process culminates in the facility-specific assessment of BAT that
proceeds from the application determination, or permit issuance process (described below).
Because the concept of BAT applies broadly, an IPPC permit addresses a wide range of
considerations - more than an individual permit in the US, and in some respects more than the
collective body of requirements applicable to facilities in the US under federal, state, and local
law.281 The discussion below is a high level description of a typical IPPC permit in the UK.
Chapter 5 explores IPPC permits in more detail based on observations gleaned from review of
IPPC permits in the pulp and paper and specially organic chemical sectors.
Typical Permit Contents
IPPC permits contain a variety of specific terms and conditions some of which are similar to
what typically appears in a US CAA Title V or CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit, but many of which do not have analogues in US permits. The
following list (derived from the UK IPPC Technical Guidance for the Pulp and Paper Sector )
illustrates the scope of environmental concerns which must be addressed in an IPPC permit.283
Regulations 2000 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2000/20003184.htm) set quality parameters for water used for
drinking, washing, cooking, and food preparation.
281 To some UK regulators, IPPC possesses a "soul" referring to the belief mat its overall effect is greater than the
sum of its parts. James, T. EA, Policy Manager. Personal communication. 2 May 2007.
282 EA, 2000.
283 The general contents of a permit may vary to some extent by sector, but more than likely, permits for all sectors
will include conditions that address the concerns listed here.
65
-------
Emission Benchmarks and Emissions to Air, Water, and Land. Delineates EQSs that
must be met and presumptive benchmarks for air, water, and waste emissions from well-
run facilities employing BAT. Operators are required to determine emission levels that
will result from application of BAT at their facilities and compare them with applicable
EQSs/benchmarks. ELVs are set in this portion of the permit.
Impact. Requires the operator to assess facility environmental impacts to demonstrate
that facility operations (under proposed BAT implementation) will provide a high level of
protection for the environment as a whole.284
Management Techniques. Requires facility operators to implement a management
system, often an EMS, to ensure compliance with BAT requirements and to promote
continuous improvement.
Materials Inputs. Covers BAT for raw materials and water, including raw materials
selection and minimizing their use and environmental impact subject to demonstration by
the operator that steps have been taken to reduce the use of chemicals, substitute less
harmful materials, and understand the fate of by-products and contaminants.
Main Activities and Abatement. Requires operators to describe facility activities and
proposed techniques to prevent/reduce emissions (including odor) and waste and
demonstrate how such techniques represent BAT. This section includes a requirement to
have and implement an odor management plan.
Emissions to Groundwater. Prohibits direct or indirect discharge of certain listed
substances to groundwater.
Waste Handling. Describes requirements for characterizing and quantifying waste
streams and for waste storage and handling.
Waste Recovery and Disposal. Requires measures for avoiding/reducing waste
generation and, where wastes cannot be eliminated, for treating and/or disposing wastes.
Energy. Requires operators to provide energy-related information and propose measures
for energy efficiency improvement.
Accidents and their Consequences. Requires a documented system to identify, assess,
and minimize environmental risks and hazards of accidents and their consequences.
Noise and Vibration. Requires facility operators to identify main sources of noise and
vibration, assess their impact on nearest noise-sensitive areas, and describe techniques
undertaken and/or proposed to mitigate any identified adverse impacts.
284 This analysis is facilitated by horizontal guidance (HI), which will be described later in this chapter.
66
-------
Monitoring. Prescribes monitoring requirements for air, water, and waste emissions and
for monitoring groundwater and noise.
De-commissioning. Requires facility operators to have an approved plan for avoiding
any pollution risk and returning the site to a satisfactory state upon ceasing operation of
the facility.
IPPC Focus on Pollution Prevention, Resource Use, Sensory Effects, Non-
Substance Emissions, and Continuous Improvement
In reviewing the above environmental issues and concerns, it may be apparent to many readers,
especially those familiar with the US permitting system, that a number of areas are not under the
purview of the US permit writer. These include a facility's management techniques, materials
inputs, energy and water use, accident risks and hazards, sources of odor, noise, heat, and
vibration, as well as advance planning in the event of facility closure. Because these issues are
not common in the context of US permitting, the discussion below introduces some of these
unique features of UK IPPC permits and links them to the central theme of the IPPC Directive.
Chapter 5 will expand this discussion and discuss the specifics of the individual permits
examined as part of this study.
Pollution Prevention. In the hierarchy of the IPPC Directive, the mandate is first to prevent
pollution and, only if that is not possible, do control and reduction measures become the focus of
IPPC permitting. IPPC permits do not include a discrete set of requirements specifically labeled
as "pollution prevention." Rather, prevention underlies a number of areas addressed in an IPPC
permit - namely materials inputs, main activities and abatement, waste recovery, and energy.
For example, under consideration of materials inputs, the operator (in the permit application) and
regulator (in determining the application) scrutinize the choice and use of raw materials in order
to prevent pollution in the first place, and thus determine BAT for materials inputs that offers the
best protection at reasonable cost. A similar process takes place for main activities and
abatement which in effect shifts the emphasis away from end-of-pipe to process controls and use
of clean technologies.285 Once described in the permit application and approved by the EA,
these aspects of the permit can be changed subject to the permit variation criteria and process
described in Chapter 6.
Resource Use. As a key component of the sustainability focus of the IPPC Directive,
consumption of natural resources, specifically water and energy use and efficiency, are
scrutinized through the IPPC permitting process. As will be discussed further in Chapter 5, BAT
for energy requires an operator to inventory energy consumption and generation as well as to
propose measures "for the improvement of energy efficiency."286 Techniques to minimize water
use are examined in the course of demonstrating BAT for materials inputs.
Sensory Effects, Non-substance Emissions and Accident Prevention. Protection of both the
natural and human environment "as a whole" is a central tenet of the IPPC Directive. In turn the
285 Bell and McGillivray, p. 792.
286 EA, 2000, p. 61. In the IPPC permit application, the guidance requires an operator to provide a breakdown of the
energy consumption and generation by source and the associated environmental releases, and to describe proposed
measures for improvement of energy efficiency. BAT for energy is outlined for each set of operator responses.
67
-------
definition of "pollution," as was mentioned in Chapter 3, includes emissions that "cause offense
to human senses or impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the
environment." Thus, emissions of odor, noise, vibration, and heat all fall under the rubric of
IPPC permits. Operators are required to demonstrate BAT for these emissions, which in some
cases may include techniques not too dissimilar to measures that might be required under
traditional statutory nuisance legislation which in the UK requires application of the "best
practicable means" to prevent or minimize the nuisance. As will be discussed further in Chapter
5, this is not the case for environmental permits at the federal, and in most cases, state level in
the US. Local jurisdictions in the US may address nuisances such as odor through local laws or
town ordinances.
Continuous Improvement. The IPPC permitting system includes elements that drive
continuous improvement on several levels.287 To begin with BAT is a dynamic, technology-
forcing standard. It is not set and then left static on an indefinite basis. EU BREFs are subject to
review and update on a periodic basis. Among the considerations for BAT for IPPC facilities
(referenced in Chapter 3) is "technological advances and changes in scientific knowledge and
understanding."288 Consistent with Article 11 of the IPPC Directive, UK operators and
regulators alike are expected to stay current on developments in BAT. In addition, despite the
fact that there is only a general requirement under the PPC Regulations for periodic review of
permits, there is a hard (regulatory) trigger for permit review in the event that BAT changes and
the "new" BAT can be implemented without incurring excessive cost.289
In addition to environmental performance improvements driven by developments in BAT,
certain portions of IPPC permits require the operator to monitor opportunities for improvement
on an ongoing basis. One such requirement is BAT for management techniques. This often
takes the form of an EMS or other management system that is required to include regular
assessment of environmental performance and a commitment to set and improve performance
targets over time. BAT for materials inputs and selection of raw materials also require
procedures to stay abreast and act on new developments and further opportunities to reduce
facility impacts.
The EA also engages industry at the sector level in creating the expectation for continuous
improvement. As mentioned earlier, the EA has created a series of sector plans for a half dozen
industries in the UK290 that look out over the next five to 15 years and lay out priorities,
objectives and performance indicators for the sector. Coupled with upstream events - periodic
While not specifically a part of the cycle of continuous improvement, IPPC permits for existing facilities from
the start include an improvement program mat moves the facility to BAT standards for new facilities.
288 IPPC Directive, Annex IV(5).
289 Setting the specific schedule for the required periodic review (in regulation 15(1)) is left to the discretion of the
EA. The current review period is at least every eight years with a four to five year review period the norm. James,
T., EA, Policy Manager. Personal communication. 2 May 2007.
290 The full title is Improving Environmental Performance, Sector Plan for the Chemical Industry (EA, 2005c). At
the time this report was written, the EA had published sector plans for the cement, chemical, dairy fanning, nuclear,
and waste management industries. Sector plans for the power generation, food and drink manufacturing and water
companies were next in line for publication. See http://www.environment-
agencv.gov.uk/business/444251/1215866/ for sector plans.
68
-------
updates to the BREFs and UK technical guidance notes - and downstream revisions to PPC SPPs
and permit review, sector plans are a tool to drive overall sector-wide improvement.
Figure 4.3 - Overview of the UK
Permitting Process
Operator and EA Inspector
Engage in
Pre-Application Discussions
Operator Prepares and
Submits Application to EA
L
Operator advertises
application
EA places application and
pemi \n\o\n Public Register
EA Determines Application to
be Complete and
Duly-Made
EA issues Schedule 4 Further
Information Notice and
operator response
UK Permitting Process and Tools
Overview
To obtain a permit, facility operators in the
UK must demonstrate that they have
systematically developed proposals to
apply BAT to all activities with
environmental consequences and to meet
certain other requirements such as
complying with EU established EQSs.
Thus in the UK IPPC permit process, it is
the operator that proposes BAT in a permit
application. Final permit terms are
fashioned by the permitting agency (the
EA) subsequent to further information
exchange and negotiation with the
operator (if necessary), and review and
comment by other agencies and the public.
Permits issued for existing facilities may
include an improvement program if the
EA determines that there is a significant
gap between BAT in the current permit
and that indicated in the UK technical
guidance note (or in the BREF). The
overall process is represented in Figure
4.3. The sections following explore the
permitting process in more detail.
IPPC/PPC Process: Pre-Application
Discussions
The IPPC permitting process often begins
with the somewhat unofficial step of the
operator conferring with the regulator
prior to the official submission of the
permit application. These discussions
involve the local EA area office inspector
who ends up playing a significant role at
multiple stages of the permitting process. Consultation at this stage is an opportunity for the
inspector to advise and educate the operator on both the "how" and "what" of the permit
application. In addition to making the operator aware of available EA tools and guidance, the
Consultation and input from
Sfafcrfo/yConsu/feesandthe
public
-Improvement Programme
Implementation
- Operator Monitoring
-EA Audit and Inspections
EA-Operator discussions and
correspondence track
Improvement Programme
implementation
Periodic Perm it Review
(Approximately Every
4 Years)
s
In the Event of Facility
Closure, Permit Surrender
69
-------
inspector can often help in the technical evaluation of BAT.291 Identification of technical issues
early in the process can smooth and accelerate the permitting process later on. As one DEFRA
official stated, "Whether or not an installation [was] already regulated, it was apparent from the
beginning of EPPC implementation that there would be considerable benefit in pre-application
discussions between the operator and the regulator. Experience to date has confirmed this. Such
discussions enable the operator to establish what is required in the application and what guidance
is available. The regulator can gain insights into the nature of the installation. Both parties can
build up a mutual understanding and respect so that
they can as far as possible work together to deliver
the benefits of IPPC"~~~
292
Pre-application discussions can also help to identify
issues that may be of concern to the surrounding
community. In many cases, the public is not likely
to have concerns, but in instances where activities at
the facility do give rise to community concern, it is
best for the operator to address that concern early
on. Unresolved issues that surface in formal
communication from the public during the
application determination process can significantly
lengthen that period.293
IPPC/PPC Process: Application
As noted earlier in the discussion of the phased,
sector-by-sector implementation of the IPPC
Directive in the UK, facility operators in each of the
sectors covered by the directive have a three-month
window in which they are required (by the PPC
Regulations) to submit an IPPC permit application
to the EA.
Operating Permits Only
(pre-construction permits not required)
For a new greenfield source in the UK, an
IPPC permit is not required until the source
begins operation (like US NPDES permits).
There is no permit or review required prior to
beginning construction. As a practical
matter, most new sources apply for their
IPPC permit well before operation is
scheduled to begin, and often well before
construction actually begins. Under the PPC
Regulations it is clear that any construction is
undertaken at the source's risk, and case law
has upheld that "equity in the ground" is not
an argument for not meeting BAT. A new
facility that can't meet BAT at the
commencement of operation can be (and has
been) required to dismantle portions or all of
a facility and reconstruct it such that it can
meet BAT. As a legal and practical matter,
most IPPC permits for new greenfield
sources do not contain an improvement
program since new sources are "normally
expected to comply with or go beyond
indicative BAT."1
1 DEFRA, 2005b,p.51.
Importance of the Application. IPPC permits themselves are relatively short documents. The
entire permits for the pulp and paper mill and the specialty batch chemical production facility
examined in detail later in this report are 40 and 28 pages long, respectively.294 However, the
content (and length) of the permit document does not represent all of what is prescribed.
"Neither does the existence of published guidance lessen the need for well qualified and highly motivated
inspectors with the resources necessary to carry out detailed technical inspections both on and off site. Those
inspections are vital both to setting permit conditions and also to checking compliance with them. They also provide
a great deal of the raw material which must be fed into the process of preparing...the BREFs." Derwent, H.,
DEFRA. "Industrial Environmental Regulation in the UK." Presentation at the conference Prevention and Control of
Industrial Pollution: International Conference on Policy Approaches. Seville, Spain. 25-26 April 2002.
http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/doc/PCIPsevilla/mainpage.htm.
292 Derwent, H., DEFRA. "Industrial Environmental Regulation in the UK." Presentation at the conference
Prevention and Control of Industrial Pollution: International Conference on Policy Approaches. Seville, Spain. 25-
26 April 2002. http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/doc/PCIPsevilla/mainpage.htm.
293 DEFRA, 2005b, p. 25.
294 By comparison, US CAA Title V permits alone can exceed 100 pages.
70
-------
Operators are bound by the operational details spelled out in the permit application.295 Through
the guidance that dictates the content of the permit application, IPPC places the onus on the
operator "to assess the effects of their operations, to explore ways of improving them and to
make proposals for the regulator's consideration."296 In other words, an operator must propose
and justify BAT for all aspects of it operations, and demonstrate that its activities do not result in
significant environmental harm.
Often entire sections of the permit application (anywhere from two to fifteen pages) submitted by
the operator are incorporated by reference in the IPPC permit. Typically, these are sections of
the application that describe management and operating techniques, use and flow of raw
materials, energy efficiency, accident prevention and control as well as sensory effects and non-
substance emissions of odor, noise, heat, vibration, and light. In contrast, other permit
conditions, for instance emissions to air and water, appear in full in the permit document.
To the extent that IPPC permit conditions consist of sections of the application (incorporated by
reference), these permit conditions are indicative of current facility operations. In effect, this
means that the operator has proposed that current operations and activities constitute BAT, and
that the EA has accepted the operator's proposal through the application determination process.
This same determination process can also result in improvement program conditions that move
the operator towards the more advanced techniques. How the EA evaluates (and enforces
against) what is outlined and described in the operator's application will be further explored in
the permit-specific discussion in Chapter 5 and in the compliance assessment and enforcement
discussions in Chapter 6.
Application Guidance. The EA has developed a substantial number of guidance documents,
electronic templates and tools to support the facility operator in developing the IPPC permit
application. In addition to the sector-specific UK technical guidance notes derived from EU
BREFs, the EA issues a number of horizontal or cross-sector guidance documents (Horizontal
Guidance, HI, H2, H3, H4, H7, and H8) that address cross-cutting issues such as emission
impacts, energy, noise, odor, site reporting, protection, monitoring and surrender. Among all the
EA tools and guidance, EP OPRA and HI are of particular interest to EPA. In the context of the
permit application the EP OPRA spreadsheets help a facility identify specific activities that
influence its EP OPRA profiles, and the associated financial consequences relating to
application, subsistence and other fees. This information can serve to help a facility target its
own environmental management activities to reduce both environmental risks and regulatory
costs. Both EP OPRA and the HI tool are highlighted in a detailed discussion below.
On a more practical level, the EA supplies electronic spreadsheets, application templates, and
other guides to facilitate the application process from the operator point of view. The EA Read
Me First guidance is a concise seven-page document that provides practical advice to the permit
applicant seeking to assemble a permit application that is well supported and complete.297
295 Operators can deviate from what is outlined in the permit application subject to the criteria described in the
discussion of the variation process in chapters 5 and 6.
296 DEFRA, 2005b, p. 24.
297 The full title of this EA document is: Read Me First: General Guidance on Producing a Good IPPC
Application. Please note that with the release of the EP Regulations in April 2008, many PPC documents and
guidance have been replaced with revised documentation for the new EP permitting regime. For EP-related
71
-------
Starting with the general principles of IPPC permitting and ending with practical considerations
on electronic submission, the Read Me First guidance provides a roadmap for the application
process, explains the purpose of the various application tools, and offers useful tips on such
things as when to communicate with the local EA inspector. Figure 4.4 illustrates the application
process.
Figure 4.4 - IPPC Permit Application Steps
298
IPPC Practice
Guide
UK Horizontal Guidance
H2 Biergy
H3 Noise
HA Odour
H7 Protection of Land
Monitoring (M) Series
BREF= Best Available Technique (BUT)
Reference CiDC-urrient
OPRAUser Guide
OPRA Spreadsheet
Risk Analysis and
screening
- Information about all
activities
- BAT Assessment
- Justification for
departures fro m BAT
Submit application and
include:
- App li cati on fo r ms
-H1 Database
- site report
necessary,
assess a
range of
other
techniques.
guidance, see http://www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/business/1745440/1745496/1906135/1986067/?version=l&lang=_e. For EP guidance similar to
Read Me First, see Getting the Basics Right (http ://www. environment-
agency . gov.uk/commondata/acrobatfoasics 2002267.pdf).
298 Modified from figure provided by James, T., EA, Policy Manager.
72
-------
EP OPRA
As noted earlier, each operator is required to complete and submit an EP OPRA profile to the EA
in the application process. In addition to being an important source of feedback to the facility,
this initial profile and its subsequent updates are used by the EA at several stages of the
regulatory process.
As a screening tool, EP OPRA is designed to gauge the potential for individual facilities to cause
environmental harm by providing approximate risk information that can be used to help plan the
agency's overall inspection and monitoring activities and target effort towards specific processes
and operators according to their risk levels. The facility profile that results from the use of EP
OPRA also determines the application and annual subsistence fees an operator pays to the EA.
This last aspect of EP OPRA is essential to the EA in meeting the requirement to recover its
permitting and compliance assessment costs.299'300 Overall, use of EP OPRA is intended to
improve the efficiency of the agency and provide incentives for operators to improve their
pollution risk management by linking regulatory effort directly to environmental risk.
EP OPRA does not assess risk directly, but consists of a set of indicators of environmental risk
based on a series of input factors that determine risk from a process, such as management
systems, substances handled, emission rates, pollution control systems, and location. The EA
has developed a detailed spreadsheet for use in compiling information about these indicators and
calculating screening values.301
As mentioned, EP OPRA has five attributes: the first three attributes reflect the environmental
hazard of the facility, the fourth is a retrospective measure of operator performance, and the fifth
reflects the compliance rating of a facility. The first four attributes are completed by the facility
at the time of permit application. The fifth attribute is completed and updated by the agency
after a permit has been issued.
The output of EP OPRA is a banded profile consisting of a series of letters (A-E) - one for each
attribute, where A represents the lowest risk and least need for regulatory oversight, and E the
highest risk and most need for regulatory oversight. The banded profile is determined by the
answers to objective questions in the worksheets and then is converted to an overall points score.
The EP OPRA banded profile is the primary factor in determining EA priorities for compliance
assessment at the local level and an important factor in determining priorities at the national
299 Consistent with the "polluter pays" concept, DEFRA requires the EA to fund its permitting operations with the
income generated from operators (i.e., from application and subsistence fees).
300 The EA must recover costs of IPPC permitting, but is not allowed to provide additional financial incentive for
regulatory compliance. The UK Government and UK law views financial incentive as a "backdoor" tax on
industrial operators. James, T. "Integrated Regulation in the UK." Presentation at the workshop Lessons from the
United Kingdom's Integrated Permitting Experience: Exploring New Directions for Environmental Permitting in the
US. Washington, DC. 25 October 2007.
301 In April of 2005, the EA published an updated version of EP OPRA to be used across a range of regulatory
regimes, including industrial facilities and waste management facilities. This version, called EP OPRA - Version 3,
is similar to the original version, but extends the risk screening methodology to Waste Management Licensing and
links it to the Compliance Classification Scheme (CCS).
73
-------
(strategic) level. Each numeric EP OPRA score corresponds to an amount in pounds and in this
way is used to calculate application, subsistence and other fees. This then provides the
mechanism by which the EA can match income to resource expenditure, i.e., cover its costs in
permitting and assessing compliance of each facility. EP OPRA is summarized in Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5 - EP OPRA
302
Operator Conpliarce
Complexity 11 Location
Performance Rating
Operator
Performance
profile
BardA-E
Cbnpliance
Rating
profile
BarriA-E
Cbnplexity
profile(s)
Bards A-E
Location
profile
BarriA-E
Enissons
profile(s)
BandsA-E
Fees and Charging
Each of the five EP OPRA attributes is described briefly below:
Complexity. Type of activities covered by permit or license; potential for significant
releases to one or more media; use of one or several processes; potential for
accidental emissions; inventory of potentially hazardous materials; size relative to
sector; whether significant regulatory effort is required to assess and maintain
compliance and public confidence.303
Emissions. Type and quantity of substances released - generally based on maximum
potential impact or permitted levels, rather than on actual emissions; media into
302 Figure provided by James, T., EA, Policy Manger, 30 June 2005.
303 This attribute is based directly on a lookup table that assigns complexity ratings for individual processes. All
other attributes are based on calculations that incorporate information from individual facilities.
74
-------
which the release takes place (air, water, land, waste, sewer, off-site waste); relative
impact of a substance on that media.
Location. Status of the environment around a facility; proximity of human
habitation; proximity to wildlife habitat; presence in a sensitive groundwater zone;
sensitivity of receiving waters; potential for direct release to waters; potential for
flooding and consequences of flooding; inclusion within an Air Quality Management
Zone.
Operator Performance. Presence/absence of management systems or recognized
procedures covering operations and maintenance, competence and training,
emergency planning, auditing, monitoring, reporting and evaluation; enforcement
history.
Compliance Rating. Non-compliance with permit/license requirements; potential
impact on the environment as a result of non-compliance; additional compliance
assessment effort required to resolve permit/license breaches. This attribute is
completed by EA after a permit has been issued, using information from the
Compliance Classification Scheme (CCS) and a weighting scheme that reflects the
potential environmental effects of events. This attribute allows EA to more
accurately adjust regulatory oversight according to an assessment of compliance.
Poor performers will have higher EP OPRA scores and excellent performers will
benefit from a reduced EP OPRA score.
Facility profiles generated by EP OPRA are also made available to the public - individual EP
OPRA profiles are published annually and are available on the EA website through the tool
entitled What's in your backyard?304
UK Horizontal Guidance
In addition to the technical guidance notes for individual sectors (the vertical guidance), the EA
has developed a series of horizontal cross-cutting or issue-based technical guidance notes that aid
in the development and determination of the permit application.303 For example, the H2 Energy
Efficiency Guidance supplements the information found in sector guidance notes and "assists
applicants in responding to energy efficiency requirements.. ,"306 The same is true for H3
Horizontal Noise and H4 Horizontal Odour Guidance that address the permitting of noise,
vibration, and odor effects under the PPC Regulations.
Use of the horizontal guidance in conjunction with sector guidance notes assists both the EA and
the applicant in the determination of BAT. In instances where an operator deviates from or must
304 See the EP OPRA website on pollution hazards (http://www.environment-
agency . gov .uk/maps/info/epopra/?lang=_e).
305 See http://www.environment-agencv.gov.uybusiness/1745440/444663/298441/liorizontal/ for horizontal
guidance notes.
306 EA. Environment and Heritage Service and SEP A, 2002. Horizontal Guidance Note H2: Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (IPPC) Energy Efficiency. http://www.environment-
agency . gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/interimenergy .pdf. p. iii.
75
-------
go beyond the sector-specific indicative BAT (e.g., due to geographic location or local
environmental or other site-specific conditions) in order to achieve an acceptable (the best
practicable) environmental outcome,307 the HI guidance and software tool provide the basis for
selection of BAT.308
H1: Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BA T
To facilitate preparation and determination of the IPPC permit application, the EA, in
collaboration with Scottish and Irish environmental agencies, has developed an electronic
environmental assessment and appraisal tool - HI. An applicant is not required to use HI in the
preparation of the IPPC permit application - the applicant may present the same information
using other formats or methodologies. However, in the Read Me First guidance, the EA states
that it will use HI to validate the information the applicant provides if the operator does not
submit HI results with the permit application. When used by the operator, HI results
(supplemented by an operator's interpretation) become a significant part of the justification and
demonstration of BAT in the permit application. Because HI
is a cross-cutting, cross-media tool of interest (and potential
use) to the US permit practitioner, we provide a more
detailed explanation and description of it below.
The HI software application provides sources and regulators
with a scoping and options analysis of the environmental
impacts and costs associated with available environmental
protection techniques. The aim of the tool is to assemble
information from a source regarding the activities at issue;
quantify environmental impacts; apply required
environmental standards; consider provisional environmental
benchmarks; compare the environmental impacts of available
options; evaluate the costs when conducting an appraisal of
BAT for more than one option; and select BAT.
HI Tool
The HI tool helps the operator and
the regulator in justifying the choice
of BAT and determining
environmental impacts. The HI
modules:
«> Define objectives and options
to be considered
«> Quantify emissions from each
option
«> Quantify environmental
impacts
*> Compare and rank order
options
*> Evaluate costs of each option
*> Identify BAT, balancing
costfoenefits
The IPPC HI methodology provides a simplified process to conduct an options appraisal of
environmental protection techniques to determine BAT in cases where (1) the source proposes to
deviate from the BAT proposed in the applicable sector technical guidance note; (2) several
options exist for BAT; or (3) no BAT exists in the technical guidance. In addition, the tool may
be used to conduct an environmental assessment of the overall impact of emissions to confirm
that the emissions are at acceptable levels for permitting purposes and to identify priority
emissions or environmental risks that merit further attention.
As discussed earlier, BAT for a particular sector or activity that results in emissions, or
discharges to the environment is determined in the context of statutory requirements or standards
that must be met. In addition, environmental benchmarks such as Environmental Assessment
BPEO is a concept introduced in Chapter 2. It predates the IPPC/PPC permitting regime, but its importance
persists as one of the fundamental tenets of environmental policy in the UK.
308 EA. Environment and Heritage Service and SEP A, 2003. Horizontal Guidance Note HI: Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (IPPC) Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT. http ://www. environment-
agency.gov.uk/business/1745440/444663/298441/horizontal/545377/?version=l&lang=e.. p. iii.
76
-------
Levels (EALs) guide BAT selection, but do not have the same legal authority as the required
standards (such as EU-designated EQSs).309 These provisional EAL benchmarks are revised
over time as additional scientific information becomes available and in response to any new
legislation.
The HI-guided BAT determination process using the software application and written guidance
is comprised of six modules that are considered sequentially. Module 1 contains a scoping
exercise and an initial determination of options. Module 2 requires that the source inventory all
emissions, which are then quantified in Module 3. Module 4 compares the impacts of the BAT
options under consideration, and Module 5, if necessary, is used to evaluate the costs of all
options. Finally, Module 6 facilitates selection of BAT from candidate options by balancing
environmental benefits against costs. More detail on the elements of each HI module can be
found in Appendix K.
An important aspect of the HI tool is its capability to facilitate a comparative analysis of
regulatory options available to a facility based on environmental and economic parameters.
Environmental options are considered first with the objective of identifying the outcome with the
least environmental impact. If the outcome with the least environmental impact is BAT, then the
analysis stops. If there is no BAT or there is an option that provides better environmental results
than BAT, the next step is to take costs into account. The cost analysis follows methodologies
for cost accounting and comprehensively considers factors such as capital, operation and
maintenance costs, discount rates, present values, and the costs of making process changes.
Equipped with environmental and cost information, the operator and the EA are then prepared to
balance the environmental benefits of options against the costs of achieving them.
In conclusion, the HI tool generates a comprehensive picture of a facility's environmental
footprint, and among other things might be useful in the context of the US permitting system in
pointing to areas where further environmental improvements might be achieved.
Determination of the Application
The substantive features of determining the IPPC application (i.e., BAT determination) have
largely been described. From a procedural point of view, determination of the application
involves a series of actions and interactions on the part of the EA, the operator, statutory
consultees, and the public. The EA should normally determine a permit application within four
months of its submission.310
309 EALs are used in the HI methodology as an indicator of a degree of environmental impact considered acceptable
for a particular substance to a receptor or environmental medium and as such, serve a role similar to mat of an EQS
(which defines the highest concentration of a substance considered tolerable for the environment). Because EQS
exist for only a limited number of substances, the EA has developed EALs as provisional benchmarks for other
additional substances released into the environment. The HI guidance contains both the methodology used to derive
EALs (from the World Health Organization (WHO) and other guidance on human health and aquatic life protection)
and a comprehensive listing of EALs (concentration-based) for release of several hundred individual substances to
air, water, and land.
310 DEFRA, 2005b, p. 32.
77
-------
The determination of an IPPC permit application is primarily a technical evaluation with
relatively little in the way of policy considerations. As a result it may be difficult to challenge.311
The EA must either grant the permit subject to conditions or refuse it. No permit may be granted
unconditionally. The EA may refuse a permit based on any one of several circumstances
including a failure on the part of the applicant to provide adequate information, a determination
that (1) the facility would pose an unacceptable threat or endangerment to a particularly sensitive
local environment; or (2) the techniques proposed by the applicant were not sufficient to meet
the BAT standard.
The EA documents the determination process in a decision document. The decision document
includes a summary of any comments received from statutory consultees as well as from the
public. Statutory consultees typically consist of local health authorities, countryside councils,
county councils, and others as described earlier. The EA's responses are also noted in the
decision document.
In the process of determining the application, the EA may go back to the facility operator to
request additional information. This request is documented in a Schedule 4 Further Information
Notice. The Schedule 4 Notice is shared with statutory consultees, along with the operator's
response(s).
The remainder of the decision document consists of the technical evaluation and determination
of each of the permit conditions. Also included with this document is the assessment of what
will be included in the improvement program that will bring or move an existing facility's
operations closer to BAT indicated in the BREF or UK technical guidance.
Improvement Programs
An important piece of the EA determination of an EPPC/PPC application is the establishment of
an improvement program. Improvement programs can include a dozen to several dozen
conditions that specify the actions and timeframe312 of the improvements necessary to achieve or
move in the direction of BAT that is indicated in the BREF or UK technical guidance.313 As
discussed earlier, each IPPC permit contains BAT for all aspects of a facility's operations.
However, the EA recognizes that existing sources may not be able to achieve the indicated BAT
for each aspect of its operations right away.314'315 The improvement program conditions in the
permit are designed to address this gap and to assign steps and milestones that will move the
plant toward indicative BAT standards. The shortfall between BAT determined in the permit (at
the time of permit issuance) and the indicated BAT is typically due to facility-specific physical
(i.e., limitations imposed by the physical plant) and economic constraints that for instance, may
311 Bell and McGillivray, p. 778.
312 Typically, improvement program conditions must be completed within three years.
313 The rough equivalent to the improvement program in the US is the compliance date set in US regulations, which
typically allows several years for compliance following final promulgation of new environmental standards.
314 The improvement program follows from the PPC Regulations, consideration of the length of time needed to
introduce BAT (Number 8 in the list of BAT Considerations for Part A Facilities referenced in Chapter 3). The
government acknowledges mat "new techniques cannot be brought into effect overnight."
315 On the other hand, some facilities will be able to achieve, or even surpass, BAT for some aspects of facility
operation.
78
-------
not exist in designing and constructing a new facility. Depending on the significance of the
shortfall between BAT in the permit and the indicated BAT, the EA permit writer will impose
improvement program conditions for those aspects of the facility's operations where the
environmental impact of the gap is the greatest. Additionally, the EA acknowledges that in some
instances, it may only be feasible to install or upgrade BAT if it is timed to coincide with a
facility's capital investment cycle.316
Like all conditions in the permit, provisions in the improvement program are legally binding.
There may however, be room for negotiation as to the appropriate and reasonable schedule for
introducing upgrades to BAT subject to sector-wide considerations as well as individual facility
circumstances. Through the improvement program, facilities may also be subject to additional
environmental assessments and report backs to the regulator. Implementation of improvement
programs is explored further in the context of the permit-specific analysis in Chapter 5.
The Public's Role
As referenced in Chapter 3, soon after the applicant submits the application, UK regulators - the
EA and LAs - are required to place permit information in a public register to be available to the
public at a specific location and at times via a website. Information placed in the public register
includes the permit application and the record documenting agency determination of the
application.
Permit applications must also be advertised by the applicant locally, and as appropriate for the
whole of the UK, in the London, Edinburgh, or Belfast Gazette. Notice includes information as
to where, how, and when permit documents can be viewed. This provides the opportunity for
any member of the public to express their views on the permit to the regulator who is required to
consider these views in determining the permit.317 The public has 28 days to comment when the
permit application is first submitted to the agency and 20 additional days when the draft decision
is issued.
The EA generally responds to those who submit permit comments.318 The comments themselves
and the EA's assessment and response are noted in the permit decision document.319 Comments
and responses are also maintained in the public register.
The EA also provides guidance on when to use targeted approaches to disseminate information
to the public concerning IPPC permits. In some instances it may be appropriate to provide
specific outreach to particular members of the public, community groups, community locations
or run a public information campaign that would involve activities such as a leaflet drop to the
316 The improvement program has also been described as an investment plan for a facility (comment by an IP ICE
stakeholder at EPA's workshop Lessons from the United Kingdom's Integrated Permitting Experience: Exploring
New Directions for Environmental Permitting in the US. Washington, DC. 25 October 2007.)
25 October 2007).
317 DEFRA, 2006.
318DEFRA, 2006, p. 21.
319 See for instance. Decision Document, Determination of an Application for a Permit under Regulation 10(2) of the
Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 for St. Regis Paper Company, Ltd,
Sudbrook Paper Mill, Caldicot, Monmouthshire, NP265XT. Permit No. BK1163. 15 March 2002.
79
-------
community surrounding the facility. The selection of specific approaches is determined on a
320
site-specific basis. For those IPPC facilities that are subject to the Public Participation
Directive (PPD), the Internet is used to post draft permits.
321
As a backdrop to discussion of the public's participation in the permitting process and despite the
procedural requirements that have been noted, some commentators describe the EA as a
"creature of statute with no direct public accountability."322'323'324 Thus, the fact that the
regulatory (permitting) functions of the EA have become increasingly centralized
(geographically), coupled with the EA's discretion in setting individual permit terms that reflect
local and economic conditions, can make it difficult for the public to access information, as well
as to challenge individual decisions. Perhaps to counter this somewhat, the EA has established
an Environmental Protection Advisory Committee (EPAC) for each of the eight EA regions.
These committees have a mandate to include people with a "significant interest" in the agency's
functions and the EA has an obligation to consult and consider the input of the relevant EPAC.323
In addition to public notification within the UK, notification to the other member states is
required when the regulator or the EA determines that UK facility operations are likely to have a
significant effect on the environment of another member state. In such cases, the UK cannot
issue a permit until the potentially affected member state(s) has been consulted. Any comment
back from another member state or its public must be taken into account in the determination of
the permit application.
320 DEFRA, 2006, p. 21.
321 DEFRA, 2006, p. 21.
322 Bell and Gillivray, p. 122.
323 In the UK, the influential RCEP has been a particularly strong supporter of increased public participation in
environmental decision-making and widening access to environmental information. (Bell and McGillivray, pp. 118)
324 By contrast, the US EPA was created not by statute, but by executive order.
325 Bell and McGillivray, p. 125.
80
-------
5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF UK AND US PERMITS IN THE PULP
Having investigated the general nature of IPPC permitting in the UK, the next discussion
examines in detail the permits of two particular facilities in the UK and compares them to the
permits for similar facilities in the US. The UK facilities chosen were the St. Regis Paper
Company's Sudbrook Mill in Monmouthshire, England,326 and the Eastman Company's
Llangefni Chemical Works, Peboc Division, in Anglesey, Wales. Their US counterparts were a
Georgia-Pacific paper mill in Big Island, Virginia,327 and Lonza's specialty chemical
manufacturing facility in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
The St. Regis mill produced coraigated
medium for corrugated containers using
pulp produced from recycled fiber
(about one-third of total pulp) and from
the neutral sulfite semi-chemical
(NSSC) pulping of wood chips. The
Georgia-Pacific paper facility analyzed
in the comparison study produces
corrugated medium and linerboard in
roughly equal amounts from recycled
fiber pulp and from pulp produced
through semi-chemical pulping of
hardwood chips (using a mixture of
sodium carbonate and sodium hydroxide
as the pulping solution). Production at
the St. Regis mill was about 160,000
metric tons/year, while the Georgia-
Pacific mill produces several times
more, about 580,000 metric tons/year.
The facilities did not employ any
bleaching processes to produce their
final products.
St. Regis Paper Company
Sudbrook Mil], Wales
Products:
Corrugated medium/containers
Processes:
NSSC pulping and mechanical pulping of recycled fiber
Production:
160.000 metric tons/year
Georgia-Pacific, LLC
Big Island Mill, Virginia
Products:
Corrugated medium/liner-board
Processes:
Sodium carbonate/sodium hydroxide semi-chemical pulping and
mechanical pulping of recycled fiber
Production:
580,000 metric tons/year
j26 The St. Regis Sudbrook Mill closed in May 2006. This was after the project team had invested considerable time
in looking at the permit record for this facility. Because of this investment and other factors, the team decided to
continue the analysis with this mill's permit as a basis of comparison.
327 Georgia-Pacific is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc.
81
-------
Eastman Co. Peboc Division
Llangefni Chemical Works, Wales
Products:
Intermediate active ingredients for the
pharmaceutical industry
Processes:
Multi-purpose batch chemical synthesis
Production:
100-300 metric tons/year
The Eastman facility is a multi-product site and
manufactures intermediates and active ingredients for the
pharmaceutical industry and other specially organic
chemicals. Such products are synthesized in batch
reactions rather than continuous reactions. The Eastman
facility responds to customer needs and offers a range of
services from research and development introductions
and process investigations to custom synthesis and
validation of bulk actives. The site's manufacturing
equipment is multi-purpose, allowing manufacture of
multiple products at any one time, and capable of
carrying out a wide variety of reactions on many
different types of compounds. Production varies
according to schedule and customer needs but currently
averages around 100-300 metric tons/year. The US
facility used for comparison with Eastman the Lonza
facility in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. Lonza is a
fine organic chemical manufacturing facility and
primarily supplies active ingredients for pharmaceutical
products. As in the case of the Eastman facility, the
Lonza site is a multi-purpose, batch chemical
processing plant that operates different chemical
processes during the year on a campaign basis.
Production at the Lonza facility is higher than at the
Eastman site at about 600-750 metric tons/year.
Methodology
To directly compare environmental requirements for each pair of similar facilities, the project
team decided a side-by-side listing of detailed requirements under each system would form a
basis from which to draw conclusions. Thus, the team constructed a comprehensive permit
f)£
matrix for each pair of facilities, which is available as a companion document to this report.
The matrices contain a row for each requirement under the UK system, since the UK system is
more comprehensive (the list of requirements, Management Techniques through Impacts, is
outlined in the discussion in Chapter 4). The first column of the table lists each requirement
category under a UK IPPC permit. The second and third columns present indicative BAT from
the UK technical guidance notes329 and the actual permit conditions that resulted from
application of the UK technical guidance notes (using the St. Regis mill permit in the pulp and
paper comparison matrix and the Eastman permit in the specialty organic chemical matrix). The
fourth column indicates which, if any, improvement program items are associated with the row's
requirement and provides the status of each item.
Lonza, Inc. Riverside,
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania
Products:
Intermediate active ingredients for the
pharmaceutical industry
Processes:
Multi-purpose batch chemical synthesis
Production:
600-750 metric tons/year
328 The permit matrix is available at www. epa. gov/permits.
329 A column distilling information from applicable BREF(s) could have been added to each analysis matrix, thus
giving insight into the way in which EU guidance is translated into specific country guidance. However, this was
judged not an important project objective and the project team chose not to spend time and effort on mat task.
82
-------
The fifth column in each matrix contains general US requirements (either for a pulp and paper
facility or a specialty chemical manufacturing facility), and the sixth contains the permit terms
extracted from active permits (separate permits for each media) for the Georgia-Pacific facility in
the pulp and paper matrix and for the Lonza facility in the specialty chemical matrix. Thus, for
each requirement in the UK IPPC permitting system, there is a space in the matrix row for any
corresponding requirements from the US system. Of course, not all rows in the US requirements
or US facility permit columns contain requirements since the UK permitting system is more
comprehensive than the US system. The seventh column contains information about voluntary
programs in the US, many of which provide incentives to go beyond regulatory requirements and
undertake pollution prevention activities. The final column of each analysis matrix was reserved
for comments and conclusions from team members participating in the analysis.
Overview of Requirements in the UK and US
UK Permit Requirements
As noted earlier in this report, considerable differences exist between permitting systems in the
UK (and in general among the EU countries under IPPC) and the US. UK permits reflect an
integrated approach to prevention and remediation of all environmental impacts from selected
industrial facilities. Although the UK's earlier IPC regime integrated regulation of emissions to
land, water, and air, the EU-wide IPPC brings in additional requirements, such as for
management systems, raw material selection/use, waste avoidance or minimization, energy
efficiency, accident avoidance, and minimization of noise, heat, and vibration. The intent is to
protect the environment as a whole, promote clean technology to prevent/minimize pollution,
encourage innovation by placing significant responsibility for satisfactory solutions in the hands
of facility operators, and provide a one-stop shop for administering IPPC.
US Permit Requirements
In contrast, the US permits are media-specific and primarily incorporate national requirements
and standards promulgated under media-specific statutes. In general, such requirements and
standards are intended to protect health and welfare or reflect application of best technology to
prevent deterioration of existing air, water, and land resources. Federal standards and
requirements generally are not "presumptive" but absolute and not subject to adjustment due to
local conditions or individual facility characteristics.330 Thus, the job of the permit is to
faithfully reflect all requirements applicable to a facility. Separate permits are issued for each
media. There are no federal expectations or requirements that a facility operator examine and act
to reduce the environmental footprint of a facility on a continuing basis.331 In general, the focus
is on compliance with applicable standards/requirements for each medium separately.
330 There are some exceptions, including case-by-case B ACT determinations under the US CAA New Source
Review (NSR) program and State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements. The determination of BACT is subject
to a number of factors, such as individual facility characteristics and cost of applying candidate BACT. SIP
provisions are state-specific and tailored to provide attainment and maintenance of national ambient standards. In
addition, there is some site-specific flexibility under the US CWA NPDES program in applying technology-based
standards and meeting water quality standards.
331 One exception is that NPDES permits issued under the CWA often contain requirements to develop best
management practices (BMP) plans mat evaluate pollution prevention and waste minimization alternatives.
Although the NPDES BMP plan requirements are media-specific (i.e., they must be linked to the "purposes and
83
-------
Cross-Walk and Analysis of UK Integrated and US Media-Specific
Requirements and Permits
Scope of UK and US Permits and Requirements
As already indicated, UK IPPC permits encompass a more comprehensive set of requirements
compared to their US counterparts. The types of permit terms common to both systems include
requirements for the traditional air, water, and waste media (e.g., numerical emission and
effluent limitations and other emission limiting or control requirements for air and water
pollutants and requirements governing the generation, storage, and handling of wastes and
reclamation of waste impaired sites) along with associated monitoring, records, and reporting
requirements. Most of the additional areas addressed in integrated permitting in the EU/UK
(e.g., management techniques, materials inputs, energy, noise and vibration, accident prevention,
de-commissioning, impact assessment) are not federally regulated in the US. The remainder of
this section focuses on comparing in greater detail these additional integrated permitting
requirements with the largely non-regulatory related actions in the US. Additional comparative
information on the common air, water, and waste requirements for each permitting system can be
found in later sections of this chapter.
Facility Environmental Management. Facility operators in the UK are required to implement
management systems sufficient to ensure compliance with BAT requirements and to promote
continuous improvement. Each management system must have, among other things, objectives
and measurable goals for environmental performance at the facility, a program of continuous
improvements to achieve goals and targets, a commitment to regularly improve the targets
(where appropriate), and periodic audits and reports. Each management system also must
specifically address selection of raw materials, water efficiency, waste minimization, energy use,
and accident prevention. Typically, EMSs certified under International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 14001 and covering all areas prescribed under BAT for management
techniques satisfy this mandate.332 In the US, it is not uncommon for facilities to employ EMSs,
especially larger companies, as a matter of company policy, to aid compliance with
environmental requirements, to buoy business prospects domestically and internationally (such
as through obtaining ISO 14001 certification), or as a result of participating in various federal,
state, or local environmental partnership or voluntary programs that promote or require EMSs
(EPA's Performance Track is one example). Although the EPA supports and encourages use of
EMSs, it has stated firmly that it does not intend to require them.333
The St. Regis IPPC permit required that the facility "be managed and controlled" according to
and consistent with (1) the site EMS (as described in the permit application) and (2) additional
intent of the Clean Water Act") and frequently focus on storm water management, they also encourage facilities to
develop more comprehensive facility-wide environmental management systems and to continually reassess the
adequacy of the plans up until the point that BMP performance is optimized.
332 ISO 14001 certification or any other third-party certification is not necessarily required to obtain permit approval
- the objective is an effective management system whether it has external certification or not. James, T., EA, Policy
Manager. Personal communication. 27 July 2007.
333 Information and resources related to US EPA's EMS activities can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ems/. EPA's
strategy for assessing the role of EMS in permitting and regulation states that "EPA has no intention of mandating
the use of EMS" (see http://www.epa.gov/permits/ems/strategv.htm).
84
-------
related information submitted by the company in response to EA requests for more information
on the company's EMS.334 The EMS for the Sudbrook site was certified under ISO 14001. The
Eastman facility has an EMS that was set up to align with ISO 14001, but is not ISO 14001
certified. The Eastman permit contained an improvement program item requiring the facility
EMS to be certified at certain levels of the Green Dragon Environmental Standard (a national
standard within Wales and roughly equivalent to ISO certification). The facility reached Green
Dragon Level 4 at the completion of the improvement program.
It is noted that the EMS for the St. Regis facility did not appear directly in the permit.
Nonetheless, since the permit required the site to be operated according to information in the
application, and the application cited the EMS, the EMS is indirectly incorporated into the
permit.335 Changes over time to written management systems or EMSs would be unlikely to
require variation of the permit.
Materials Inputs. In the UK, BAT encompasses use of raw materials and water, including raw
materials selection and waste minimization. Facility operators are required to demonstrate
measures taken to reduce use of raw materials (including water) and to substitute less harmful
chemicals where appropriate. Additionally, operators must have procedures for regular review
of new developments in raw materials and for incorporation of suitable new materials with
improved environmental profiles. For example, under section 2.2 of the UK IPPC Technical
Guidance for the Pulp and Paper Sector,336 BAT for selection of raw materials requires the
operator to have procedures by which the awareness of new developments in raw materials and
their implications will be achieved. Similar language is in the Guidance for the Specialty
Organic Chemicals Sector331
Regarding waste minimization, at least every four years operators must conduct a waste audit to
analyze the use and fate of raw materials, by-products, solvents, and other support materials, and
institute a plan for acting on identified opportunities for improved efficiency and other changes
that reduce waste.338 In the US, EPA does not require facility operators to examine their raw
material use to determine whether better (i.e., more environmentally benign) alternatives are
available or to reduce waste products. Media-specific standards in the US may in effect cause
some raw material substitution or more efficient use of raw materials as part of a company
strategy to comply with those standards. Generally, however, companies are not compelled to do
this if they can otherwise meet the standards. An exception is the rare banning of certain
334 EMS provisions appear in Section 2.1.1 of the permit. The EMS description is actually found on pages 4-6 of the
St. Regis permit application rather than in the permit document itself. Additional information supplied by the
company was in response to an EA Schedule 4 request.
335 In addition, the St. Regis and the Eastman permit include the following standard permit condition: "Where the
Operator has a formal environmental management system applying to the Permitted Installation which encompasses
annual improvement targets the Operator shall, not later that 31 January in each year, provide a summary report of
the previous year's progress against such targets."
336 EA, 2000.
337 EA, 2003.
338 Although EPA's research did not examine this aspect of the BAT determination process in detail, our expectation
is that BAT determination and subsequent compliance assessment for materials inputs (e.g., ongoing EA review to
ensure that opportunities for substitution of more benign materials are identified and implemented) would be no
different from the BAT process for areas subject to more traditional regulation and control, such as limitations on air
and water emissions.
85
-------
chemicals, such as EPA production/use prohibitions on certain ozone depleting chemicals under
the Montreal Protocol
Nuisance Factors - Odor. Under the Main Activities and Abatement section of a UK IPPC
permit application, operators must describe facility activities and proposed techniques to prevent
and/or reduce emissions and waste and demonstrate how such techniques represent BAT. It is
here that IPPC permits for pulp and paper facilities require facilities to develop and implement
an odor management plan, as odor is a frequent problem in this sector. Facility operators must
describe and categorize odorous releases, demonstrate that there will not be odor problems from
such releases or take action to ensure that this is so, and identify actions to prevent odor
problems from arising during abnormal events. For the most part, US federal environmental
regulations do not address odor directly, rather odor problems typically are addressed under state
or local nuisance regulations. For instance, most state water quality standards under the CWA,
for example, prohibit discharges that result in "objectionable odors." US federal environmental
regulations do, however, in some instances address odor-causing compounds such as hydrogen
sulfide (H^S) and total reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds for some source categories like kraft
pulp mills. These standards (for H^S and TRS) do not apply to semi-chemical pulp mills, such as
the Georgia-Pacific facility, where H2S and TRS emissions are not problematic.
Energy Use. Regarding energy, the BREFs for the pulp and paper and specialty organics sectors
require facility operators to provide information on energy consumption and generation;
emissions of pollutants, including carbon dioxide (CO2), associated with energy use; and
compliance with basic energy efficiency measures, including a plan to comply with applicable
energy related requirements from the UK technical guidance note. Operators are required to
consider sector benchmarks for energy use and certain energy efficiency improvement
techniques in proposing measures to enhance energy efficiency. In addition, IPPC permits often
require operators to recover and use any excess or byproduct energy produced (e.g., heat or
excess steam).
No counterpart to these requirements exists in the US. However, as was the case with US
facility implementation of EMSs described above, US companies have other incentives to
increase energy efficiency or otherwise reduce energy related emissions, including high energy
generation/use costs; the potential to meet or partially meet some standards through energy
efficiency measures or alternatives in energy generation; and participation in federal, state, or
local agency voluntary programs or partnerships that promote energy efficiency and/or reduction
in emissions from energy generation.
Accidents. IPPC permits are required to contain measures to prevent accidents that may have
environmental consequences (to any media). Facility operators are required to identify hazards
to the environment posed by the facility, assess the risks due to identified hazards, describe and
employ measures to prevent accidents and minimize their environmental effects, and maintain a
structured accident management plan. The Eastman facility is also a lower tier Control of Major
Accident Hazards (COMAH) site and thus subject to COMAH regulations that "apply mainly to
the chemical industry, but also to some storage activities, explosives and nuclear sites, and other
86
-------
industries where threshold quantities of dangerous substances... are kept or used."339 COMAH is
administered jointly by the EA and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), so in addition to
compliance with conditions of the IPPC permit, as a COMAH facility, the Eastman site is also
visited by HSE.
In the US, CAA Section 112(r) requires facility operators producing, processing, storing, or
handling certain regulated substances (a list of substances known to cause or that may reasonably
be anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health or the
environment) to identify hazards from release of the substances, take steps to prevent their
release, and minimize consequences of any releases. Stormwater regulations under the CWA
NPDES program require best management practices (BMPs) to minimize contact of Stormwater
with raw materials and spills. In the solid waste program, disposal requirements are mandated
by each state. Industrial solid waste landfills standards in Virginia (where Georgia-Pacific's Big
Island mill is located) require that safety hazards to operating personnel must be prevented
through an active safety program.
No RCRA hazardous waste statutory requirements specifically mention safety. However, the
statute does require that EPA promulgate standards, applicable to owners and operators of
facilities for the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment. The RCRA regulations have specific standards requiring
facilities to be designed and operated (and have a contingency plan) to minimize the possibility
of fire, explosion, or any unplanned release to air, soil, or surface water that could threaten
human health and the environment. Additionally, the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act obligates facility owners and operators to report to state and local authorities
regarding potential hazards, such as stored hazardous substances.
Noise and Vibrations. Integrated pollution prevention includes consideration of noise and
vibration effects.340 Facility operators must provide information on the sources of noise, noise
levels, nearest receptors, and the impact of noise sources on these receptors. Subsequently,
operators must implement basic good practice measures for the control of noise (e.g., equipment
maintenance and noise attenuation devices) and implement other measures to ensure noise from
the facility does not cause annoyance. Justification is required where noise remains above
background levels or above specified decibel levels.
US facilities are generally not subject to federal noise requirements or standards, at least not
from an environmental perspective. Federal regulation of noise primarily stems from worker
health and safety issues under the Occupational Health and Safety Administration purview.
Noise issues for neighbors of US facilities usually are handled by local jurisdictions under
nuisance regulations, if at all.
339 See the Health and Safety Executive website on the Control of Major Accident Hazards
(http://www.hse. gov.uk/comah/).
340 The PPC definition of "pollution" includes "emissions which may be harmful to human health or the quality of
the environment, cause offence to human senses or impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of
the environment." PPC Act, 1999, §l(3)(e).
87
-------
Facility De-commissioning. IPPC permits contain requirements relating to the evaluation of
sites and activities to determine potential environmental effects from facility shut down and de-
commissioning. Furthermore, operators must upgrade identified problem areas through
execution of an improvement plan, prepare a site report as a point of reference for future
determinations of deterioration at the site, and prepare and maintain a site closure plan to ensure
proper closure procedures will be followed.
In the US more limited scope requirements apply. For example, RCRA has closure criteria for
municipal solid waste landfills and regulatory standards for closure of hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal facilities, but they don't appear to apply as broadly as EU/UK
requirements. For solid waste industrial landfills in Virginia, such as at Georgia-Pacific, each
landfill unit must have a closure plan. Such units must be closed in a manner that minimizes
need for further maintenance and that controls post closure escape of uncontrolled leachate,
surface water runoff, or waste decomposition products to any media. Since the Georgia-Pacific
mill is a small quantity generator of hazardous waste and not required to be permitted, closure
and post closure standards for hazardous waste are not applicable.
Environmental and Public Health Impacts. Finally, EU/UK facility operators must provide an
assessment of the environmental impacts associated with facility operation. Included in such
assessments are a description of the receiving environment; identification of important receptors
(e.g., human, flora, fauna, and sensitive habitat areas); pathways by which receptors will be
exposed; the impacts of facility releases on the receptors, including modeling releases to
calculate exposure levels; and comparison with statutory obligations and any applicable
environmental standards.341 Where potential problems are uncovered (e.g., the assessment
indicates the facility may violate an environmental standard or EAL), the operator must make
facility improvements to be able to demonstrate "a high level of protection of the environment as
a whole."
Such comprehensive and integrated impact assessments are not required of individual US
facilities.342 Rather, the US system relies primarily on the combined effect of compliance with
separate media regulations, which are designed to protect public health/welfare and the
environment. For example, under the CAA, ambient air standards for selected ubiquitous air
pollutants are designed to protect public health and welfare and hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
standards have been established for nearly two hundred toxic pollutants. RCRA requires EPA to
promulgate standards applicable to owners and operators of facilities for the treatment, storage,
or disposal of hazardous waste as necessary to protect human health and the environment.343
341 The UK HI guidance document or Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT, provides step-by-step
procedures for assessing environmental impacts (see http://www.environment-
agencv.gov.uk/business/1745440/444663/298441/horizontal/545377A). This guidance document was not available at
the time the St. Regis operator submitted the facility application. However, Eastman provided an impact
assessment, based on HI guidance, in their permit application.
342 Although, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) site-specific environmental impact statement (EIS) or
environmental assessment (EA) must be prepared and assessed for any US EPA-issued NPDES permit for new
sources. Both the EIS and EA assess all impacts of facility operations on the environment.
343 RCRA also contains an "omnibus" requirement to protect human health and the environment. For example,
under Section 3005 of RCRA, and the Part 270 RCRA permit regulations, regional or state permit writers for
hazardous waste combustors determine on a site-specific basis what, if any, additional permit conditions are
88
-------
Under the CWA NPDES program, most large facilities are required to conduct Whole Effluent
Toxicity (WET) testing to assess the impact of the discharge on sensitive test organisms. This
WET testing is conducted to account for the possible additive or synergistic affects of the
multiple pollutants present in wastewaters. Further, most states assess ecological impacts to
receiving waters using "biological criteria." Once these regulations are established, the
permitting process generally does not involve reviewing environmental impacts at the level of
the facility; however, some facilities may be required to conduct biological assessments as
conditions of their NPDES permit.
It was beyond the scope of this study to determine the comparative efficacy of the two regulatory
systems with respect to protecting public health and the environment. Therefore, in this report it
is only appropriate to note differences between the two systems that may produce differing
results in health or environmental protection. One difference is that a PPC environmental impact
analysis will include noise and odor considerations, whereas noise and odor are less formally
dealt with in the US, mainly through nuisance regulations at the state or local level (although
there are instances of federal standards that address odor problems in an industry sector). A
second difference has to do with timing. Under IPPC permitting, UK operators are required to
demonstrate that their facilities do not cause any significant pollution as a prerequisite to
obtaining a permit to continue operating.344 In the US and under the CAA, two phases for
addressing the effects from HAPs are delineated. Under the first phase, facilities emitting HAPs
are required to meet standards based on application of MACT (as defined in sector-based
regulations). Such standards are not necessarily protective of human health. The second phase
of HAP regulations requires additional standards as necessary to protect public health. Finally,
there are differences between the two systems in the pollutants addressed (see the following
section on "Relative Stringency"), which can lead to different conclusions as to what constitutes
a health or environmental threat. (Note: Additional differences may lie in the methods used to
calculate or model environmental/health impacts and in the environmental level of a pollutant
that is considered "safe," although such differences were not studied for this report).
necessary to assure that these additional risks are not above acceptable levels. Multi-pathway site-specific risk
assessments provide the information and logical decision-making process needed in making such determinations.
Risk assessments also are performed at uncontrolled or abandoned sites as part of the remedial
investigation/feasibility process under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) program. However, permitting under RCRA applies to only a small subset of facilities generating
or managing hazardous wastes. Therefore, the omnibus authority and closure requirements are not applicable at
many facilities. In Virginia, solid waste facilities intended primarily for the disposal of non-hazardous industrial
waste are subject to standards "designed to protect the public health, public safety, the environment, and natural
resources." Specific design and operational requirements are dependent on the volume and the physical, chemical,
and biological nature of the waste.
344 Focus in the US is on compliance with applicable standards and other requirements. Generally, if a US facility is
in compliance with all applicable environmental requirements, mere is no further requirement to demonstrate that
the facility does not present health risks or other adverse ecological effects. This is not to say that US requirements
do not address potential adverse health or welfare effects. National media-specific standards are designed to do this
but not in a comprehensive, integrated, and facility-specific manner. For example, certain US facilities desiring to
make changes in their operations that will cause a significant increase in air emissions will be required to show that
such increases will not cause significant deterioration of air quality or impede progress to attain national ambient
standards and will not adversely affect any nearby sensitive environmental (Class 1) areas. Also, many states
regulate ambient air concentrations of certain "toxic" pollutants to assure health risks are low and EPA is in the
process of issuing federal "residual risk" standards for certain types of facilities emitting HAPs.
89
-------
Relative Stringency
Comprehensiveness
One factor in determining the relative impact and reach of the two permitting systems is the
scope of the embedded environmental requirements. As discussed in the previous section, IPPC
permits include a number of requirements not found in US federal permits, a consequence of the
US focus on separate regulation of environmental releases to air, water, and land.
All of the following UK permit requirements generally have no counterpart in the US
environmental permitting system:345
Implementation of comprehensive management systems;
Raw material use audits followed by improvement plan and waste minimization;
Energy efficiency/use audits and implementation of energy efficiency improvement
measures;
Noise and vibration surveys and noise problem remediation; and
Comprehensive environmental impact audits to demonstrate a high level of
environmental protection.
Therefore, IPPC permitting can, in some respects, be considered more "stringent" in scope
because it forces UK facility operators to address more environmental concerns and to take
actions to minimize the environmental effects of all facility inputs, processes, and outputs rather
than simply focus on meeting specific environmental standards, as the US requires.
A key question, however, is what beneficial environmental results do these additional IPPC
requirements produce? That is, does the integrated focus on all environmental aspects, raw
material use, energy efficiency/use, noise, etc. deliver environmental performance superior to
that of US facilities? This question cannot be answered definitively without gathering data from
a significant number of US and UK facilities, which is something this study did not attempt to
do.
Nonetheless, correspondence associated with implementation of the improvement program (the
broad outlines of which were introduced and described in Chapter 4) for the St. Regis permit
indicates that the company did undertake a number of actions toward meeting BAT in areas not
related to the traditional media controls that are characteristic of US permits.
345 One exception is that NPDES permits issued under the CWA often contain requirements to develop BMP plans
that evaluate pollution prevention and waste minimization alternatives. Although the NPDES BMP plan
requirements are media-specific (i.e., they must be linked to the "purposes and intent of the Clean Water Act") and
frequently focus on storm water management, they also encourage facilities to develop more comprehensive facility-
wide environmental management systems and to continually reassess the adequacy of the plans up until the point
that BMP performance is optimized.
90
-------
For example, as part of implementing a noise reduction plan, the company reported that "[t]he
barrier built to attenuate the Re-winder trim fans has been extended as planned in our letter dated
15th October 2003."346 Additionally, with regard to the improvement program for odor
management, St. Regis reported (in several letters) progress in determining sources of odors and
actions taken to reduce odors, such as submerging a black liquor effluent pipe into the effluent
pond and a process change to empty and wash the "dry end pulper" during shutdowns.
US companies might undertake some of the same actions in these "non-traditional" or
"additional" areas of concern, but not as a result of regulatory mandate. Potential drivers for
such action in the US include company policy, the need to be competitive, compliance with
international standards or sector standard practice, local community concerns, and participation
in voluntary programs or partnerships with environmental agencies/groups. In any event, US
facility actions in environmental areas beyond the traditional media-specific mandates may be
sporadic and not as comprehensive as under the UK/EU integrated permitting system. The
integrated system may also produce better results because environmental areas beyond the
traditional media are required to be addressed, whereas action by US facilities in these areas is
mostly voluntary.
Another factor related to comprehensiveness is facility coverage - that is, what fraction of
facilities within each system is covered by environmental regulations. In the UK, all facilities
that fall within IPPC covered sector definitions must comply with the requirements; there are no
exemptions. Thus, BAT must be determined and met in all facilities. What is determined to be
BAT may vary somewhat from site to site, based on individual facility characteristics and certain
cost or investment cycle considerations, but ultimately the mandate that facilities cause "no
significant pollution" must be met. In comparison, US facilities within the same sectors are not
always covered. For example, under the CAA, some older facilities constructed before a certain
date have been "grandfathered" from certain pollutant regulations. This means that they are not
subject to federal air requirements, unless at some point they are modified or rebuilt to such a
degree that they become subject to New Source Performance Standards or trigger control
requirements under NSR. In the utility sector, there are still many aging coal-fired facilities with
minimal environmental controls. Thus, there are instances of little to no air emission control at
some facilities.
Numeric Limits
The project team expected to have an opportunity to make quantifiable comparisons of releases
regulated under both the UK and US environmental regimes (e.g., air, water, waste emissions
abatement). The team hoped to perform a detailed examination of UK and US permits for
similar facilities that would yield hard numbers to help judge relative stringency or
environmental effectiveness of requirements under the two systems, but was unable to perform
such an examination. For instance and for various reasons, the air provisions in the permits did
not yield much in the way of like-to-like match-ups that could be compared on a numeric basis.
346 Letter from St. Regis to the UK EA, 12 November 2004. See the permit matrix, published as a companion
document to this report, for more detail.
91
-------
The examination of permit conditions for the UK and US pulp and paper facilities also pointed
out the potential limitations of looking at a current snapshot view of environmental performance
rather than a longer-term examination. IPPC permits for existing facilities are issued with an
improvement program, which mandates specific actions to improve environmental performance
at the facility over time. Notable air pollutants targeted in some of the improvement program
items for the St. Regis facility were volatile organic compounds (VOC), particulate matter
(PM10), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Rough screening of releases of these pollutants indicated
that they may have been of concern, even though some of the releases were below sector
benchmarks. The improvement program called for St. Regis to conduct further monitoring and
more refined modeling of certain release points before taking any further action. The results of
the monitoring and refined modeling presumably would direct a further course of action for the
suspect releases. Therefore, the expectation is that performance would improve in the future,
perhaps over the period of a few years.347
Similarly, although the Georgia-Pacific facility is currently in compliance with existing standards
and other requirements, additional requirements are pending. In the near future, the Georgia-
Pacific mill will have to comply with a HAP standard for black liquor combustion emissions, and
a recently promulgated HAP standard for boilers may apply as well. It is also possible that there
will be future requirements on the facility's lightly controlled coal-fired boilers, mainly to reduce
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOx. These examples point out the difficulty in making a stringency
determination by comparing applicable permit terms at a single point in time.
Another limitation to the stringency analysis for the control of air releases is that the analyzed
sources, although similar, are different in several ways. These differences affect the types of
requirements that apply to them. Both pulp and paper facilities use a combination of semi-
chemical pulping of raw wood chips and mechanical pulping of recycled fiber to produce
products for corrugated cases. However, the St. Regis mill uses sodium sulfite to digest wood
chips, whereas the Georgia-Pacific mill employs a sodium carbonate/sodium hydroxide solution.
The specialty chemical facilities in the study produce chemicals for use in pharmaceutical
products. However, they do not produce the same products and, therefore, do not necessarily use
and/or emit the same chemical pollutants.
The Georgia-Pacific mill has several times the production capacity of the St. Regis mill and
recovers pulping liquor for recycle, while St. Regis's process produces weak black liquor that is
not recycled. Boilers at St. Regis are gas-fired and the mill also has a waste incinerator (burning
wood waste). The Georgia-Pacific mill's boilers include one burning coal; one burning coal,
wood waste, and other wastes; and one burning primarily natural gas. The mill also burns black
liquor wastes in two very old smelters.
In addition, emission limits in the permits are expressed in different units. The St. Regis and
Eastman permits contain concentration limits for the most part, whereas limits in the Georgia-
Pacific and Lonza permits predominantly are expressed as pounds/hour and metric tons/year.
Conversion to a single set of units requires flow rate information, which was not readily
available. The substantial effort required to convert to a common set of units was not pursued
347 Because the mill closed, the final effect of the improvement program cannot be shown.
92
-------
since the other problems with direct comparison (noted above) would also continue as limitations
on a meaningful analysis.
Finally, no overall comparison was completed between UK and US standards for determining
hazardous and solid wastes. A brief look at the Virginia Georgia-Pacific facility revealed that it
is listed in the federal database as a small quantity generator of hazardous waste; Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) reporting for the facility lists dioxin and ammonia as RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous toxic chemicals generated. On the other hand, the St. Regis mill is not designated in
its permit as a hazardous waste generator under UK standards.
The State of Virginia regulates solid waste as any discarded material; in general, materials are
solid wastes if they are used, reused, reclaimed, accumulated, stored or treated before such use,
reuse, or reclamation. Roughly similar requirements exist in the UK, where waste defined as any
substance or object that has been discarded is required to be discarded, or is intended to be
discarded, including those materials that are going to be recycled or recovered. Solid waste was
not disposed of at the St. Regis facility site, and therefore, a permit was not required.
Pollutant Analysis
Despite the fact that numerical stringency analysis of requirements from the two systems is not
possible (or necessarily desirable), some comparisons of a more qualitative nature can be made.
In this light, it is useful to look at the pollutants covered in each system, the types of control
techniques considered to be BAT in the UK compared to the techniques generally required to
meet US standards, and what can be expected from the two systems in the future.
Regarding air emissions, the St. Regis permit includes permit limits for NOx, SO2, PM10, carbon
monoxide (CO), H2S, and VOCs. These limits no doubt reflect the fact that, at the time the St.
Regis permit was issued, the EU had an Air Quality Framework Directive that set ambient air
quality standards for SO2, NO2, PM10, lead, CO, ozone, and benzene.348 Similarly, the US has
established ambient air quality standards for so called "criteria" air pollutants, which include
NOx, SO2, PM10, lead, and CO. Therefore, the US regulates sources of these emissions,
including certain combustion sources at pulp and paper mills. The US also regulates VOC
emissions as a precursor to the formation of ozone, another "criteria" air pollutant. As
previously mentioned, the US does not regulate emissions of H2S at semi-chemical pulp mills;
although, H2S emissions at kraft and sulfite pulp mills are regulated for health and welfare
reasons, including odor. The UK appears to regulate H2S to reduce odor.
The US also has established standards for the emissions of HAP emissions at pulp mills. HAPs
in the US consist of nearly 190 substances on a list published under section 112 of the CAA (as
amended in 1990). The UK counterpart to the US list of regulated air pollutants is the
"Indicative List of Pollutants."349 The list contains the following pollutants:
SO2 and other sulfur compounds;
348 In December 2004, the EU added ambient standards for arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel, and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons.
349 DEFRA, 2005b, Annex V.
93
-------
Oxides of nitrogen and other nitrogen compounds;
CO;
VOCs;
Metals and their compounds;
Dust;
Asbestos;
Chlorine and its compounds;
Fluorine and its compounds;
Arsenic and its compounds;
Cyanides;
Substances and preparations which have been proved to possess carcinogenic or
mutagenic properties or properties which may affect reproduction via the air; and
Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans.
This list contains families of compounds, rather than individual compounds, which predominate
in the US list, thereby making a side-by-side comparison more difficult. Many pollutants no
doubt are on both lists. Moreover, the UK system incorporates additional pollutants in a less
direct way, through the requirement to provide an assessment of environmental impacts to all
media due to facility operation (using the HI tool discussed in Chapter 4). The purpose of the
assessment is to demonstrate that implementation of BAT at a facility will not result in
significant pollution. As part of such an assessment, facility emissions must be evaluated against
the EALs for several hundred pollutants. The EALs function as thresholds for acceptable
environmental impacts, and in effect, constitute an unofficial set of additional EQSs.
One significant difference in pollutant emphasis is the case of methanol. Methanol is on the US
HAP list and, thus, is regulated as a major air pollutant from pulp and paper operations, but in
the UK does not seem to elicit any special treatment (not that it would be completely
uncontrolled, since it still could be regulated as a VOC (although at the St. Regis facility, VOC
emissions were well within benchmarks and abatement efforts focused on odor control)). On the
other hand, halogenated organic emissions (primarily organic chemical compounds containing
chlorine) from pulp and paper mills have been a concern for some time in the EU and in the US
as well. This concern has led to sharply reduced sector use of chlorine and chlorine compounds
in paper bleaching in the UK. (Note: the St. Regis mill did not have to bleach pulp for its
products). Also, the EA considered dioxin emissions from the St. Regis facility wood waste
incinerator and decided against establishing a permit emission limit, since measured dioxin
94
-------
emissions were an order of magnitude below the relevant benchmark and a permit prohibition
against burning coated or treated wood in the incinerator would keep emissions low.
The air pollutants of concern for the specialty batch chemical facilities in the analysis are fairly
similar. The UK Eastman facility has air emission limits for NOx, VOC, dioxins and furans, and
halogens (bromine, iodine, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, and total gaseous chlorides). The site's
boiler emissions were considered small enough to not warrant imposition of ELVs, although
NOx, SO2, and PM10 must be monitored. In the US, the Lonza facility has limits for NOx,
VOC, PM10, SO2 (via a fuel content requirement), acid gases (hydrochloric acid), ammonia,
thoinyl chloride, and hydrogen cyanide. The differences in types of halogenated/acid gases
limited likely has to do with differences in the types of products produced at the two facilities.
Abatement Techniques
Where raw material substitution, process variation, or other pollution prevention techniques do
not sufficiently reduce pollutant emissions, UK BAT may require add-on emission abatement
methods. Overall, the types of abatement techniques available in Europe and those available in
the US are similar. With today's global markets and rapid information exchange, the techniques
known and practiced in the US are also well known and practiced in Europe and the UK.
Potential differences in the two systems arise in the application of these techniques - that is, the
circumstances under which the techniques are required and, if required, what performance levels
will be established in the permit. In the case of the St. Regis facility, a source of water pollution,
the (weak) black liquor waste, was not required to be treated at the time of permit issuance (due
to mitigating circumstances presented by the local environment, lack of clarity as to the
significance of the environmental impacts, and the substantial cost of candidate abatement
techniques350). The permit did require further study of the effects of the liquor effluent on the
receiving water and further consideration of options for treating and controlling the release of
black liquor to the local estuary. However, at the time the facility was closed, the issue regarding
how to treat and control this effluent still had not been decided.
In the US, it is likely, although not certain, that treatment and additional control of black liquor
effluent would have been required at the time of permit issuance. An evaluation of the
discharge's potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance above water quality standards
would have been required. If there was any indication that an exceedance could occur, a limit
would be required, and necessary effluent treatment would have been mandated regardless of
cost.351
350 In fact, St. Regis reported that different environmental assessments of the impacts of the black liquor discharge
had returned conflicting conclusions - no impact and negative impacts (St. Regis Company Representatives.
Personal communication. 19 July 2007). In addition, it should be noted mat the tidal range of the Severn River
Estuary (at 49 feet) is the second largest in the world (second only to the Bay of Fundy in Canada). This large tidal
range coupled with the requirements in the IPPC permit that restricted discharge to certain points in the tidal cycle
were mitigating factors that significantly increased mixing, flushing, dispersal and dilution of the pollutants in much
larger water bodies (i.e., the Bristol Channel and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean).
351 This is roughly the same analysis required in the UK. In the case of the St. Regis mill, if discharge of the black
liquor effluent was forecast to violate an EU EQS, it would not have been allowed. In this instance, a part of the
debate centered on where the effects of the discharge should have been measured. A 1998 study had determined
that there was no environmental impact on the Severn Estuary outside of the immediate location of the outfall
95
-------
Considering air emissions, control was not required for a number of process-related air vents at
St. Regis, due to relatively insignificant emission levels. These were considered sources of
VOC, not HAP. However, in the US many (though not all) pulp and paper air vents are required
to be controlled (due to the presence of methanol and other VOCs considered to be HAPs). On
balance, one might conclude that control requirements for air emissions from process sources in
the US might be more stringent than in the UK, if for no other reason than the US considers such
emissions to contain HAPs, while the UK does not seem to consider some of these same air
emissions to be particularly hazardous. It is not possible, for the reasons stated above, to support
such a conclusion with numerical analysis, however.
The Eastman and Lonza facilities employ similar emission reduction methods for air emissions.
Each uses condensers on reactors and other process equipment as primary controls for VOC
emissions and then ducts residual VOC emissions to a central thermal incinerator.
Acid/halogenated emissions from the incinerators are controlled by scrubbers and PM10 by
fabric filter devices.
Effect of Site-Specific and Local Conditions
For the most part, and as stated earlier, US standards are meant to apply nationally, regardless of
site-specific conditions or local factors. However, there are exceptions. For example, while
CWA NPDES technology-based requirements apply nationally, water quality standards are site-
specific and vary widely based on water uses and local conditions. NPDES permit requirements
also vary widely based on applicable criteria and analyses of local water quality impacts. In
addition, control technology determinations under the CAA major source construction permitting
programs are influenced by existing air quality in the region, characteristics of the facility, and
costs to apply technology. Moreover, CAA State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for a particular
state will be designed to fit the particular needs of that state with respect to
attainment/maintenance of ambient air quality standards. Nonetheless, even such "tailored"
implementation plans are meant to apply broadly within the state and are not generally subject to
site-specific conditions. The rather rigid application of widely applicable standards leads to
uniformity across the nation, but also can produce widely varying environmental benefits and
costs of compliance. This is somewhat mitigated by statutes that allow standards to distinguish
among classes, sizes, and types of pollution sources.
In contrast, IPPC permitting appears to be a much more fluid system. The backbone of the BAT
determination is the country-specific technical guidance distilled from applicable EU BREFs.
As discussed in Chapter 4, the BREFs contain a survey of potential BAT techniques and
associated performance levels (benchmarks) for high performing sources within the EU.
Specific standards or techniques are not mandated by BREFs, but the information is to be used to
establish BAT for installations in each member state, in some instances via technical guidance
attuned to sector characteristics in individual member countries. In the case of the UK, national
technical guidance establishes firm expectations of BAT, but the system leaves the door open to
site-specific application.
(Decision Document, St. Regis Paper Company Limited, Sudbrook Paper Mill, Caldicot, Monmouthshire, Wales.
Permit No. BK 1163. 15 March 2002). Due to the factors named above, violating an EQS after mixing is almost
impossible. There had been no recorded breach of the EQS for the Severn Estuary.
96
-------
Black Liquor Effluent at the UK Sudbrook Mill - an Example of a Site-Specific
Determination
A good example of the "fluid" application of BAT under the integrated permitting regime is the
treatment of black liquor wastes (the pulping chemicals and wood wastes separated from usable
pulp) at the St. Regis facility. It is common practice in the US and EU to combust black liquor
from pulping operations to make use of the fuel value of the entrained wood wastes and to
recover pulping chemicals, which are not combusted, for reuse. However, the St. Regis mill is
relatively small and uses some recycled fiber to produce corrugated media, so the pulping waste
streams are not particularly large. Additionally, the sodium sulfite pulping chemical produces a
black liquor wastewater stream of low fuel value. Thus, the St. Regis facility did not recover
pulping chemicals and was allowed, with some constraints, to discharge the black liquor
containing wastewaters directly to the Severn Estuary.
The applicable UK technical guidance note acknowledged that recovery of black liquor from
NSSC processes is not often practiced but also indicated that long-term release of the liquor into
the environment was not acceptable, due to the high chemical oxygen demand (COD) levels and
toxicity. The UK technical guidance note BAT discussion for the NSSC process called for
consideration of options for recovery and recycling first, but then stated that the most likely
option for BAT would be anaerobic/aerobic biodegradation, in several stages, with energy
recovery. The St. Regis permit application stated that "the costs of effluent treatment are
considered to be excessive compared to potential environmental benefits" and also that chemical
recovery "at a capital cost equivalent to the current asset value of the Mill, is considered
excessive."
Therefore, the operator proposed an improvement plan for the liquor effluent consisting of three
parts: (1) upgrade the recovered fiber pulping operations to produce a new product that could be
made from pulp containing an increased percentage of recovered fiber, and thus reduce COD; (2)
conduct an evaluation of the impact of the COD reduction on the estuary; and (3) continue
investigating and report annually on environmentally beneficial process changes and effluent
treatment technologies. In response, the EA, after some deliberations, issued the IPPC permit for
the St. Regis mill without imposing any immediate restrictions on the mill effluent but requiring
the mill to carry out a somewhat enhanced version of the mill's proposed improvement program.
In conjunction with implementation of the permit improvement program, the mill operator and
the EA exchanged several letters and held a number of meetings after permit issuance. One
letter from St. Regis stated that the mill's attempt to utilize more recycled fiber in a new product
had failed, due to lack of a market for the new product. The company indicated that it was
pursuing anaerobic effluent treatment instead. In a later letter, the company stated that further
study of anaerobic treatment showed the technology to be unaffordable but that it continued to
pursue other options. The final correspondence between the mill and the EA revealed that St.
Regis was looking seriously at a process to recover the black liquor.352
' The mill shut down before reaching a permanent solution to the problem.
97
-------
This example illustrates the potential leeway that exists in determining BAT for a particular
release. All during the process described above, the EA critically reviewed information
submitted by the company, asked critical questions and/or requested additional information, and
eventually reached agreement with the company on a course of action. (Interestingly, the
multiple back and forth actions over time ended with the company again looking into chemical
recovery - the first BAT option that St. Regis initially rejected.) This process stands in contrast
to the US system where emission sources subject to a standard are expected to comply, generally
without opportunity for negotiation.
This example is not meant to say that all BAT decisions are this drawn out or involve this degree
of negotiation. However, the potential does exist for site-specific or local conditions to affect
final BAT decisions. It also is likely that BAT for noise and energy use and efficiency would be
highly dependent on site-specific or local conditions.
Pollution Prevention and Continuous Improvement
Pollution prevention underlies many of the requirements of the integrated permitting regime in
the EU/UK. The BAT approach requires that measures be taken to first prevent pollution and,
only where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions. If emissions can be prevented altogether
at reasonable cost, then this should be done without regard to whether any EQSs are already
being met. Therefore, facility operators must justify continued emissions where prevention
options exist.
To meet this generic requirement, a facility must include in its permit application a description of
the installation, the activities to be carried out, and in particular, pollution prevention related
information as follows: details of the raw and auxiliary materials, other substances, and the
energy to be used in or generated by the carrying out of those activities; details of the
technologies and other techniques that the operator proposes to use to prevent or, where that is
not practicable, reduce emissions; a description of measures to be taken for the prevention and
recovery of waste generated by the installation; a description of measures taken or proposed to
show that energy is used efficiently; and the necessary measures to prevent accidents. Such
information in applications will be determined or judged against indicative BAT in guidance
documents (e.g., BREFs, technical guidance notes).
Where the permitting authority determines that specific information in the application represents
BAT (possibly augmented with revisions or supplemental information), that specific information
becomes part of the permit, thereby binding the facility operator to continue operating in the
described manner. In addition to these initial pollution prevention related requirements, facilities
must undertake ongoing pollution prevention activities as required under specific provisions,
such as those for raw material use (see the subsection on materials inputs earlier in this chapter)
and under the approved facility EMS provisions (see the section on facility environmental
management earlier in this chapter).
Actual results from IPPC pollution prevention requirements will depend on several factors,
including actual extent and diligence of the effort to find pollution prevention alternatives; how
well pollution prevention requirements are monitored and enforced; how amenable a facility is to
98
-------
pollution prevention efforts (perhaps a facility's processes are inherently "clean" or significant
pollution prevention activities have already taken place); success in developing viable pollution
prevention alternatives; and availability of resources to implement pollution prevention ideas.
Thus, uneven pollution prevention results can be expected from facility to facility within a sector
and among different sectors. Nonetheless, the IPPC permits should result in a concentrated
effort to prevent first in order to minimize the need for any subsequent pollution controls.
In the US, regulators have tended to avoid requirements relating to pollution prevention because
of fear that regulating the details of production processes will become burdensome and impede
operational changes or technological innovation.333 There are various media-specific exceptions
to this: pollution prevention requirements are frequently included in best management conditions
in NPDES permits and are often core components of stormwater and concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFO) permits; some states may include pollution prevention provisions in
state permits; and RCRA requires certain facility owners/operators to have waste minimization
plans.354
In addition to pollution prevention requirements described above under NPDES, RCRA, and
state permit conditions, pollution prevention is encouraged in the US through various means.
Such encouragement may take the form of federal or state/local voluntary programs and
initiatives, which provide participants incentives for undertaking pollution prevention or industry
sector initiatives through trade associations. Under some regulatory agency voluntary programs,
obtaining program "benefits" hinges on a company's willingness to undertake pollution
prevention activities. Such activities eventually may be codified in permits, often as state, rather
than federally, enforceable conditions.
An example is EPA's Pollution Prevention in Permitting Program (P4), which pioneered federal
air permits that provide operational flexibility for participating industrial facilities.355 In many
P4 permits, ongoing pollution prevention activities were included as enforceable conditions in
order to ensure that resulting emission reductions would be appropriately credited for compliance
with other permit requirements. Aside from voluntary programs, companies also may undertake
pollution prevention actions as a result of company policies, to reduce costs and improve
efficiency, or as a means to help comply with environmental standards or meet public
expectations with respect to environmental performance. Considering all these factors, it is
reasonable to assume a significant amount of self-initiated pollution prevention activity is taking
353 However, the research team was not advised that these concerns have arisen under the pollution prevention
components of IPPC permits. As discussed below, it is not apparent that the UK system is either more or less able
to accommodate operational flexibility than the US permitting system.
354 Additionally, some states have programs requiring facilities to conduct pollution prevention reviews. Such
requirements are roughly similar to the UK material use terms, although the pollution prevention planning
requirements are not generally incorporated into permits. See Bennear, L.S. "Evaluating Management-Based
Regulation: A Valuable Tool in the Regulatory Tool Box?" in eds. Coglianese, C. and J. Nash. Leveraging the
Private Sector: Management-Based Strategies for Improving Environmental Performance. (Washington DC:
Resources for the Future Press, 2006).
355 An evaluation of P4 permits can be found at EPA, 2002. New Source Review Improvements: Supplemental
Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules.
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/publications.html.
99
-------
place within the US, although the effort expended and results obtained will vary from facility to
facility.
Since US companies generally are not required to undertake comprehensive pollution prevention
programs, they respond as they see fit to various incentives (internal or external). Thus, it is
expected that the integrated permitting system would produce more significant, broad-based
environmental benefits from pollution prevention. However, this conclusion is not based on
examination of any database - it simply follows from the comprehensive, mandatory nature of
pollution prevention under the IPPC regime.
In the future, pollution prevention efforts in the US likely will expand in a world of ever
increasing global competition and prices for energy/raw materials. Out of necessity, this will
lead companies to put increased emphasis on pollution prevention related activities, such as
implementation of EMSs with continuous improvement components, adoption of lean
manufacturing practices, and development of new "green" products/processes in response to
market dynamics.
Role of Economic Factors
Under IPPC permitting, cost and economics are taken into account in BAT determinations.
These factors are part of the deliberations as the EA distills broad BAT guidance from applicable
BREFs for a sector into indicative BAT tailored for UK facilities. The introduction to the UK
technical guidance notes for various regulated industry sectors state the following: "[a]t this
national level, techniques which are considered to be BAT should, first of all, represent an
appropriate balance of costs and benefits for a typical, well-performing installation in that sector.
Secondly, the techniques should normally be affordable without making the sector as a whole
uncompetitive either on a European basis or worldwide."356 So the EA evaluates costs and
economics as part of their decisions on BAT sector guidance.
At the facility level, again as stated in the UK sector-specific technical guidance notes, "[t]he
most appropriate technique may depend upon local factors and, where the answer is not self
evident, a local assessment of the costs and benefits of the available options may be needed to
1ST
establish the best option." While BAT decisions can be based on cost/benefit analyses, they
are not to be based on company profitability. However, company finance may be taken into
account where the BAT cost/benefit balance only becomes favorable when the facility is due for
a renovation anyway (investment cycle consideration), or where a number of improvements are
needed and a phased program of implementation may be appropriate.
As discussed earlier, US permit terms generally reflect performance standards (and associated
monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements) applicable to a facility. Many standards
issued at the federal or state level will take into account the cost and cost effectiveness of the
356
For example, EA, 2000, p. 1.
357 EA, 2000, p. 1.
100
-------
technology needed to comply.358 However, once a standard has been promulgated, it applies to
covered facilities as promulgated, with no further negotiations of stringency. Typically,
standards do not specify the technology to be employed to reduce pollution but rather set
numeric performance levels to be attained (or not exceeded, as the case may be). The facility
operator then chooses how to meet the numeric limit and, thereby, exercises some control over
the cost of compliance. Costs for complying with standards can vary considerably from facility
to facility.
To be accurate, not all requirements of the US system stem from broadly applicable federal or
state standards of performance. For example, under the CAA's NSR program, sources making
significant changes to operations will be subject to emission control requirements, where
determination of such requirements is based on a site-specific control options analysis. Costs
and other facility-specific factors are considered in such a control options analysis.
At the St. Regis mill, costs for various methods of mitigating black liquor releases played a
significant role in the continuing BAT determination dialogue between the facility operator and
the EA. It should be noted that final BAT determinations must always be consistent with
attaining and maintaining compliance with applicable EQSs. Cost and economic factors will be
overruled where BAT must be more stringent to comply with EQSs as well as certain EU and/or
UK pre-determined EL Vs.
In summary, compared to the US regulatory system, IPPC-based BAT decisions allow for a
somewhat more pronounced and pervasive role for cost and economic factors. US permits may
contain national standards that reflect cost and economic considerations based on sector
characteristics or based on different classes, sizes, or types of facilities within a sector.
However, this does not extend down to the facility-specific level (except for certain case-by-case
control technology determinations, such as those under CAA NSR). In contrast, an operator in
the UK has the opportunity to influence the imposition of BAT based on cost and economic
factors at the facility level (although the EA has the final say as to what constitutes BAT).
According to EA sources,359 this facility-specific cost/economic influence may extend more to
the timing of compliance with required improvements than to the determination of BAT itself.
The greater consideration of cost/economics occurs at the sector level and is reflected in sector-
specific UK technical guidance.
Again, the backstop to any BAT decision is that it must not conflict with applicable EQSs.
However, in contrast with the US system, BAT must be applied even when there are no
applicable EQSs or when the receiving environment is meeting applicable EQSs. As a result, the
IPPC system establishes an expectation that facility impacts will continue to be reduced over
time, consistent with available technologies and economic factors, regardless of the existence of
EQSs, or the current state of the environment.
358 Exceptions under the CAA include MACT standards for HAP standards, which are to be based on the best
performing facilities in a sector without regard to cost, and national ambient air quality standards, which are to be set
to protect public health and welfare.
359 James, T., EA, Policy Manager. Personal communication. 2 May 2007.
101
-------
Flexibility
Two aspects of flexibility are discussed in the sections below. The first considers flexibility in
setting permit requirements; the second considers a facility's operational flexibility under a
permit.
Flexibility in Setting Permit Requirements
As has been discussed earlier (in the discussion on the role and effect of site-specific factors),
permit requirements are determined differently under the UK and US systems. In the US,
permits typically contain the requirements of performance standards that have been issued at the
national or state level. Such standards are not negotiated for individual facilities, but apply
broadly to a sector or a subset of a sector. There are exceptions where requirements are based on
case-by-case technology determinations, such as under the C AA NSR program and water quality
standards under the CWA NPDES program.
Under IPPC, permitting is much less a listing of applicable standards and much more a tailoring
of requirements to an individual facility (within the constraints of applicable EQSs and BAT
guidelines). Thus, the peculiarities of a particular facility can be taken into account when setting
IPPC permit requirements and emission limits. Moreover, it is the facility operator that proposes
BAT, based on analysis of alternatives (from the sector technical guidance), for plant site
pollutant releases and other environmental aspects (i.e., energy, raw material selection, noise,
etc.). This ensures that facility characteristics will be included in BAT analysis and eventual
BAT determinations.
This process requires the permitting agency, the EA, to have sufficient technical training and
ability to determine whether to accept the facility's conclusions as to what constitutes BAT or to
prescribe something else. In contrast, US permit writers typically must identify or confirm
which standards and other requirements apply, and place them in the permit. Under the CAA,
for example, permit writers, for the most part, are not required to decide the stringency of
pollution control requirements for a facility, since identified standards and other requirements
typically are absolute, without room for negotiation.360
In addition to flexibility in the process for determining what constitutes BAT for pollution
sources at a facility, the timing of facility adoption of BAT can vary as well. The PPC
Regulations direct permit writers to consider "the length of time needed to introduce the best
available technique."361 Some help is provided through the technical guidance notes for a sector,
which will contain guidance on reasonable times for installation of various BAT candidates.362
360 While it is true that US standards are non-negotiable, there are formal mechanisms available under US statutes
and regulations that allow facilities to apply and request approval for site-specific flexibility (e.g., variances under
the CWA).
361 The introduction to sector-specific UK technical guidance states that in instances "where [the EA determines
that] there is significant difference between relevant indicative BAT [outlined in UK technical guidance] and BAT
for the installation, the Permit may require further improvements on a reasonably short timescale," (i.e., through an
improvement program). See, for example, EA, 2003, p. 4.
362 Also, the EA-issaed Read Me First guidance tated (with respect to meeting BAT requirements): "You should
include proposals and timescales for all aspects of the installation that require improving. Improvements should be
102
-------
Additionally, the UK Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Practical Guide (Edition 4)
states the following:
.. .new techniques cannot be brought into effect overnight. An operator can therefore,
with reference to the guidance notes, make a case for making improvements over a
specified period of time, but it should justify the measures it proposes, what
environmental improvements they would bring and the timescale for making the
improvements.
Regulators may accept these proposals where reasonable. Alternatively, they may
impose their own improvement requirements with appropriate deadlines... Timescales
known to be achievable in the sector as a whole should normally be applied unless there
are compelling reasons for some delay - for example if several improvements are in
progress as part of an overall environmentally-beneficial programme at a complex site.363
Thus, how soon BAT must be implemented is negotiable to some extent, based on site-specific
factors and general sector guidance. Generally, US technology-based requirements carry
absolute deadlines, which apply regardless of facility circumstances. An exception to this under
the CWA NPDES program is that permitting authorities typically establish site-specific
compliance schedules when water quality standards dictate new effluent limitations.
Operational Flexibility
A second aspect of flexibility has to do with the degree of freedom a facility has to make
operational changes within its permit (or conversely, the degree to which its permit impedes
rapid or frequent operational changes). Typically in the US, permits reflect current operations at
a facility. To make changes that will affect emissions or other permit terms under the air
program, such as adding new units or modifying the operation of existing units, a facility
owner/operator must first obtain a construction permit and/or a revision to the existing operating
permit. In essence, a facility's ability to change operations (perhaps in response to market
conditions) is limited by permit processes.364 Under some circumstances, obtaining a
construction permit can take a year or more. This is less true for NPDES permits where,
generally, the permit modification process does not impede facility operational changes.
IPPC permits issued in the UK also reflect current facility conditions, and over time permits are
revised to take into account changes in how facilities are operated. Once a permit has been
issued, an operator must advise the regulator whenever proposing a change in facility operations
("change" includes a technical alteration or operational modifications that may have
consequences for the environment). Minor changes that will not require variation of current
permit conditions may be handled through notice only - at least 14 days prior to beginning
completed as soon as possible and in most cases within 3 years." (See footnote 296 for more on the Read Me First
guidance.)
363 DEFRA, 2005b, p. 52.
364 US EPA has been experimenting with "flexible" air permits for a number of years. Such permits feature terms
anticipating certain types of facility changes over the life of the permit and allow the changes to be made as needed
(i.e., without waiting for additional permit revisions). The agency has been and continues to issue revisions to NSR
and permit regulations to support mainstreaming flexible air permits.
103
-------
implementation. Unless the regulator acts to prevent it, the operator may make the change. A
change that is totally within the scope of the original application "and will not have
consequences on the environment" may be made without notice to the EA.365
Other changes that require permit revision must go through the variation process. The operator
submits an application for variation of the permit, and procedures similar to the permit issuance
process are followed to implement the variation. A change that is determined to be a "substantial
change" (one likely to have significant negative effects on humans or the environment) must go
through public comment and statutory consultation. Normally, applications for permit variation
are to be "determined" (issued) within four months of receipt of a duly made application (as with
applications for the initial permit for a facility), or three months if public comment and statutory
consultation is not required.
In the UK it has been recognized that there are a number of chemical producers that, to stay in
business, must be able to produce a range of different chemicals within a short timeframe. Such
producers, without special accommodation, would be involved in a constant cycle of applying
for permit variations in order to make the chemicals needed by customers. Of course the delay in
obtaining approval to make new products or use new processes through permit variations could
cause customers to seek other suppliers. To address this situation, the EA has introduced the
concept of a Multi-Product Protocol (MPP).
A MPP allows an operator to pre-define the extent of a facility's operating envelope, and
determine BAT for that operating envelope. This reduces the need for permit variations as new
chemicals are produced within the pre-set conditions defined by the operating envelope. The
idea is that although a multi-product chemical facility only produces a certain set of chemicals at
the time of permit issuance, it is capable of producing additional chemicals through other
processes that still fall within the scope of the initial BAT determination for the facility. Thus,
operation within the defined envelope under a MPP, including production of new chemical
products, will not trigger the need for permit variations.
Operators seeking to establish MPPs are encouraged to make the scope and detail of their permit
applications sufficient to allow anticipated future changes to be effected within the framework of
the permit. To do that, applications must include the anticipated range of chemical
transformations, how they will be used in a range of chemical processes, and the criteria to be
used to assess the capability of the plant operator to ensure that the "environment as a whole" is
not exposed to unacceptable risk. All anticipated new chemicals and processes are to be justified
against BAT principles, while keeping in mind whether a new product would result in any
meaningful change to the BAT assessment for the current products and processes.
The EA's guidance on multi-product installations366 provides a list of specific considerations that
must be taken into account in any proposed protocol, including the following:
365 According to the IPPC Practical Guide (DEFRA, 2005b) and the definition of "change in operation," "Many
changes will not have consequences on the environment and will therefore not require notification."
366 EA, 2005b. Guidance on the Use of a Multi-Product Protocol (MPP) at Chemical Installations.
http://publications.environment-agencv.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO1205BJZF-e-e.pdf ?lang= e.
104
-------
An indication in the site report of the effect of likely new chemicals/reactions on pre-
existing contamination.
A "worst case" environmental assessment covering the range of possible impacts and
consequences of accidents.
The justification for the range and scale of chemistry applied for, which must cover
maintenance; management; training; technical support systems to show capability for
handling new products; systems for handling part loads of raw materials remaining after a
production campaign; and a description of how waste is identified, controlled, and
minimized, etc. (the EA MPP guidance also contains an additional 12 considerations to
be covered).
A description of how new products and processes will be assessed and shown to be
within the MPP prior to introduction (assessment criteria provided in the guidance
document).
Following approval of a MPP and to avoid a permit variation when manufacturing new
chemicals, the facility operator must notify the EA of the change they intend to undertake and
make the case that the change fits within the MPP (i.e., justify that the scale of production, range
of chemistry, and the environmental impact are covered by the MPP). The EA responds by letter
either that it agrees that the change is within the facility's MPP, or that a permit variation is
required.
In the US, EPA has recognized a similar conflict set up by the requirements of air permit revision
processes and the need for certain industries to make frequent and/or nearly immediate facility
changes to respond to market demands. Thus, EPA has been experimenting with "flexible" air
permits for a number of years. Similarly, such permits feature terms that define an envelope of
facility operation, including changes and additions to existing equipment that may proceed
without invoking permit revision procedures. Permit terms are included to assure that
anticipated changes within the "envelope" will meet all applicable standards and other
requirements.367 The agency has issued some and has proposed further regulations related to
NSR and CAA Title V operating permits to help mainstream flexible air permit concepts.368
Overall, it is difficult to reach conclusions regarding the extent of operating flexibility provided
under the UK IPPC permitting relative to that available under US permitting systems. Anecdotal
evidence may suggest that the UK is somewhat more tolerant of minor changes than the US
system; and the MPP allows additional flexibility, although apparently only for multi-product
chemical facilities. In the US, air permits and their revision processes are widely viewed as a
367 A similar provision is allowed under the NPDES Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Effluent
Guidelines under the CWA.
368 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): Baseline
Emissions Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology, Planhvide Applicability Limitations, Clean Units,
and Pollution Control Projects Final Rule, 31 December 2002 (67 FR 80185); and Operating Permit Programs and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR), Flexible Air
Permitting Rule, Proposed Rule, 12 September 2007 (72 FR 52206).
105
-------
significant stumbling block for companies wishing to make frequent and quick operational
changes. As noted above, changes to create greater flexibility in US air permitting recently have
been issued or proposed; however, broader adoption of flexible air permitting strategies, beyond
the initial pilots and limited additional examples, will take time.
Finally, it is stressed that neither MPPs in the UK, nor flexible air permits in the US are to be
viewed as providing flexibility at the expense of environmental protection. All environmental
requirements are to be met under these flexibility tools. UK MPPs and US flexible air permits
assure compliance with all applicable requirements for all anticipated changes within a defined
operating envelope at a facility - basically by placing boundaries on the types of future changes
that can be made, anticipating regulatory requirements, and placing terms in the permit to assure
compliance with these requirements. In essence, the MPP and flexible air permits take on the
work of permit variations or revisions in advance.
Monitoring, Testing, and Reporting Requirements
EU/UK Monitoring Program
Proper emissions monitoring is an integral part of any permitting system. The PPC Regulations,
which implement the IPPC Directive require the following:
Applications for a permit to contain the proposed measures to be taken to monitor the
emissions.
The permit to include conditions that
o Set out suitable emission-monitoring requirements specifying the
measurement methodology and frequency and the evaluation procedure; and
o Direct the operator to supply the regulator with the data required to check
compliance.
According to the UK Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Practical Guide (Edition 4),
operators have significant responsibility for monitoring under IPPC.369 Operators must propose
in permit applications how they intend to monitor facility emissions. The regulator's role is to
assess facility monitoring proposals and impose permit conditions that are consistent with the
regulatory requirements above, and that require the operator to supply the results of emissions
monitoring and tell the regulator, without delay, of any incident or accident that is causing or
may cause significant pollution.
The EU's IPPC Bureau in Seville supported the IPPC Directive's monitoring requirements by
publishing a reference document (BREF) on the principles of monitoring under IPPC.370 The
369 DEFRA, 2005b.
370 EC, 2002. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC): Reference Document on the General Principles
of Monitoring.
http://www.jrc.es/pub/english.cgi/d946763/ll%20Reference%20Document%20on%20General%20Principles%20of
%20Monitoring%20(adopted%20Jul%202003)%20-%201%20Mb.
106
-------
document emphasizes that, wherever possible, emissions should be monitored using the methods
of recognized standard-making organizations and provides a hierarchy of standard-making
organizations. Subsequently, the EA established a Monitoring Certification Scheme (MCERTS)
providing a framework of published specifications and quality requirements to further guide
operators in producing valid environmental measurement proposals, and to serve as benchmarks
for evaluating such proposals. The scheme is built on proven international standards, such as
those from ISO and the European Committee for Standardization (CEN - Comite Europeen de
Normalisation)) and provides industry a foundation for choosing and implementing monitoring
systems and services that meet EA performance specifications. MCERTS brings together
relevant performance standards for the product certification of instruments as well as the
competency certification of personnel, laboratories and effluent flow monitoring inspectors. Sira
Environmental operates an MCERTS website, on behalf of the EA, to maintain information on
all current MCERTS certifications. The UK Accreditation Service accredits Sira to undertake
the product and personnel certification activities that underpin the MCERTS scheme.
The EA has published a series of monitoring related technical guidance notes as part of
MCERTS.371 This series of monitoring guidance notes includes information and expectations
with respect to suitability of sampling sites, safety and practical considerations when sampling
and monitoring, choice of method, choice of technique, and choice of monitoring equipment.
(Additional documents are expected to be published over time.) The guidance notes are
complemented by additional MCERTS related monitoring documents published by the EA,
which cover a range of topics, including monitoring of industrial emissions, monitoring ambient
air, portable equipment for emissions monitoring, soil testing, continuous monitoring of
discharges to water bodies, and measuring toxicity of effluents.
All of these documents underpin the MCERTS program. Facility operators are expected to use
the published documents and MCERTS products, personnel, laboratories, and inspectors in their
monitoring plans. BAT for monitoring is determined in part based on use of MCERTS to the
extent feasible at a particular facility.
In summary, under IPPC facility operators must propose in permit applications the monitoring
they intend to undertake to track compliance with emission limits. Thus, operators have some
freedom to "select" methods, instruments, and laboratories to accomplish monitoring, although
they must do so within the bounds of MCERTS guidelines, specifications, and certifications (to
the extent applicable and feasible at their facilities).
It appears from the St. Regis and Eastman permits, that neither facility completely met MCERTS
requirements at the time their permits were issued. MCERTS was at an early stage of
implementation at the time St. Regis submitted its permit application, and its proposed
monitoring followed the less specific and demanding guideline of the existing Technical
Guidance for the Pulp and Paper Sector. Therefore, the St. Regis permit contained an
improvement program item requiring the operator to ".. .complete an annual review of
monitoring equipment used and the availability of MCERTS" and an "annual report detailing
any proposed changes to be forwarded to the EA." In this manner, the St. Regis monitoring
371 For a list of published guidance see the EA website at
http://www.environment.gov.uk/business/1745440/444671/466158/monitoring.
107
-------
program would gradually conform to MCERTS. Eastman's permit contained a similar
improvement program requirement and called for the operator to upgrade to MCERTS where not
currently employed.
US Monitoring
In contrast to the IPPC monitoring regime, it is common in the US for national standards of
performance to be accompanied by precise specification of emissions (sources and pollutants) to
be monitored and the monitoring protocol (e.g., precision, accuracy, frequency) to be used.
Where performance tests (e.g., one-time sampling/analysis of stacks, effluents) are required, US
EPA typically develops and proposes specific test method(s) to be used and, after public
comment, promulgates them as EPA test methods. To be able to use an alternate monitoring or
test method, facility owners and operators must obtain approval from the EPA Administrator (or
the Administrator's designated delegate). Over time, EPA has published or specified methods
covering monitoring and testing of a wide range of pollutants in air, water, and waste and in
direct support of promulgated national standards.
Discussion and Conclusions on Monitoring and Testing
Previous sections of this report indicated that the IPPC system regulates more categories of
environmental performance than US federal environmental regulations, including such aspects as
facility environmental management systems, energy use/efficiency, offsite environmental
impacts, and noise. Therefore, facilities under IPPC must monitor to show compliance with
these additional requirements. For example, facilities are required to track energy use and
related greenhouse gas emissions, and can be required to monitor ambient conditions beyond the
facility fenceline. As far as monitoring all environmental effects from facility operation, IPPC is
clearly more comprehensive.
Both systems, of course, have requirements for monitoring air and water pollutants and wastes.
However, undertaking a comparative technical analysis of monitoring/test methods for air, water,
and land pollutants that are employed by the two pulp and paper facilities and the two specialty
chemical producers was beyond the scope of this study. Such an analysis would have required
side-by-side detailed inspection of comparable methods. Thus, within the time and resources
available, the focus was broadly based on the way in which monitoring and testing requirements
are established, and other qualitative aspects of the UK and US monitoring programs. (It is
noted, however, that in a number of instances, EPA methods are recommended in UK guidance.)
As with other IPPC requirements in UK permits, the facility operator is responsible for
proposing monitoring terms for its operations based on published guidance. This gives the
operator some leeway in choosing methods, provided they fall within the boundaries of the
guidance. In contrast, the US system, dictates monitoring and test methods for tracking
compliance with national standards, which creates a very uniform program across the country.
On the face of it, each way of setting monitoring requirements is suited to its parent system. The
US sets nationally applicable standards; and it makes sense that all regulated facilities should
ascertain compliance the same way, thus putting no facility at advantage or disadvantage in an
effort to demonstrate compliance. Similarly, the UK monitoring regime proceeds from the IPPC
108
-------
philosophy of using guidance (providing a range of essentially equivalent alternatives) to direct
development of permits individualized to a particular facility.
The overall impression from a relatively brief look at monitoring and testing requirements under
IPPC (as implemented in the UK) in comparison with US requirements is that both systems
impose sufficient sampling and analytic standards to assure a reasonable quality of data. The
main differences are that the UK monitoring scope is broader (potentially including monitoring
of certain process-related parameters and monitoring of ambient effects beyond facility
boundaries372), and the UK appears to allow operators greater ease to modify the sources
monitored and frequency of monitoring. The permits for the St. Regis and Eastman facilities
contained improvement program items related to monitoring. For St. Regis, the facility operator
was required to provide better information on monitoring of certain pollutant sources and
upgrade certain monitoring equipment (although not as a condition of permit issuance).
Correspondence between the facility operator and the EA documented progress in meeting the
objectives of the improvement terms, but also revealed that St. Regis considered some of the
improvement requirements not practicable at the facility. The EA and St. Regis did not reach
final resolution of all monitoring issues before the facility closed. For Eastman, the operator had
to review monitoring equipment, personnel, and contractors against MCERTS standards and
propose a timetable for achieving full certification (demonstration of certification subsequently
provided to the EA).
Integrated Decision-Making at the UK Facilities
Another feature of integration is that it potentially facilitates mitigation of cross-media effects in
instances where pollution control efforts in one media transfer pollution to another media (e.g.,
using a water-based scrubber to eliminate VOC air emissions produces a wastewater stream with
VOCs). Examination of cross-media effects potentially leads to modification of emission
reduction strategies to minimize overall releases or public health risk. The Pulp and Paper BREF
includes tables that illustrate how employing a particular emission reduction technique affects
environmental releases other than at the principal target of the technique. For example,
incinerating VOC emissions will consume energy, thus resulting in an adverse effect on energy
use and at the same time producing additional air pollutants (e.g., CO, NOX). Another BREF on
cross-media effects in BAT decisions provides a methodology for weighing environmental
tradeoffs, including risk.373
Investigation of BAT for the St. Regis and Eastman facilities did not reveal any decisions based
on cross-media effects - that is, where a BAT candidate was not required because it would
produce other adverse environmental consequences. Rather, most decisions not to reduce or
control emissions from certain sources were based on disproportionate costs (assuming EQS and
any other environmental trigger levels would not be breached). EA representatives indicated that
372 The US CWA allows for monitoring beyond facility boundaries on a case-by-case basis. Receiving water
monitoring plans require monitoring for upstream and downstream effects of facility discharge. These are typically
state requirements and not many states make extensive use of this authority. The State of California is the one
exception - every water discharge permit in California requires a receiving water monitoring plan.
373 EC, 2006. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Reference Document on Economics and Cross-Media
Effects, http://www.eper-
es.es/data/docs/Fondo%20documental/BREF EFECTOS CROSSMEDIA_paraEPER_68DD-4C18-830E-
5466E34E6COA.pdf. Chapter 2.
109
-------
they did not know of any truly risk-based BAT decisions involving emissions tradeoffs between
374
different media. In practice, it does not appear that cross-media tradeoffs occur frequently (if
at all) in IPPC permits.
374 Gray, J. and James T., EA. Personal communication. 30 June 2005.
110
-------
6. POST PERMIT ISSUANCE ACTIVITY
This chapter looks at the range of activities that follow an IPPC permit determination in the UK
- specifically the series of interactions and the relationship between the EA and the operator
once an IPPC permit is issued. These later phases of the permitting process - from site visits,
inspections and audits to investigations and enforcement are decentralized. That is, they are
mainly carried out by EA inspectors from approximately 20 EA area offices.
The success of the IPPC permitting system appears to rest heavily on the relationship between
the facility and their area inspector.37" The area inspector plays many roles - inspector,
compliance assistance provider, auditor, consultant, enforcement officer, and communicator.
The ability to conduct an inspection one day and present the source with a written warning
(equivalent to a US notice of violation or NOV), and then discuss a potential plant modification
and what will be needed in an application to vary a permit the next day, depends upon a
relationship built on mutual respect and trust. This relationship appears to be important to the
smooth operation of the overall EPPC system (from permit application and issuance to
compliance assessment, enforcement, and continuous improvement).
Compliance Assessment
Like many other aspects of the IPPC permitting system in the UK, EA compliance assessment
activities and methodologies reflect the principles of "modern regulation" introduced in Chapt
2. As such, the EA's compliance assessment follows from the following presumptions:
It is the responsibility of operators to comply with legal requirements and for us [the
EA] to assess whether they are complying.
We [the EA] must balance income and resource for compliance assessment.
Effort must be allocated according to risk and the potential for outcomes.
Compliance assessment includes all compliance activities, not just site visits.
All compliance assessment activities will be documented and reports made available to
the operator.376
The remaining discussion in this section will outline how the EA translates these principles into
practice. There are four main elements of compliance assessment under the IPPC permitting
system. These include the following:
ter
EP OPRA;
Compliance Classification Scheme (CCS);
J7~ This is an overall impression based on EPA's observations of EA operations.
376 EA, 2005g. Work Instruction: Generic Methodology for Assessing Compliance.
Ill
-------
Compliance Assessment Plans (CAPs); and
Assessment Methodology.
Briefly, these four elements work together to form the basis for what the EA terms "integrated
compliance assessment." EP OPRA determines operator fees and consequently the allocation of
EA resources for compliance assessment. This resource allocation is then reflected in the CAP.
The CCS ensures consistency in scoring any permit breaches, which are then figured into the
overall EP OPRA score. Finally, the EA has developed a detailed assessment methodology for
the compliance data that forms the basis of the CCS. This approach is illustrated below in Figure
6.1, and followed by a discussion of each element of compliance assessment in more detail.
Figure 6.1 - Interlocking Pieces of PPC Compliance Assessment377
- 6ccs
OPRA N ^^
Integrated
Compliance I ~
Assessment [_ I
CAPS | \ Assessment
Methodology
Role of EP OPRA Scores in Compliance Assessment
The EP OPRA methodology was introduced and discussed in Chapter 4 as a common, objective
yardstick for measuring approximate risk for facilities under the PPC regime. By way of review,
an EP OPRA score initially is calculated when a facility operator applies for an IPPC permit, and
is based on four facility attributes: complexity, emissions, location, and operator performance.
EP OPRA is the mechanism that the EA uses to meet its requirement to recoup the cost of its
facility-based regulatory and permitting operations. To do this the calculated EP OPRA score
for a facility is monetized through use of a multiplier to determine the facility's fee for permit
determination, or application fee. Initial EP OPRA scores are updated annually after permit
determination (issuance), and the updated scores are used to determine the annual permitting
377 Figure provided by James, T., EA, Policy Manager, 30 June 2005.
112
-------
subsistence fee for a facility, (using a smaller multiplier than that used for initial permit
determination). As discussed elsewhere in the report, the EP OPRA score is also used in other
ways, such as for providing a benchmark for the facility itself and for the public, targeting
additional sector-wide environmental improvement, and driving better facility performance by
using fees as a feedback mechanism.
For the purposes of compliance assessment, EP OPRA is used as a means to gauge the level of
regulatory effort that will be required to adequately assess compliance at facilities holding IPPC
permits. Regulatory effort following permit issuance consists largely of communication and
visits by the EA inspector to the facility whether this is an informal exchange or a formal
inspection or audit. The frequency of audits and inspections is determined by the EP OPRA
score - the higher the EP OPRA score the more frequent inspections and audits will be. EP
OPRA scores are also updated on an ongoing basis to reflect the results of audits and inspections.
This information is the basis for the fifth attribute of the EP OPRA score that is calculated after
permit determination - the facility compliance rating. In addition to updates to reflect facility
compliance, EP OPRA scores also can be updated at the request of an operator to take into
account changes at a facility affecting one or more of the attributes used in the calculation.
Compliance Assessment Plans
Figure 6.2 -
PPC Compliance Assessment
378
The next piece of the integrated compliance assessment matrix is the Compliance Assessment
Plan, or CAP. The EA uses the CAP as an internal planning tool to create a strategic framework
for undertaking compliance assessment on a sector
as well as on a site-specific basis. Development
of a CAP ensures that compliance with each permit
requirement is checked within a defined period of
time and that an appropriate mix of assessment
tools is identified along with an initial allocation
of EA resources. Resource allocation is based on
EA OPRA scores within a sector and/or local
area. Compliance assessment tools and activities
range from sampling and check monitoring, to
full-scale facility audits. The full suite of
compliance assessment activities are presented
and described in Figure 6.2 and Table 6.1.
Similar to the development of the PPC Permitting
Plan described in Chapter 4, the CAP sets out EA
regulatory objectives and the desired
environmental outcomes and then outlines the
various compliance assessment activities that need
to occur in order to deliver the outcomes
Compliance assessment activities
Ajdits
Review of
procedures
Scrutiny of reports
monitoring data and '
progress with
.improvement conditions/
Responding to
incidents and
complaints
378 Figure taking from EA, 2005f. Using Science to Create A Better Place: Investigating the Effectiveness of
Compliance Assessment Activities. http://publications.environnient-agency.gov.iik/pdf/SCHO0705BJOD-e-e.pdf. p.
9.
113
-------
specified. CAPs were introduced in 2005 first to identify priority outcomes for compliance
activities on a sector basis. Site-specific CAPs will be developed in instances where it is
necessary to reflect and incorporate local issues, regulatory knowledge and environmental
objectives.
Table 6.1 - Description of EA Compliance Assessment Activities
379
Compliance
Assessment
Activity
Sampling/Check
Monitoring
Review of reports and
data
Procedure Review
Site Inspection
Audit
Description
Measurements of inputs, emissions or the receiving environment
Review of reports and data submitted by the permit holder, such as emissions
and environmental monitoring data, notifications of non-compliances and
technical reports.
An operator may be required to submit procedures to [the EA] for agreement
prior to implementation. We may also assess whether procedures referred to in
permit applications and the EP OPRA profile are in place and comprehensive.
Attendance at a site to check compliance with all or some of the permit
conditions, or directly applied legislation (other than by check monitoring) using
for example visual assessment.
In depth evaluation of an operator's ability to comply with all, or parts of, the
permit, or directly applied legislation. For example, an audit might include
specific reviews of the effectiveness of an operator's procedures and
management system.
Compliance Classification Scheme
The CCS is a tool that the EA uses to assure operators that the agency is using a consistent
approach to determining EP OPRA scores by assigning each instance of non-compliance to a
category based on the potential to cause an environmental impact ranging from Category 4 (has
no potential to cause an environmental impact) to Category 1 (has potential to cause a major
environmental impact). Categories 2 and 3 fall in between at potentially significant and
potentially minor impacts. The CCS applies to all facilities subject to IPPC as well as to a
number of other regulatory authorizations and consents that remain outside of IPPC permitting.
A common classification scheme across these different regulatory regimes is the basis for a
consistent approach. The EA plans on expanding the use of the CCS in the future to cover such
areas as emissions trading schemes.
' Based on information presented in EA, 2005g, p. 4.
114
-------
In addition to providing consistency for inputs into determination of the EP OPRA score, the
other goal of the CCS is to ensure consistent implementation of the agency's Enforcement and
Prosecution Policy discussed in Chapter 3. Each of the categories in the CCS corresponds to a
type of enforcement response. These are shown in Table 6.2 below.
Table 6.2 - CCS and Enforcement Response
380
CCS Category
1
2
3
4
Normal Enforcement Response
Prosecution
Formal Caution or Prosecution
Warning
Warning
An enforcement notice may be served for any of the CCS categories listed above. In addition
each of the normal enforcement responses are informed by the public interest tests stated in the
EA Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.,381 As a result, the consideration of public interest may
influence or change the normal enforcement response, but the overarching goal is to apply
formal action by the agency in a more consistent and targeted manner across different regulatory
regimes, industrial sectors and geographic areas. Finally, data collected in conjunction with the
CCS is used by the EA to identify specific areas and patterns of non-compliance so that together
with industry the agency can formulate an overall strategic approach for improvement over time.
Assessment Methodology
The Assessment Methodology provides EA inspectors with a consistent approach to identifying
and scoring individual breaches of IPPC permits.382 These individual scores then become the
data input into the CCS. The Assessment Methodology does this by providing a series of
illustrative examples and descriptions of typical circumstances for each of the CCS categories, 1-
4, for each of the elements of an IPPC permit. In the interest of providing further representation
of the scope of IPPC permits and at the same time present a detailed picture of how they are
assessed for compliance, each area scored by an EA inspector is listed in Table 6.3.
" EA. Operators Briefing Note: General Principles of the Compliance Classification Scheme.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/ccsbriefingnote 745332.pdf.
381 Public Interest Factors are outlined in the Enforcement and Prosecution Policy (1998) discussed in Chapter 3.
These factors include the environmental effect of the offence; foreseeability of the offence; intent of the offender;
history of the offending; attitude of the offender; deterrent effect of a prosecution; and personal circumstances of the
offender. The 2007 guidance lists several more factors: nature of the offence; financial implications; impact on
legitimate business/activities; and impact on EA resources. EA, 2007b. Guidance for the Enforcement and
Prosecution Policy, Version 17. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/eppl7_1803748.pdf.
PP- 7'9-
38" EA, 2005g.
115
-------
Table 6.3 - Compliance Assessment Areas
383
Permit Condition/Criteria
Permitted Activities
Specified by permit
Infrastructure
Engineering for prevention &
control of emissions
Closure & decommissioning
Site drainage engineering
Containment of stored materials
Plant and Equipment
General Management
Staff competency/training
Operating procedures
Materials acceptance
Storage, handling, labeling &
segregation
Incident Management
Site security
Accident, emergency and incident
planning
Emissions
Air
Land/groundwater
Surface water
Sewer
Waste
Amenity
Odour
Noise
Dust/fibres/particulates & litter
Pests, birds & scavengers
Deposits on road
Monitoring, Records,
Maintenance and Reporting
Monitoring of emissions and
environment
Records of activity, site
diary/journ al/e ven ts
Maintenance records
Reporting and notifications to EA
Resource Efficiency
Efficient use of raw materials
Energy efficiency
Issue Description
Catch-all used to record any issues where the nature and type of activities are not
as authorized in the permit
Civil engineering designed to prevent or control emissions.
Issues with sites closed or decommissioned.
Issues associated with site drainage engineering and its effectiveness.
Physical infrastructure aspects of storage.
Issues associated with plant and equipment requirements
Practical aspects of management as well as training/competency
Procedural aspects of management and documented systems
Materials acceptance issues that include written procedures as well as practical
application.
Management issues surrounding the storage and handling of materials and wastes.
All and any security issues with both physical infrastructure and its maintenance
and management.
Arrangements operator has for dealing with emergencies, accidents and incident
prevention or control (e.g., spill kits, emergency management plans and procedures
to deal with spillages and incidents).
Issues with both permitted point source and fugitive emissions to air
Issues with both permitted point source and fugitive emissions to land
Issues with both permitted point source and fugitive emissions to surface water
Issues with both permitted point source and fugitive emissions to sewer
Waste recovery and disposal issues
Issues associated with odour
Issues associated with noise
Issues associated with dust, fibres, particulates and litter
Issues associated with pests, birds and scavengers
Issues associated with road deposits
Issues regarding the adequacy of the monitoring system - what and how an
operator is monitoring as well as any analytic failings.
Issues associated with requirement to maintain records
Issues associated with maintenance records that are required by the permit.
Issues associated with operator requirements to report and notify the EA or other
bodies of information or events set out in the permit including the means and
methods for reporting and notification.
Issues surrounding resource efficiency so that the environmental impact of raw
materials use is reduced.
Apart from meeting obligations and targets connected with a Climate Change
Agreement (overseen by DEFRA), any issues connected with the requirement to
take reasonable measures to reduce energy consumption.
j83 Adapted from EA. 2007c. Methodology for Assessing Compliance (MAC) for the Pollution Prevention and
Control (PPC) and Waste management License (WML) Regimes, p. 7.
116
-------
Specifically, the Assessment Methodology links each of the above permit conditions/criteria
found in Table 6.3 to an appropriate mix of compliance assessment methods, a listing of what
evidence would indicate non-compliance, and finally a set of examples or circumstances that
illustrate each of the CCS classes from "compliant" to category 1. Use of the Assessment
Methodology is qualified by the fact that it is guidance only, and that site-specific factors such as
local routes of exposure and particular environmental receptors may increase or decrease the
severity of the impact and the resulting CCS classification. What constitutes evidence of non-
compliance and compliance and how non-compliance is classified for staff competency and
training is presented in Table 6.4 below.
Table 6.4 - Staff Competency and Training Compliance Classification
384
Evidence of non-compliance: Any failings in staff competency may result in additional breaches of any
permit condition. The root cause of non-compliance can be traced back to overarching management issues
and staff competency. Both the impact (e.g., the emission limit failure) and the root cause should be
recorded. Documents and records of certified and accredited management systems can be checked for
evidence of non-compliance. Discussions with operational staff may reveal issues during audits.
CCS Class
Compliant
Cat 4
No Impact
Cats
Minor
Cat 2
Significant
Cat1
Major
Typical Observations
Operator has adequate staff with training, maintenance, and incident procedures in place and
these are documented and adhered to (e.g., site accredited by ISO 14001, EMS HP or with
several awards for excellence). Smaller sites have Acorn EMS scheme or excellent written
procedures.
Site has no technically Competent Management (TCM)JBb because the previous manager had
unexpectedly left.
Staffing numbers detailed by permit or other relevant documents not being met as required.
Lack of understanding/awareness of lower risk permit conditions or other relevant operational
documents by key operational staff.
Evidence that staff competence is leading to management systems or procedures/guidance not
being fully implemented as required by permit.
Agreed site attendance time not being achieved by TCM.
Lack of training or staff awareness causes a breach of a permit condition, which has the
potential to become significant in the longer term (e.g., no detailed understanding of which
hazardous materials (wastes) can be accepted onto site). Small quantity of non-permitted
hazardous waste being accepted at transfer station due to a lack of understanding by site
operator.
Directors and relevant site personnel not aware of permit conditions and no copy of permit
available on site.
Due to a lack of staff training or awareness a breach of permit conditions occurs with a potential
for serious impact on the environment or human health (e.g., dangerous but contained mixing in
reaction vessel of incompatible chemicals).
Untrained or inappropriately skilled staff given responsibility (by management) to manage a key
piece of plant/installation, part of the operational infrastructure or a critical component of the
operations that has serious safety or pollution control system implications (e.g., excavation of
landfilled waste without prior notification and approval from agency).
Due to a lack of staff training or awareness and/or poor management practice a breach of
permit conditions has occurred, having the potential to cause a major environmental impact
(e.g., release of chlorine gas to atmosphere due to incorrect plant operation).
384 Table reproduced from EA, 2006a. Compliance Classification Scheme (CCS) Scoring for the PPC and WML
Regimes, pp. 21-23.
385
TCM is a concept and requirement under waste management licensing regime in the UK.
117
-------
Enforcement of IPPC Permits
As was described in Chapter 3, the UK legal framework for the enforcement of IPPC permits has
a decidedly different flavor than permit enforcement in the US. Generally, this appears to be the
result of three important factors: the organizational structure and authority to allocate
enforcement resources where most needed; a different cultural context and mindset; and the
enforceable requirements of an IPPC permit itself. This study did not attempt a systematic
detailed comparison of UK and US enforcement practices; however, EPA was able to gain
certain insights into UK enforcement practices from first-hand observation as well as from
discussions with EA personnel.386
Enforcement Resources
The IPPC system appears to involve frequent and flexible inspections. Under the IPPC system,
there are three different types of plant visits - inspections, audits, and monitoring assessments -
each with its own purpose and scope. The frequency and coverage of these plant visits are
directed by several factors - the sector plan, the sector CAP, individual facility's CAP, a
facility's EP OPRA score, and facility-specific issues such as compliance issues, improvement
plan conditions, and environmental concerns. Depending on these factors, a poorly performing
facility might have four inspections and two audits per year while a well performing facility
might have one inspection per year and a full audit every few years. Monitoring assessments are
performed by the EA to evaluate the quality of air monitoring systems. Systems that receive low
scores may have EA-performed source testing and EA-installed monitoring equipment to
independently verify testing results and monitoring data at the facility's expense.387
The ability of the EA to tailor resources to the specific needs of a sector or individual facility
allows for a robust facility oversight system. Each facility has its own assigned area office
inspector and each inspector has assigned facilities and a workload that reflects the specific
situation of each IPPC facility. Based on interviews with facilities and EA staff, it is clear that
the area inspector knows each facility well and plays many roles in the permitting and
compliance processes.388
Cultural Context and Mindset
As mentioned in Chapter 3, in the UK the development, implementation, and ultimate
compliance with IPPC permits is the result of collaboration and continual dialogue between the
facility and the EA. There is an ongoing relationship from permit development through
implementation and beyond. While the responsibility for ensuring protection of the environment
386 See Appendix F for the details of the 2007 EPA site visits in the UK.
387 This assessment is aided by what is known as the EA's Operator Monitoring Assessment (OMA) Audit designed
to strengthen the agency's auditing of operator's self-monitoring arrangements. Initially OMA will be applied to the
monitoring of air emissions, but in time it will be applied to monitoring of emissions to additional environmental
media. The use of OMA results in a numeric score that (1) reflects assessment of the operator's self-monitoring
using a consistent and transparent approach; (2) drives monitoring improvement; and (3) allows the EA to target and
prioritize its check monitoring program.
388 Interviews conducted 16-27 July 2007 at EA and IPPC facility offices. See Appendix F for details.
118
-------
as a whole rests with the operator of a facility, the EA plays an active part in achieving this
outcome through its role in the permitting process, oversight, and enforcement. The approach
taken under IPPC focuses more on operator behavior than on end-of-pipe standards. It requires
the EA to know more about facility operation and to dictate the "behavior" and techniques that
the EA wants to see employed. The EA must effectively agree that the actions and behavior that
a facility will undertake are what is necessary to comply with BAT. In the US, permitting
authorities tend to dictate the standards that facilities must meet, and then take a hands-off
approach to facility compliance. In other words, the actions, techniques, technology, or
behaviors that a facility chooses to employ are almost solely at the facility's discretion.
This agreement regarding behavior logically translates to the EA attitude that its compliance and
enforcement objective is more to "put things right" rather than punish.389 The facility operator is
not solely responsible for determining what techniques and behavior would be employed to
protect the environment; the EA is also invested in seeing that these techniques and behaviors are
implemented. As a result, more collaborative approaches are used to get the desired outcome
more quickly. There is a minimal use of formal enforcement to achieve compliance. In general,
the UK approach appears to place less emphasis on enforcement actions as a means for
improving performance than is the case in the US. This difference may be explained in part by
the lack of authority in the UK to issue administrative penalties, which gives enforcement
personnel fewer options than in the US.390
The EA also believes that public information about facility performance can help to influence
behavior. Much information about facility performance is promptly made available to the public
in the public register.391 This includes the following:
Excess emissions reports (PPC Permit Schedule 1 - Notification of abnormal
emissions392) and notices of breaches of permit terms;
Inspection reports (Compliance Assessment Report (CAR1)393 and documentation of
any enforcement actions;
Quarterly and annual reports, including monitoring reports and periodic reporting on
improvement program milestones;
389 Mitchell, D., EA Solicitor. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
390 As discussed in Chapter 3, The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill introduced in the UK House of Lords
on November 8, 2007, will give regulators access to sanctions, specifically "fixed monetary penalties or
discretionary requirements including variable monetary penalties, compliance notices, restoration notices, stop
notices and enforcement undertakings." These powers would be available, but not automatically or immediately -
"The Bill does not confer the powers immediately but allows for them to be granted by area.. .as and when
regulators are ready for and request them. A regulator.. .would need to have evidence that [they] (the regulator) are
operating in a way that is consistent with the proportionate, risk-based approach recommended in the Hampton
review before being able to proceed." (BRE. Regulatory Services e-UPDATE, Issue 3.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file44567.pdf.) As use of sanctions in the UK develops, it will be useful to see how
they affect enforcement practices.
391 A complete listing of all documents required to be placed in the public register appears in Chapter 3.
392 See Appendix L for a copy of PPC permit Schedule 1.
393 See the CAR1 form in Appendix M.
119
-------
EP OPRA scores; and
Permit variations.
In addition, an annual summary of enforcement actions against each IPPC facility as well as
highlights of sector and facility-specific performance are published in annual EA Spotlight on
business reports (Spotlight reports).394 Like the US TRI annual report, a company's or facility's
appearance in the Spotlight report can affect both the public perception of the company and the
subsequent performance of the facility.
Enforcing IPPC Permit Conditions
In some respects, enforcement of IPPC permits appears to be quick, transparent, and open to the
public. Breaches of permit conditions found during inspections or audits can receive prompt
enforcement action. The EA inspectors can provide the facility with the results of the inspection
in writing, including the identification of any violations, at the end of the inspection or audit. In
the US, inspection reports are usually held as "enforcement confidential" and facilities often do
not hear about alleged violations until a formal enforcement notice is served. In the UK, follow-
up written enforcement notices, if needed, are usually sent to the facility within three days of the
inspection and such notices are then placed in the public register. In the US, formal enforcement
notices often take months, if not years, and public access to information on pending enforcement
actions is limited.
All of the terms and conditions of the IPPC permit are enforceable as a legal and practical matter.
While there tend to be fewer numerical limits in IPPC permits than in US permits, with most of
the permit conditions being ones that dictate behavior, the EA has no problems enforcing any of
the conditions. In fact, the EA prefers to bring enforcement action for the underlying behavior
(actions or lack of actions) that lead to exceedences of numerical limits (e.g., failure to train
employees properly, failure to adequately maintain equipment), adopting a philosophy that
correcting behavior is key to ensuring continuous compliance with numerical limits.
While the EA does not currently have administrative penalty authority,395 it can prosecute
violators and can also suspend a permit (or portions thereof), or revoke a permit entirely if
violations are not corrected. While US permitting authorities have the legal authority to revoke
permits for cause, the process is difficult and seldom used, and there is no authority to simply
suspend a permit or portion thereof. In the UK, egregious violations and patterns of violations
can result in prosecution, and past convictions and admissions of guilt can be introduced as
evidence of poor performance.
It is not clear whether the quick, transparent, and open UK enforcement process is the result of
not having administrative penalties. Since there is no financial repercussion for lesser violations,
facilities do not appear to dispute violations as a matter of course, but rather focus on returning to
compliance so that formal prosecution or permit suspension will not be necessary.
394 The EA publishes annual Spotlight reports, which assess operator performance. Using the data gathered in the PI
and by EP OPRA for individual facilities, the report shows statistics on all 11 sectors, focusing on the most
recalcitrant companies in addition to those who performed well.
395 See Chapter 3.
120
-------
Permit Review and Variations
Review
Article 13 of the IPPC Directive and the PPC Regulations implementing the directive, require
regulators to periodically review and, where necessary, to update existing permit conditions.
Periodic review on a regular basis, is a safe guard to prevent permits from inching towards
obsolescence in situations where changes in techniques and environmental conditions occur
gradually and so do not trigger the review required by regulation (e.g., when there are substantial
changes in BAT).396
To date, the EA has focused on completing permit determinations for all facilities under the
IPPC regime. However, with that task essentially completed in 2007, the EA is now turning
much of its attention to the periodic permit reviews required by the directive.397 The reviews
will be conducted by sector on a priority basis determined by risk and availability of revised and
reissued BREF documents.398 The PPC Regulations do not specify the frequency of this regular
review and so leave it to the regulator (the EA) to determine. On average over time the EA
expects periodic permit reviews will be conducted about once every four years.399
In addition to a regular periodic review, regulatory requirements specify that permit reviews
must be carried out where (1) existing limit values need to be revised or new emission limits
need to be included,400 (2) substantial changes in BAT make it possible to further reduce
emissions without excessive cost, or (3) the operational safety of the facility requires other
techniques to be used. As a result of a permit review, the regulatory authority may need to
initiate a permit variation (revision) procedure. Permit variations also may be initiated by an
operator in anticipation of making physical/operational changes at a facility.
396 IPPC permits contain the following condition that is used as the basis for periodic permit review: "The Operator
shall, within 6 months of receipt of written notice from the Agency, submit to the Agency a report assessing whether
all appropriate preventive measures continue to be taken against pollution, in particular through the application of
the best available techniques, at the installation. The report shall consider any relevant published technical guidance
current at the time of the notice which is either supplied with or referred to in the notice, and shall assess the costs
and benefits of applying techniques described in that guidance, or otherwise identified by the Operator, that may
provide environmental improvement." (PPC permit, Eastman Company UK Limited, Peboc Division, Llangefni
Chemical Works, Anglesey, Wales. Permit No. BU 7537. November 2004, p. 5.)
397 The new EA National Permitting Service, or NFS, (noted in Chapter 2) that began operations in November 2007
is responsible for the permit review process.
398 The details of the EA permit review process are in the process of being developed. Consequently, there is
currently no written documentation that outlines and describes the process and procedures (James, T., EA, Policy
Manager. Personal communication. 12 February 2008). As a result, EPA was not able to include a full discussion of
the process in this report.
399 James, T., EA, Policy Manager. Personal communication. July 2007.
400"rjjjjg] circumstance might arise if new evidence emerges that at least one emission from a particular installation,
although compliant with the ELV in the permit, is nevertheless causing significant pollution. Or the evidence may
relate to an emission which is not subject to an ELV in the permit. This evidence may come from improved
scientific understanding, from environmental monitoring or from the regulator's investigation of complaints by the
public, but whatever the source it will be for the regulator to judge whether it is sufficiently significant for the
relevant conditions of the permit to be reviewed. The scope of permit reviews in these circumstances should be
limited to the pollutants of concern and to the features of the installation giving rise to the pollution" (DEFPxA,
2005b., pp. 63-64).
121
-------
Variations
Permit variations were covered in some detail in the discussion of operational flexibility in
Chapter 5. To summarize, permits may be varied or changed at the request of either the facility
or the EA to reflect changes at the facility, changes in BAT, or changes in facility performance.
Permit revisions may tighten or loosen permit obligations, but must continue to reflect BAT for
the facility. Importantly, numerical limits must reflect the actual facility performance and not
simply the BREF guidance values.
Significant changes to the physical plant or operations at an existing facility are addressed by
modifying (varying) the IPPC permit. Non-significant changes (called "minor operational
changes" in IPPC permits) that do not require variation of the existing permit terms are
authorized by a standard permit condition provided that the facility operator gives 14-day
advance notice to the regulator and the regulator does not object.401 Moreover, according to the
definition of "change in operation" in UK guidance "many changes will not have consequences
on the environment and will therefore not require notification"402 - and presumably can be made
at the facility operator's discretion. However, a significant change requiring a formal variation
notice cannot actually begin operation until the permit variation process has been completed.
The determination of whether a change is significant is made by the EA, usually by the area
inspector, so frequent and candid communication between the facility operator and the inspector
regarding changes at the facility is critical to maintaining compliance with the permit and
ensuring that permit variations are completed by the time a physical or operational change is
ready to begin operation. The Multi-Product Protocol, or MPP, discussed in Chapter 5 is a
process whereby classes or categories of changes are anticipated and so are pre-authorized in the
permit, subject to defined conditions.
401 This is addressed by the standard permit condition "Minor Operational Changes" (under PPC Regulation 16),
which states that the operator must notify the EA of any proposed change in operation and "shall seek the Agency's
written agreement to any minor operational changes.. .by sending to the Agency: written notice of the details of the
proposed change including an assessment of its possible effects (including waste production) on risks to the
environment from the Permitted Installation; any relevant supporting assessments and drawings; and the proposed
implementation date. Any such change shall not be implemented until agreed in writing by the Agency. As from
the agreed implementation date, the Operator shall operate the Permitting Installation in accordance with that
change, and relevant provisions in the Application shall be deemed amended." (PPC permit, Eastman Company UK
Limited, Peboc Division, Llangefni Chemical Works, Anglesey, Wales. Permit No. BU 7537. November 2004, p. 5.)
402 DEFRA, 2005b, p. 106.
122
-------
7. IPPC RESULTS
Having described the framework for permitting under IPPC as well as the actual permitting
process, permit provisions, and post-permit issuance activities in the preceding chapters, this
chapter discusses some of the outcomes of IPPC permitting. Since many of the efficiencies
gained and potential challenges faced from the regulator's perspective can be seen throughout
the descriptions of IPPC permitting in the previous chapters, this chapter focuses on
environmental outcomes in the UK and impacts to the UK regulated community. The chapter
also discusses IPPC results from the point of view of the EC and its review of the directive, and
the resulting proposal for new EU legislation on industrial emissions.
Environmental Outcomes in the UK
Initial review of available data suggests that IPPC has contributed to some environmental
improvement in the UK.403 The UK EA reports that IPPC and its predecessor, IPC, have had
significant impact on the environmental performance of industry in the UK by "controlling
emissions to all three environmental media, helping companies to identify pollution prevention
and resource efficiency opportunities, requiring companies to follow structured environmental
improvement programmes, and raising the profile of environmental issues in the corporate
boardrooms."404
Quantifying and measuring industry performance and environmental results and attributing these
results directly to IPPC is difficult, however. IPPC permitting in the UK was just completed in
October 2007. No overall assessment of environmental results from IPPC permitting has been
completed to date and the bulk of environmental results may not be realized until several years
into the regime. Additionally, it is difficult to attribute various environmental improvements
specifically to IPPC since other legislation and additional factors could also contribute to
increased efficiencies and emission reductions across the UK. As the discussion below
demonstrates, however, it is clear that the UK has seen environmental improvements since the
first IPPC permits were issued in 2001. Additionally, it is worth noting that the UK hopes as part
of future efforts to incorporate measurement and evaluation of IPPC permitting in order to assess
actual outcomes of the system.403
Regulated Sites Performing Better
As described in Chapter 4, EP OPRA scores operators from A (best) to E (worst) based upon
risks and hazards associated with five attributes - facility complexity, emissions, location,
operator performance, and compliance. For operator performance, operators are required to
operate effective environmental management systems, manage environmental risks, optimize
natural resource use, be responsible for monitoring, and achieve improvements contained in the
4113 EPA did not conduct an independent assessment of data to support this conclusion. What follows is a discussion
of selected data compiled and reported by the UK E A.
404 .
Gray et al., p. 3.
4"~ James, T. "Integrated Regulation in the UK." Lessons from die United Kingdom's Integrated Permitting
Experience: Exploring New Directions for Environmental Permitting in the US. Washington, DC. 25 October 2007.
123
-------
permit improvement program.406 In 2001, under IPC, slightly more than 50 percent of sites
achieved band A or B for operator performance. In 2004, EP OPRA scores for operator
performance improved for IPPC permitted sites - 44 percent of IPPC facilities achieved a band
A rating, and slightly less than 80 percent received band A or B ratings. Eight percent were band
D or E.407 By 2006, 51 percent of companies regulated under IPPC were rated A, and fewer than
2 percent rated E.408 EP OPRA scores show that improvements are being made in environmental
operations and management.
It is also worth noting that facilities have a monetary incentive for improving their EP OPRA
scores since permit fees are directly linked to the score, with poorer performing, higher risk sites
paying more.409 In an EA interview with a pulp and paper mill, the operator reported that the
automatic fee increase linked to non-compliance and a higher EP OPRA score resulted in the
facility and operators focusing on good performance and compliance. In this case, a direct link
appears between changes in IPPC fees and improved environmental practice.410
Fewer Pollution Incidents
Every year the EA assesses the number of serious pollution incidents. Serious pollution
incidents have been falling steadily since 2001 and were the lowest on record in 2006. Serious
pollution incidents nearly halved in 2006 compared to 2000.411 This decline may be associated
with the integrated controls and the increased emphasis on operator responsibility and
management systems required under IPPC.
Fewer Releases to the Environment
While emissions reductions cannot be directly linked to IPPC permits, data gathered in the
Pollution Inventory (PI) and presented in the EA's annual Spotlight reports show general
reductions in emissions to air, water and land as well as in waste transfers since IPPC permitting
began in 2001.412 The PI data shows that for companies making the transition from IPC to IPPC,
environmental benefits were for the most part realized during the transition period itself. More
significant reductions in emissions are likely to occur in sectors new to integrated permitting,
such as food and drink.413
406 EA, 2005d. Pollution Prevention and Control: EP OPRA-Based Charging Scheme and Guidance 2005/06.
http://environment.info/commondata/acrobat/ppc_0506_scheme_753443.pdf.
407 EA, 2005e. Spotlight on Business Environmental Performance in 2004: Doing the Right Thing.
http://publications.enviroiunent-agencv.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0705BJHA-e-e.pdf. pp. 4-5.
408
EA, 2007d. Spotlight on Business Environmental Performance in 2006: Putting the Brakes on Climate Change.
http://publications.environment-agencv.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0707BMMX-e-e.pdf. p. 9.
409 EA, 2005e, p. 39.
410 EA, 2005f, p. 50.
411EA,2007d,p. 9.
412 The Pollution Inventory (PI) collects information on chemical and radioactive emissions from EA-regulated
industrial sites in England and Wales. This inventory includes emissions from point sources, non-point and fugitive
sources, and focuses mainly on air emissions. EA, 2004a. Pollution Inventory Data Report: Trends and Analysis
1998-2001. http://www.environmentOagency.gov.uk/pi. p. 12.
413 DEFPvA, 2007a. Mid-term Review of the UK's Implementation of the Pollution Prevention and Control
Regulations, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/background/pdf/ppcregs-review.pdf. p. 7-4.
124
-------
Air Emissions. From 2001 to 2004, EA-regulated sites reduced releases of most air pollutants,
including 1,3-butadiene, CO, PM10, and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs),
though not always steadily.414 Sites reduced lead and SC>2 emissions by almost half between
2000 and 2006.415 NOX levels have remained fairly steady since 2000, mainly due to increased
economic output of power stations.416 Changes in air emissions often reflect production or
practice changes, such as implementing improved abatement techniques, controlling fugitive
emissions, or process improvements. They may also result from plant closures, output
reductions, changes in reporting, or a change in raw material costs and composition.417
Water Emissions. While available information on water releases is less detailed than that on air
emissions, the EA reports that most releases to water by EA-regulated sites decreased between
2002 and 2006.418 A 2007 review of IPPC permitting in the UK also found that many operators
have improved monitoring of water releases because of IPPC.419 Although improved monitoring
systems may result in an increase in pollutants being reported, it should also ultimately
contribute to better control of pollutant releases to water. What impact IPPC will have on water
releases should become clearer as documentation and emissions tracking increases.
Land Emissions. Although data is lacking to track land emissions, the UK PPC Regulations
provide incentive for operators to minimize land impacts. One such incentive is the requirement
for industry to return sites to a "satisfactory state" at the earliest opportunity or when operations
cease. The EA interprets a "satisfactory state" as restoring the site to its condition at the time of
permit issuance.420 One environmental consultant highlighted this requirement, emphasizing the
importance of minimizing land pollution during the facility's lifetime to save money later.421
Again, how this requirement will play out in practice remains to be seen.
Waste Production and Management. While various pieces of legislation govern waste
disposal and management in the UK, IPPC has contributed to decreases in waste production and
increases in waste recovery since its implementation. IPPC appears to have had a direct effect
on resource efficiency in companies and sectors new to integrated permitting, such as the food
and drink industry.422 The annual Spotlight reports show that waste generated overall by EA-
regulated companies has actually increased since 2000 because there has been an increase in the
number of sites reporting to the EA and an increase in the number of waste types to report, but
that the proportion of waste recovered has also increased since IPPC permitting began in 2001.423
A review of resource efficiency under IPPC showed that between 1998 and 2002, regulated
companies had made a 25 percent reduction in waste disposal and a 50 percent increase in waste
414 EA, 2005e, pp. 7-8.
415 EA, 2007d, p. 8.
416 EA, 2007d, pp. 8-9.
417 EA, 2004a, p. 6.
418 EA, 2007d, p. 9.
419 DEFRA, 2007a, p. 7-4
420 DEFRA, 2007a, p. 5-5.
421 Murfin, J. "IPPC: Cost or Benefit?" Presentation at IChemE Seminar. Hull, UK. 9 Mar 2005.
http://www.ttenvironmental.co.uk/library.htm.
422 EA, 2004c. Spotlight on Business Environmental Performance in 2003: Greener Business is Good Business, p. 4.
423 EA, 2007d, p. 7.
125
-------
recovery, but that other factors such as cost savings had more impact on resource efficiency than
did IPPC.424
Impacts on the UK Regulated Community
As described in Chapter 2, IPPC permitting has been influenced by a broader "better regulation"
effort in the UK to drive regulatory programs toward greater efficiency and effectiveness. UK
"better regulation" is committed to regulating only when necessary and in proportion to risk,
reducing administrative burden, and rationalizing inspection and enforcement priorities for
industry.425 The program works to ensure that regulation in the UK is fair, effective, and
necessary - in fact, regulatory agencies in the UK are audited against a government-wide target
to reduce administrative burden by 25 percent. The outcome of the EA's audit may influence
whether or not it is awarded the authority to levy administrative penalties against violators.426
As a part of the "better regulation" agenda, the UK IPPC system streamlines the permitting
process by reducing the number of regulators and regulatory regimes industry must comply
with.427 The EA believes that the all-in-one regulatory packaging of IPPC, together with
ongoing consultation between the EA and regulated facilities, will result in lower administrative
costs for industry.
Overall there is a limited amount of data available to document impacts of IPPC permitting on
the regulated community in the UK. In April 2007, DEFRA completed ^.Mid-term Review of the
UK's Implementation of the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Mid-term Review) to
assess costs and benefits during the first five years (2000-2005) of IPPC implementation in the
UK (England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland).428 The Mid-term Review aimed to
identify additional costs and benefits of IPPC beyond those that would have existed had IPC
continued. The costs assessed in the review include policy and administrative costs to industry
as well as the regulatory burden on facilities and small businesses.
The review was based on results of a survey of companies' views and experience under IPPC.
The Mid-term Review reports that there were significant limitations in the data and resources
available for the study and that the findings need to be considered with this in mind.429
Additionally, it is difficult to attribute costs and benefits directly to IPPC because it is hard to
determine what would have happened if IPC and other previous regulatory systems had
continued or what results are due to other regulations and factors. It is also important to note that
424 EA, 2004b. IPPC and Resource Efficiency: A Review of Progress. http://www.environment-
agencv.gov.uk/coirnnondata/acrobat/resource efficiency 826850.pdf.
425 Kellett, p. 174.
426 The EA was audited by the UK BRE and National Audit Office between September and December 2007. The
review, Effective inspection and enforcement: implementing the Hampton vision in the Environment Agency, was
published in March 2008 and is available at www.nao.org.uk/publications/EA Hampton report.pdf.
427 Gray et al., p. 16.
428 DEFRA, 2007a, pp. 1-2-1-3.
429 Mid-term Review information is based on responses to a postal survey sent to all installations that had IPPC
permits by the fall of 2005 as well as information from the EA's PI and case studies. It is important to note that the
response rate to the survey was low, so there are significant limitations to the data presented in the review.
126
-------
while many of the costs of IPPC are being realized in the initial years of implementation, many
of the benefits will be recognized over the long term. Given these caveats, the following
describes some of the administrative costs and benefits associated with IPPC based on the Mid-
term Review and other available sources.
Industry Participation in BREF and Technical Guidance Development
The EC and the EA involve industry in BREF and UK technical guidance note development
respectively. In doing so, they seek to develop more effective guidance and address sector-
specific issues and concerns early on.430 The Mid-term Review surveyed industry about their
participation in the BREF and technical guidance development processes. Of the approximately
20 percent of respondents who answered the questions about these processes, 85 percent said
they were involved in the BREF process via their trade association and 90 percent were involved
in technical guidance development also via the trade association for their sector. On average,
companies reported spending $6900 on BREF development and $4000 on technical guidance
development.431'432
In spite of the initial cost companies incur to participate in the BREF and technical guidance
development processes, the expectation on industry's part is that early participation and
familiarization with requirements as a result of participating will result in decreased future
compliance costs.
Permit Application Costs
The primary costs to the operator as a result of IPPC permitting are the costs associated with
preparation of the IPPC application as well as the application fee. The IPPC application is more
comprehensive than its predecessor because of the additional factors regulated under IPPC -
energy efficiency, raw material use, environmental impact, accidents, noise, odor and site
condition - and reportedly more costly to prepare. The Mid-term Review asked respondents to
report on the cost of preparing their IPPC application broken down by in-house staff costs, third-
party consultants and other costs. On average, companies spent a total of $97,000 on application
preparation, including $35,000 on in-house staff costs, $43,000 on third-party consultants and
$19,000 on other costs associated with application preparation (e.g., administrative, advertising,
site survey, environmental survey).433 Costs associated with application preparation vary widely,
however, likely depending on the complexity of the facility and corresponding complexity of the
application, as well as on the proportion of application effort that was out-sourced.
EPA learned from discussions with EA and facility staff during the July 2007 UK site visits that
a number of operators used consultants to help prepare applications during the first round of
IPPC permit applications and that the consultants were generally expensive. Although facilities
in sectors new to IPPC permitting used consultants more than sectors that had been covered by
430 Gray et al., p. 13.
431 The UK's reported financial figures, expressed in Great Britain pounds (GBP), were converted to US dollars
using an approximate exchange rate of 1.0 GBP to 2.0 US dollars.
432
DEFRA, 2007a, pp. 3-1 - 3-2.
433 DEFPvA, 2007a, pp. 3-2 - 3-5. Other costs associated with application preparation were only reported by 29
percent of respondents.
127
-------
IPC, the EA commented that with the tools provided by the EA and the in-house management
resources each operator should have, operators should be able to prepare adequate applications
without the need for consultants. Additionally, EA staff expressed that given the required
content of applications (e.g., content on management systems, improvement programs, etc.),
applications prepared mostly by consultants were not as good as applications prepared directly
by operators, and that contributions by consultants were more valuable in technical areas such as
source testing, modeling and preparation of site plans.434
In addition to application preparation costs, operators also pay an application fee. As introduced
in Chapter 4 and discussed further in Chapter 6, the application fee is determined by the facility's
EP OPRA score that is initially calculated when the facility operator applies for a permit.
Basically, the EA determines the application fee, or fee for permit determination, by using a
multiplier to monetize the facility's EP OPRA score.435 EP OPRA scores vary, and consequently
application fees, based on the facility's complexity, emissions, location, and operator
performance.
BAT Assessment. Costs associated with the BAT assessment portion of the application vary
widely among sectors but make up a substantial proportion of overall application costs.
Companies with large-scale combustion processes spend more on BAT assessment, for example,
than do smaller food and drink companies. According to the Mid-term Review, the average
costs for the BAT element of the application were approximately $34,000, broken down into
$17,000 for a facility's in-house staff and $17,000 for consultants.
Application of BAT over the long term, however, may result in pollution prevention
opportunities, raw materials use reductions, and improved energy efficiency, potentially resulting
in cost savings for facilities. For those operators surveyed as part of the Mid-term Review,
responses indicate that IPPC leads to improved resource efficiency for operators previously
regulated under IPC and for operators regulated for the first time by integrated pollution
regulation. Most companies recognized benefits in resource efficiency or waste minimization as
a direct result of IPPC permitting, resulting in direct cost savings.436
Annual Fees
As described above for application fees, annual charges or subsistence fees for IPPC permits are
also levied based on the facility's EP OPRA score. EP OPRA scores are updated annually and
the updated scores are used to determine the annual fee. The fee system is constructed to reflect
the EA's level of regulatory effort required for ongoing compliance assessment.437 For facilities,
this means the higher the EP OPRA score, the higher the annual fee. Ideally, this promotes up
front, proactive investment by companies in order to avoid high fees for those aspects of the EP
OPRA score that can be varied or improved on by the operator. As mentioned earlier in this
chapter, in an EA interview with a pulp and paper mill, the operator reported that the automatic
434 See Appendix F for a detailed list of EA and IPPC facility staff interviewed during EPA's July 2007 site visits.
435 See the EA Pollution Prevention and Control EP OPRA-based Charging Scheme and Guidance 2007/08 for
details on charges (http://www.environment-
agencv.gov.uybusiness/444669/587179/1734110/506594/?version=l&lang= e.)
436 DEFPvA, 2007a, pp. 2-4 - 2-5.
437 Gray et al., p. 13.
128
-------
fee increase built into EP OPRA for non-compliance resulted in the facility and operators
focusing on good performance and compliance.438 This is an example of an IPPC tool - EP
OPRA - resulting in its desired effect and prompting improved environmental practice and
positive, preventative behavior. In cost terms, the facility is choosing to invest in good
management practices in order to avoid increased fees and expenses down the road.
Cosfs Required by Operators to Meet Permit Conditions
The Mid-term Review reports that although operators incur annual ongoing costs of regulation
under IPPC (i.e., management time, monitoring, reporting), operators would have incurred
similar costs under IPC. However, 56 percent of respondents reported that they incurred (or will
incur) substantial costs associated with making changes to the design or operation of their
facilities to comply with IPPC BAT.439 Of those 56 percent, the average reported cost for
changes were approximately $25,000 in one-time costs and $20,000 annually. The range in costs
was high, and some respondents reported cost savings. Additionally, 70 percent of respondents
reported that they would incur on average $7000 in one-time costs and $4700 in annual costs to
change monitoring systems to comply with BAT, and 63 percent reported that they would incur
on average $1800 in one-time costs and $1600 in annual costs on modifications to reporting
systems to comply with BAT.
EA Contact and Facility Assistance
IPPC requires one permit per facility for all media; therefore, a facility with an IPPC permit
usually must only deal with one or few permitting (and compliance) contacts at the EA. IPPC
facilities indicated early on in IPPC implementation that they benefit from this EA single-point-
of-contact created by IPPC. Facilities reported that this promotes a good working relationship
between the facility and the EA as well as a more efficient permitting process.440
Facilities also benefit from the EA facility-friendly IPPC website. A 2005 review of the
administrative burden of regulation on business in the UK called the EA website "particularly
useful" and found that facilities are able to use the EA website to find regulatory information
specifically tailored to their needs.441 The provision of clear guidance and responsive EA
contacts should theoretically decrease the time facilities have to spend developing applications
and interpreting rule requirements, thus resulting in administrative cost savings. The EA also
intended with development of the website to reduce the need for facilities to use outside
438 EA, 2005f, p. 50.
439 DEFRA, 2007a, pp. 3-22 - 3-27.
440 Facilities referenced benefits of the single-point-of-contact system in a 2001 survey of facilities implementing
IPPC (EA, 2001. Review of the PPC Application Process, p.5). As described in Chapter 2, the EA organizational
structure for permitting has changed since 2001; however, the same benefits of few EA contacts for each facility still
theoretically apply because each facility still has only one permit to deal with for all media. In addition to the 2001
survey, personnel at IPPC-regulated facilities interviewed by EPA in 2007 reported that the single point-of-contact
improves relationships and efficiency in working with the EA. See Appendix F for a listing of EPA's 2007
interviews with IPPC facility staff.
441 Hampton, P., 2005. Reducing Administrative Burdens: Effective Inspection and Enforcement, http://www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk/budgetl3udget 05/other documents/bud bud05hampton.cfm. pp. 5, 37.
129
-------
consultants to prepare applications, which should help cut back on application preparation costs
for facilities in the future.442
Improved Environmental Management
EA sources have observed that operators in some UK sectors have experienced a "psychological
shift" and have taken on greater responsibility for managing environmental effects and impacts
in response to IPPC requirements.443 The surface coating industry, for example, which has been
relatively less regulated in the past, has made significant strides in pro-actively addressing
environmental performance through sector-wide collaboration and coordination. In addition,
based on an EPA site visit to a pharmaceutical facility in Wales, it was clear that the
comprehensive nature of IPPC requirements and the focus on management techniques had
elevated and expanded the role of the EMS at the facility.444 Increasingly the operator had relied
on the EMS as a framework for managing the environmental effects of its operations. Multiple
employee project teams had been established to focus on elements such as internal audits, and
improvements in water and energy use efficiencies. In essence, the operator reported that
increasingly the EMS "wraps around the PPC permit," a fitting confluence of operator-based
management and regulatory requirements.
Compef/fiVeness
Many respondents to the Mid-term Review survey reported the perception that IPPC has had a
negative impact on their competitiveness in the UK, Europe and abroad, although the review did
not attempt to measure actual competitiveness effects.445 Survey respondents expressed concern
that IPPC application costs are unnecessarily high and that the IPPC regulations have a negative
impact on their ability to be competitive. Small and medium-sized companies feel that high
costs associated with IPPC permits place them at a relative competitive disadvantage compared
with larger companies.446 On the other hand, businesses identified cost-savings from increased
resource efficiency as a result of IPPC, and half of the respondents claimed that IPPC has helped
them access new markets.447
Contrary to the perception reported by operators responding to the Mid-term Review survey,
some others believe that IPPC has also been important in countering some of the argument that
increased environmental regulation poses a threat to economic competitiveness.448 As described
in Chapter 3, IPPC acts as a "tool box" to coordinate existing and deliver new EU environmental
regulatory requirements, consequently diminishing the traditional argument from business that
additional legislative mandates impose undue burden.449 Over the last six to seven years, rather
than having to create additional new and separate requirements, upwards often new pieces of EU
legislation have been accommodated by and incorporated into the IPPC framework. In this
442 Observation based on EPA site visits to the UK in July 2007. See Appendix F for site visit details.
443 James, T., EA, Policy Manager. Personal communication. 2 May 2007.
444 Observations based on EPA site visits to the UK in July 2007. See Appendix F for site visit details.
445 DEFRA, 2007a, p. 5-2.
446DEFPvA, 2007a, p. 5-3.
447 DEFPvA, 2007a, p. 5-6.
448 See for instance, Network of Heads of European Environmental Protection Agencies, 2005.
449 James, T., EA, Policy Manager. Personal communication. 2 May 2007.
130
-------
sense, the IPPC framework has thus proven to be an efficient "delivery" mechanism for the
steady flow of new requirements mandated by the EU.
EU IPPC Review and Future Direction of Directive
Although IPPC permitting was scheduled to be complete at the end of 2007 and it is early to
fully realize and understand all the outcomes of IPPC permits, the EU and UK are already
seeking improvements to address shortcomings of the current legislation and to strengthen the
approach to integrated permitting. In December 2007 following a two year IPPC review, the EC
proposed new IPPC legislation to address industrial emissions.450'451 Key issues and
shortcomings identified by the EC during the review process are discussed below along with a
brief overview of the proposed new IPPC Directive.
IPPC Review Issues and Discussion
At the end of 2007, the EC completed a two-year review process of IPPC. The objective of the
review was to improve functioning of the directive as well as interaction of the directive with
other industrial-emissions related legislation without altering the fundamental principles and
ambition of the present directive. To inform the review process, the EC commissioned a series
of projects, including an assessment of IPPC implementation by member states, a study of
incentives to improve the environmental performance of IPPC installations beyond regulatory
compliance, a study of the interaction of IPPC and emission trading schemes, an assessment of
IPPC impacts on competitiveness, and data gathering and impact assessment for possible
amendments to and widening the scope of IPPC.
The review identified key issues with the directive and six main areas for action at the EU
Community level.452 The section below describes the six issues, each with a summary of the UK
response so that the EC issues can be understood in the context of the UK experience.
BAT-based permitting and the role of BREFs. The review identified two main issues
associated with BAT-based permitting and the role of BREFs. The first is a concern that some
member states have over-used the flexibility provided by Article 9(4) in the directive, which
states that ELVs in permit conditions should be based on BAT but without prescribing specific
techniques or technology, and while taking into consideration technical characteristics of the
installation, its geographical location, and the local environmental conditions. The concern
with Article 9(4) and BAT-based ELVs raises the question of whether or not ELVs are being set
appropriately, i.e., whether competent authorities use too much site-specific latitude in setting
BAT-based ELVs. The EC believes this is the case and that overuse of Article 9(4) has meant
that emissions are not being controlled as much as they could be. In response to this issue, the
UK suggests that the EC seek to improve the approach used to set BAT-based ELVs for
individual installations by providing additional guidance and clarity on the proper interpretation
of Article 9(4) rather than eliminate it through EU-wide mandated ELVs.453
450 This new IPPC legislation would not come into force until 2012.
451 As discussed in Chapter 2, the UK enacted new integrated permitting legislation - the EP Regulations - in April
2008.
452 DEFPvA, 2007b, p. 1.
453 DEFPvA, 2007b, pp. 2-5.
131
-------
A second related BAT-based issue relates to the EC concern that there is too much
undocumented deviation from BAT as defined in BREFs. The UK supports additional
clarification of the role of BREFs but believes that the current status of BREFs should remain
unchanged - conclusions on BAT contained in the BREFs should not be binding; each
competent authority should determine BAT for each installation.454 To deal with deviations from
BAT in the BREFs, the UK suggests that member state regulators could be required to prepare
permit decision documents like the UK does.455 The UK also believes that BREFs would be
more effective if they contained narrower ranges for BAT-associated EL Vs.
Streamlining of interactions between the IPPC Directive and other environmental
legislation. A key issue that emerged from the IPPC review is the need to streamline IPPC with
other environmental directives. The UK supports revisions of the IPPC Directive to, at a
minimum, incorporate the directives on large combustion plants, waste incineration and titanium
dioxide.456 Streamlining should address clarity and coherence on thresholds, definitions and
technical prescriptions. The UK believes that streamlining IPPC and other environmental
directives would serve to make IPPC more strategic - similar to the EU air, water and waste
framework directives.457
Streamlining of monitoring and reporting. This issue has two main components - reporting
by member states to the EC and reporting by operators to regulators - and deals with burdens
related to different monitoring requirements and periods under different directives as well as
requirements member states feel are unjustified.458 Although the UK does not find EC reporting
requirements especially burdensome, the UK welcomes effective streamlining. Moreover, while
the UK agrees that monitoring requirements for operators should be simplified and streamlined,
the UK believes that competent authorities can best determine appropriate monitoring at
individual installations. The UK would also support less prescriptive monitoring requirements,
provided operators maintain necessary environmental protections.459
Compliance and enforcement framework. With regard to the IPPC compliance and
enforcement framework, the EC's review investigated whether the frequency and stringency of
periodic permit review and the frequency and rigor of inspections are adequate. The UK
believes that the permit review requirements currently outlined in Article 13 of the directive
provide competent authorities with a clear framework for periodically reviewing permits, and
that setting a minimum permit review frequency could set a norm and deter more frequent and
necessary reviews from occurring. The UK suggests that member states should instead be
provided guidance on a risk-based approach to inspection and periodic permit review.460
Additionally, the UK feels that consistency can be ensured through guidelines and information
454 DEFRA, 2007b, p. 4.
455 Radway, A. EA, Policy Adviser. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
456 DEFRA, 2007b, p. 9.
457 Radway, A. EA, Policy Adviser. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
458 DEFRA, 2007b, pp. 10-11. An example of unjustified requirements are monitoring and reporting requirements
459 DEFRA, 2007b, pp. 10-11.
460 DEFRA, 2007b, p. 12.
132
-------
sharing through the EU network for Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law
(IMPEL).461'462
Scope of the legislation. This issue includes the question of whether the scope of IPPC should
be extended to include more industrial activities and clarification of what is covered by the
activity definitions in the current directive. The UK position is that other activities (e.g., waste
treatments) should only be included if it is justified by environmental risk, if the activity can be
regulated consistent with IPPC principles, and if IPPC would make a difference.463 Regarding
clarification of activity definitions in the current directive, the UK supports studies to address the
issue and encourages clarification by means of amendments to the directive.464
Emission trading of NOX and SO2. Emissions of NOX and SO2 from IPPC-regulated
installations are significant and legislation is sometimes inefficient at driving the most cost-
effective solutions. The IPPC review called attention to the potential need to add provisions to
the directive to enable member states to set up emissions trading schemes for these pollutants.
The UK feels such provisions would provide needed flexibility for dealing with these emissions
and is in support of adding them.465
Proposal for a New IPPC Directive on Industrial Emissions
As mentioned at the outset, the IPPC Review process culminated in the EC's proposal for a new
directive on industrial emissions designed to strengthen the provisions already in place and to
further reduce industrial emissions throughout the EU. The proposal aims to improve health and
the environment, create a more level playing field across the EU, and simplify current
legislation. Specifically, the draft legislation proposes the following:466
Combine seven existing directives related to industrial emissions into a single clear and
coherent directive, including the IPPC Directive, the Large Combustion Plants Directive,
the Waste Incineration Directive, the Solvents Emissions Directive and three directives
on titanium dioxide. Not only will this improve the coherence of existing legislation, but
it will also reduce administrative burden by combining permit requirements, simplifying
permit issuance and streamlining reporting.
Improve and clarify the concept of BAT in order to ensure a more coherent and EU-wide
application of BAT. The new legislation will clarify specific cases when deviations from
461 IMPEL is an informal network of environmental authorities from EU member states that seeks to promote more
effective application of environmental legislation across the European Community through encouraging the
exchange of information and experience and the development of environmental legislation, with particular emphasis
on European Community legislation. See the IMPEL website for more information
(http ://ec .europa. eu/environment/impel/index.htm).
462 Radway, A. EA, Policy Adviser. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
463 Radway, A. EA, Policy Adviser. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
464 DEFRA, 2007b, p. 13.
465 Radway, A. EA, Policy Adviser. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
466 EC, 2007. Questions and Answers on the Commission 's Proposal for the Revision of Industrial Emissions
Legislation in the EU.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction. do?reference=MEMO/07/623&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN
&guiLanguage=en.
133
-------
indicative BAT are acceptable and will require justification and documentation. This will
help resolve concerns raised during the IPPC review related to the overuse of Article 9(4)
as described above.
Introduce minimum provisions on environmental inspections of installations, the review
of permit granting conditions, and reporting of compliance. These will address issues
raised during the IPPC review by ensuring consistency in the frequency and stringency of
permit review and facility inspections.
Extend the scope of the legislation to include additional industrial activities and clarify
the scope of certain activities already covered by the existing legislation.
Although it is not covered in the new legislation, the EC will also continue to address issues
raised during the IPPC review related to the limitations on the use of NOx and 862 emission
trading systems within the current legislation. The EC will continue to build on experience from
the EU's carbon trading scheme to develop possible EU-wide rules for NOx and SC>2 emissions
trading. Finally, the EU will continue to review IPPC permitting, and the proposed new
legislation will make its way through the process ending with passage by the European
Parliament. The process will take several years, and the EC will continue to support member
states to improve the implementation of existing legislation until the new legislation is passed.
134
-------
8. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
The preceding chapters of this report detail the UK EA integrated permitting system from a
design perspective and in practice. In this chapter, we offer a number of broad observations and
more specific findings on the distinctive elements of the UK system - ways in which it differs
from the environmental permitting system in the US and ways in which it parallels the US
system.
We hope that these observations and findings will be of interest to US permit practitioners and
regulatory and policy experts. They are intended to stimulate dialogue with our stakeholders that
will (1) foster a better understanding and assessment of the potential benefits and drawbacks of
an integrated system in the context of the US permitting regime, (2) spur additional research and
analysis on integrated permitting approaches, and (3) explore opportunities for applying lessons
learned and aspects of the IPPC approach and methodology in the US.
In conclusion, we emphasize that we have studied only a few permits and, therefore, ask the
reader not to attribute to these observations and findings more certainty than warranted. It is
possible that in practice the differences between the UK and US systems are not as great as they
appear from formal structures and our limited exposure to permitting operations. Nevertheless,
we believe that our research supports at least preliminary conclusions that may inform both
policy innovation and further research. As an introduction to the detailed and comparative
findings that follow, we first offer a few observations on key attributes of the UK system (also
summarized in the box below).
Observations
Most obviously unique to the IPPC permitting system is the comprehensive and multi-media
focus on a facility's entire environmental footprint. While this is important to highlight, what
might be more important is to understand the operational aspects of this holistic focus - in
particular the permitting and programmatic tools the UK uses to address all environmental
impacts of a facility's operations. For example, the UK developed and uses a cross-cutting,
multi-media electronic environmental assessment and appraisal tool (or HI, described in Chapter
4) to generate a comprehensive picture of a facility's environmental footprint and to identify the
best overall environmental option or BAT to incorporate in a facility's integrated permit.
The IPPC approach also requires analyses and actions to prevent pollution first and only
thereafter to reduce it (such as through emission limits and technology-based controls). An IPPC
permit also puts a great deal of emphasis on ongoing improvement over time (rather than on
compliance with static requirements). An IPPC permit both reflects the current performance of a
facility, and through such requirements as implementation of management systems, acts as a
forcing mechanism for continuous improvement.
A major defining aspect of the UK system is its sector-based approach. The UK manages and
organizes the environmental regulation and the implementation of permitting and compliance
assessment on a sector basis. Whether it is issuing standard-setting guidance or setting priorities
for individual permits or facility inspections, sectors are the basis for action.
135
-------
Another key distinction in the regulation of a UK facility's environmental footprint is a shift in
responsibility from the regulator to the facility operator. In the UK, a facility operator is
responsible for translating national
technical guidance in order to
demonstrate facility-specific BAT
in the IPPC permit application for
all aspects of facility operations
and for ensuring that the facility
operates consistent with the
application and all other permit
requirements. The UK system also
focuses heavily on facility
management, which is reflected in
permit requirements and OPRA
scoring. IPPC permits address
BAT for facility management,
which includes implementation of
a management system, and OPRA
considers the quality and
effectiveness of the management
system in its scoring.
This report described earlier IPPC
permits as dynamic and living
documents - it is also notable that
the entire UK IPPC system is
designed to enable and facilitate
adaptation to address new
environmental issues, techniques
and approaches. Current UK
PPC legislation has incorporated
and continues to incorporate an
increasing number of EU
legislative mandates into one
overarching system. BAT
guidance documents are also slated
to be updated periodically with the
latest developments to BAT.
Given these vital aspects of the
IPPC system, it will be interesting
from both an academic and
practical standpoint to watch and
see how the system continues to
evolve.
Key Attributes of the UK's Integrated Permitting System
Seeks the best practical environmental option to prevent and
minimize harm to the environment as a whole.
Addresses the entire environmental footprint of an industrial facility
including non-traditional environmental impacts (e.g., raw material
use, energy use and efficiency, noise, vibration, and groundwater
contamination) through enforceable permit requirements.
Focuses permit obligations on sustainable, pollution prevention
oriented operator behavior as the primary driver for facility
environmental performance.
Uses a single permit to address all aspects of a facility's
environmental footprint.
Establishes facility-specific permit requirements based on EU/UK
guidance.
Uses sector-based strategic planning and management to regulate
and permit industrial facilities.
Requires the operator to assume increasing levels of responsibility
towards managing and reducing environmental impacts.
Requires operators to continuously seek and as feasible implement
opportunities for improving overall environmental performance.
Uses a scoring system that reflects facility-specific "risk" (the
potential for adverse environmental impacts) to set permit fees,
determine compliance/enforcement priorities, to manage agency
workload and resources, to establish facility and sector benchmarks
and thus create incentives for improved performance.
Includes public access to a wide variety of information about
facility performance, including inspection reports, permit variances,
facility "risk" scores, prosecutions, as well as prompt and complete
public disclosure of every permit transgression.
Relies on frequent communication and a consultative and advisory
relationship between the regulator and operator through all phases
of the permit process from permit development to compliance and
enforcement.
Designed to assimilate and adapt to changes, such as new
legislative mandates, technological developments, and facility
performance changes.
Addresses ongoing pressures to rationalize and optimize use of both
agency and industry resources.
136
-------
Findings
Through our research and analysis, we have not sought to judge which permitting system is
better overall, nor have we attempted to measure the performance of either the UK or the US
system. Indeed, it was beyond the scope of this study to assess the many factors and variables
that affect performance and ultimate environmental outcomes. Additionally, each system is itself
too complex to make a simplistic determination that one or the other is superior. Each system
has also developed and continues to operate in a very different social, historical and political
context. Rather, the intent of this report is to learn about the UK integrated approach in its
entirety, understand how the permitting process works, and identify lessons or pathways for
improving the US permitting system.
In an effort to capture and highlight the lessons gleaned from this study, the findings below
compare and contrast different aspects of the UK and US permitting systems. The findings are
grouped under broad organizing concepts, and within each finding the UK and US systems are
compared and/or contrasted. (The US aspects are shown in italics.)
UK Integrated System Uses Single Standard-Setting Concept to Set Limits and
Address Pollution Prevention and Sustainability
1. The permitting system in the UK, as well as the governing EUIPPC Directive, takes a
comprehensive and pollution prevention-oriented approach to environmental protection,
using end-of-pipe controls where pollution prevention and management controls are not
sufficient or practicable. The IPPC system seeks to achieve a "high level of protection for
the environment as a whole" by looking broadly across a facility's entire footprint at all
environmental impacts. In contrast to the UK system, US environmental permitting is
directed by media-specific environmental statutes, focusing primarily on separate impacts of
specific pollutants on individual media. Each US statute operates independently, with
relatively little comprehensive, national direction by overarching statutes.
2. Implementation of the IPPC system is based on a single standard-setting approach, BAT.
The BAT concept - the most effective and advanced stage of techniques and their
associated performance ranges designed to achieve a high level of protection for the
environment as a whole - applies to standard-setting across all environmental media.
In order to facilitate the determination of BAT for all permit applications, the UK has
developed a set of cross-cutting tools (e.g., sector and horizontal technical guidance (in
many cases derived from EU BREFs) and, in particular, the HI tool). In contrast, US media-
specific environmental statutes and their corresponding programs each have a distinct basis
and definition for their standards. In the US, cross-cutting multi-media tools and
methodologies are rare.
3. On a sector basis, EU BREFs outline BAT for all aspects of facility operation. BREFs result
from a process of negotiation and consensus among stakeholders that considers EU-wide
variations in industry operations and economics. The BREFs often include multiple
candidate techniques considered compatible with the concept of BAT and their
expected emission and resource consumption levels (often ranges that represent higher
performing facilities). The purpose is to provide general indications of what should be
137
-------
considered reference points for determining BAT-based permit conditions. Individual
member states and/or individual permit writers are required to translate performance
expectations laid out in the BREF to individual facility permits, taking into account the
objectives of the IPPC Directive - to first prevent and then reduce pollutant emissions
to achieve a high level of protection to the environment as a whole. In many cases, US
technology-based standards fall within BA T performance ranges. The one possible exception
to that is a US CAA standard invoked for areas with poor air quality that may fall at the top
end or exceed BAT performance ranges.46'
4. Facility operators in the UK, as part of the permit application, must address, implement, and
report on pollution prevention opportunities and sustainable resource use, such as raw
material substitution, water use reductions, and energy efficiency improvements across the
entire facility. Such considerations are generally a voluntary overlay in the US where the
emphasis is on meeting single media performance standards.
Regulation of Whole-facility Footprint is Foundation of UK Permits
5. Under IPPC, a single permit addresses all aspects of a facility's environmental footprint.
For instance, one permit for the entire facility includes conditions designed to prevent or
reduce air, water, and land emissions; manage, recover, and dispose of waste; address
sustainability (e.g., energy efficiency, water, and raw material use); and decommission
operations. In contrast, the US relies on separate media-specific permits for air, water, and
waste, which in some cases include conditions that address only certain portions of a
regulated facility's operations. As such, several permits may be needed for any one US
facility, each focusing on individual media and the impacts of specific pollutants;
sustainability or pollution prevention factors are often not conditions of the permit itself.
UK Permits Tailor Standards to Facility-Specific Conditions
6. UK standards or BAT for all environmental aspects of a facility are determined through the
permit issuance process. Although certain presumptions of what constitutes BAT are set
forth in the EU BREFs and UK technical guidance, final BAT determinations for an
individual facility can vary from these presumptions based on facility characteristics and
local conditions. For example, BAT-based numeric limits (ELVs derived from sector
benchmarks) may be adjusted in a permit to reflect site-specific conditions. This includes
both BAT-based limits adjusted to reflect environmental quality standards or local
geographic conditions (e.g., depletion of a local aquifer) and facility-specific characteristics
and conditions (e.g., equipment and technology already in use at the facility). In essence,
the UK permit writer considers and reconciles facility-specific conditions with sector-
wide BAT indicated in the BREF or UK technical guidance. Using this approach, IPPC
permitting is able to mesh local and facility-specific conditions with sector-wide
considerations. By contrast US technology-based standards are established through national
regulations applying broadly to sectors, with some accommodation of sizes and types of
facilities within a sector - but not down to the level of an individual facility. US regulators
467 This is a reference to US CAA LAER, a highly demanding, "best in class" standard based on the lowest emission
rate achieved in practice and unique among US environmental standards, LAER is generally imposed without regard
to cost.
138
-------
may make adjustments to national standards within a permit based on environmental quality
considerations; but except under certain circumstances, such standards cannot be changed
JX-Q
through permitting to take into account the circumstances of an individual facility.
1. In the UK existing facilities not operating to BAT indicated in UK technical guidance may be
subject to legally binding improvement program permit conditions, which are tailored to
the individual facility and move the facility towards (but not necessarily always as far as) the
indicated BAT standards. IPPC improvement program conditions do not have a direct
counterpart in the US permitting system; the closest analogue would be regulatory
compliance dates (set several years out from promulgation of new standards), but these are
not facility specific.
8 Individual facility operators in the UK may not be required to meet BAT indicated in
national UK technical guidance over the timeframe of a permit's improvement
program. Given certain conditions at a facility (e.g., layout of the physical plant), it simply
may not be reasonable or feasible for an operator to install the indicated BAT within the time
limits of an improvement program (typically three years). Absent individually applied for
and negotiated regulatory or permit flexibility (available on a very limited basis),
requirements for compliance with US national and most state regulatory standards are
generally fixed and absolute.
9. The facility-specific nature of UK BAT determination (and the fact that IPPC permits reflect
current facility performance) means that facilities that are capable of not only achieving
but surpassing BAT indicated in the UK technical guidance, will be required to do so
for the relevant and applicable aspects of facility operation By contrast, US facilities are
not legally subject to requirements for performance beyond the national or state standards.
10. Both the IPPC and US systems require facilities to further reduce emissions and
discharges in the event that such releases have unacceptable environmental impacts,
such as causing or contributing to a violation of an ambient air or local water quality
standard.
11. UK facilities must be in compliance with permit terms once an IPPC permit is issued;
however, compliance deadlines for BAT are not mandated by UK IPPC legislation.
Sector-specific permit application deadlines are set in the PPC regulations, but subsequent
application determination (i.e., permit issuance) schedules are not legally binding. As a
result, compliance deadlines vary based on individual facility circumstances (including those
associated with improvement program conditions). For the most part, US regulatory
standards contain pre-determined and exact deadlines.
468 Case-by-case determinations of permit limits under the CAA NSR program can take into consideration facility
characteristics. However, such determinations create new source-specific limits that can be no less stringent than
applicable regulatory standards, which also continue to apply. Note that the adjustment of standards to reflect
facility characteristics is distinct from the tightening of permit limits to ensure attainment of environmental quality
standards; the latter is done both under IPPC and under most US permitting programs.
139
-------
UK Permits Require Ongoing Focus on Continual Improvement
12. An IPPC permit is a living document that both reflects the current performance of a
facility and also serves as a forcing mechanism for continual improvement. Importantly,
permit limits must reflect the actual facility performance and not be limited by the BREF
benchmark values. Beyond current performance, IPPC permit conditions that require
implementation of an environmental management system and ongoing scrutiny of material
inputs drive operators to continually seek and where feasible, implement performance
improvements - conditions designed to progressively minimize a facility's environmental
impact/69 In contrast, a US permit typically contains nationwide, sector-specific emission
limitations. Compliance with these set limits is the objective. Therefore, there generally is
no requirement for continuing to improve performance beyond applicable emission limits.
However, at the federal and state level, voluntary programs exist that may motivate
companies to perform beyond regulatory compliance. In addition, some US companies
challenge themselves to reach superior, sustainable outcomes based on perceived
advantages in the competitive market and internally-driven corporate stewardship objectives.
13. Regulators both at the EU and UK level also have an ongoing responsibility to improve -
to keep BAT (standard-setting) technical guidance documents up to date and consistent
with the latest developments and advances in BAT techniques and technologies Similar
expectations are mandated by US statutes and are carried out through the national
rulemakingprocess. National rulemaking in the US typically entails significant transaction
costs410
UK Manages Environmental Permitting on a Sector Basis
14. Sectors play a significant role in the IPPC regulation of industrial emissions both in the
EU and in the UK. Sectors are the basis for the delivery of integrated and multimedia
standards for IPPC (through EU BREFs and sector-specific UK technical guidance on BAT).
Additionally, in order to make the IPPC permitting effort more manageable, the UK required
(in the PPC regulations) a phased, sector-based schedule for IPPC permit applications and
demonstration of BAT. In a number of cases (e.g., CAA MACT and CWA Effluent
Guidelines standards), the US also uses sectors in the delivery of regulatory requirements,
but on a media-specific and sometimes even on a pollutant-specific basis. With very limited
exceptions, roll-out of multiple (media-specific) standards in the US is not coordinated
across a sector.471
15 At a strategic level, the UK sets regulatory, permitting and compliance assessment
priorities on a sector basis through the use of sector planning. The EA (ideally) begins
the permitting process with the creation of a sector plan that focuses broadly on the
469 The IPPC permit requirements that drive the ongoing improvement referenced in this finding should not be
confused with IPPC improvement program conditions that are confined to specific compliance milestones over a
finite time period.
470 Additional inquiry and research may determine whether or not the process for updating IPPC BAT guidance is
any less cumbersome or timelier than the US rulemaking process. As mentioned in Chapter 4, the EC has (relatively
recently) initiated the BREF review process for a half dozen or so sector BREFs.
471 One exception is the 1998 Cluster Rule which promulgated air and water standards for the pulp and paper sector
simultaneously (63 FR 18504 and 63 FR 42238).
140
-------
significant environmental risks posed by industry activities and on long-term performance
targets and metrics designed to drive sector-wide improvement over the next 15 years. PPC
sector permitting plans translate sector plans to priorities for individual permits. Compliance
assessment plans outline similar sector-wide strategy and priorities for compliance
assessment activities for a sector and sometimes for a geographic area. Using sectors as an
overarching strategic planning and management tool for industrial regulation and permitting
is limited in the US -often driven by relatively narrow (media-specific) federal program
(sometimes voluntary) or state interests. At the federal level, sector-based (multi-media)
compliance assistance is common, and while special enforcement initiatives target whole
sectors, these tend to focus on individual media and sometimes only on certain types of
pollutants. Some states use a multimedia, sector-based approach to regulate and assist
businesses in certain sectors; however, these programs focus on very small sources in a
limited number of sectors and do not involve issuing individual permits.4'2
UK Legal and Permitting Structure is Flexible and Fluid
16. UK PPC legal authority is less prescriptive and detailed than corresponding legal
authorities in the US. The PPC Act incorporates by reference the IPPC Directive and other
national pollution authorities, not specifying detailed requirements as would typically be seen
in US statutes. Moreover, even the PPC regulations do not contain the sort of complex detail
that is found, for instance, in the US CAA. While not a part of UK legal authority, sector-
specific detail on BAT is contained in non-binding guidance - the BREFs and UK technical
guidance developed by the EA. The result is additional technical discretion for the EA -
discretion not provided EPA or state agencies in the US.473
17. The UK PPC legal framework has a greater capacity to incorporate new requirements
quickly. Since enacted, the PPC framework has successfully absorbed and implemented ten
new pieces of EU legislation. This trend continued with enactment of the next generation of
environmental permitting regulations (the EP Regulations) in April 2008. By contrast, the
US has no overarching environmental statute that frames and delivers new requirements -
thus often no straightforward and comprehensive means to address new knowledge and
environmental priorities.4 74
18. In permit applications under IPPC, facility operators must propose BAT for the various site
activities and propose improvement programs for complying with the indicated BAT, if not
472 More information on these state programs, referred to as the Environmental Results Program, can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/permits/erp/index.htm.
473 It is interesting to note that from the point of view of the EC, this discretion and other flexibility provided by the
integrating permitting system does not come without some cost. As discussed in Chapter 7, the EC has considered
making the BREFs legally binding as well as withdrawing the flexibility granted by Article 9(4) of the IPPC
Directive (discussed in findings 5-9) due to the concern that some member states are not realizing the full potential
of IPPC in controlling industrial emissions.
474 In the US, new knowledge and priorities must be incorporated into the existing medium-specific legal structure
through an often cumbersome process (e.g., the CAA was amended in 1990 to provisions, among other things, to
address CFCs, expand regulation of hazardous air pollutants, and add an operating permit program. In addition, the
CAA establishes a schedule for when new requirements for reducing PM2.5 emissions would be incorporated into
Title V operating permits. The PM2.5 standards were promulgated December 18, 2006; if CAA schedules are met,
Title V operating permits will be reopened and revised to incorporate new emission limits around May 18, 2015.)
141
-------
already met. Where such proposals ultimately are accepted by the permitting authority - the
EA, the final permit may reference pertinent sections of the application rather than develop
separately composed requirements that reflect BAT. Thus, many of the detailed permit
conditions may appear in the application rather than in the permit itself, thus
seemingly, IPPC integrated permits are often relatively brief documents. In the US,
permit documents and requirements are generally self-contained with the exception of
requirements incorporated by reference, such as reference test methods and start-tip,
shutdown and malfunction plans (under CAA Section 112). US permits are also generally
more voluminous, especially when considering the combined length of US air, water and
waste permits.
New Sources, Existing Source Modifications, and Permit Changes are Treated
Differently than in the US
19. For a new "greenfield" source, an IPPC permit is not required until the source begins
operation. There is no permit or review required prior to beginning construction (i.e.,
the facility operator does not obtain a construction permit). As a practical matter, however,
most new sources in the UK apply for their IPPC permit well before operation is scheduled to
begin, and often well before construction actually begins, so that BAT requirements can be
ascertained prior to committing resources to construction. Construction permits are not
required by the US water permitting program, but by contrast, the US air permitting
program has an extensive pre-construction permit program, which means that permits must
be obtained before construction begins.
20. A new facility in the UK will normally be expected to comply with or go beyond BAT
indicated in the BREF or UK technical guidance. For most aspects of facility operations, an
existing facility will be able to operate using BAT techniques and at BAT performance
targets. In some cases and for certain aspects of facility operations existing facilities may not
be able to operate at the indicated BAT at the time the permit is issued. Where techniques or
performance levels fall significantly short of the indicated BAT, a facility-specific
improvement program may be required to bring performance up to (or as close as is feasible
to) indicated BAT levels. Despite this allowance for some variation at particular existing
installations, the presumption under IPPC is that all facilities, new and existing, are
subject to BAT standards. In the US, it is typical for separate federal standards to be set
for new and existing facilities (where both types of facilities are regulated), with new facility
standards being the more stringent and roughly on a level with IPPC BAT performance
ranges. As in the UK, new facilities must meet standards upon startup, while existing
sources will be given time to install controls to meet applicable standards. However,
particularly in the air program, some existing facilities may be subject to little or no
regulation, despite the fact that new facility counterparts are subject to a federal standard.475
475 For example, under the US CAA program for "criteria" air pollutants, states are tasked with implementing
programs to assure compliance with criteria pollutant ambient air quality standards. States with relatively clean air
may not need to regulate existing facilities, or may not regulate them rigorously, in order to meet these ambient
standards. Another example of the US approach to regulating new sources versus existing sources is the program
for hazardous air pollutants under section 112 of the CAA. EPA establishes sector specific standards for both
existing sources and new sources. Under this program, there is no requirement for existing sources to improve
performance to the level of a new source.
142
-------
In general, the US federal system does not require existing facility upgrades in areas of good
air quality, unless an existing source makes a modification.
21. UK permits may be changed at the request of either the facility or the EA to reflect
changes at the facility, changes in BAT, or changes in facility performance. Permit
revisions can tighten or loosen permit obligations but must continue to reflect BAT for the
facility. In the US, permit modifications are not generally initiated by the permitting
authority to reflect changes in facility performance.
22. Generally, an operator at an IPPC permitted facility must notify the EA of any proposed
change in operation before it is put in effect, following an assessment of the change's effects
on the environment. The determination of whether a facility change requires a permit
variation is made by the EA, usually by the area inspector. In contrast to the UK system,
the US air permitting system includes complex applicability provisions and thresholds to
determine what permits are required before physical (construction) or operational
modifications may occur.
UK System Fosters High Expectations and Shared Responsibility by Operators
and Regulators
23. Fundamentally, under the IPPC system facility operators are expected to manage the entire
footprint of a facility. The onus is on the operator (in the permit application) to propose
and demonstrate BAT for all environmental impacts of facility operations (rather than
leave it exclusively to the regulator to prescribe what sources and emissions must be
controlled, as is often the case in the US). This includes BAT for preventing and minimizing
environmental discharges; properly managing, maintaining, and operating their facility;
minimizing energy and raw material usage; and minimizing waste (reduce, reuse, recycle,
and dispose of properly). Furthermore, on an ongoing basis, operators must also identify,
and where feasible, implement performance improvements. The US system does require
facilities to comply with emission limits for air pollutants, discharge limits for water
pollutants, and to properly handle, store, and transport waste. However, there is no US legal
obligation to do better than compliance with applicable standards, even if a facility is
capable of doing better. For various business (or other) reasons, some US facilities engage
in footprint reduction activities that go beyond traditional compliance with air, water, or
waste regulations. (Of course, these footprint-related activities are not usually permitted.)
24. UK integrated permits also include the requirement of implied BAT whereby facility
operators are expected to prevent or reduce emissions from an activity even if that
activity is not explicitly covered by a permit condition. Generally, US facility operators
have relatively limited obligations beyond the need to meet emission standards, and do not
have to identify and address or control sources left unregulated or residual environmental
effects.
25. Cumulatively, the comprehensive regulatory requirements and expectations under the IPPC
system are designed to promote a stewardship ethic among facility operators. In contrast,
most attempts to influence stewardship behavior in the US stem from federal and/or state
143
-------
voluntary programs, company or industry association initiatives, international business
standards, or citizen group pressures - and are distinctly extra-regulatory.
476
26. Under the EAIPPC system, the EA is actively involved in both setting the desired
environmental outcomes as well as in helping to ensure the desired behaviors. Under
the US system, governmental agencies establish the desired environmental outcomes, but
then take a hands-off approach to how facilities actually comply with their environmental
obligations.^11
27. UK permit writers must be equipped to deal with all environmental effects addressed
under IPPC and also must be able to sufficiently understand the technical aspects of a
facility/sector that bear on BAT determinations. On a facility-specific basis, EA permit
writers both set performance targets and evaluate techniques used to achieve targets. UK
regulators are also expected to stay abreast of new developments in BAT. This level of
broad expertise - sometimes a result of prior experience in industry - is not typically
required of US permit writers, where permits are media-specific and not usually subject to
determination of facility-specific emission limits (i.e., technology-based performance
standards are established nationally, are not subject to change, and only need to be properly
identified in the permit).4 78
28 The success of the IPPC permitting system relies on effective and robust relationships,
in particular the relationship between the facility and the local area inspector who plays many
roles - inspector, compliance assistance provider, auditor, consultant, enforcement officer,
and communicator. This relationship appears to be the "grease" that keeps the overall IPPC
system running smoothly. In contrast, US inspectors generally do not play this varied a set
of roles or develop as robust a relationship with facility managers.
UK Compliance and Enforcement Model Emphasizes Consultation and Change in
Underlying Behavior
29 The EA expects that each and every obligation in an IPPC permit will include adequate
testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping - certain information is reported quarterly
and/or annually to the agency. This includes all hard numerical emission limits, as well as
soft obligations, such as elements of the environmental management system, repair and
476 See, for instance, Everyday Choices: Opportunities for Environmental Stewardship (EPA, 2005) and National
Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), 2008. Everyone's Business: Working
Towards Sustainability Through Environmental Stewardship and Collaboration.
http://www.epa.gOv/ocem/nacept/reports/index.html.http://www.epa.gov/ocem/nacept/reports/index.html. The 2008
NACEPT report offers a different perspective on opportunities for stewardship in the US: "There is widespread
misperception that EPA's primary stewardship tool consists of voluntary partnership programs. The reality is,
however, that the Agency has many additional assets to promote stewardship, such as regulatory programs, grants,
information, public speeches, and in-house operations. EPA achieves its most effective results when it uses these
tools in concert. Environmental regulation is the Agency's most powerful stewardship tool." (NACEPT 2008, p. 21)
477 While often distinct and distant from permitting and enforcement programs, EPA and many state environmental
agencies do provide compliance assistance.
478 In the US there are a few programs where case-by-case determinations are made (e.g., CAA BACT for PSD
permits), but the scope of these determinations are limited to media-specific control technologies and do not include
the range of techniques and environmental issues addressed in an IPPC permit.
144
-------
maintenance obligations, pollution prevention efforts, improvement program conditions, and
energy and raw material efficiency efforts. In this respect, UK integrated permits are quite
similar to US media-specific permits.
30 Under the IPPC system, there are three different types of plant visits - inspections,
audits, and monitoring assessments - each with its own purpose and scope. The UK uses
one tool, EP OPRA, to determine inspection frequency. There is no one tool used in the
US to determine inspection type and frequency, each of the media programs (air, water,
waste, toxics, etc.) spell out different requirements for inspections.*19 State and local
inspectors conduct evaluations and inspections generally following EPA guidance (although
inspection frequency may be negotiated between EPA and states).
31. All aspects of the permit process are accomplished via continual dialogue between the UK
EA and the regulated facility. The UK particularly emphasizes the use of cooperative
consultation as an alternative to more formal enforcement actions. The UK
collaborative and negotiated enforcement approach appears to get its teeth from the
unilateral, regulatory power of permit variation and revocation - and the ultimate threat of
criminal prosecution. Currently, the EA lacks the authority to impose administrative
penalties.480 In practice, US federal and state permitting authorities481 engage infrequent
dialogue withpermitees (duringpermit development, implementation, and modification).
However, in addressing issues of noncompliance, the US system usually relies on its civil
enforcement authorities, including judicial and administrative penalty authority.482 The US
can also pur sue criminal sanctions, where necessary.
32. All of the terms and conditions of the IPPC permit are enforceable as a legal and practical
matter. IPPC permits include traditional numerical limits and equipment and work practice
standards, along with their accompanying requirements for testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting. IPPC permits also include many conditions that dictate
behavior and actually incorporate the details of facility-developed management systems,
pollution prevention programs, waste minimization programs, and energy efficiency
programs as enforceable permit requirements. In fact the EA places more emphasis on
"upstream" facility management, than on "downstream" limit violations. In this regard, the
EA actually prefers to bring enforcement action for the underlying behavior, such as
failure to train employees adequately or to maintain and operate equipment properly,
in order to prevent a more significant environmental breach and consequence. In
comparison, US permits seldom incorporate the content of facility environmental
management systems, operation and maintenance plans, or pollution prevention plans;
although, US permits may require a facility to have an operation and maintenance plan or a
479 For example, under the stationary source air program, EPA guidance says that full compliance evaluations should
be conducted at major sources at least every two years.
480 As discussed in Chapter 3, The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill introduced in the UK House of Lords
on November 8, 2007, will give UK regulators the ability to make a case for access to administrative penalties.
481 In the US, most federal permitting programs are delegated to the states which serve as the primary permitting
authorities, though in some jurisdictions the federal government may be the permitting authority.
482 US civil enforcement includes judicial and administrative penalty authorities to return violative facilities to
compliance, to deter future noncompliance, to assess penalties reflecting statutory factors such as the seriousness of
the violations, and to recoup economic benefit of noncompliance.
145
-------
personnel training program. As such, US enforcement actions focus more on violations of
numerical limits and other specific permit terms rather than on the underlying behavior that
might lead to a violation.
33 The UK integrated permitting system requires prompt reporting of each transgression of
a permit condition and for transparency; these reports are placed in the public register.
Inspectors provide the facility with the results of the inspection in writing, including the
identification of any violations found during the inspection or audit, at the end of the
inspection. EA inspectors and facility representatives may openly discuss operational issues
during inspections. Within three days of the inspection, written enforcement notices are
usually sent to the facility and then placed in the public register. In the US, it is standard
procedure for inspectors to hold closing conferences with facility representatives regarding
compliance requirements, compliance assistance, and potential follow-up. A formal
notification of violations, however, is provided only following legal review of the inspection
findings; this process may take an extended period of'time.,483 In general, facility-specific
enforcement notices are not available to the public (although basic compliance history for
larger facilities is accessible on-line).484
UK Culture of Trust Shapes Public Expectations and Involvement
34. On a formal basis UK EA procedure explicitly commits to keeping the public regularly
informed of activities related to IPPC permitting (e.g., permit determinations or
issuance, operator performance, and enforcement actions). The UK public participation
procedures for IPPC permitting are roughly similar to those in the US.
35. In practice, the degree and nature of public involvement in the UK appears inextricably
linked to its cultural and historical backdrop - that is, one of public trust in the government
complemented by a strong cooperative relationship between regulators and regulated. UK
environmental groups appear less likely than their US counterparts to challenge permit
issuance or enforcement decisions. Moreover, UK nongovernmental environmental
organizations do not generally react and take action - legal or otherwise - in response
to national rulemakings. In contrast, US environmental groups frequently take legal action
at the federal level to challenge the validity and substance of national rulemakings. In
483 While a US inspector may convey verbally at the end of an inspection conditions that the facility may wish to
revisit, inspectors are not legally authorized to formally determine violations of rules or permit conditions. The
facility operator may receive a written follow-up of the inspection, but often this is not provided until a formal
notice of noncompliance is issued. Absent imminent or substantial endangerment to human health or the
environment requiring immediate notification, it may take an extended period of time for a US facility to receive a
violation notice. There are program exceptions where inspectors can be authorized to issue expedited settlement
offers (ESO) (e.g., stormwater, underground storage tanks, etc.) to a facility for minor, easily correctable violations
observed during an inspection or evaluation. Generally speaking, in an expedited settlement approach, a respondent
receives a proposed consent agreement and the penalty complaint at the same time, and must agree and respond to
the ESO within a specified time, or the offer is withdrawn.
484 Basic information on inspections and compliance status for large facilities is available on the EPA website
(Enforcement and Compliance History On-line (ECHO) database at http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/). but actual
inspection reports, follow-up correspondence, notices of violation, etc. generally are not publicly available.
Depending on EPA regional policy, inspection reports themselves may be deemed enforcement confidential.
146
-------
addition, many individual permits are challenged by local or even national environmental
groups.
Agency Organization and Management Differs from that in the US
36. In the UK, regulatory responsibilities are split between the political, rulemaking
government department (DEFRA) and the "implementing" agency (the EA). In
comparison, in the US political leadership and national rulemaking are functions of US EPA,
and implementation and enforcement are functions shared between US EPA and the states.
37. In a number of important respects, governance of the EA is corporate. As the "corporate"
body responsible for environmental permitting, the EA must offset permitting expenses with
revenues. In large measure, EP OPRA is the resource management tool that enables the
EA to balance the books and rationalize the use of resources. In contrast, US EPA and to
a lesser extent US states are not subject to these corporate balance sheet pressures on a
program by program basis.
UK System Linked to Broad Technological and Regulatory Developments and
Trends
38. The EC is charged with the ongoing responsibility to periodically update BREFs in
response to advances and changes to sector-level BAT. Once this EU process is complete,
the UK will reflect these changes in domestic technical guidance on BAT. Ideally these
changes to EU and national guidance will coincide with the EA periodic review of individual
IPPC permits, which would then be modified to reflect changes in BAT. Similar
requirements and expectations exist in the US for updating standards and subsequently
adjusting permits to reflect changes; however, this is primarily a regulatory process in the
US and so may occur over a longer time period.
39. The integrated permitting system across the EU and in the UK operates in a regulatory
context not too dissimilar to that in the US - namely in the midst of pressures to reduce
demands on business and government resources without compromising environmental
results The EU and UK "Better Regulation Agenda" - an effort to modernize,
rationalize, simplify and streamline government regulation - has been a significant
influence on the design and functioning of UK environmental regulatory programs
(including integrated permitting). Similar regulatory reform initiatives and pressures have
been launched in the past in the US and, although less clearly identifiable, are present
today.485 In some instances the "Better Regulation Agenda" has been codified in UK law and
regulations, something that occurs with less frequency in the US.
Concluding Remarks
As noted previously, we have not sought to make an overall judgment on the relative merits of
the permitting systems in the UK and the US. However, our understanding of the IPPC system
has led us to observe that as a matter of conceptual design, an integrated permitting system like
485 The US "National Partnership for Reinventing Government" launched in March 1993 bore a close resemblance to
the UK "Better Regulation Agenda."
147
-------
the IPPC has the theoretical potential to produce, over time, environmental results beyond those
that the US system currently achieves.486 By specifying pollution prevention and abatement
controls for the environment as a whole, ensuring that each facility actually employs the best
available techniques, and requiring performance to continually improve over time, an integrated
approach could in theory reduce emissions and discharges to levels below those currently
required by the US system. Conversely, as was discussed in Chapter 2, an integrated approach
may offer the possibility of a smoother and more predictable path toward any given level of
environmental protection (which would be determined through the ongoing policy debate in each
country). From this perspective, the central question is not what environmental goals are
achieved, but rather whether an integrated approach offers a better way of achieving them.
Whether these benefits would be achieved, either in the EU or in the US, would depend of course
on policy decisions regarding matters such as the relative weight given to stringency of national
standards and administrative efficiency, and on how the approach is implemented, including the
degree of commitment at all levels to ongoing performance improvement. However, the
conceptual potential inherent in an integrated approach warrants, we believe, further exploration
and experimentation to assess whether that potential can be realized.
Next Steps
This report does not include recommendations for action. Instead, we hope that its content and
findings provide a foundation for understanding the general provisions of the EU and UK
integrated permitting systems and ultimately for identifying areas fruitful for experimentation
and innovation that would lead to improvements to the US system. A broad range of
perspectives and opinions exist regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental
permitting of industrial facilities in the US. For more than two decades, there has been interest
in the US in whether environmental permitting can be improved through innovative approaches
to foster continual performance improvement, use public and private resources more
productively, and to focus attention on achieving sustainable outcomes rather than merely
complying with regulations. The experience in the UK may help inform that ongoing debate.
Progress toward the next phase of experimentation with new approaches and tools observed in
the UK very much depends on dialogue with those who spend their professional lives concerned
with and engaged in the daily business of permitting in the US. Recognizing this, EPA will
continue the work begun by this study by inviting interested stakeholders to participate in an
ongoing discussion about opportunities for applying and experimenting with tools and
approaches from the UK system in the US.
In addition, EPA realizes that this report does not represent a comprehensive study of the UK
integrated system and that much more remains to be learned about the integrated approach and
486 This study did not attempt to determine whether the IPPC system actually produces greater reductions in
discharges to the mainstream media - air, water, waste - than are being achieved in the US. As discussed in
Chapter 5, the initial steps to determine the relative stringency (as reflected in numeric limits in the permits) were
limited by differences between the US and UK facilities, differences in the ways pollution limits are expressed, and
the dynamic nature of requirements applicable to the facilities under the two permitting regimes (i.e., both sets of
facilities would be subject to future requirements that they did not yet meet).
148
-------
its relevance to environmental protection in the US. With this in mind, EPA also encourages
further research related to integrated approaches, including key aspects of the UK system not
fully explored in this study, IPPC experiences and methods in other EU Member States, and
cross-cutting and integrated approaches currently being practiced in US states. EPA invites and
seeks to work with stakeholders interested in developing ideas for and carrying out such
research.
149
-------
-------
9. GLOSSARY
Available Techniques (UK) - Those techniques developed on a scale that allows
implementation in the relevant industrial sector under economically and technically viable
conditions taking into consideration the costs and advantages whether or not the techniques are
used or produced domestically as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator.
BAT Reference Document (BREF) (EU) - Sector-specific or cross-sector issue-based (e.g.,
economic and cross-media effects, energy efficiency, and monitoring) guidance documents
published by the EC (Environment Directorate-General), which follow from an exchange of
information on BAT between the member states. BREFs do not constitute binding requirements,
but competent authorities in each member state must take account of BAT outlined in the BREF
when making domestic and facility-specific determinations of BAT.
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) (US) - Under the C AA PSD program, the air
pollution control technology that provides the maximum degree of pollutant reduction for major
new or modified sources in areas that are already clean (or are in attainment), which the
permitting authority determines on a case-by-case basis is achievable for a facility. Energy,
environmental and economic impacts as well as other costs are considered in the determination
of BACT.
Best Available Techniques (BAT) (EU) - The basis for determining IPPC permit conditions
and defined in the IPPC Directive as "the most effective and advanced stage in the development
of activities and their methods of operation, which indicates the practical suitability of particular
techniques for providing in principle the basis for ELVs designed to prevent and, where that is
not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole."
See also glossary entries on indicative BAT, BREF BAT and implied BAT.
Best Available Technology (US) - Technology-based standard established by the CWA as the
most appropriate means available on a national basis for controlling the direct discharge of toxic
and nonconventional pollutants to navigable waters. Best Available Technology effluent
limitations guidelines, in general, represent the best existing performance of treatment
technologies that are economically achievable within an industrial point source category or
subcategory. In establishing Best Available Technology, EPA considers the age of equipment
and facilities involved, the processes employed, the engineering aspects of control technologies,
process changes, the cost of achieving effluent reductions and non-water quality environmental
impacts.
Best Available Technology not Entailing Excessive Costs (BATNEEC) (UK) - The main
basis for determining standards under Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) industrial authorization
(permitting) regime - now replaced by BAT under IPPC.
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) (US) - Technology-based standard
established under the CWA for the discharge of conventional pollutants, including biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, oil and grease from
existing industrial point sources. The BCT is established in light of a two-part "cost
151
-------
reasonableness" test which compares the cost for an industry to reduce its pollutant discharge,
with the cost to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) for similar levels of reducing
pollutant loading. The second test examines the cost-effectiveness of additional industrial
treatment beyond Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT). EPA must find limits that are
reasonable under both tests before establishing them as BCT.
Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT) (US) - The first level of technology-based
standards established by the CWA to control pollutants discharged to waters of the US. BPT
effluent limitations guidelines are generally based on the average of the best existing
performance by plants within an industrial category or subcategory.
Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) (UK) - Introduced by the RCEP in 1976 as
an optimum combination of available methods of disposal to limit damage to the environment as
a whole to the greatest extent achievable for a reasonable and acceptable cost. RCEP further
refined BPEO in 1988 as the outcome of a systematic and consultative decision-making
procedure - the option that provides the most benefit and the least damage to the environment
across air, water and land as a whole, at acceptable cost, and in the long-term as well as in the
short-term. The only reference to BPEO in UK primary legislation was in the EPA of 1990 as
the basis for industrial authorizations under the IPC regime.
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) - A common measure of pollutant organic material in
water. BOD indicates the amount of putrescible organic matter present in water. The BOD test
measures the amount of oxygen consumed by living organisms while they are utilizing the
organic matter present in waste. Low BOD is an indicator of good quality water.
BREF BAT (UK) - BAT as it is assessed in sector level BREFs and/or in UK technical
guidance notes. BREF BAT represents the most effective and advanced stage in the
development of activities and their methods of operation, and indicates the practical
suitability of particular techniques for providing the basis for ELVs designed to prevent and,
where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a
whole. The principles for determining BAT are the same for existing and new facilities;
however, final standards may differ. New facilities are generally expected to comply with or
go beyond indicative BAT, whereas existing facilities may be subject to permit conditions
that require an upgrade to as near new (indicative) standards as is possible.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) - A measure of the capacity of water or wastewater to
consume oxygen during the decomposition of organic matter and the oxidation of inorganic
chemicals such as ammonia and nitrate. COD is expressed as the amount of oxygen consumed
in mg/L. Results do not necessarily correlate to the BOD because BOD only measures the
amount of oxygen consumed by microbial oxidation and is most relevant to waters rich in
organic matter.
Clean Air Act (CAA) (US) - The governing statute for air pollution prevention and control in
the US. The original CAA was passed in 1963; but it was not until 1970 that there was a
stronger comprehensive federal air pollution control program. The 1990 CAA Amendments
152
-------
dramatically expanded and revised the 1970 law. EPA often refers to the 1990 amendments as
the 1990 Clean Air Act.
Clean Water Act (CWA) (US) - The CWA is the primary federal law in the US that governs
water pollution and water quality protection. The statute was passed in 1972 and employs a
variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into
waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff.
These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters so that they can support the protection
and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water. Major
amendments to the CWA were enacted in 1977 and 1987.
Competent Authority (EU) - The authority or authorities or bodies responsible under the legal
provisions of the member states for carrying out the obligations of the IPPC Directive.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
(US) - CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by the US Congress on
December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and
provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. The taxes collected
went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Conventional Pollutant (US) - The CWA specifies the following as conventional pollutants:
pollutants that increase BOD, total suspended solids, pH, fecal coliform, oil and grease.
Nonconventional pollutants are pollutants not specified as conventional or as toxic (e.g.,
Aldrin/Dieldrin, DDT, Endrin, Toxaphene, Benzidine, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)).
Criteria Pollutant (US) - Any air pollutant for which EPA has established a National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS): carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen oxides (NOx), ground
level ozone, particulate matter (PM), and sulfur oxides (SOx). Criteria pollutants are measured
in air quality control regions to determine whether an area meets or does not meet the federal air
quality standard (attainment or non-attainment of NAAQS). Permissible levels of criteria
pollutants are set using science-based human health and environmental criteria.
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)(UK) - The governmental
department responsible for environmental protection in the UK. DEFRA initiates and sets the
legislative agenda for Parliament each year. DEFRA is headed by the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and several additional Government Ministers, each
responsible for certain elements of DEFRA's mission. DEFRA sponsors and oversees the work
of various public bodies responsible for final delivery of services that fall within DEFRA's
purview.
Emission Limit Value (ELV) (EU and UK) - The mass, expressed in terms of certain specific
parameters, concentration, and/or level of an emission, which may not be exceeded by a facility
during one or more periods of time. ELVs may be BAT-based or statutory, the latter existing for
153
-------
certain groups, families or categories of substances. BAT-based ELVs are the emissions
expected from a well-performing facility implementing the indicated BAT.
Environment Agency (EA) (UK) - The leading public organization for protecting and
enhancing the environment in England and Wales. The agency regulates industry and inspects
industrial sites to protect the environment and people from pollution and environmental risks to
health. The EA is an executive non-departmental public body formed under the UK
Environment Act in 1995. The EA is sponsored by DEFRA and legally is comprised of a 14-
member board appointed by and accountable to Parliament through DEFRA Ministers The EA
Board delegates day to day operations to the EA Chief Executive and staff. The EA is organized
into head, regional and area office staff along with various national services. Under IPPC the EA
regulates PPC Part A(l) installations.
Environmental Assessment Level (EAL) (UK) - Provisional (non-statutory) benchmarks for
substances released to each environmental medium obtained from a variety of published UK and
international sources. Environmental benchmarks are used as an indicator of a degree of
environmental impact that can be considered acceptable for a particular substance to a receptor
or environmental medium (i.e., the concentration for a substance after dispersion into the
receiving environment) set at a level below which no harm is likely.
Environmental Permitting (EP) Regulations (UK) - Enacted on April 6, 2008, to streamline
and consolidate the PPC permitting and waste management licensing systems into a single
permitting system. The EP Regulations also make available standard permits and reduce the
amount of statutory consultation required for permit determinations. The 2008 EP Regulations
replace the PPC regulations.
Environmental Protection Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal (EP OPRA) (UK) - A
screening methodology designed by the EA to provide approximate risk or environmental hazard
potential information that is used to help plan the agency's overall inspection and monitoring
activities and target effort towards specific processes and operators according to their
approximate risk levels. Use of EP OPRA results in a facility-specific score based on five
attributes: complexity, emissions, location, operator performance and compliance rating.
Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) (EU and UK) - Statutory benchmarks prescribed for
certain substances used to define the upper bound of a concentration of substance in the
environment that is considered tolerable. The PPC Regulations define EQS as a requirement that
must be fulfilled at a given time by a given environment as set out in EC legislation, or by a UK
domestic requirement or objective that may be relevant in the determination of BAT. EQS are
also known as "target" or "ambient environmental standards" where conformance is measured by
reference to the effect of a pollutant on the receiving environment.
European Commission (EC) (EU) - The executive branch of the EU. The EC proposes
legislation, implements EU decisions, upholds EU treaties, and is responsible for the day-to-day
running of the EU. The EC operates as a cabinet with one commissioner per member state. The
EC also refers to the larger administrative body of EU civil servants who are divided into
departments called Directorates-General. The main role of the EC's Environment Directorate-
154
-------
General is to initiate and define new environmental legislation and to ensure that agreed upon
measures are put into practice in the EU member states.
Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) (US) - Under the CAA, one of 188 substances and compounds
that are known or suspected of causing cancer or other serious health effects, or adverse
environmental effects for which EPA is establishing MACT standards. A major source of HAPs
is one that emits 10 tons per year of a single HAP or 25 tons per year of multiple HAPs.
Horizontal Guidance 1 (HI) (UK) - Guidance for the Environmental Assessment and
Appraisal of BAT designed to provide supplementary information relevant to all industrial
sectors to assist permit applicants in responding to the requirements described in IPPC sector
guidance notes. HI provides methods for quantifying environmental impacts to all media; a
method for calculating costs of environmental protection techniques; and guidelines on resolving
cross media conflicts and making cost/benefit judgments.
Implied BAT (UK) - Under the PPC regulations, the implied duty on the part of the operator to
use BAT to prevent or reduce emissions that are not covered by specific permit conditions. This
is intended to cover the most detailed level of plant design where the operator will usually be in
the best position to understand in practical terms what pollution control means.
Indicative BAT (UK) - Indicative requirements (e.g., standards, benchmarks, techniques,
improvement timescales) noted in the relevant UK sector IPPC technical guidance note.
Indicative BAT is based on an analysis of the costs and benefits for typical or representative
plants within a sector. Indicative BAT should be applied unless there is a strong justification for
an alternative.
IPPC Directive (EU) - A 1996 EU Directive (96/6I/EC) concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control. The IPPC Directive mandates an integrated approach to environmental
protection throughout the EU to prevent or, where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions to
air, water and land in order to achieve a high level of protection of the environment as a whole.
Operators of industrial installations covered by Annex I of the IPPC Directive are required to
obtain an authorization (environmental permit) to operate from competent authorities in EU
member states. About 50,000 installations are covered by the IPPC Directive across the EU.
Local Authority (LA) (UK) - Local governments in the UK which include London
metropolitan borough councils as well as unitary, metropolitan and county councils in England
and county or borough councils in Wales. Local authorities act as the IPPC regulator for smaller
and less complex Part A(2) installations.
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) (US) - Under the CAA, the emission rate for
criteria air pollutants that is the lowest possible that is achieved in practice for an industrial
category and required for new or modified air pollution sources in air quality non-attainment
areas without regard to cost.
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) (US) - Under the CAA, a technology-
based emission standard for a particular industrial category for reduction in HAPs for new and
155
-------
existing sources. When developing a MACT standard for a particular source category, EPA
looks at the level of emission control currently being achieved by the best performing similar
sources through various control methods, such as clean processes, control devices and work
practices.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (US) - Established under the CAA for six
criteria pollutants based on the latest scientific knowledge to protect human health and welfare
with an ample margin of safety. NAAQS are used by states as the basis for individual source
emission limitations in SIPs. SIPs are the principal tool for control of criteria pollutants from
existing stationary sources. When NAAQS are violated for one or more criteria pollutant, in a
particular geographic area it is designated as a non-attainment area. Sources in a non-attainment
area are subject to more stringent controls.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (US) - A national permitting
program under Section 402 of the CWA for regulation of pollutant discharges from point sources
to waters of the US. Point sources include industrial facilities, municipal governments and some
agricultural facilities. This system is managed by EPA in partnership with states. EPA has
authorized 45 states to issue permits directly to point source dischargers. NPDES discharge
limits are set based on technology-based effluent limitations and, where necessary, water quality
standards. Discharges are illegal unless authorized by an NPDES permit.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (US) - Section 111 of the CAA, "Standards of
Performance of New Stationary Sources," requires EPA to establish federal emission
standards for source categories that cause or contribute significantly to air pollution. NSPS
ensure that the best pollution control technology is used by new sources regardless of
location. These technology-based standards for new and modified sources are intended to
promote use of the best air pollution control technologies, taking into account the cost of such
technology and any other non-air quality, health, and environmental impact and energy
requirements. These standards apply to sources that have been constructed or modified since
the proposal of the NSPS regulations. NSPS have been promulgated for generic categories of
sources like boilers and volatile liquid storage tanks, as well as industry sector-specific
processes.
New Source Review (NSR) (US) - A federal program under the CAA that affects new major
stationary sources of air criteria pollutants and major modifications to major sources. NSR
ensures that air quality is not significantly degraded from the addition of new and modified
factories, industrial boilers, and power plants. Permits for construction of new or modified
sources in attainment areas are referred to as Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permits and require B ACT; permits for sources in non-attainment areas are referred to as non-
attainment areas (NAA) permits and require LAER. For areas in attainment, new source review
is triggered by a major modification - defined as any physical change in the method of operation
that would result in a specified net emissions increase of any pollutant subject to regulation. For
areas in non-attainment, a major modification is one that causes any increase in emissions.
Part A(l) Installation (UK) - Any installation comprising one or more Part A(l) activities (an
activity listed under Part A(l) of Schedule 1 to the PPC Regulations and regulated by the EA), or
156
-------
any Part A activity plus certain waste activities. Part A(l) installations are issued integrated
permits and tend to have larger and more complex operations. There are approximately 3700
Part A(l) installations in England and Wales.
Part A(2) Installation (UK) - An installation comprising one or more Part A(2) activities (an
activity listed under Part A(2) of Schedule 1 to the PPC Regulations and regulated by local
authorities) and which is not a Part A(l) installation. Part A(2) installations are issued integrated
permits and tend to have smaller and less complex operations. There are approximately 500 Part
A(2) installations in England and Wales.
Pollution Prevention (P2) - Pollution prevention is the reduction or elimination of waste at the
source by modifying production processes, promoting the use of non-toxic or less-toxic
substances, implementing conservation techniques, and re-using materials rather than putting
them into the waste stream. Since pollution prevention is a key policy in US national
environmental protection, a number of partnership programs and other EPA initiatives utilize this
approach in their work. It is also a central feature of the EUIPPC Directive.
Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Act (UK) - The PPC Act, enacted in 1999, is the
primary legislation that implements the IPPC Directive in the UK and authorizes the
development of regulations. Specifically, Sections 1 and 2 of the Act confer on the Secretary of
State the power to promulgate regulations providing for a pollution control system that meets the
requirements of the IPPC Directive and for other measures to prevent and control pollution.
Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Regulations (UK) - The PPC (England and Wales)
Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1973) is secondary legislation which implements the IPPC Directive.
The PPC Regulations have been amended a number of times since 2000 with a significant
amendment in 2005 to amend procedures for public participation.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) (US) - Applies to new major sources or
major modifications at existing sources for pollutants where the area the sources is located in
is in attainment with NAAQS. PSD requires the installation of BACT, an air quality analysis,
an additional impacts analysis and public involvement. PSD is intended to ensure that air
quality does not diminish in attainment areas.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (US) - Passed in 1976, RCRA gave EPA
the authority to control hazardous waste from "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a
framework for the management of non-hazardous wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA
enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks
storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. RCRA focuses only on active and future
facilities and does not address abandoned or historic sites.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (US) - The Safe Drinking Water Act, originally passed in
1974, was established to protect public health by regulating the public drinking water supply.
This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designated for drinking use, whether from
above ground or underground sources. The Act authorized EPA to establish national health-
157
-------
based standards to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants that may
be found in drinking water. Originally the SDWA focused primarily on treatment as the means
of providing safe drinking water at the tap. The 1996 Amendments enhanced the Act by
recognizing source water protection, operator training, funding for water system improvements
and public information as important components of safe drinking water. Oversight of drinking
water systems is conducted by states - all except one state have primacy, the authority to
implement the SDWA in their jurisdiction.
State Implementation Plan (SIP) (US) - Section 110 of the CAA requires state and local air
pollution control agencies to adopt federally approved control strategies to minimize air
pollution. The resulting body of regulations is known as a State Implementation Plan. SIPs
generally establish limits or work practice standards to minimize emissions of the criteria air
pollutants or their precursors. SIPs also include special control strategies for nonattainment
areas. When approved by EPA, the state is delegated federal authority for air quality regulation.
Technical Guidance Notes (TGN) (UK) - UK domestic guidance for England, Wales,
Scotland, and Northern Ireland that addresses required standards and BAT drawing on the
information contained within EU BREFs. TGNs are designed to complement the BREFs -
BREFs are cross-referenced throughout the TGNs. TGNs contain indicative standards for both
new and existing installations as well as timetables for upgrading existing facilities. Operators
must justify departures from indicative requirements - the TGN itself may identify factors that
would support any such departure.
Techniques (EU) - As defined in the IPPC Directive, both the technology used and the way in
which the installation is designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned.
Title V Operating Permit (US) - Title V (five) of the 1990 CAA Amendments requires all
large (major) sources and a limited number of smaller sources (called "area," "minor" or "non-
major" sources) of air pollution to obtain an operating permit. Title V operating permits may
apply to minor sources if the source emits federally regulated HAPs or is subject to some other
federal air pollution standard. Title V permits were designed to improve compliance by
clarifying what facilities must do to control air pollution.
Water Quality Criteria (US) - The CWA directs EPA to develop criteria for water quality that
accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge about the effects of pollutants on aquatic life
and human health. In developing these criteria, EPA examines the effects of specific pollutants
on plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life, aesthetics, and recreation in any body of water.
This includes specific information on the concentration and dispersal of pollutants through
biological, physical, and chemical processes as well as the effects of pollutants on biological
communities as a whole. States may use the criteria developed by EPA to help set water quality
standards that protect the uses of state waters, or they may develop their own water quality
criteria. EPA publishes human health and aquatic life criteria and is currently developing
sediment and biological criteria. These criteria are complementary; each is designed to protect
specific types of living organisms or ecological systems from the adverse effects of pollution.
158
-------
10. REFERENCES
Bell, S. and D. McGillivray. Environmental Law, Sixth Edition. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2006).
Bennear, L.S. "Evaluating Management-Based Regulation: A Valuable Tool in the Regulatory
Tool Box?" in eds. Coglianese, C. and J. Nash. Leveraging the Private Sector: Management-
Based Strategies for Improving Environmental Performance. (Washington DC: Resources for
the Future Press, 2006).
Bennett, G. "Pollution Control in England and Wales." Environmental Policy and Law, 5: 95
(1979).
BNA (The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.) Daily Environment Report, Number 248, 28
December 2007 (ISSN 1521-9402), p. A-5.
BRE. Regulatory Services e-UPDATE, Issue 3. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file44567.pdf
Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial
plants. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31984L0360:EN:HTML.
DEFRA. Industrial Pollution Control Regimes.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/background/pdf/indpollution-controlregimes.pdf
DEFRA, 2007a. Mid-term Review of the UK's Implementation of the Pollution Prevention and
Control Regulations, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/background/pdf/ppcregs-
review.pdf
DEFRA, 2007b. Views from the UK on the IP PC Review.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/envagencv/meetings/pdf/070517-views-ippc-
review.pdf
DEFRA, 2006. Implementation to 31 December 2005 in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar of
Directive 96/61/EC Concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Report Required
by the European Commission Under the Terms of Article 16(3) of Directive 9 6/61/EC.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/regs/pdf/ippc-implement06.pdf.
DEFRA, 2005a. Explanatory Memorandum to the PPC (Public Participation) (England and
Wales) Regulations 2005. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/em2005/uksiem_20051448_en.pdf.
DEFRA, 2005b. IPPC. Practical Guide, Fourth Edition.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ppc/envagency/pubs/pdf/ippcguide ed4.pdf
Dernbach, J. "The Unfocused Regulation of Toxic and Hazardous Pollutants," HarvardEnvtl.
Law Review, Vol. 21 (1997): p. 1.
159
-------
Derwent, H., DEFRA. "Industrial Environmental Regulation in the UK." Presentation at the
conference Prevention and Control of Industrial Pollution: International Conference on Policy
Approaches. Seville, Spain. 25-26 April 2002.
http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/doc/PCIPsevilla/mainpage.htm.
Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on
public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/environmental info reg/detailed specialist gui
des/european_directive_(eur-lex).pdf.
EA. Operators Briefing Note: General Principles of the Compliance Classification Scheme.
http://www.environment-agencv.gov.ulc/commondata/acrobat/ccsbriefingnote _745332.pdf.
EA, 2007a. Breakdown of Extant Permits and Duly Made Applications - by Sector (as at 31
October 2007).
EA, 2007b. Guidance for the Enforcement and Prosecution Policy, Version 17.
http ://www. environment-agency, gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/epp 171803 748 .pdf
EA, 2007c. Methodology for Assessing Compliance (MAC) for the Pollution Prevention and
Control (PPC) and Waste management License (WML) Regimes.
EA, 2007d. Spotlight on Business Environmental Performance in 2006: Putting the Brakes on
Climate Change. http://publications.environment-agencv.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0707BMMX-e-e.pdf.
EA, 2006a. Compliance Classification Scheme (CCS) Scoring for the PPC and WML Regimes.
EA, 2006b. Corporate Plan: Translating Strategy Into Action.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/275292/234823/?version=l&lang=_e.
EA, 2006c. A Guide to Modern Regulation, Getting Better Results. EA Document No.
GEHO0806BLCQ-E-P.
EA, 2005a. Delivering for the Environment: A 21st Century Approach to Regulation.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/dftefmal_l 906007.pdf.
EA. 2005b. Guidance on the Use of a Multi-Product Protocol (MPP) at Chemical Installations.
http://publicati ons.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO 1205BJZF-e-e.pdf?lang=e.
EA, 2005c. Improving Environmental Performance, Sector Plan for the Chemical Industry,
Version 1. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444251/1215866/.
EA, 2005d. Pollution Prevention and Control: EP OPRA-Based Charging Scheme and
Guidance 2005/06. http://environment.info/commondata/acrobat/ppc 0506 scheme 753443.pdf
160
-------
EA, 2005e. Spotlight on Business Environmental Performance in 2004: Doing the Right Thing.
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0705BJHA-e-e.pdf,
EA, 2005f Using Science to Create A Better Place: Investigating the Effectiveness of
Compliance Assessment Activities. http://publications.environment-
agencv.gov.ulc/pdf/SCHO0705BJQD-e-e.pdf
EA, 2005g. Work Instruction: Generic Methodology for Assessing Compliance.
EA, 2004a. Pollution Inventory Data Report: Trends and Analysis 1998-2001.
http://www.environmentOagency.gov.uk/pi.
EA, 2004b. IPPC and Resource Efficiency: A Review of Progress. http://www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/resource efficiency 826850.pdf
EA, 2004c. Spotlight on Business Environmental Performance in 2003: Greener Business is
Good Business.
EA, 2003. Guidance for the Specialty Organic Chemicals Sector, Version 6.
http://publications.environment-agencv.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO1205BJZB-e-e.pdf
EA, 2001. Review of the PPC Application Process.
EA, 2000. IPPC Technical Guidance for the Pulp and Paper Sector, Version 2.
http ://www. environment-
agencv.gov.uk/business/444304/444635/1778182/107293/?version=l&lang= e.
EA, 1998. Enforcement and Prosecution Policy, http ://www. environment-
agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/enfpolicy.pdf
EA, Environment and Heritage Service and SEP A, 2003. Horizontal Guidance Note HI:
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of
BAT. http://www.environment-
agencv.gov.ulc/business/1745440/444663/298441/horizontal/545377/?version=l&lang= e.
EA, Environment and Heritage Service and SEP A, 2002. Horizontal Guidance Note H2:
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Energy Efficiency.
http://www.environment-agencv.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/interimenergv.pdf
EC, 2007. Questions and Answers on the Commission's Proposal for the Revision of Industrial
Emissions Legislation in the EU.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesActi on. do?reference=MEMO/07/623&format=HTML&aged
=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
161
-------
EC, 2006. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Reference Document on Economics and
Cross-Media Effects, http://www.eper-
es.es/data/docs/Fondo%20docutnental/BREF EFECTOS CROSSMEDIA_paraEPER_68DD-
4C18-830E-5466E34E6COA.pdf
EC, 2002. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC): Reference Document on the
General Principles of Monitoring.
http://www.irc.eS/pub/english.cgi/d946763/l l%20Reference%20Document%20on%20General%
20Principles%20oryo20Monitoring%20(adopted%20Jul%202003)%20-%201%20Mb.
Environmental Protection Act, 1990.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/actsl990/ukpga 19900043 en 1.
EPA, 2006. Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results: FY2006 Numbers at a Glance.
http://epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/endofyear/eoy2006/2006numbers.html.
EPA, 2005. Everyday Choices: Opportunities for Environmental Stewardship.
http://www.epa.gov/innovation/stewardship/index.htm.
EPA, 2002. New Source Review Improvements: Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental
Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules, http://www.epa.gov/nsr/publications.html.
European IPPC Bureau, 2005. IPPC BREF Outline and Guide.
http ://eippcb .j re. es/pages/Boutline.htm.
Farthing, J., B. Marshall, and P. Kellet. Pollution Prevention and Control the New Regime.
(London: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2003).
Gray, J., and James T., EA. Personal communication. 30 June 2005.
Gray, J., T. James, and J. Dickson. "Integrated Regulation - Experiences of IPPC in England and
Wales." Water and Environment Journal 21 (2007): 69-73.
IPPC Directive (Council Directive 96/6I/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated
pollution prevention and control). http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0061:EN:HTML.
Hagstrom, P. "BAT Process Selection and Split Views." Presentation at the conference The
Sevilla Process: A Driver for Environmental Performance in Industry." Stuttgart, Germany. 6-7
April 2000. http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/l823.pdf.
Hampton, P., 2005. Reducing Administrative Burdens: Effective Inspection and Enforcement.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/budget 05/other documents/bud budOS hampton.cfm.
162
-------
Hey, C. "Balancing Participation in Technical Working Groups: The Case of the Information
Exchange of the IPPC Directive." Presentation at the conference The Sevilla Process: A Driver
for Environmental Performance in Industry." Stuttgart, Germany. 6-7 April 2000.
http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/l 823 .pdf
James, T., EA, Policy Manager. Personal communications. 12 February 2008, 27 July 2007,
16 July 2007, 2 May 2007.
James, T. "Integrated Regulation in the UK." Presentation at the workshop Lessons from the
United Kingdom's Integrated Permitting Experience: Exploring New Directions for
Environmental Permitting in the US. Washington, DC. 25 October 2007.
Jewell, T., J. Lowther, N. Parpworht, and D. Hughes. Environmental Law, Fourth Edition.
(London: LexisNexis UK, 2002).
Joachim, L. and K. Sander. "Is the BREF Process a Success or a Failure? - an NGO Perspective.
Paper presented at the European Conference on The Sevilla Process: A Driver for Environmental
Performance in Industry." Stuttgart, Germany, 6-7 April 2000. http://www.ecologic-
events.de/sevillal/en/documents/Lohse_en.PDF.
Kellett, P. '"Better Regulation': What the Modernising Agenda Might Mean for UK
Environmental Laws." Environmental Law & Management 18 (2006): p. 174.
Leinster, P., EA, Director of Operations, 2007. Drilldown on PPC Permitting Board Paper
EA(07)55. http://www.environment-
agencv.gov.ulc/commondata/acrobat/item07bdrilldownonppc 1859606.pd.
Macrory, R., 2006. Regulatory Justice: Making Sanctions Effective.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file44593.pdf
Mitchell, D., EA Solicitor. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
Murfm, J. "IPPC: Cost or Benefit?" Presentation at IChemE Seminar. Hull, UK. 9 Mar 2005.
http://www.ttenvironmental.co.uk/library.htm.
NACEPT, 2008. Everyone's Business: Working Towards Sustainability Through Environmental
Stewardship and Collaboration, http://www.epa.gov/ocem/nacept/reports/index.html.
Network of Heads of European Environmental Protection Agencies, 2005. The Contribution of
Good Environmental Regulation to Competitiveness.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/documents/prague_statement/prague_statement-en.pdf
O'Riordan, T. Environmentalism. (London: Routledge Kegan & Paul, 1981).
The Planning Inspectorate, 2004. Making Your Enforcement Appeal. http://www.planning-
inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/appeals/enforcement appeals/guide making enfo appeal RL10.pdf
163
-------
The Pollution Prevention and Control Act, 1999.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/actsl999/19990024.htm.
The Pollution Prevention Control (England and Wales) Regulations, 2000.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20001973.htm.
The Pollution Prevention and Control (Public Participation) (England and Wales) Regulations,
2005. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051448.htm.
Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations, 2000.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rnOO-69.pdf.
Radway, A. EA, Policy Adviser. Personal communication. 17 July 2007.
RCEP, 1988. Best Practicable Environmental Option, http://www.rcep.org.uk/reports2.htm - 12.
RCEP, 1976. Air Pollution Control: An Integrated Approach.
http://www.rcep.org.ulc/reports2.htmtf5.
United Nations Environment Programme, 1992. The Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development,
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=l 163.
The Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
http://www.opsi. gov.uk/acts/actsl 990/Ukpga_19900008_en_l. htm.
The Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors) (Enforcement)
(Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules, 2002. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022685.htm.
The Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules, 2002.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022684.htm.
The Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules, 2002.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022686.htm.
The Town and Country Planning (Enforcement Notices and Appeals) (England) Regulations,
2002. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022682.htm.
The Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Written Representations Procedure) (England)
Regulations, 2002. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022683.htm.
Vogel, D., National Styles of Business Regulation: A Case Study of Environmental Policy.
(Washington, DC: Beard Books, 1986).
164
-------
Vogel, D., Toffel, M. and D. Post, "Environmental Federalism in the European Union and the
United States." In Handbook of Globalization in Environmental Policy: National Governments
Interventions in a Global Arena, ed., Frank Wijen, Kees Zoeteman, Jan Peters, and B.C.S
Zoeteman. (Cheltenham: Edward Elger, 2005).
Wolf, S. andN. Stanley. Wolf and Stanley on Environmental La\v, Fourth Edition. (Coogee:
Cavendish Publishing, 2003).
165
-------
EPA-100-K-08-003
July 2008
An In-depth Look at the United Kingdom
Integrated Permitting System
Exploring Global Environmental
Protection Perspectives f
Appendices
NCEI
a
\
O
^
*
-------
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Supplement to Acknowledgements
Appendix B: EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive 1996
Appendix C: UK Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (Outline)
Appendix D: Integrated Regulation - Experiences of IPPC in England and Wales
Appendix E: US Experience: Integrated and Cross-Media Environmental Regulation
Appendix F: Timeline of Integrated Permitting International Collaboration Effort
Activities
Appendix G: UK Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations
2000 (Outline)
Appendix H: EA Organizational Models for Permitting
Appendix I: Overview of Facility Type, Regulator, and Industrial Activity Relationships
Appendix J: Additional Information on Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal
Appendix K: Additional Information on H1: IPPC Horizontal Guidance Note for
Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of Best Available Techniques
Appendix L: Pollution Prevention and Control Permit Schedule 1 - Notification of
Abnormal Emissions
Appendix M: Compliance Assessment Report (CAR1) Form
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
SUPPLEMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EPA would like to recognize the many people who supported this effort - individuals from UK
government and private organizations, members of the report research team, members of the
Integrated Permitting International Collaboration Effort Network and many others (listed below
in alphabetical order). We would also like to identify the support of our EPA office managers,
Jay Benforado and Betsy Shaw. Please see Chapter 1 for a description of the UK EA, report
research team, and network involvement in this effort.
UK Persons Consulted with (Government and Private)
Jane Adamson, EA Area Office Buckley
William Averdieck, Environmental Industries Commission
Dave Balmer, EA Regional Office Warrington
Amanda Barratt, EA Area Office Hatfield
Jennifer Clark, Eastman Chemical Company
Mike Collins, St. Regis Paper
Sarah Dennis, EA Area Office Tewkesbury
Maggie Dutton, EA Head Office Bristol
Paul Fernee, EA Regional Office Warrington
Colin Foy, Gerber Juice
Jim Gray, EA Head Office Bristol
Jon Gulson, EA Area Office Bridgewater
Kevan Harris, St. Regis Paper
Andrew Harrison, EA Regional Office Warrington
Simon Holbrook, EA Regional Office Warrington
Roger Marlow, EA Area Office Bridgewater
Duncan Mitchell, EA Head Office Bristol
Paul Nash, EA Area Office Buckley
Ian Oakes, EA Area Office Buckley
Mick Pedder, Gerber Juice
Alex Radway, EA Head Office Bristol
Peter Roberts, Eastman Chemical Company
Terry Shears, EA Head Office Bristol
Chris Smith, EA Regional Office Warrington
David Sweeting, Compact Power
Richard Vincent, DEFRA Air and Environmental Quality Division
Alastair Waite, EA Regional Office Warrington
Ann Weedy, EA Area Office Buckley
A-l
-------
Report Research Team
David Beck, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Dave Bray, EPA Region 10
Brenda Collington, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Lisa Comer, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Marc Crooks, Washington Department of Ecology
George Faison, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Shari Grossarth, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Kristina Heinemann, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Kristen Hendricks, EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Amelia Letnes, EPA Office of Water
Jane Lupton, EPA Region 5
Anna Phillips, EPA Office of International Affairs
George Wyeth, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Gwen Yoshimura, EPA Region 7
Also with contributions from the following EPA student interns:
Joy Bitton, intern, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Andrew Elligers, intern, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Martha Henriksson-Witt, intern, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Natalie Karas, intern, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Eoghan OhArgain, intern, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Machias Schoen, intern, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Corina Warfield, intern, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Integrated Permitting International Collaboration Effort Network
Steve Anderson, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Sharon Baxter, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Jerry Cain, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Chad Carbone, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Bill Chism, EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Kevin DeBell, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
John Dernbach, Widener University School of Law
Michael DiGiore, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Joe Francis, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Alan Hecht, EPA Office of Research and Development
Al Innes, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Shannon Kenney, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Carol Kraege, Washington Department of Ecology
Tom Laverty, EPA Office of Water
Anne Leiby, EPA Region 1
Christine Lilek, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Marilou Martin, EPA Region 5
Sarah Mazur, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
A-2
-------
Racqueline Shelton, EPA Office of Air
Sonya Sasseville, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Jon Silberman, EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Beth Termini, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Paula Van Lare, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
Phyllis Woodford, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Other Notable Contributors
Jay Benforado, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (currently on temporary
assignment to the US Department of State)
David Hair, EPA Office of Water
Martha Segal, EPA Office of Water
Betsy Shaw, EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation
John Shenot, Wisconsin Public Service Commission
A-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
EU INTEGRATED POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL DIRECTIVE
1996
I996I.006I EN 2(1.1 1.20(0 Oo.i.(101 I
This document is meant purely .is a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
t-B
<:OI:NCII. DIRKCTIVK 96/6i/i<:<:
of 2-1 September 1996
concerning integrated pollution prevention and control
(O.I 1. 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
»-Ml Directive 2003/35;EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of L 156 17 25.6.2003
26 May 2003
»-M2 Directive 200.v'S7/liC of the Luropean Parliament and of the Council of L 275 32 25.10.2003
13 October 2003
1 31.10.2003
M3 Regulation (ECI No 1882/2003 of the Eui-opean Parliament and of the L 2S4
Council of 29 September 2003
B-l
-------
19961.0061 1-;N 20.11.20(0 003.001 2
TB
COl'NriL DIRECT1VK 96/61/KC
of 24 September 1996
concerning integrated pollution prevention and control
THL COUNCIL O1;THL LUROPfcAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Kuropean Community, and
in particular Article 130s (1) Thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission ('),
Havng regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (:>.
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189c of
ihe Treaty *1),
I. Whereas the objectives and principles of the Community's envir-
onment policy, as set out in Article 130r of the Treaty, consist in
particular of preventing, reducing and as far as possible elimi-
nating pollution by giving priority to intervention at source and
ensuring prudent management of natural resoiu'ees. in compli-
ance with the 'polluter pays' principle and the principle of
pollution prevention;
1. Whereas the Kifth hnvironmental Action Programme, the broad
outline ot which was approved by the Council and the Represen-
tatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting
within the Council, in the resolution of I Hebmary 1993 on fa
Community programme of policy and action in relation to the
environment and sustainable development ('), accords priority to
integrated pollution control as an important part of the move
towards a more sustainable balance between human activity and
socio-economic development, on the one hand, and the resources
and regenerative capacity of nature, on the oilier;
3. Whereas the implementation of an integrated approach to reduce
pollution requires action at Community level in order to modify
and supplement existing Community legislation concerning the
prevention and control of pollution from industrial plants;
4. Whereas Council Directive S4/360'EEC of 28 June 19S4 on the
combating of air pollution from industrial plants (;) introduced a
general framework requiring authorization prior to any operation
or substantial modification of industrial installations which may
cause air pollution;
5. Whereas Council Directive 76,'464,'hHC of 4 May 1976 on pollu-
tion caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the
aquatic environment of the Community D introduced an author-
ization requirement for the discharge of those substances:
6. Whereas, although Community legislation exists on the
combating ol air pollution and the prevention or minimizalion
of the discharge of dangerous substances into water, there is no
comparable Community legislation aimed at preventing or mini-
mizing emissions into soil;
7. Whereas different approaches to controlling emissions into the
air, water or soil separately may encourage the shifting of pollu-
n OJ No (' 311, 17_ II. 1993, p. 6 iiml OJ No (" 165, 1. 7. I995, p. 9.
(-} OJ No C 195, 18. 7. 1995, p. 54.
('I Opinion of the Kuiopeiui Parliiunenl of 14 December 1994 (OJ No C 18, 23,
1. 1995. p. 961, Council common position of 27 November 1995 (OJ No C
87, 25. 3. 1996, p. 8) and Decision of the European Parliament of 22 Man,'
1996 (OJ No C 16(i. 10. 6. 1996").
n OJ No C 158. 17. ?. 1993, p. 1.
(-) OJ No I. 1SS. 16. 7. 1984, p. 20. Directive :LS bisi amended by Direclive 91/
692 EEC
-------
1996L0061 UN 20,11.2003 003.001 3
TB
tioii between tlic various environ mental media rather than
protecting the environment as a whole;
8. Whereas the objective of cm integrated approach to pollution
control is to prevent emissions into air, water or soil wherever
this is practicable, taking into account waste management, and,
where it is not, to minimize them in order to achieve a high level
of protection for the environment as a whole;
9. Whereas this Directive establishes a general framework for inte-
grated pollution prevention and control; whereas it lays down the
measures necessary to implement integrated pollution prevention
and control in order to achieve a high level of protection for the
environment as a whole; whereas application of the principle ol
sustainable development will be promoted by an integrated
approach to pollution control;
10. Whereas the provisions of lliis Directive apply without prejudice
to the provisions of Council Directive 85/337'EEC' of 27 June
19S5 on the assessment of the effects of public and private
projects on the environment (!); whereas, when information or
conclusions obtained further to the application of that Directive
have to be taken into consideration for the granting of authoriza-
tion, this Directive does not affect the implementation of
Directive S5/3?7,'EHC;
II. Whereas the necessaiy steps must he taken by the Member
States in order to ensure that the operator of the industrial activ-
ities referred to in Annex I is complying with the general
principles of certain basic obligations; whereas for that purpose
it would suffice for the competent authorities to take those
general principles into account when laying down the authoriza-
tion conditions:
12. Whereas some of the provisions adopted pursuant to this Direc-
tive must be applied to existing installations after a fixed period
and others as from the date of implementation of this Directive;
13. Whereas, in order to tackle pollution problems more effectively
and efficiently, environmental aspects should be taken into
consideration by the operator; whereas those aspects should be
communicated to the competent authority or authorities so that
they can satisfy themselves, before granting a permit, that all
appropriate preventive or pollution-control measures have been
laid down; whereas very different application procedures may
give rise to different levels of environmental protection and
public awareness; whereas, therefore, applications for permits
under this Directive should include minimum data;
14. Whereas full coordination of the authorization procedure and
conditions between competent authorities will make it possible
to achieve the highest practicable level of protection for the
environment as a whole;
15. Whereas the competent authority or authorities will grant or
amend a permit only when integrated environmental protection
measures for air, water and land have been laid down;
16. Whereas the permit is to include all necessary measures to fulfil
the authorr/atiou conditions in order thus to achieve a high level
of protection for the environment as a whole; whereas, without
prejudice to the authorr/alion procedure, those measures may
also be the subject of general binding requirements;
17. Whereas emission limit values, parameters or equivalent tech-
nical measures should be based on the best available
techniques, without prescribing the use ol one specilic technique
or technology and taking into consideration the technical charac-
teristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location
and Icoal environmental conditions; whereas in all cases the
(') Ol No L 175, 5. 7. 1985. p. 40.
B-3
-------
19961.0061 EN 20.11.200.? 00.1.001 4
TB
authorization conditions will lay down provisions on minimizing
long-distance or transfronticr pollution and ensure a high level of
protection for the environment as a whole;
18. Whereas it is for the Member States to determine how the tech-
nical characteristics of the installation concerned, its
geographical location and local environmental conditions can,
where appropriate, be taken into consideration;
19. Whereas, when an environmental quality standard requires more
stringent condilions than those thai can be achieved by using I he
best available techniques, supplementary conditions will in parti-
cular be required by the permit, without prejudice to other
measures that may be taken lo comply with the environmental
quality standards;
20. Whereas, because best available techniques will change with
time, particularly in the light of technical advances, Ihe compe-
tent authorities must monitor or be informed of such progress;
21. Whereas, changes to an installation may give rise to pollution;
whereas the competent authority or authorities must therefore
be notified of any change which might affect the environment;
whereas substantial changes to plant must be subject lo Ihe
granting of prior authorization in accordance with this Directive;
22. Whereas the authorization conditions must be periodically
reviewed and if necessary updated; whereas, under certain condi-
tions, they will in any event be re-examined;
23. Whereas, in order to inform the public of the operation of instal-
lations and their potential effect on the environment, and in
order to ensure the transparency of the licensing process
throughout the Community, the public must have access, before
any decision is taken, to information relating to applications for
permits for new installations or substantial changes and to the
permits themselves, their updating and the relevant monitoring
data;
24. Whereas the establishment of an inventory of principal emissions
and sources responsible may be regarded as an important instru-
ment making it possible in particular to compare pollution
activities in the Community; whereas such an inventory will be
prepared by Ihe Commission, assisted by a regulatory
committee;
25. Whereas the development and exchange of information al
Community level about best available techniques will help to
redress the technological imbalances in the Community, will
promote the worldwide dissemination of limit values and techni-
ques used in the Community and will help the Member States in
the efficient implementation of this Directive;
26. Whereas reports on the implementation and effectiveness of this
Directive will have to be drawn up regularly;
27. Whereas this Directive is concerned with installations whose
potential for pollution, and therefore transfrontier pollution, is
significant; whereas transboiuidary consultation is lo be orga-
nized where applications relate to the licensing of new
installations or substantial changes to installations which are
likely to have significant negative environmental effects;
whereas the applications relating to such proposals or substantial
changes will be available to the public of the Member State
likely to be affected;
28. Whereas the need for action may be identified al Community
level lo lay down emission limit values for certain categories of
installation and pollutant covered by this Directive; whereas the
Council will set such emission limit values in accordance with
the provisions of Ihe Treaty;
29. Whereas the provisions of this Directive apply without prejudice
to Community provisions on health and safety at the workplace.
B-4
-------
1996L0061 EN 20.11.2003 003.001 5
TB
HAS ADOPTED THIS DlRF.mVE:
A nick I
Purpose and
'Ilio purpose of this Directive is to achieve integrated prevention and
control of pollution arising from the activities listed in Annex 1. It
lays down measures designed to prevent or, where that is not practic-
able, to reduce emissions in the ail1, water and land from the
aboveinentioned activities, including measures consuming waste, in
order to achieve a high level of protection of the environment taken
as a whole, without prejudice to Directive 85.337'EEC and other rele-
vant Community provisions.
Article 2
Definitions
l-or the purposes of this Directive:
1. 'substance' shall menu any chemical element and its compounds,
with the exception of radioactive substances within the meaning
of Directive 80/836, -'Kuratom l' ) and genetically modified organ-
isms within the meaning of Directive 90 .-'219. HhC |;I) and
Directive 90'220/EEC ( '»;
2. 'pollution' shall mean the direct or indirect introduction as a result
of human activity, of substances, vibrations, heal or noise into the
air, water or land which may be harmful to human health or the
quality of the environment, result in damage to material property,
or impair or interfere with amenities anil other legitimate uses of
the environment;
3. 'installation' shall mean a stationary tecluncal unit where one or
more activities listed m Annex 1 are earned out, and any other
directly associated activities which have a technical connection
with the activities carried out on that site and which could have
an effect on emissions and pollution;
4. 'eixstmg msUillalion' shall mean an installation m operation or, in
accordance with legislation existing belore the date on which tins
Directive is brought into effect, an installation aiithori7ed or in the
view of the competent authority the subject of a full request for
authorization, provided that that installation is put into operation
no later than one year after the date on which this Directive is
brought into efTect;
5. 'emission' shall mean the direct or indirect release of substances,
vibrations, heat or noise from individual or diffuse sources in the
installation into the air. water or land;
6. 'emission limit values' shall mean the mass, expressed in terms of
certain specific parameters, concentration and/or level of an emis-
sion, which may not be exceeded during one or more periods of
time. Emission limit values may also be laid down for certain
groups, families or categories of substances, in particular for those
listed in Annex III.
l!) Council Directive 80/836
-------
iy%L(X)61 UN 20,11.2003 OOJ.001 6
TB
The omission limit values for substances shall normally apply at
the point where the emissions leave the installation, any dilution
being disregarded when determining (hem. With regard to indirect
releases into water, the effect of a water treatment plant may be
taken into account when determining the emission limit values of
ihe installation involved, provided that ;ui equivalent level is guar-
anteed for the protection of the environment as a whole and
provided this does not lead to higher levels of pollution in the
environment, without prejudice lo Direcltve 76/464 F.FX.' or the
Directives implementing it;
7. 'environmental quality standard' shall mean the set of requirements
which must be fulfilled at a given time by a given environment or
particular part thereof, as set out in Community legislation;
8. 'competent authority" shall mean the authority or authorities or
bodies responsible under the legal provisions of the Member States
lor carrying out the obligations arising Iroin this Directive;
9. 'penult" shall mean that part or the whole of a written decision (or
several such decisions) granting authorization to operate all or part
ol an installalion, subject lo certain conditions which guarantee that
the installation complies with the requirements of this Directive. A
pennit may cover one or more installations or parts of installations
on the same site operated by the same operator;
10. (a) 'change in operation' shall mean a change in the nature or
functioning, or an extension, of the installation which may
have consequences for the environment;
(b) 'substantial change" shall mean a change ki operation which, in
the opinion of the competent authority, may have significant
negative effects on human beings or the environment.
TM1
For the purposes of (his definition, any change lo or extension
of an operation shall be deemed to be substantial if the change
or extension in itself meets (lie Ilircsholds, if any, set out in
Annex I;
TB
11. 'best available techniques' shall mean the most effective and
advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods
ol operation which indicate (he practical suitability of particular
techniques for providing in principle the basis for emission limit
values designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable,
generally to reduce emissions and Hie impact on the environment
as a whole:
'techniques' shall include both the technology used and (he way
in which the installation ]s designed, built, maintained, operated
and decommissioned,
'available' techniques shall raeaji those developed on a scale
which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector,
under economically and leclmically viable conditions, taking
into consideration the costs and advantages, whether or not the
techniques are used or produced inside the Member Stale in
question, as long as Ihey are reasonably accessible to Ihe
operator.
'best' shall mean most effective in achieving a high general
level of protection of the environment as a whole.
In determining the best available techniques, special consideration
should be given to the items listed in Annex IV;
12. 'operator' shall mean any natural or legal person who operates or
controls the installation or, where this is provided for in national
legislation, lo whom decisive economic power over the teclmicnl
functioning of the installation has been delegated;
TM1
13. 'the public" shall mean one or more natural or legal persons and. in
accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations,
organisations or groups;
B-t
-------
iy%L0061 UN 20,11.2003 OOJ.001 7
TM1
14. 'the public concerned' shall mean the public affected or likely to
be affected by. or having an interest in. the taking of a decision
on the issuing or the updating of a permit or of permit conditions;
for the purposes of this definition, non-governmental organisations
promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements
under national law shall be deemed to have an interest.
TB
Article 3
General principles governing the basic obligations of the operator
Member Stales shall take the necessary measures to provide that the
competent authorities ensure that installations are operated iu such a
way that:
ta} all the appropriate preventive measures ore taken against pollution,
in particular through application of the best available techniques;
(b) no significant pollution is caused;
(c) waste production is avoided in accordance with Council Directive
75 442/F.F.C of 1? July 1975 on waste I1); where waste is produced,
it is recovered or, where that is technically and economically
impossible, it is disposed of while avoiding, or reducing any impact
on the environment;
(d) energy is used efficiently;
le) the necessary measures are taken to prevent accidents and limit
their consequences:
if) the necessary measures are taken upon definitive cessation of activ-
ities to avoid any pollution risk and return the site of operation to a
satisfactory state.
I/or the purposes of compliance with this Article, it shall be sufficient if
Member Slates ensure thai the competent authorities lake account of
the general principles set out in this Article when they determine the
conditions of the permit.
Art irk 4
Permits for new installations
Member Slates shall lake Ihe necessary measures lo ensure thai no new
installation is operated without a permit issued in accordance with this
Directive, without prejudice lo the exceptions provided lor m Council
Directive 88/609/F.F.c'of 24 November 1988 on the limitation of emis-
sions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (')
Article 5
Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations
1. Member States shall hike the necessary measures to ensure thai
the competent authorities sec to it. by means of permits in accordance
with Articles 6 and 8 or. as appropriate, by reconsidering and. where
necessary, by updating (lie conditions, that existing installations operate
in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3. 7. 9. 10. 13. the first
and second indents of 14. and 15 (2,1 not later than eight years after the
dale on which this Directive is brought into effect, without prejudice to
specific Community legislation.
2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to apply the
provisions of Articles I, 2, )l, 12, 14, third indent, 15 11), |3| and
(4). 16. 17 and IS (2) to existing installations as from the date on
which this Directive is brought into effect.
(;) OJ No L 194. 25. 7. 1975. p. 39. Directive as last amended by Directive 91;
692.'HHC |OJ No I. 377, 31. 12. 1991, p. 48).
(') OJ No L 336, 7. 12. 1988, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Directive 90
65&EEC (OJ No L 353. 17. 12. 1990, p. 59).
B-7
-------
1D%L006I UN 20.11.2003 003.001 S
TB
Article 6
Applications for permits
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure lliat an
application to the competent authority for a permit includes a descrip-
tion of:
the installation and its activities,
the raw and auxiliary materials, other substances and the energy
used iu or generated by the installation,
the sources of emissions from the installation.
the conditions of the site of the installation,
the nature and quantities of foreseeable emissions from the installa-
tion into each medium as well as identification of significant effects
of the emissions on the environment,
the proposed technology1 and oilier techniques for preventing or,
where this not possible, reducing emissions from the installation,
where necessary, measures for the prevention and recovery of waste
generated by the installation,
further measures planned to comply with the general principles of
the basic obligations of the operator as provided for in Article 3,
measures planned to monitor emissions into the environment,
TM1
the main alternatives, if any, snidied by the applicant in outline.
TB
An application for a permit shall also include a non-technical summary
of the details referred to m the above indents.
2. Where inlormation supplied m accordance vvilli the requirements
provided for in Directive S5/337/HHC or a safety report prepared in
accordance with Council Directive S2''501''EEC of 24 June 1932 on
the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities (') or other
information produced m response to other legislation fulfils any of the
requirements o! this Article, that inlonnation may be included in, or
attached to, the application.
Article 7
Integrated approach to issuing permits
Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the
conditions of, and procedure for the grant of, the permit are fully coor-
dinated where more man one competent authority is involved, in order
to guarantee an effective integrated approach by all authorities compe-
tent for this procedure.
Article f<
Decisions
Without prejudice to other requirements laid down in national or
Community legislation, the competent authority shall graiil a permit
containing conditions guaranteeing that the installation complies with
the requirements of this Directive or, if it does nol, shall refuse to grant
the permit.
All permits granted and modified permits must include details of the
arrangements made for air, water and land protection as referred to in
mis Directive.
OJ No L 230, 5. 8. 1982, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Directive 9\i
692 EEC (OJ No L 377. 31. 12. 1991. p. 48).
B-e
-------
1996L006I LiN 20.11.2003 003,001 y
TB
Article 9
Conditions of the permit
1. Member States shall ensure that the penuiT includes all measures
necessary for compliance witli the requirements of Articles 3 and 10
for the granting oi penults in order to achieve a high level ol protection
for the environment as a whole by means of protection of the air, water
and land.
2. In the case of a new installation or a substantial change where
Article 4 of Directive 85.337'liLiC applies, any relevant information
obtained or conclusion arrived at pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 of
that Directive shall be taken into consideration for the purposes of
granting the permil.
3. Tlie permil shall include emission limit values for pollutants, in
particular, those listed in in Annex III, likely to be emitted from the
installation concerned in significant quantities, having regard to their
nature and their potential to transfer pollution from one medium to
another (water, air and land). If necessary, the permit shall include
appropriate requirements ensuring protection of the soil and ground
water and measures concerning the management of waste generated
by the installation. Where appropriate, limit values may be supple-
mented or replaced by equivalent parameters or technical measures.
l-'or installations under subheading 6.6 in Annex 1, emission limit
values laid down in accordance with this paragraph shall lake into
account practical considerations appropriate to these categories of
installation,
TM2
Where emissions of a greenhouse gas from an installation arc specified
in Annex 1 to Directive 2003 87/EC of me European Parliament and of
the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending
Council Directive 96/61/EC I1) in relation to an activity earned out m
that installation, the permit shall not include an emission limit value for
direct emissions oi that gas unless it is necessary to ensure that no
significant local pollution is caused.
For activities listed in Annex 1 to Directive 2003,'87/EC', Member
States may choose not to impose requirements relating, to energy effi-
ciency ill respect of combustion units or other units emitting carbon
dioxide on the site.
Where necessary, (he competent authorities shall amend Ihe permit as
appropriate,
The three preceding snbparagraphs shall not apply to installations
temporarily excluded from the scheme for greenhouse gas emission
allowance trading within the Community in accordance with Article
27 of Directive 2003/S7/KC.
TB
4. Without prejudice to Article 10, the emission limit values and the
equivalent parameters and technical measures referred to in paragraph
3 shall be 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 concerned, its geogra-
phical location and the local environmental conditions, In all
circumstances, the conditions of the permit shall contain provisions on
the minimization of long-distance or transboundary pollution and
ensure a high level ol protection lor the environment as a whole.
5. 'fhe permit shall contain suitable release monitoring requirements,
specifying measurement methodology and frequency, evaluation proce-
dure and an obligation to supply the competent authority with data
required for checking compliance with the permit.
I1) Ol I 275. 25,10,2003. p, 32.
B-9
-------
iy%L0061 hN 20.11.2003 003.001 10
TB
For installations under subheading 6,6 in Annex I, the measures
referred to in this paragraph may take account of costs and benefits.
6. The permit shall contain measures relating to conditions other
than normal operating conditions. Thus, where there is a risk that the
environment may he affected, appropriate provision shall be made for
start-up, leaks malfunctions, momentary stoppages and definitive cessa-
tion of operations,
The permit may also contain temporary derogations from (he require-
ments of paragraph 4 if a rehabilitation plan approved by the
competent authority ensures that these requirements will be met within
six mouths and il the project leads to a reduction ol pollution.
7. The permit may contain such other specific conditions for the
purposes of this Directive as the Member State or competent authority
may Ihmk fit,
8. Without prei Lidice tu the obligation to implement a permit proce-
dure pursuant to this Directive, Member States may prescribe certain
requirements for certain categories of installations in general binding
rules instead of including them in individual permit conditions,
provided that an integrated approach and an equivalent high level of
environmental protection as a whole are ensured.
Article. 10
Best available techniques and environmental quality standards
Where an environmental quality standard requires stricter conditions
than those achievable by the use of the best available techniques, addi-
tional measures shall in particular be required in the permit, without
prejudice to other measures which might be taken to comply with
environmental quality standards.
Anidf 11
Developments in best available techniques
Member States shall ensure that the competent authority follows or is
informed of developments in best available techniques.
Article 12
Changes by operators to installations
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that
the operator inlorms the competent authorities of any changes planned
in the operation of the installation as referred to in Article 2 (10) (a).
Where appropriate, the competent authorities shall update the permit or
the conditions.
2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that
no substantial change in the operation of the installation within the
meaning of Article 2 (10) (b) planned by the operator is made without
a permit issued in accordance with this Directive, The application for a
permit and the decision by the competent authority must cover those
parts of the installation and those aspects listed in Article 6 that may
be affected by the change. The relevant provisions of Articles 5 and 6
to 10 and Article 15 11), (2) and (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis.
A rt if I,- 13
Reconsideration and updating of permit conditions by the compe-
tent authority
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure mat
competent authorities periodically reconsider and, where necessaiy,
update permit conditions.
B-10
-------
1996L0061 EN 20,11.2003 003.001 11
TB
2, The reconsideration shall be undertaken in any event where;
the pollution caused by the installation is of such significance that
the existing emission limit values of the permit need to he revised
or new such values need to he included in the permit,
substantial changes in the best available techniques make it possible
to reduce emissions significantly without imposing excessive costs,
the operational safety of the process or activity requires other tech-
niques to he used,
new provisions of Community or national legislation so dictate.
Compliance with permit conditions
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that:
the conditions of the permit are complied with by the operator when
operating the installation,
the operator regularly informs the competent authority of the results
of the monitoring of releases and without delay of any incident or
accident significantly affecting the environment,
operators of installations afford the representatives of the competent
authority rill necessary assistance to enable them to earn1 out any
inspections within the installation, to take samples and to gather
any information necessary for the performance of their duties for
the purposes of this Directive.
Aifu:le IS
Across to information and public participation in the permit proce-
dure
TM1_
I, Member States shall ensure that the public concerned are given
early and effective opportunities to participate in the procedure for:
issuing a permit for new installations.
issuing a permit for any substantial change in the operation of an
installation,
updating of a permit or permit conditions for an installation in
accordance with Article 13, paragraph 2, first indent.
The procedure set out in Annex V shall apply for the purposes of such
participation.
TB
2, The results of monitoring of releases as required under the permit
conditions referred to in Article 9 and held by Ihe competent authority
must be made available to the public.
3. An inventory of the principal emissions and sources responsible
shall be published every three years by the Commission on the basis
of the data supplied by the Member Stales. The Commission shall
establish the formal iuid particulars needed for the transmission of
information in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 19.
In accordance with Ihe same procedure, Ihe Commission may propose
measures to ensure inter-comparability and complementarity between
data concerning the mventory of emissions referred to in me first
subparagraph and data from other registers and sources of data on
em issions,
4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall apply subject to the restrictions laid
down ui Article 3 (2| and (3) of Directive 90/313.'liliC.
TM1
5. When a decision has been taken, the competent authority shall
inform the public in accordance with the appropriate procedures and
shall make available to the public the following information:
la') Ihe content of the decision, including a copy of Ihe perruil and of
any conditions and any subsequent updates; and
B-ll
-------
19961,0061 HK 20.11.2003 003.001 12
TM1
(b) having examined the concerns and opinions expressed by the public
concerned, the reasons and considerations on which the decision is
based, including information on the public participation process.
Article 15a
Access to justice
Member Slates shall ensure that, in accordance with the relevant
national legal system, members of the public concerned:
la) having a sufficient interest, or alternatively,
(b) maintaining the impairment of a right, where administrative proce-
dural law of a Member State requires this as a precondition;
have access to a review procedure before a court of law or another
independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the
substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or omissions
subject to the public participation provisions of this Directive.
Member States shall determine at what stage the decisions, acts or
omissions may be challenged.
What constitutes a sufficient interest and impairment of a right shall be
determined by the Member States, consistently with the objective of
giving the public concerned wide access to justice. To this end, the
interest of any non-governmental organisation meeting the require-
ments referred to in Article 2(14) shall be deemed sufficient for the
purpose of subparagraph la) of mis Article. Such organisations shall
also be deemed to have rights capable of being impaired for the
purpose of subparagraph (b) of this Article.
The provisions of this Article shall not exclude the possibility of a
preliminary review procedure before an administrative authority and
shall not affect the requirement of exhaustion of administrative review
procedures prior to recourse to judicial review procedures, where such
a requirement exists under national law.
Any such procedure shall be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibi-
tively expensive.
In order to further the effectiveness of the provisions of this Article.
Member States shall ensure that practical information is made available
to the public on access to administrative and judicial review proce-
dures.
TB
Article 16
Exchange of information
I. With a view to exchanging mlormation. Member Stales shall lake
the necessary measures to send the Commission every three years, and
lor the hrsl time within ItS months ol the dale on which this Directive
is brought into ellecl, the available representative dula on llie limit
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 in accordance with, in particular, Article 9.
On subsequent occasions the data shall be supptemenled in accordance
with the procedures laid down in paragraph 3 of this Article.
2. The Commission shall organize an exchange of information
between Member States and the industries concerned on best available
techniques, associated monitoring, and developments in them. Every
three years the Commission shall publish the results of the exchanges
of information.
3. Reports on the implementation of this Directive and its effective-
ness compared with other Community environmental instruments shall
be established in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 5
and 6 of Directive 91,692/F.EG, The first report shall cover the lliree
years following the date on which this present Directive- is brought
B-12
-------
bN 20.11.2003 003.001 13
TB
into effect as referred to in Article 21. The Commission shall submit
the report to the Council, accompanied by proposals if necessary.
4. Member States shall establish or designate the authority or autho-
rities which arc to be responsible for the exchange of information under
paragraphs I, 2 and .? and shall inform the Commission accordingly.
Anifh' 17
Traibboundary effects
TM1
I. Where a Member State is aware that the operation of an installa-
tion is likely to have significant negative effects on the environment of
another Member State, or where a Member State likely to be signifi-
cantly affected so requests, the Member State in whose territory the
application for a permit pursuant to Article 4 or Article 12(2) was
submitted shall forward to the other Member State any information
required to be given or made available pursuant to Annex V at the
same time as it makes it available to its own nationals. Such informa-
tion shall serve as a basis for any consultations necessary in the
framework of the bilateral relations between the two Member States
oil a reciprocal and equivalent basis.
TB
2. Within the framework of their bilateral relations. Member States
shall see to it that in the cases referred to in paragraph I the applica-
tions are also made available for an appropriate period of time to the
public of the Member State likely to be affected so lhat il will have
the riglil to comment on them before the competent authority reaches
its decision.
TM1
3. Hie results of any consultations pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2
must be taken into consideration when the competent authority reaches
a decision on the application.
4. The competent authority shall inform any Member Stale, which
has been consulted pursuant to paragraph 1, of the decision reached
on the application and shall forward to it the information referred to
in Article 15(5). That Member State shall take the measures necessary
to ensure that that information is made available in an appropriate
majuier to (he public concerned in its own territory.
TB
Article IS
Community emission limit values
1. Acting on a proposal from the Commission, the Council wdl set
emission limit values, in accordance with the procedures laid down in
Ihe Treaty, for:
the categories of installations listed in Annex 1 except for the land-
fills covered by categories 5.1 and 5.4 of that Annex,
and
the polluting substances referred to in Annex 111,
for which the need for Community action has been identified, on the
basis, in particular, of the exchange of information provided for in
Article 16.
2. In the absence of Community emission limit values deluied
pursuant to this Directive, the relevant emission limit values contained
in the Directives referred to in Annex II and in other Community legis-
lation shall be applied as minimum emission limit values pursuant to
this Directive for the installations listed in Annex I.
Without prejudice to the requirements of mis Directive, the technical
requirements applicable tor the landhlls covered by categories IV1 and
5.4 of Annex I. shall be fixed by the Council, acting on a proposal by
the Commission, in accordance with the procedures laid down in the
Treaty.
B-13
-------
iy%L0061 hN 20.11.2003 003.001 14
T M3
Article 19
Committee procedure
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee,
2. Where reference is made 1o this Artiele. Articles 5 and 7 of Deci-
sion liiyy/468'liC Cl shall apply, having regard to the provisions of
Article S thereof.
The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 19tO/468/liC shall be
set at three montlis.
3. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.
TB
Article 20
Transitional provisions
1. The provisions of Directive .S4''360,'KKC, the provisions of Arti-
cles 3. 5. 6 (3) and 7 (2i of Directive 76/464'HliC and the relevant
provisions concerning authori/alion systems in the Directives listed in
Annex 11 shall apply, without prejudice to the exceptions provided for
in Directive 88/609'liliC. to existing installations in respect of activ-
ities listed iii Ajmex 1 until the me;\siires required pursuant lo Arlide
5 of this Directive have been taken by the competent authorities.
2. The relevant provisions concerning authorization systems in the
Directives referred to in paragraph 1 shall not apply to installations
which are new in respect of the activities listed in Annex 1 on the
date on which this Directive is brought into effect.
3. Directive S4'360/EEC shall be repealed 11 years after the dale of
entry into force of this Directive.
As soon as the measures provided for in Article 4, 5 or 12 have been
taken in respect of an installation, the exception provided for in Article
6(3) of Directive 76/464/BUC shall no longer apply to installations
covered by (his Directive.
Acting on a proposal from the Commission, the Council shall, where
necessary, amend the relevant provisions of the Directives referred lo
in Annex II in order to adapt them to the requirements of this Directive
before the date of repeal of Directive 84'360/liLiC, referred to in the
first subparagraph.
Article 21
Bringing into effect
1. VIember States shall adopt the laws, regulations and administra-
tive provisions necessary to comply with this Directive no later than
three years after its entry into force. They shall forthwith inform the
Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a refer-
ence to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the
occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such
reference shall be laid down by Member States.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of
the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field
covered by this Directive.
'Illis Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its
publication.
(') C-miin.il Decision 1W9/468/I-C nf 2S June ISW laying down (lie procedures
for UK exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ
L 184. 17.7.1999. p. 23).
B-14
-------
1996L0061 EN 20.11.2003 003,001 15
TB
Article 23
Tliis Directive is addressed to the Member States.
B-15
-------
iyyGL0061 LN 20.11.2003 003.001 16
TB
Axmx i
CATEGORIES OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN
ARTICLE 1
1. Installations or parts of installations used for research, development and
testing of new products and processes are not covered by this Directive.
2. Tile threshold values siven below generally refer In production capacities
or outputs. Where one operator carries out several activities falling under
the same subheading in the same installation or on the same site, the capa-
cities of such activities are added together.
1. Energy industries
1.1. Combustion uisUiUauons willi a rated thermal inpul exceeding 50 MW !;)
1.2. Mineral oil and gas refineries
1.3. Coke ovens
1.4. Coal gasification and liquefaction plants
2. Production and processing
2.1. Metal ore (including sulphide ore) roasting or sintering installations
2.2. Installations for The production of pig iron or steel (primary or secondary
fusion) including continuous casting, with a capacity exceeding 2.5 tonnes
per hour
23. Installations for the processing uf ferrous metals:
|a) hoi-rolling mills with a capacity exceeding 20 tonnes of crude steel per
hour
(b) smhheries with hammers the energy of which exceeds 50 kilo joule- per
hammer, where the calorific power used exceeds 20 MW
(c) application of protective fused metal coats with an input exceeding 2
tonnes of crude steel per hour
2.4. Ferrous metal foundries with a production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per
day
2.5. Installations
(a) for the production of non-ferrous crude metals from ore, concentrates
or secondary raw materials by metallurgical, chemical or electrolytic
processes
(b) for the smelling, including die alloy age. of non-ferrous metals.
including recovered products, (refining, foundry cutting, etc.) with i!
melting capacity exceeding 4 tonnes per day lor lead and cadmium or
20 tonnes per day for all other metals
2.6. Installations for surface treatment of metals and plastic materials using an
el cc irol yi ie or chemical process where ihe volume ot the irentineni vnis
exceeds 30 m1
3. Mineral industry
3.1. Installations for the production of cement clinker in rotary kilns with a
production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes per day or lime in rotary kilns
with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day or in other
furnaces with 3 production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day
3.2. Installations for the production of asbestos and the manufacture of asbestos-
based products
3.3. Installations for the manufacture of glass including glass fibre with a
m el ling capacity exceeding 20 toiuies per day
3.4. Instillations for melting mineral substances including the production of
nnnend libres with ;i limiting capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day
3.5. Installations for the manufacture of ceramic products by firing, in particular
roofing tiles, bricks, refractor)' bricks, tiles, stoneware or porcelain, with a
C:) Tlie niiHerinl requirements of Directive 8S.ViOl>''P.F..C' for exist ins; installation1; still
-------
iy%LOOCl bN 20.11.2003 003.001 17
TB
production capacity* exceeding 75 Tonnes per day, ami/or with a kiln capa-
city exceeding 4 m' and with a setting density per kiln exceeding 300 kg/
m'
4 Chemical industry
Production witliiii the meaning of the categories of activities contained in
this section means tJie production on ;ui industrial scale by chemical
processing of substances or groups of substances listed in Sections 4.1 lo
4.6
4.1. Chemical installations for the production of basic organic chemicals, such
as:
(a) simple hydrocarbons (linear or cyclic, saturated or iinsulnr.itetl,
aliphatic or aromatic)
(b) oxygen-containing hydrocarbons such as alcohols, aldehydes, ketones,
carboxylic acids, esters, acetates, ethers, peroxides, epoxy resins
(c) sulphurous hydrocarbons
(d) nitrogenous hydrocarbons such as antines. amides, nitrous compounds.
nilro compounds or nitrate compounds, ibtriles, cyanates, isocyanales
(e) phosphorus-containing hydrocarbons
(f) halogenic hydrocarbons
(g) organometallic compounds
4/M.'T.C (OJ No
I. ItV:, 2. 7. 1994, p. 2fi).
C) C>j No I Ki4, 2v ". 1975, p. 2.V Directtve as lay amended K- Directive l>l/riy2.'TlRC:
(OJNoL 377, jtl. 12. 1991, p. -18),
B-17
-------
1996LQ06I EN 20.11.2003 003.001 18
5.2. Installations tor ihe incineration of municipal waste as defined in CViimcil
Directive 8i>/3<59/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution
from new municipal waste incineration plants(') and Council Directive
89/429f'EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from existing
municipal waste-incineration pianist1} with a capacity exceeding 3 tonnes
per I lour
5,3. Installations for the disposal of non-hazardous waste as defined in Annex II
A U> Direclive 75/442HK(" under headings 1)8 and 159, with ;i capacity
exceeding 50 tonnes per day
5.4, Landfills receiving more than 10 tonnes per day or with a total capacity
exceeding 25 000 tonnes, excluding landfills of inert waste
6. Oilier uctlvlltex
6.1. Industrial planls for the production of:
(a) pulp from timber or other fibrous materials
(b) paper mid board with a production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per
day
6.2. Plants fur the pre-treatment i operations such as washing, bleaching, ntercer-
i/riiitui'J or dyeing of fibres or le\lites where the treatment capacity exceeds
10 tonnes per day
6.3. Plants for I he tanning of hides ami skins where llie treatment ciipucity
exceeds 12 tonnes of finished products per day
6.4. (a) Slaughterhouses with a carcase production capacity greater than 50
tonnes per day
(b) Treatment and processing intended for the production of food products
from:
animal raw materials (other than milk) with a finished product
production capacity greater than 15 tonnes per day
vegetable raw materials with a finished product production capacity
greater than 300 tonnes per day (average value on a quarterly basis)
lc) Treatment and processing of milk, the quantity of milk received being
greater than 200 tonnes per day (average value on an annual basisj
6.5. Installations for the disposal or recycling of animal carcases and animal
waste with a treatment capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day
6.6. Inslallalions for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs wirh more than:
I.a} 40CXH) plates for poultry
(b) 2 000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg), or
le) 750 places for sows
6.7. Installations for the surface treatment of substances, objects or products
using organic solvents, in particular lor dressing, printing, toaling,
degreasing, waterproofing, sizing, painting, cleaning or impregnating, with
a consumption capacity of more than 150 kg per hour or more ihan 200
tonnes per ye sir
6.8. I n si all ali 01 is for llie production ot carbon (hard-burnt coalf or etectrogra-
phite by means of incineration or graphiti7.ition
<') OJNoI. l(*\ 14 6. 1989. p. *2.
{) m NO I. :o\ i v ?. i9S9. p. 50.
B-18
-------
ia%L0061 LiN 20.11.2003 003.001 19
TB
LIST OF THE DIRECTIVES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 18 (2) AMD
20
1. Directive 87/217/EEC on the prevention and reduction of environmental
pollution by asbestL»s
2. Directive 82'17$/np.C on limit values and quality objectives for mercury
discharges by the chlor-alkah electrolysis industry
3. Directive H.V.'il.VKI'X1 on limit values and quality objectives tor cadmium
discharges
4. Directive 84/156/HHC on lunil values and quality objeclives for mercury
discharges by sector other tlimi Ilie chlor-alk:ili electrolysis mduslry
5. Directive 84/49 1 ^EC on limit values and quality objectives for discharges
ol hex:ichli>rocy'ch>lie\alie
6. Directive 86/280.'EEC on limit values and quality objectives for discharges
of certain dangerous substances included in List 1 of the Annex to Directive
7/4(>4.1'CEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community
13. Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC
14. Directive 75v434EEC on the disposal of waste oils
15. Directive 91,'689/EEC on hazardous waste
B-19
-------
iy%LOG61 liN 20.11.2003 003.001 20
TB
.lArA7f.\ /
INDICATIVE LIST 01' THE MAIN FOLIATING SUBSTANCES TO BE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IF THEY ARE RELEVANT FOR FIXING
EMISSION LIMIT VALUES
AIR
I. Sulphur dioxide and other sulphur compounds
2. Oxides of uilroge-n iuul other nitrogen compounds
3. Carbon monoxide
4, Volatile organic compounds
5. MeErdu rind llieir compounds
6. Dust
7. Asbesios (suspended pHriiculities. tibres)
8. Chlorine and its compounds
9. Fluorine and its compound*
10. Arsenic and its compounds
II. Cyanides
12. SubsEiwces ami prepuniiioiis which have been proved to possess t:;ircino-
^enic or mntanemc properties or properties which may arTec! reproduction
via the air
1.3. PolychluriiiHleil clihen/.ixlioxiiis mid polycliforirinEed dibeii/ofuraiis
WATER
I. Orgiuiohidogtfti toinpniiiids and substiintes which itiny ftirrn such
compounds in ihc aquatic environment
2. ()rg;un>plLi>sphonjs compounds
?. ()rgam>lin compounds
4. Subsianccs and preparations which have been proved to possess carcino-
genic or nntlagemc properties or properlies which may alfecB reproduction
in v>r via tJie aqiKilic environment
5. Persislent hydrocarbons and persistent and bioaccumulable organic toxic
subsliinces
6. Cyanides
7. Metals iiiid iheir compounds
8. Arsenic and its compounds
S). Biocides iirid plaiil Iie;dl3i products
10. Materials in suspension
11. Substances which contribute to eutrophication (in particidar, uiiraies and
phosplintes)
12. Substances wlu'ch have an unfavourable influence on the oxygen balance
(and can be measured using parameters such as BOD. COD. etc.).
B-20
-------
19961,0061 KN 20.11.2003 003.001 21
TB
Considerations to be taken into account generally or in specific cases when
determining best available techniques, as defined in Article 2 (11), bearing in
mind the likely costs and benefits of a measure and the principles of precaution
and prevention;
I. ihe use of low- waste technology;
2. the use of less hazardous substances;
.V the furthering of recovery find recycling of substances generated and used in
the process and of waste, where appropriate;
4. comparable processes, facilities or methods of operation which have been
tried with success on an industrial scale;
5. tech i to logical advances and changes in scientific knowledge and under-
standing;
6. the nature, effects and volume of die emissions concerned;
7. the commissioning dates for new or existing installations;
8. the length of time needed to introduce the best available technique;
9. the consumption and nature of raw materials (including water) used in the
process mid iheir energy efficiency;
10. the need to prevent or reduce to a minimum the overall impact of the emis-
sions on the environment and ihe risks to ii;
II. the need to prevent accidents am! to miminixe the consequences for the
environment;
12. the information published by the Commission pursuant to Article 16 (2) or
by international organizations.
B-21
-------
iy%L006l UN 20.11.2003 003,001 22
TMI
Public participation in decision-milking
1. The public sltidl be informed (by public nolices or oilier npprnpnnle means
such as electronic media where available) of the following matters early in
the procedure lor tlie taking ot a decision or, at liie InLesL as soon as the
information can reasonably be provided:
(a) the application for a permit or, as the case may be, the proposal for the
iipdrilmg of n penrnl or of penml conditions in nccordiince wilh Arlicle
15(1), including (lie descriplion of the elements listed in Ankle 6(1);
(b) where applicable, the fact that a decision is subject to a national or trans-
bouiuLiry emvironrnental impact assessment or lo consul (nl ions between
Member Slates in accordance with Article 17;
) details of llie ammgemerils for public participation and tonsulliilioii nnide
pnrsiuuil ro poinl 5.
2- Member Suites shall ensure ijnit, within appropriate rirjie-friime^, I he
following is made available to the public concerned:
(a) in accordance with national legislation, the main reports and advice
issued lo ihe competeiil aulhoniy or authorities at the lime when the
public concerned were informed in accordance with point I;
(b) in accordance wilh the provisions of Directive 2003/4/EC of the
European I'yrliiiment and of Lhe Council of 28 January 2003 on public
access to environ menial in format] on ('), infoniiiilion oilier ihaii thai
reterreil lo in poitil I winch is relevanl for [he decision in accordance
wilh Arlicle 8 and which only becomes available after the time the
public concerned was informed in accordance with point 1.
3. The public concerned shall be entitled to express comments and opinions to
the competent authority before a decision is taken.
4, The results of the consultations held pursuant to this Annex must bo taken
into due iiccotml in the hiking of a decision.
5, The detailed arrangements for informing the public (tor example by bill
posting within a certain radius or publication in local newspapers t and
consulting lite public concerned (for example by written submissions or by
way of a public inquiry) shall be determined by the Member States. Reason-
able liiiie-lriimtis for Uie different phases shall be provided, til I owing
sufficient time for informing the public and tor the public concerned to
prepare and participate effectively in environmental decision-making subject
lo the provisions of this Annex.
f'l OJ L !.!. I-1.2.2003. p. 26.
E-22
-------
APPENDIX C
UK POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT 1999
(OUTLINE)
Pollution Prevention and Control Act 19991
Chapter 24
Arrangement of Sections
SECTION 1: GENERAL PURPOSE OF SECTION 2 AND DEFINITIONS
SECTION 2: REGULATION OF POLLUTING ACTIVITIES
SECTION 3: PREVENTION ETC. OF POLLUTION AFTER ACCIDENTS INVOLVING OFFSHORE
INSTALLATIONS
SECTION 4: TIME-LIMITED DISPOSAL OR WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSES
SECTION 5: APPLICATION TO WALES AND SCOTLAND
SECTION 6: CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
SECTION 7: SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
SCHEDULE 1: PARTICULAR PURPOSES FOR WHICH PROVISION MAY BE MADE UNDER
SECTION 2
Part I: List of Purposes
Part II: Supplementary Provisions
SCHEDULE 2: CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS
SCHEDULES: REPEALS
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/actsl999/19990024.htm
C-l
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
INTEGRATED REGULATION - EXPERIENCES OF IPPC IN
ENGLAND AND WALES
Wilts- inJ ElV'3'|TE"lt. uj'-is . P- it fa£N 1 74..- 4585
Integrated regulation - experiences of IPPC in England and Wales
J. Gray1, T. James1 SJ. Dickson2
E -:3n"'-:j'Tt A^siny, &r zl'j , UK a-rJ 'A!< is E-t/'an^enld ijirlii idD ? 5x3 Jt ana, 3- slD , UK
Keywords
BAT; e- ss jis; -idjslry; itegfated; IPPC;
Dgr- tt'ng; PPC; -L>i.;j 3131.
Correspondence
T. .a"~ L^, E'rv -aT^-STl AgEriry. B a^«: 1,
lave-T-eTt Bj J -rga, Bj'j.;l R:>ad.
Westoj-yo'iT'y. B-'stD . BSI3 6BF, UK.
E"--d : t "\ii"-th Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution Report ',]97(>i. Some pro
bleir.s with single media regulation also apply to multi
media regulation, that is the permit imposes limits on
emissions to each media but does not specifically consider
theii interrelationships.
True integrated regulation moves beyond multimedia
permitting, to a regulatory system, that extends the con
trol from emissions to a wider range of environmental
effects including resource efficiency, nuisance {e.g. noise
and odourj. and soil and groundwater protection. This
approach addresses the full range of environmental issues
that nvjke up the environmental footprint ot a facility.
focusing particularly on pollution prevention. It also goes
beyond permitting, looking at the lull regulatory cycle
including compliance, enforcement and review.
Pollution control in the UK-the journey
towards integrated regulation
Until the lt'70s. pollution control in the UK was chat
acterised by a range ot disconnected legislation concerned
with controlling releases to specific media, regulated by
different bodies. Legislation had mainly been formed in
reaction to specific problems; for example, the Clean Air
An 1956 was introduced following the London smogs of
1932. The lack ot a coherent approach led to piecemeal
legislation, as well as a fragmented allocation of duties
and responsibilities. This was confusing for industry, the
regulators and the public.
Tile 1976 Royal Commission recommended that a
single unified body be set up to administer integrated
regulatory controls and that the concept ot the best
practicable environmental option (fjrrO) should be
adopted. This would allow the environmental outcomes
of a process to be assessed and emissions made to the
environmental media which would lead to least overall
damage to the environment.
The creation of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution
ill.MiFj as the unified regulator alloweriihe development
of the UK's first 'integrated' approach to pollution control
(iPC) through the environmental Protection Act 1990.
Many elements of !PC drew on previous legislation.
notably the Alkali Works An 1906 and the Health and
Safely at Work An 1974. The industrial sectors regulated
by IPC were largely derived from those covered in pre-
vious legislation.
The basis ot IPC was that an industrial operator re
quired an authorisation to operate a prescribed process.
''- 2CC7 Pis
D-l
-------
i-K ol IPPC ri Eng-and and Wa es
.-. Grav ei a".
and that a range of (actors should be considered when
determining an authorisation, including the impact of
releases on all three- media {air. water and. tu a lesser
extent, land). IPC also introduced the concept that
BATNEEC (best ,nailahlf techniques not entailing exces-
sive cost) should he applied to each element of a process.
This built on the best practicable means {BPMj approach,
as well as the requirement that the BPEO should be
applied when considering the effect of teleascs to the
environment as a whole (i.e. across all media). !PC was
implemented in England and Wales between 1991
and 1996, following a phased timetable tot applications.
according to the industrial sector.
Although IPC controlled releases to three media, the
generation of waste was not expressly considered and
waste disposal remained under the control of the Waste
Regulation Authorities. In addition. IPC focused on ait
emissions, probably reflecting the background and exper-
tise ofltMIP's inspectors. Water emissions continued lobe
controlled mostly through existing discharge consents.
The prevention of emissions to land was largely ignored.
tor example there was little guidance on the containment
of chemicals.
Although IPC may not have established full Integra
linn, it was a significant step and established three
iniportant prindpies:
1. Setting emission limits for a particular site based on the
lowest levels that could cost effectively be achieved
through the use of the B ATNIT:C.
2. The periodic review of authorisations so that emissions
could be reduced as technological advances allowed.
J. The introduction of cross-media permittingto industry.
The Integrated Pollution Prevention and
Control Directive
In 1996, the European Commission (EC), building on the
UK's [PC. adopted the integrated Pollution Prevention
and Control Directive (IPPCi [96/61 /EC).
Article 1 defines its purpose as:
... to achieve integrated pollution prevention and
control of pollution arising from activities listed in
Annex I. It lays down measures to prevent, or where
that is not practicable, to reduce emissions in the air.
water and land from the above mentioned activities.
including measures concerning waste, in order to
achieve a high level of protection of the environment
taken asa whole . ..
The Directive's aims are achieved through a system of
integrated regulation in member states. Permits are based
on the application of the best available techniques (BATi
and control emissions to all three environmental media.
as well as raw material and energy use, waste generation.
noise and odour, and protection of soilsandgroundwater.
The EC has established bodies to identify- BAT. produce
guidance and clarify- areas of uncertainty in the Directive.
The Information Exchange Forum flEFi is made up of
member states' representatives who agree on the pro
gramme for. and extent of. BAT reference documents
(BREFsi. which are produced by the European IF'PC
Bureau in Seville by- expert secondees from the member
states. There is also an 1PPC Experts Group (1EC.I. which
debates areas of uncertainty in the Directive and provides
guidance to the EC. IMPEL, a European Union (EUi wide
regulator's network, also works to promote best practice
across the HI'. The purpose of all these groups is to
promote a level playing field and a consistent approach
across the EL". The UK is represented in these groups and
has played a key role in the production of BRET docu-
ments.
UK implementation of IPPC
In the UK. the IPPC Directive is implemented through the
Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and relevant
regulations - the PPC regime. In England and Wales the
principal regulator is the Environment Agency, with local
authorities responsible for some lower risk installations.
Scotland and Northern Ireland have slightly different
arrangements.
The most significant change from !PC to PPC is the
coverage. It is extended from just emissions to wider
environmental impacts, resource and energy use. noise
and odour, and soil and grounriwater protection. In
addition, the new regime covers whole installations
rather than discrete processes, and the range of sectors
has been broadened to include industries such as food and
drink and intensive agriculture.
In the UK. PPC is being phased in by senor between
2001 and 2007. By April 2006. approximately half of the
forecast 4000 permits had been issued by the Environ
ment Agency1.
Under PPC. the operator of an existing industrial
activity that falls under the regulations is required to
submit an application within a specified period. New or
substantially changed installations must obtain a permit
before they can operate. Applications must contain details
of the installation, its surroundings, resource use. techni-
ques, management and ground conditions. In addition.
details of the emissions and their control, and effect on
environment and human health must be provided.
The application is nude available for public scrutiny
and the regulator consults relevant statutory bodies. In
determining the application, the regulator considers
whether the operator is using BAT to minimise emissions
70
D-2
-------
.. G-avela'.
Exoer
\ (PK1 n E
d and Wa
and whether BPEO has been applied. It acceptable, a
permit containing emission limits, operational controls.
monitoring and reporting requirements and improve-
ment conditions is issued to the operator. Compliance
with the permit conditions is monitored and the permit is
reviewed periodically to reflect developments in technol-
ogy and the operation of the installation. Before an
installation can dost-, the operator has to demonstrate
that the condition of the site is no worse than it was when
the permit was first issued.
The UK's experience of implementing
integrated regulation
The UK experience has shown that having a single
institution responsible for the implementation of inte-
grated regulation has been crucial to success. A close
working relationship between the regulator and the
government in the development of regulations was re-
garded as essential by both parties, and led to the produc-
tion of more etfective. workable legislation.
Implementation of PPC within the Environment
Agency was initially by a formal project, overseen by a
board of senior manager's from across the organisation. The
Project Hoard remained in place until the regime was fully
developed, at which point operational implementation
transferred to a policy team and mainstream operations.
Critical factors
Accurate workload planning is a key factor in the success
ful implementation of a major new regime, implementa-
tion involves substantial staff resource for policy
development, communications and guidance develop
mem. to administer and determine permits and carry out
compliance and enforcement. Accurate forecasting of the
workload has been difficult and resource intensive, parti
cularly for new sectors, because ofthe scarcity of informa-
tion and the reluctance of some stakeholders to be fully
engaged in the process.
Phasing the introduction of the regime by industrial
sector over the period 2001-2007 has been essential to
spread the workload and was a lesson learnt from the
introduction of IPC. Some other European countries have
not adopted sectoral phasing, with the result that many
permits will need to be produced in 2007. This will create
a significant peak in workload for the regulators and risks
them toiling to comply with the Directive time scale.
potentially resulting in infraction proceedings.
Although sectoral phasing has helped, there are still
significant peaks in workload, notably in 2006/2007
when large sectors, such as combustion and intensive
farming, come into PPC. The initial sectoral program was
largely based on the programme for the BRER. UK PPC
sector guidance is based on the BREE documents, so
wherever possible implementation dates were structured
to fit in with proposed BRET delivery dates. Unfortu-
nately, delays in BREE production have meant that some
sectors have reached their application window before the
relevant BREE is complete. This has led to uncertainty
over what constitutes BAT tot the sector.
Other tailors were also considered, including:
the need for experienced industries to go through a new
regime first to ease the learning process on both sides:
the need to allow industries previously unregulated
under IPC time to make improvements and understand
the PPC process:
a desire to meet the upswing of business cycles in
certain industries, which would make securing improve-
ments easier lor all concerned:
a desire to bring more potentially polluting industries
under the new regime earlier than less polluting indus-
trial sectors.
Policy and technical support
Another key clement in the successful implementation of
integrated regulation is the provision of guidance that
clearly describes the information that is requited from
applicants and defines technical requirements for indus-
try, the public and regulators. The provision of cleat
guidance adds transparency to the process, improving
public confidence and consistency of approach.
Tine Environment Agency established the cross func-
tional Interpretation Group to provide high level gui-
dance on interpreting the regulations and advice on
delivery in order to achieve a consistent approach to
interpretation and implementation.
In addition, it was decided early on in the process to
produce a regulatory package tailored for each sector. This
package contains all the guidance and application tools
that an applicant requites. The aims of the regulatory
package are to
fully implement the law:
deliver maximum environmental benefit:
support operational transparency and consistency:
promote operator responsibility:
be simple and cost effective for staff and operators use.
As part of this, application templates have achieved the
aim of focusing the information supplied, improving the
quality and completeness ot applications. One trade-off is
that an increasingly prescriptive format does not easily
allow individual situations and smallet industrial sectors
to be fully catered tor and may also encourage simplistic
answers rather than the provision of appropriate informa-
tion. However, one useful feature of PPC is that the
21 £CC7;> 69-73 £: 2CC7T1* Ajr
71
D-3
-------
'^T-ea si IPPC in Eng ind and Wa
regulator can vary a pec mil .it any rime, to rake account of
intormation that comes to light at a later date.
Communications and sector
management
Scnot implementation teams, supported by a sector
coordinator, cany rait most of the consultation/coinrnti
nication with industry and trade bodies. The communica-
tion strategy varies from sector to sector but invariably
involves a scoping of the sector to gather in formation
about its structure, geographical and si?.e distribution.
along with their preferred methods of communication.
Each principal sector also has a sector permitting plan.
which seeks to focus regulators and industry on the most
important aspects at that time.
The early involvement oftrade organisations and other
sector representatives in the formation of guidance, estab-
lishing TSAT and identifying sector specific issues and
concerns, has proved valuable, and significantly aided
the introduction of F'FC.
Charging
The L'K government requires that regulators recover the
costs of F'PC from the industries they regulate. The costs
reflect the levels of control and regulatory effort that must
be put in.
Environment Agency charging schemes have changed
over rime from a flat fee. which did not reflect differing
regulatory intensity, to the component approach used to
calculate fees tor IPC This approach reflected the com
plexity of the site: therefore, it was a fairer system, but
it did not reflect well the risk and hazard posed by a sire
nor did it reflect the quality of management.
The Environmental Protection Operator and Pollution
Risk Appraisal (HP OPRA) system was introduced in 2002
to address this. It is a risk based scoring system that takes
into account the suile. complexity, location, quality ot
management and environmental hazard posed by an
installation. For most installations, the application and
subsistence tees are based on the T:P OPRA score, as is the
level of regulatory effort put into compliance assessment.
Experience has shown that the costs of permitting are
often higher than expected. In part this may be due to
poor application quality, but there is a baseline level ot
effort required to determine any application. Some appli-
cations at the lower end of the scale may have fees set at
an unrcalisticallv low level.
of applications as larger sectors came into PFC The SPGs
are staffed by officers seconded from Area operational
teams together with new recruits, and operate in multi
disciplinary reams supported by specialists. The use ot
SPGs has halved the determination time by focusing
training on a relatively small number of staff. The con
srstcncy of permits has also improved and Training has
become quicker and more cost effective. There is. how
ever, a drawback: the use of SPGs has made using
specialist local knowledge more difficult, although this is
mitigated by Area teams contributing to the permitting
pc oc ess.
Compliance and enforcement
Once a permit is issued, compliance and enforcement
are carried out by Area teams. Compliance assessment
effort is based on the EP OPRA score. The aim is to
channel regulatory ettott to installations that have
the highest risk ot pollution, as well as reflecting the
scale of the installation. The EP OPRA system has recently
been updated to include a compliance eating that is
dependent on the regulator's assessment ot compliance
with permit conditions, using a compliance classification
scheme.
Compliance assessment plans (CAPsj are being intro-
duced to identity the compliance assessment tasks and the
level of resources that are required. Sector GAPs identify
the priority outcomes tot each sector and the environ
mental issues that are likely to require attention. Site
specific GAPs are being introduced for all significant
installations. These can be tailored to local issues and
objectives, and specify a prcjgramme of compliance assess
merit, in consultation with the operator. The GAP provides
a framework for consistent and transparent assessment
against permit conditions, which aids resource planning.
Compliance assessment is based on operator reporting.
according to the monitoring requirements set in the
permit. This is not confined to emissions, but includes
performance, and resource, efficiency data. Operator re
porting is supplemented by site visits, auditing operator
iTtonitotingand check monitoringas appropriate. Increas-
ingly the responsibility for compliance is being placed on
the operator, by requiring them to operate effective
environmental management systems, manage environ
mental risks, optimise resource use. and be responsible for
monitoring and achieving improvements contained in
the permit improvement plan.
National permitting teams
National permitting teams (SPGsi were established in
2004. in advance of the predicted increase in the number
What has been achieved?
The UK has developed an effective system of integrated
regulation. This has been achieved through a series of
72
21 laOC?!'69-73 '& 3CC7T1» A
D-4
-------
.. Gray ei a1.
Exuer
s a! IP PC n England and Wa e
discrete steps over a long time scale, and has resulted
in an experienced regulator, knowledgeable and coopera-
tive regulated industrial sectors, and a system that has
formed the basis for the European approach to integrated
regulation.
A recent study (Environment Agency 2004) has shown
that the resource efficiency1 savings made by operators
regulated under IPC and PPC between 199S and 2002
included a 25% drop in waste disposal over
the period and a 50% increase in waste recovery
across England and Wales. It is apparent that both IPC
and PPC have had a significant effect on the environ
mental performance of UK industry, by controlling
emissions to all three environmental media, helping
companies to identify pollution prevention and re-
source efficiency1 opportunities, requiring companies
to follow structured environmental improvement
programmes, and raising the profile of environmen-
tal issues in corporate boardrooms. The introduction of
PPC has extended these controls to industrial sectors
[hat were not previously regulated under IPC. and has
done much to initiate environmental improvements in
these sectors.
Future development
The future of environmental regulation in the UK i.s likely
to involve greater integration, and may involve the great
er integration of regimes and possibly regulators" activ-
ities. Areas that may be further incorporated into the
existing system of integrated regulation include more
waste management and water licensing, although no
derisions have been made on these yet.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge Dr. S.M. Stearn. Former Head of PPC
Policy. Environment Agency.
Reference
Knvimnmrnt Agency. >;20I>«) !FP(~P fte-.v^rm
Rt'vit'M.1 sf Pr^rt'.v.v. Hnvimnrnent Agency.
73
D-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
US EXPERIENCE: INTEGRATED AND CROSS-MEDIA
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
This appendix acknowledges past efforts that have contributed to integrated approaches in the
US regulatory system and includes an overview of past multimedia or integrated undertakings in
the US, a summary of the EPA 1980 Consolidated Permit Regulations, and a summary of New
Jersey's experience with their Facility-wide Permit Program.
US Experience with Multimedia or Integrated Approaches
Integrated environmental regulation is not an entirely new concept in the US, nor is this study the
first look into the potential incorporation of multimedia or integrated approaches into the US
environmental regulatory system. The research and analysis currently underway and discussed in
this report follows a long line of undertakings by states, the federal government, Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs), the regulated community, and other stakeholders to
explore and use integrated approaches.
Although the US follows a media-specific program for environmental permitting, as discussed
earlier in the report, mechanisms exist in the US that support a more holistic framework. As an
example, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) was the first of several major
statutes that established the modern body of environmental law in the US. Unlike medium-
specific laws, such as the Clean Air Act (C AA) and Clean Water Act (CWA), NEPA provides a
multi-stakeholder, multi-media approach to environmental decision-making. Specifically, NEPA
requires federal agencies to prepare comprehensive environmental analyses when considering a
proposal for major federal action. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
required to comply with NEPA for various actions the agency undertakes, including research and
development, facilities construction, wastewater treatment construction grants, EPA-issued
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for new sources, and rule-
making procedures. The NEPA process is intended to help agencies make decisions that consider
all of the environmental consequences of an action, such as the overall environment potentially
affected by the actions and a range of alternative actions and their respective consequences.2
NEPA is not applied, however, to the issuance of permits under other environmental laws.
EPA was actually established with the express purpose of creating an interrelated system to
protect the environment. President Nixon stated in 1970 at the establishment of EPA that "the
sources of air, water, and land pollution are interrelated and often interchangeable" and that "for
pollution control purposes the environment must be perceived as a single, interrelated system."3
2 The environmental consequence discussion is broad and unifying, including such topics as indirect impacts,
cumulative impacts, energy requirements and conservation potential, natural resource requirements, effects on urban
quality, cultural impacts, and socioeconomic effects.
3 Nixon, R.M. 1970. Special Message from the President to the Congress about Reorganization Plans to Establish
the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available online:
http://www.epa.gov/Mstory/org/origins/reorg.htm.
E-l
-------
The earliest specific foreshadowing of an integrated approach to permitting came in 1980 via the
Consolidated Permit Regulations.4 EPA attempted to coordinate permit requirements for five
programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), CWA, and CAA. The stated intent of the Consolidated Permit Regulations was to
coordinate processing of multiple permits for a single facility; unify procedures and permit
requirements across EPA permit programs; and consolidate the permit format. However, due to
industry, state, and even EPA regional complaints about the complexity of the regulations and
their difficulty to understand and implement, EPA decided to deconsolidate the regulations three
years after promulgation of the rule. (See the section below in this appendix for more
information on the Consolidated Permit Regulations.) EPA's interest in reforms targeting the
integration of media-specific programs continued, nonetheless. Building on lessons learned from
attempting consolidation, the Conservation Foundation and EPA sought to promote a cross-
media or multi-media approach to environmental protection in the mid- and late 1980s with a
"model" omnibus Environmental Protection Act that would reflect cross-media regulation.
While the theory made sense, the proposal turned out to lack "political legs."5
With federal/national permit restructuring at a standstill, in 1991 the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection launched the New Jersey Facility-wide Permit Program as part of the
state's Pollution Prevention Act. New Jersey became the first state in the country to issue binding
multi-media permits and issued 14 facility-wide permits between 1994 and 2001. The program
recognized several benefits of facility-wide permits, including increased operational flexibility
for permitted facilities, identification of fugitive emissions that had not been previously
permitted at a facility, reduced facility emissions, and identification of cross-media transfers. The
program did not accept facilities as pilots after the year 2000, however, largely due to a lack of
ongoing political support, high set-up and implementation costs, and the difficulty of pinpointing
which environmental benefits were actually directly attributable to aspects of the program. The
New Jersey Facility-wide Permit Program provides an interesting case study and offers important
lessons for considering integrated permitting processes in the US. The Facility-wide Permit
Program is discussed in further detail in Appendix N.
While New Jersey launched the Facility-wide Permit Program, EPA again was looking at
incorporating multi-media approaches. EPA proposed the Pulp and Paper Cluster Rule in 1992,
attempting to cover air and water pollution at pulp and paper mills in an integrated manner.
Additionally, between 1994 and 1998, EPA introduced the Common Sense Initiativean effort
addressing environmental management by industrial sector rather than by environmental
medium. As part of the initiative, EPA engaged in talks with representatives from the iron and
steel industry, states, and NGOs about reducing transaction costs to the iron and steel industry by
consolidating CAA and CWA permit requirements for that industry. While the stakeholder
groups recognized potential benefits from consolidating the permit requirements, statutory
requirements slowed negotiations. Negotiations were still underway when the Common Sense
Initiative wrapped up in 1998, and consolidation of permit requirements was never achieved.6'7
4 40 CFR Parts 122-124, 45 FR 33290.
5 Lazarus, J.L. 2004. The Making of Environmental Law. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 169.
6 Personal communication with Robert Tolpa, U.S. EPA Region 5, March 26, 2007.
E-2
-------
In 1994 EPA formed the Permits Improvement Team (PIT) to identify improvements in and
develop a long-term vision for environmental permitting. With extensive input from
stakeholders, the PIT issued an Action Plan for Achieving the Next Generation in Environmental
Permitting (the "Action Plan").8 The Action Plan set out several goals intended to help EPA
work toward the "next generation" of permitting, including building a cross-agency framework
for permitting, specifically calling for establishment of more consistent administrative processes
across media programs and evaluation of the role and utility of integrated multimedia permits.
While the multimedia plans did not materialize, the Action Plan was significant in that it
recognized the need for multimedia considerations and more cross-agency interaction on
permitting matters.9
Recognizing EPA's short-lived and experimental attempts at integration, in 1995 the National
Academy for Public Administration (NAPA) encouraged EPA to find ways to integrate its
management of water pollution, air pollution, and waste in order to take a more "holistic
approach to problem solving."10 NAPA recommended that, in consultation with Congress, EPA
"should begin work on a reorganization plan that would break down the internal walls between
the agency's major 'media' program offices for air, water, waste, and toxic substances." In a
1997 report, NAPA urged EPA to use Project XL11 to pilot integrated or multi-media projects
and to synchronize reporting requirements across statutes.12
Also in the 1990s, the emergence and increased use of environmental management systems
(EMS) by organizations across the US brought heightened attention to comprehensive integrated
planning. Because in implementing an EMS an organization must consider all the ways it
interacts with the environment and what the environmental impacts of those interactions are,
EMSs result in more holistic environmental planning. Recognizing the comprehensive,
multimedia nature of EMSs, EPA even released a Strategy for Determining the Role of
Environmental Management Systems in Regulatory Programs in 2004.13 One consideration of
the strategy is to determine if EMSs may offer integrated approaches to environmental problem
7 Printers' Simplified Total Environmental Partnership (PrintSTEP), which is an alternative multi-media approach
for regulating printers, also came out of the Common Sense Initiative and is currently being implemented by several
states.
8 EPA. 1999. Action Plan for Achieving the Next Generation in Environmental Permitting.
9 Personal communication with George Wyeth, U.S. EPA National Center for Environmental Innovation, January
12, 2007.
10 National Academy of Public Administration. 1995. Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for the
Environmental Protection Agency. National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC.
11 Project XL was a pilot program, launched by EPA in 1995, which allowed regulatory and procedural flexibilities
to companies, communities, and other organizations to test innovative regulatory approaches. A few XL projects
had multi-media or integrated components. For example, Intel Corporation and Weyerhauser Company were both
allowed to consolidate their reporting for federal, state, county and city permitting, and regulatory programs. The
Weyerhauser project also involved incorporation of a "minimum impact manufacturing" modela holistic,
multidisciplinary strategy for continuous environmental improvement.
12 National Academy of Public Administration. 1997. Resolving the Paradox of Environmental Protection: An
Agenda for Congress, EPA, & the States. National Academy of Public Administration, Washington. DC.
13 EPA. 2004. EPA's Strategy for Determining the Role of Environmental Management Systems in Regulatory
Programs.
E-3
-------
solving where single media approaches fall short. A few states have already begun exploring the
use of a comprehensive "EMS permit."14
Cross-media approaches and integrated pollution control has also been the subject of research
and various publications throughout the 1980s and up to the present. Terry Davies, for example,
currently Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future and past Assistant Administrator for Policy
at EPA, authored various publications on the subject, including papers on controlling cross-
media pollution, multimedia approaches to pollution control and comparisons of regulation and
outcomes in the US and Europe.15 Also, in 1996 Robert Hersh, Senior Fellow at RFF, authored a
discussion paper reviewing integrated pollution control efforts in the UK, the Netherlands,
Sweden and European Union in general.16
Consolidated Permit Regulations Summary
On May 19, 1980, EPA promulgated the Consolidated Permit Regulations (40 CFR Parts 122-
124, 45 FR 33290), establishing consolidated permit program requirements for five permit
programs:
the Hazardous Waste Management program under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA);
the Underground Injection and Control (UIC) program under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SOWA);
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under the Clean Water
Act (CWA);
State "dredge or fill" programs (Section 404 programs) under the CWA; and
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
The Consolidated Permit Regulations were established as part of an EPA-wide effort to
consolidate and unify procedures and requirements for EPA and state permit programs.
However, industry, states, and even EPA regional officials were concerned about the complexity
of the regulations and their difficulty to understand and implement. Eventually, the President's
Task Force on Regulatory Relief commissioned an EPA review of the regulations. As a result of
the review, EPA decided to deconsolidate the regulations with the intent to make the regulations
easier to understand and to use on April 1, 1983 (40 CFR Parts 122-124, 48 FR 14146), just three
years after promulgation of the rule.
Regulations
The Consolidated Permit Regulations coordinated the processing of multiple permits and
established common procedures to be followed in making permit decisions. Technical
14 The Colorado Department of Health and Environmental Protection is piloting a multi-facility project that
implements a whole-facility EMS permit approach. More information on Colorado's pilot project can be found at
the project Web site: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/el/EMS/emspermit/. The Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources is also in the process of developing an EMS permit project.
15 See CV for Terry Davies at http://www. iff.org/CV-Print.cfm?Researcher=Davies.
16 See CV for Robert Hersh at http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/IGSD/People/hersh.html.
E-4
-------
regulations for each permit program were developed separately and stood apart from the
Consolidated Permit Regulations. While the consolidated regulations coordinated permitting
procedures, such as public participation, consolidated review and issuance of permits, and
appealing permit decisions, the separate technical regulations set the substantive standards for
the contents of the permits.
A facility that had to apply for at least one of the permits under the Consolidated Permits Rule
was required to use the consolidated application. The facility simply used the parts of the
application that applied to it.
The consolidated regulations established common procedures to be followed where EPA was the
issuing authority. States were required to comply with only some of the provisions, such as basic
public participation requirements of permit issuance. However, the regulations intended to
coordinate permit review and issuance between EPA and states in instances where a single
facility required permits from both agencies. Although the regulations did not require a state to
reorganize its permitting structure, they encouraged states to move toward consolidation or "one-
stop" permitting.
EPA intended for the Consolidated Permit Regulations to encourage consolidated permitting in
three ways:
1) Coordinated processing of multiple permits for a single facility. EPA developed a
single set of permit application forms. The set had a single short form to collect basic
information needed for all programs and separate program-specific forms to collect
additional information needed to issue permits under each program. The regulations
established procedures for joint public notice, hearings, and issuance for multiple permits.
2) Uniform procedures and permit requirements across EPA permit programs. The
intent was that all EPA permit procedures would follow the same procedures and meet
similar requirements in order to provide more consistency and predictability for the
regulated community.
3) Consolidated permit format. The regulations interspersed requirements for one permit
program among requirements for other permit programs. The regulations were organized
both by topic (e.g., standard permit conditions) and by permit program. The regulations
tried to fully describe the requirements on a topic to the extent that the requirements were
common across permit programs and then separately describe program-specific variations
on the topic.
Intended Benefits
EPA anticipated that the Consolidated Permit Regulations would result in benefits to the
environment, the regulated community, the public, and EPA and State agencies. Although such
benefits were intended, EPA did not generally see these benefits realized to the extent expected.
Environmental - Consolidation of permit requirements and processing procedures were
intended to result in more comprehensive management and control of waste.
E-5
-------
Regulatory - More consistency and predictability were intended to reduce costs for the
regulated community by reducing paperwork and improving efficiency in processing
permits.
Institutional - The process leading up to the Consolidated Permit Regulations resulted in
greater coordination, sharing of information, and resolution of inconsistencies and
overlaps across EPA. The Consolidated Permit Regulations were intended to maintain
this.
Public Participation - Procedures and opportunities for public participation in permit
decisions were more uniform.
Resource - Consolidation was intended to reduce resources EPA needed to administer
permit programs. It was intended that States that adopted similar approaches would also
save resources.
Actual Outcomes
Actual consolidated processing of multiple permits was very rare. EPA found it hard to
consolidate across programs because the various permit programs regulate inherently different
activities and impose different sorts of requirements. The consolidated format of the regulations
also made them very difficult to use.
Challenges
Various challenges impeded realization of the intended benefits of the Consolidated Permit
Regulations, including the following.
Few commonalities across permitting programs made it hard to consolidate regulations
and requirements;
The consolidated format of the regulations was complex and hard to use;
EPA experienced some "turf issues - RCRA hazardous waste and UIC were new
permitting programs at the time of consolidation, and felt hindered because they had to
coordinate their regulations with the more complex, established NPDES permit
regulations; and
Some felt that the streamlining was superficial because it only included the paperwork
and procedural process of permitting. Those who felt this way thought the actual time and
effort of permitting goes into the permit contents, so the permit content forming process
is what should be streamlined.
New Jersey Facility-wide Permit Program Summary
New Jersey's Facility-wide Permit (FWP) Program was launched in 1991 as part of the state's
Pollution Prevention Act. The act established two separate initiatives: (1) mandatory pollution
prevention planning for approximately 800 facilities in New Jersey; and (2) the FWP program.
The act directed the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to implement
the pilot FWP program with the intent of producing permits that would encourage pollution
prevention while simplifying the permitting process. The program was the first in the country to
issue binding multi-media permits.
E-f
-------
Between 1994 and 2001, the program issued 14 facility-wide permits to companies from a wide
variety of industrial sectors in New Jersey. The participating facilities came into the program
with dozens to hundreds of separate environmental permitsthe facility-wide permit was
designed to incorporate each of those permits into a single permit that comprehensively
examined the environmental impact of the facility.
By 2000, the FWP program was no longer accepting facilities into the pilot program. As of 2005,
about 10 of the participating facilities still had facility-wide permits, but the permits had been
largely converted to Title V air permits and had lost much of their original intent and flexibility.
Background
The findings of the Pollution Prevention Act best describe DEP's motivation for pursuing
facility-wide permitting. The findings state that "the traditional system of separately regulating
air pollution, water pollution, and hazardous waste management constitutes a fragmented
approach to environmental protection and potentially allows pollution to be shifted from one
environmental medium to another... ,"17 DEP was interested in using the FWP program to
explore an alternative to the single-media, end-of-pipe approach of traditional regulatory
programs.
The Pollution Prevention Program Act defines a facility-wide permit as a "single permit issued
by the department to the owner or operator of a priority industrial facility incorporating the
permits, certificates, registrations, or any other relevant department approvals previously issued
to the owner or operator of the priority industrial facility.. .and the appropriate provisions of the
pollution prevention plan prepared by the owner or operator of the priority industrial facility."18
DEP noted three main objectives for the FWP program:
Administrative efficiency - Streamlining the mechanisms through which regulatory
approval is received including paperwork reduction, integrated data management, optimal
review processing time, and consolidation of administrative requirements.
Risk reduction - Reducing the multimedia environmental and human health impacts of
hazardous substances through pollution prevention or treatment options.
Pollution prevention - Reducing the use and generation of hazardous substances prior to
their storage, treatment, out-of-process recycling, or disposal.19
Permit Development
This section summarizes major points pertaining to development of a facility-wide permit under
the FWP program.
Pollution Prevention Planning and Materials Accounting. Two main components of the
facility-wide permitting process were pollution prevention planning and materials accounting.
17 New Jersey Statutes Annotated (NJSA) 13:lD-35
18 Ibid.
19
Anderson, Steven, and Jeanne Herb. Building Pollution Prevention into Facility-wide Permitting, Pollution
Prevention Review: Autumn 1992.
E-7
-------
The development of a facility-wide permit began with the preparation of a pollution prevention
plan, of which materials accounting is an integral step. First, the facility identified the various
distinct production processes in the facility. Then, the facility conducted process-level materials
accounting for each production process. This means that the facility estimated the amount of
each hazardous substance in starting and ending inventories and the amounts used/consumed
through chemical reactions, generated as non-product output, recycled out of process, transferred
offsite, incorporated in product, or released into the environment. The materials accounting data
allowed a facility to trace the path of each hazardous substance from the point at which it is
brought on to the site to the point at which it leaves the site as product or non-product output.
The facility used the materials accounting data to identify pollution prevention opportunities.
Because materials accounting data was organized at the process level for each pollutant, the
facility could identify cross-media shifts and determine more comprehensive pollution
prevention strategies. The facility chose priority pollution prevention strategies to pursue and set
five-year pollution prevention goals. Once the facility completed a pollution prevention plan,
DEP developed process-level limits and other conditions for all releases (i.e. emissions,
discharges) based on the materials accounting data and pollution prevention goals.
Application. In addition to the pollution prevention plan, the application included general
information about the facility (e.g., location, description), facility administrative information
(e.g., contacts, site plans), facility technical information (e.g., release data and estimates, Toxic
Release Inventory reports), and process level information (e.g., process-flow diagrams, lists of
sources, chemicals, permits, applicable requirements, emissions, compliance schedules). The
permit application process, including materials accounting and pollution prevention planning,
was a difficult process and often lasted three or more years.20
Permit Writers. Permit writers from DEP's Pollution Prevention Office were assigned
responsibility for writing the FWP. One permit writer was assigned responsibility for each
facility. At first, DEP attempted to write the FWP using a team of permit writers representing
each of the media offices, but coordinating a group of individuals from different offices with
different responsibilities and priorities proved to be difficult. Consequently, the Pollution
Prevention Office assigned one permit writer to each facility, and that permit writer consulted
with individuals from the air, water, and waste offices a needed. An EPA Region 2 staffer was
also designated as the liaison for providing DEP with needed technical and regulatory assistance.
Process-level Caps and Permit Contents. Permit writers developed the contents of the permit
and set new process-level caps based on the facility's pollution prevention plan and information
from the application. Process-level caps distinguish the FWP from traditional media permits,
which focus on permitting specific sources. It is important to note, however, that while pollutant
limits are set at the process-level, they are single medium caps rather than multi-media, facility-
wide caps. Because the process-level caps were tied to the pollution prevention plan, in some
cases, permit writers persuaded facility's to agree to commit to emissions levels aspired to in the
pollution prevention plan that were more stringent than would have been required.
20 National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). 2000. "The Potential and Pitfalls of Innovative Permits:
Learning from New Jersey's Facility-wide Permitting Experience," Research Paper Number 3. In Learning From
Innovations (Environment.gov Research Papers).
E-S
-------
The FWP combined all of the information that would have been regulated by dozens to hundreds
of separate, single-medium permits. The Pollution Prevention Act required the permits to include
air permits; permits for discharges to surface water, groundwater, and publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs); water treatment works approvals; hazardous waste facility permits; recycling
notifications for hazardous wastes; and hazardous waste accumulation approvals.21 However,
most of the facility-wide permits ended up incorporating only air and water permits, since they
are the most commonly issued permits. Only one permit in the FWP program included hazardous
waste permit requirements.22
Flexibility. Setting caps at the process level allowed significant flexibility for facilities to make
operational changes within a process without pre-approval, as long as the new equipment or
process changes did not increase the facility's non-product output or exceed the specified process
emissions levels.
Status of Facility-wide Permits as of 2005
As of 2005, approximately 10 facilities still operated under facility-wide permits in name, but the
permits had largely been converted to Title V air permits. The major flexibility contained in the
permits was the allowance of facilities to make an operational change and notify DEP 120 days
after the change, as long as it did not exceed the process-level emissions caps. As a result of the
conversion to Title V Air Operating Permits, this provision was changed to a seven-day advance
notification. DEP is currently developing a list of specific changes that facilities with FWP can
make under the seven-day change notice. This flexibility is still beyond the flexibility provided
in a traditional Title V air permit.
FWP Program Results
A number of studies have been conducted on the FWP program. This section summarizes some
of the achieved successes and obstacles of the pilot program. For a more thorough review of the
FWP program, however, see the studies listed at the end of this section.
Benefits Resulting from the FWP Program
Operational flexibility - Ten of the pilot facilities reported that the largest benefit of
operating under a facility-wider permit was increased operational flexibility. As long as
new equipment or process changes did not increase the facility's non-product output or
exceed the specified process emissions levels, the facility could make the operational
change without prior authorization.
Fugitive emissions identified - In almost every facility, DEP staff and facility personnel
discovered at least one pollution source that did not have the required permit. This
benefit was largely the result of the resource intensive FWP processeach facility is
unique and therefore required an intensive review and unprecedented cooperation
between the facility and regulator to issue the facility-wide permit.
21 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Office of Pollution Prevention Basic Administrative
Procedures for Preparing and Issuing Facility-wide Permits. (Date unknown)
22 NAP A, 2000.
E-9
-------
Reduced facility emissions - The detailed facility-wide permitting process and required
pollution prevention plan prompted facility managers to see their facility as a series of
connections and flows rather than individual point sources. Through the facility-wide
permitting process they learned about their facility and worked closely with DEP to
reduce overall emissions.
Cross-media transfers identified - The facility-wide permitting process required permit
writers to examine the cross-media impact of environmental regulation and minimize
shifts of pollution.
Challenges of the FWP Program
Ongoing political support - The FWP program was created by one administration and
dismantled by the next. A permitting pilot program would need to be in place for 5 to 10
years to effectively observe the program's impact on the environment, the facility, and
the regulating agency. In the New Jersey case, the pilot program initially had widespread
support. However, largely due to political changes, over the years the program lost
political support, funding, and needed personnel.
High set-up and implementation costs - A major drawback to the New Jersey pilot
program was the high level of resources required to do the analysis and draft permits,
both on the part of the facility and the DEP. Each facility is unique and as such requires a
unique permit that must be developed through ongoing negotiations between the facility
and permit issuing authority.23
Difficult to distinguish environmental benefits of the multi-media approach - As
outlined above, the FWP program resulted in many positive environmental benefits.
However, it has been difficult for pilot participants to identify which benefits were
specifically attributable to the multi-media aspect of the permitting program and which
benefits were the result of other factors (e.g., a more rigorous facility review process, a
focus on pollution prevention, increased cooperation between the regulator and regulated
facility).
Studies of FWP Program. For a thorough review of the FWP program, the following studies
provide detailed information on the facility-wide permitting process, costs and benefits of the
program, lessons learned, and implementation of the FWP program from a facility perspective.
Industrial Economics Incorporated. Permit Reforms Case Study: Schering Corporation,
Kenilworth, New Jersey, Multimedia Permit. February, 1999.
National Academy of Public Administration (NAP A). The Potential and Pitfalls of
Innovative Permits: Learning from New Jersey's Facility-wide Permitting Experience,
Research Paper Number 3 in Learning From Innovations (Environment.gov Research
Papers). June, 2000.
Rabe, Barry G. Permitting, Prevention, and Integration: Lessons from the States. In:
Donald F. Kettl, Editor. Environmental Governance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution, 2002.
! Personal communication with Steve Anderson and Mike DiGiore, DEP. 4 May 2005.
E-10
-------
APPENDIX F
TIMELINE OF INTEGRATED PERMITTING
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION EFFORT ACTIVITIES
Completed Milestones
April 2005: Established Integrated Permitting International Collaboration Effort (IP ICE)
Network comprised of EPA & State officials
April/May 2005: Established an IP ICE internet-based interactive database that facilitates
information sharing and collaboration
June 2005: Conducted IP ICE Workshop (Washington, DC) and hosted a presentation by
the UK senior managers (Network partners) at the Innovation Action Council (most
senior career level managers at EPA)
September 2005: Formed "core" IP ICE research team (EPA and state staff)
January 2006: Participated in EPA-State Symposium on Environmental Innovation and
Results (Denver, CO)
September 2006: Presented research at EPA Air Innovations Conference: Integrated &
Innovative Approaches for Improving Air Quality (Denver, CO)
May 2007: Distribution of draft report for review by IP ICE Network and possible
interested external parties
June 2007: Multi-State Working Group presentation (Madison, WI)
July 2007: Travel to UK for study of IPPC system (itinerary below) in order to:
o collect data (additional permit documents, evaluative reports and materials, policy
documents, etc.)
o interview UK government (permit practitioners, solicitors, policy experts, etc.)
September 2007: Distribution of updated draft report for comment and for use at October
workshop
October 2007: Hosted workshop: Lessons from the United Kingdom's Integrated
Permitting Experience: Exploring New Directions for Environmental Permitting in the
US (co-sponsored by Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington,
DC)
January 2008: Innovation Symposium Workshop (Chapel Hill, NC)
April 2008: Release final report
Itinerary for UK July 2007 Research Trip
Bristol Head Office Meetings (July 16-17, 2007)
Spoke with head office managers and staff regarding, among other topics, EPPC industry
regulation and policy; the environmental permitting program (PPC2); the legal framework; EPPC
review; integration of other EU directives into EPPC; and BREF development process (large
volume chemicals BREF).
Tim James, EA Head Office Bristol
Jim Gray, EA Head Office Bristol
F-l
-------
Terry Shears, EA Head Office Bristol
Peter Kellett, EA Head Office Bristol (Environmental Permitting Programme)
Alex Radway, EA Head Office Bristol (EC IPPC review and BREF process)
Duncan Mitchell, EA Head Office Bristol, Solicitor (enforcement philosophy, process
and procedures)
Maggie Button, EA Head Office Bristol (permit appeals)
Industry Site Visits Near Bristol (July 18, 2007)
Site visits to several facilities with IPPC permits included in the report.
Jon Gulson, EA Area Office Bridgwater
Roger Marlow, EA Area Office Bridgwater, Inspector
David Sweeting, Compact Power (medical waste incinerator/gasifier)
http://www.compactpower.co.uk/pages/clinical waste.php
Colin Foy, Gerber Juice ("greenfield" facility)
http ://www. gerberjuice. com/
Mick Pedder, Gerber Juice
EA Reading and London Offices (July 19, 2007)
Discussion of St. Regis facility IPPC permit included in the IP ICE report analysis. Gathered
industry perspectives on IPPC permitting, including relative costs and benefits to the facility and
changes to facility operations as a result. Additionally, discussed perspectives of a UK pressure
(NGO) group.
Amanda Barratt, EA Area Office Hatfield
Mike Collins, St. Regis Paper, DH Smith Group
Kevan Harris, St. Regis Paper, DH Smith Group
William Averdieck, Environmental Industries Commission and Particulate and Emissions
Monitoring Systems
DEFRA - EA Government Sponsor (July 20, 2007)
Discussed overall IPPC policy and implementation, the EU-UK legislative dynamics, the
DEFRA-EA relationship.
Richard Vincent, DEFRA Air and Environmental Quality Division, Head of Industrial
Pollution Control Branch
EA Warrington Offices (July 23, 2007)
Discussed "national permitting" (transition from 26 area offices responsible for permitting to 4
current centers) and the plan to cover all facility permitting (PPC and more) in a consolidated
fashion. Also discuss sector strategies/planning.
Chris Smith, EA Regional Office Warrington, Strategic Permitting Group (SPG) (one of
the centers responsible for issuing PPC permits)
F-2
-------
Simon Holbrook, EA Regional Office Warrington, SPG
Andrew Harrison, EA Regional Office Warrington (Tioxide plant application, decision
memo and permit)
Dave Balmer, EA Regional Office Warrington (financial provision for landfill)
Alastair Waite, EA Regional Office Warrington, PPC Interpretation Group
Paul Fernee, EA Regional Office Warrington (hazardous waste process)
Sarah Dennis, EA Area Office Tewkesbury
Eastman Chemical Company Site Visit (July 24-25, 2007)
Site visit to Eastman Peboc, permit included in the report analysis.
Paul Nash, EA Area Office Buckley (Wales), Chemicals Policy Advisor
Peter Roberts, Eastman Chemical Company
Jennifer Clark, Eastman Chemical Company
EA Area Office, Buckley, Wales (July 26, 2007)
Discussed application determination, post permit issuance activities, improvement program
implementation (for Peboc and other permits) with EA staff.
Paul Nash, EA Area Office Buckley
Ian Oakes, EA Area Office Buckley (Eastman Peboc permit)
Jane Adamson, EA Area Office Buckley (noise expert)
Ann Weedy, EA Area Office Buckley
F-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX G
UK POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL (ENGLAND AND WALES)
REGULATIONS 2000 (SI1973) OUTLINE AND
LIST OF OTHER REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE
PPCACT
Outline of Regulations
The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000,
Statutory Instrument 197324
Made
Coming into force
21st July 2000
1st August 2000
PART I: GENERAL
Section 1: Citation, commencement and extent
Section 2: Interpretation: general
SectionS: Interpretation: "best available techniques'
Section 4: Fit and proper person
Section 5: Application to the Crown
Section 6: Notices
Section 7: Applications
Section 8: Discharge and scope of functions
PARTlI: PERMITS
Section 9: Requirement for permit to operate installation and mobile plant
Section 10: Permits: general provisions
Section 11: Conditions of permits: general principles
Section 12: Conditions of permits: specific requirements
Section 13: Conditions of permits: Environment Agency notice in relation to emissions into
water
Section 14: General Binding Rules
Section 15: Review of conditions of permits
Section 16: Proposed change in the operation of an installation
Section 17: Variation of conditions of permits
Section 18: Transfer of permits
Section 19: Application to surrender a permit for a Part A installation or a Part A mobile plant
Section 20: Notification of surrender a permit for a Part B installation or a Part B mobile plant
Section 21: Revocation of permits
Section 22: Fees and charges in relation to local authority permits
'http://www.orjsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20001973.htm
G-l
-------
i: ENFORCEMENT
Section 23: Duty of regulator to ensure compliance with conditions
Section 24: Enforcement notices
Section 25: Suspension notices
Section 26: Power of regulator to prevent or remedy pollution
PART IV: APPEALS
Section 27: Appeals to the Secretary of State
PARTY: INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY
Section 28: Information
Section 29: Public registers of information
Section 30: Exclusion from Registers of information affecting national security
Section 31: Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information
PART VI: PROVISION AS TO OFFENCES
Section 32: Offences
Section 33: Enforcement by High Court
Section 34: Admissibility of evidence
Section 35: Power of court to order cause of offence to be remedied
PART VII: SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWERS
Section 36: Directions to regulators
Section 37: Guidance to regulators
Section 38: Plans relating to emissions
PART VIII: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
Section 39: Consequential amendments
SCHEDULE 1: ACTIVITIES, INSTALLATIONS AND MOBIL PLANT
Part 1: Activities
Part 2: Interpretation of Part 1
Part 3: Interpretation of "Part A Installation" etc.
SCHEDULE 2: BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES
SCHEDULE 3: PRESCRIBED DATE AND TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Part 1: Part A Installations and Mobile Plant
Part 2: Part B Installations and Mobile Plant
G-2
-------
SCHEDULE 4: GRANT OF PERMITS
Part 1: Applications for Permits
Part 2: Determination of Applications
Part 3: National Security and Confidential Information
SCHEDULES: POLLUTANTS
SCHEDULE 6: COMPENSATION IN RELATION TO OFF-SITE CONDITIONS
SCHEDULE 7: VARIATION OF CONDITIONS
Part 1: Applications for Variation of Conditions
Part 2: Determination of Applications for Variations and Variation Notices
Part 3: National Security and Confidential Information
SCHEDULE 8: APPEALS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
SCHEDULE 9: REGISTERS
SCHEDULE 10: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
Part 1: Public General Acts
Part 2: Subordinate Legislation
List of Regulations Promulgated pursuant to the PPC Act
(with active links when viewing Appendix F in electronic format)
Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, SI 1973
Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, SI
503
Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, SI
275
The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, SI 1559
Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations
2002, SI 1702
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2003, SI 3311
Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2003, SI
1699
Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations
2003, SI 3296
The Solvent Emissions (England and Wales) Regulations 2004, SI 107
The Landfill (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, SI 1375
Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) (Amendment) and Connected
Provisions Regulations 2004 SI 3276
G-3
-------
Pollution Prevention and Control (Unauthorised Part B Processes) (England and Wales)
Regulations 2004, SI 434
The Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005, SI 894
Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England)
Regulations 2006 SI 2311
Pollution Prevention and Control (Public Participation) (England and Wales) Regulations
2005 SI 1448
Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 SI
713
G-4
-------
APPENDIX H
EA ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS FOR PERMITTING
Initially the responsibility for PPC permitting rested with the EA local Area Offices. In addition
to acting as the local interface between the facility operators, the public and the EA, (carrying out
inspections, responding to inquiries from the public), the local Area Office Inspectors were
expected to determine PPC permit applications for facilities located in the Area. This proved to
be inefficient and time consuming in addition to introducing unwanted inconsistency between
permits issued by the 20 or more different Area Offices. The EA's initial organization for PPC
permitting is illustrated in Figure G.I below.
Figure G.I - EA Initial Organization for PPC Permitting
Operators
Incidents,
Monitoring Data,
Routine Contact
PPC Applications
Inspection & Monitoring
Education
Area Teams with Specific
Experience and Skills
General Public
Queries Complaints
The EA eventually transitioned to a centralized organizational structure through creation of the
Strategic Permitting Group spread across four geographic locations, but under a single manager.
This model is shown below in Figure G.2
Figure G.2 - EA Strategic Permitting Group Organization
SPG Manager
I
I I I I
Waste Permitting Process Industry Technical Team Administrative
Team Permitting Team Team
I I I I
Team Members Team Members
I I
Assignees Assignees
1 1
Consultants Consultants
Team Members Team Members
I
Consultants
H-l
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
OVERVIEW OF FACILITY TYPE, REGULATOR, AND INDUSTRIAL
ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS
25
Facility Type
Regulator
Industries
Activity Areas
Part A(l) installation
or mobile plant
Environment Agency
Energy industries
Production and
processing of
metals
Mineral industries
The chemical
industry
Waste management
Other activities
Combustion activities
Gasification, liquefaction and
refining activities
Ferrous metals
Non-ferrous metals
Surface treating metals and plastic
materials
Production of cement and lime
Activities involving asbestos
Manufacturing glass and glass
fiber
Production of other mineral fibers
Ceramic production
Organic chemicals
Inorganic chemicals
Chemical fertilizer production
Plant health products and biocides
Pharmaceutical production
Explosives production
Manufacturing activities involving
carbon disulphide or ammonia
Disposal of waste by incineration
Disposal of waste by landfill
Disposal of waste other than by
incineration or landfill
Recover,' of waste
The production of fuel waste
Paper, pulp and board
manufacturing activities
Carbon activities
Tar and bitumen activities
Coating activities, printing and
textile treatments
Timber activities
The treatment of animal and
vegetable matter and food
industries
Intensive farming
Part A(2) installation
or mobile plant
Local authority
Energy industries
Gasification, liquefaction and
refining activities
Production and
processing of
metals
Ferrous metals
Non-ferrous metals
Mineral industries
Manufacturing glass and glass
fiber
Ceramic production
25 PPC Regulations. Sch 1, Chapter 1.
1-1
-------
Facility Type
Part B installation or
mobile plant
Regulator
Local authority
Industries
Other activities
Energy industries
Production and
processing of
metals
Mineral industries
The chemical
industry
Waste management
Other activities
Activitv Areas
Coating activities, printing and
textile treatments
The treatment of animal and
vegetable matter and food
Combustion activities
Gasification, liquefaction and
refining activities
Ferrous metals
Non-ferrous metals
Surface treating metals and
plastic materials
Production of cement and lime
Activities involving asbestos
Manufacturing glass and glass
fiber
Other mineral activities
Ceramic production
Organic chemicals
The storage of chemicals in bulk
Disposal of waste by incineration
Tar and bitumen activities
Coating activities, printing and
textile treatments
The manufacture of dyestuffs,
printing ink and coating materials
Timber activities
Activities involving rubber
The treatment of animal and
vegetable matter and food
1-2
-------
APPENDIX J
EP OPRA: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EMISSIONS AND
OPERATOR PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTES
Two of the five attributes in Environmental Protection Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal
scores (EP OPRA) seem particularly relevant to EPA's ongoing effort to explore integrated
permitting Emissions and Operator Performance. Below we provide some additional details
on how these attributes are considered within the EP OPRA framework.
Emissions
The emissions attribute of the EP OPRA spreadsheet provides a useful example of performance
measurement across a wide range of media outputs. As noted in Chapter 4, EP OPRA includes
worksheets for emissions to air, water, land, sewer, and waste management (including off-site
transfers). Key elements of the emissions attribute include:
The UK Environment Agency (EA) has established thresholds for emissions
of specific pollutants by media. Facilities need only report those emissions
above these thresholds.
For each media, EP OPRA calculates an emission index as the maximum
emissions (as provided by the facility) divided by the threshold level (as
provided by EA). The emissions indices from individual pollutants are
summed to produce the total emissions index for a media.
EP OPRA includes separate worksheets for emissions related to off-site
transfer. Indices for these emissions are reduced/discounted to reflect that
they are regulated at the off-site facility.
Facilities determine the amount of each substance released each year using the
most accurate method available that reflects the maximum release possible
assuming maximum plant capacity over the permitted operating hours for a
year. If a facility can demonstrate that operations are not continuous
throughout the year, this should be reflected in the estimate of maximum
emissions.
The scoring for emissions to land is based on quantity and type (e.g., inert,
non-hazardous [non-biodegradable/biodegradable], and hazardous) of waste
as a surrogate for all landfill related emissions.
J-l
-------
Operator Performance
Operator Performance consists of three parts management systems, compliance history, and
compliance rating.26 The EA believes that effective management systems are essential to
manage the risk from an activity and to achieve permit requirements. Specifically, the absence
of a documented Environmental Management System (EMS) is regarded as representing poor
environmental management and requiring an increased level of regulatory oversight. Therefore,
EP OPRA includes four subsections of questions to help assess difference aspects of a facility's
EMS. These subsections and their relative weights in the EP OPRA rating are:
Operations and Maintenance (20 percent). "Effective operational and
preventive maintenance system shall be employed on all aspects of the
process where any failure could impact on the environment."
Competence and Training (20 percent). "The Operator shall ensure that all
relevant management and operational staff (including contractors and those
responsible for purchasing equipment and materials) receive adequate training
with regard to their responsibilities under the Permit. Particular attention
should be given to: (1) minimizing all potential environmental effects from
operation under normal, abnormal, start up and shut down circumstances; (2)
preventing accidental emissions and action to be taken when accidental
emissions occur; and (3) the need to report deviation from the permit."
Emergency Planning (20 percent). "The Operator shall maintain an accident
management plan that identifies potential events or failures which might lead
to an environmental impact. The plan shall identify: (1) the likelihood of, and
the actions to be taken to minimize, these potential occurrences; and (2) the
environmental consequences and an action plan to deal with such occurrences.
The Operator shall have a written procedure for handling, investigating,
communicating and reporting of incidents and actual or potential non-
compliance with permit conditions including taking action to mitigate any
impacts caused and for initiating and completing corrective action. In the case
of abnormal emissions the operator shall: (1) investigate and undertake
remedial action immediately; (2) promptly record the events and actions
taken; and (3) ensure the Regulator is made aware, as soon as practicable."
Organization (40 percent). EA places strong emphasis on the need for an
EMS to be audited by a third-party, specifically identifying Eco-Management
26 The management system section of the EP OPRA spreadsheet calculates an operator performance score, which
may be adjusted, based on a facility's enforcement history. A history of enforcement actions indicates failures or
inadequacies in the management systems and results in penalty points being subtracted from management systems
points. In addition, the compliance rating attribute may be used to adjust the EP OPRA risk score once the
permit/license has been issued. Specifically, the risk score will be reduced if a facility achieves a Band A rating for
this attribute, reflecting the reduction in risk posed by well-managed facilities. If a facility has only an occasional
minor breach of a permit, it receives a Band B rating and the risk score does not change. More serious violations
will result in an increase in the risk score.
J-2
-------
and Audit Scheme (EMAS) and International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 14001 certification as two alternatives. In lieu of
external auditing, the EP OPRA spreadsheet provides facilities an opportunity
to assess their EMS against a set of criteria relating to: (1) the nature of their
environmental policy; (2) how environmental considerations are incorporated
into various business practices (e.g., process change, design and review of
facilities, capital approval and purchasing policy); and (3) internal auditing
practices and annual reporting on environmental performance.
J-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX K
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON H1: IPPC HORIZONTAL GUIDANCE
NOTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND APPRAISAL OF BAT
The electronic Best Available Techniques (BAT) determination process is comprised of six
modules that are to be considered sequentially. Module 1 contains a scoping exercise and an
initial determination of options. Module 2 requires that the source inventory all emissions,
which are then quantified in Module 3. Module 4 compares the impacts of the BAT options
under consideration and Module 5, if necessary, is used to evaluate the costs of all options.
Finally, Module 6 facilitates selection of BAT from candidate options by balancing
environmental benefits against costs. Table 1 below provides a more detailed overview of the
elements of each module.
Table 1: HI Assessment Modules
Module 1: Scope and Options
Scoping Exercise:
Describe activities to be covered in the permit(s); and
Generally exclude upstream or downstream operations from analysis (with exception of the
indirect impacts of energy use generated offsite).
Options Appraisal:
Generally consider base case;
Consider General and Sector Guidance Notes (GNs);
Consider new techniques that have emerged since publication of the GN;
Assess trade-offs in situations where there are potential cross-media impacts; and
Justify elimination of any options due to cost.
Module 2: Emissions Inventory
Provide an inventory of all sources and emissions of pollutants for each BAT option including air
emissions, discharges to water, airborne deposition, risks from accidents, noise, visual impacts,
odor, releases of greenhouse gases, potential for emissions to cause photochemical ozone creation
by indirect effects, and the indirect effects of waste hazard and disposal;
Ensure all options meet any statutory emission limits and EU directives; and
CO2 emissions are estimated at the source based on non-renewable sources of heat and power not
generated directly at the installation.
Module 3: Quantify Environmental Impacts
Identify possible pathways and receptors;
Estimate concentration of emitted substances after dispersion;
Screen out insignificant emissions;
Conduct detailed modeling of fate of emissions, where appropriate;
Check whether levels are acceptable in the local environment; and
Quantify the impacts using normalization methods, where appropriate.
K-l
-------
Table 1: HI Assessment Modules
Module 4: Compare Impacts of Options
Resolve any cross-media conflicts that arise between options;
Rank the options according to their environmental benefit;
Identify the option with the least environmental impact; and
Decide whether the option with the least environmental impact is BAT. or whether costs need to
be taken into account.
Module 5: Evaluate the Costs
If conducting appraisal of BAT for more than one option, provide estimates for each option of
capital costs of equipment purchase and installation, and average change in annual operation and
maintenance costs; and
Calculate the annualized cost for each option.
Module 6: Select BAT
Aim in this module is to identify the BAT from the candidate options, by balancing the
environmental benefits of each option against the costs of achieving them.
K-2
-------
APPENDIX L
POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL PERMIT SCHEDULE 1 -
NOTIFICATION OF ABNORMAL EMISSIONS
Schedule 1 - Notification of abnormal emissions
This page outlines the information that the Operator must provide to satisfy conditions 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of this Permit.
Units of measurement used in information supplied under Part A and B requirements shall be appropriate to the
circumstances of the emission. Where appropriate, a comparison should be made of actual emissions and authorised
emission limits.
If any information is considered commercially confidential, it should be separated from non-
confidential information, supplied on a separate sheet and accompanied by an application for
commercial confidentiality under the provisions of the PPC Regulations.
Part A
Permit Number
Name of Operator
Location of Installation
Location of the emission
Time and date of the emission
Substance(s) emitted
Media
Best estimate of the quantity or the
rate of emission
Time during which the
emission took place
Measures taken, or intended to be
taken, to stop the emission
PartB
Any more accurate information on the matters for
notification under Part A.
Measures taken, or intended to be taken, to prevent a
recurrence of the incident
Measures taken, or intended to be taken, to rectify, limit
or prevent any pollution of the environment or harm which
has been or may be caused by the emission
The dates of any unauthorised emissions from the
installation in the preceding 24 months.
Name*
Post
Signature
Date
* authorised to sign on behalf of Peboc Division of Eastman Company UK Limited
L-l
-------
-------
APPENDIX M
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CAR1) FORM
Environment
Compliance Assessment
~ Report ID:
Mane of site
Officer
gency
I
|
,
Report (CART) form
Gperaior.'1 1 1 Dern 1 1
Da:e Area/off ce
Tirre "vc-1 1 Eve*ttype | | Scuin
e rn lncideflt response [ Ci!-er
Assessment type: [_j Site inspection | | Aud: | [ Check rroni'Drmg/E-anpitng j ] ^.epc.^.'data review ]j Dwce«ure rev ev*
Si'e fe s'a:us: [_J C-oeraiions j J Pre-ooerai:iQna [| Pcsxjpers'ic-al
What (531(5) of Pe c*rrr t were 3S3e££=d?
Compliance assessment summary
Key to completion: A = Assessed'Asses&ed in cartmc evidence of nc'-coTip sncr
NA = Mel Applicable 12 3.4 = CCS a: 1-4 breach
a) Permitted activities
b) (nfrastnicture
c) General management
(f) Incident management
e) Emissions
f) Amenity
g) Monitoring and records, maintenance
and reporting
h) Resources efficiency
ATL = Aoproach to limit
N = Not assessed Conditions breached
H H in H IF
Tie breaches catKl above niay cr sfiue one or mo'e offers Vo- should take increiJiate wticn :o rectify e3:h breach am VJJT tc oonpliance YOJ should prevent
3-y repet:o- of:hebre&:hes Breaches cr conditions ss idicste: at'Dvecs^- resuh n aimnal prosecutions snd'cf suspension cr 'evxaticn cj a perrnt.
MB. IF THERE iS A BREACH. ONLY OHE OF THE FOLLOWING WILL HAVE AN 'X' PLACED IN THE BOX
At cresent tw ao 'M intend to prosec-te >v>- for tte aixsve cffe'-ces ho»ve'«r >\;u sre warned ?i5t r^is may cM'ge f We wil I now consider what Enforcement
further -ilevant infcrrrato" coires tc! ght. THIS IS A SITE WARNING I I action rs appropriate
Review of Directly Applicable Legislation: Key: A = /
l assessed. IVA = Not Applicable CI.C2.C3 M = CCS ca: 1-4 breach.
Report delivery method: | | cof / left on s ie j (posted I I ensiled 1 [faxed Date
Visit report.'comments
Please note: Officers completing lliisform are encouraged to comment and acton the environmental performance of the site as a whole, not justthose
aspects covered by permit conditions.
s 'iflrre or position with r corroany
Continuation sieet used Q Yes | | Me
-C-5 record number
M-l
-------
Notes to the recipient
Ths cone ance recort'orrr may "ighlig't non-corncliance Ath your oermtor
: sreci y applicable leg slation as cs served by the Envircn Tien: Agency office*
Th 5 does *ol relieve t*e site oc-erator of f sir responsibility to e-3u*e that they
ccnp"y w th t*r p-srnt gid 1o preue~t tollutson of "he environment. Ycu are also
eiri'ided Pat:
* yo- shcu '3 corroly with the conditions cf the pe*mt at all tines
coup 3 nee with the oermit d«E nc: -enove your obligation to corroly witn
ot^er egisiatve prcvis ons which nay apply
Understanding the Compliance Assessment Summary
a; Permitted act vi:ies
b; Infrast'ucture
c) General management
d; Incident rrsnagenent
e; Ernssicns
0 Arrenity
g; Monitoring and records,
maintenance end
reporting
D
I
n
B
D
D
n
D
n
D
B
D
B
D
B
B
B
B
U
B
B
B
n
Specifed by oermit
Eng fleering for orevention and
control of err issic?^
Closure 313 deccnmissio^ing
Site damage eng fleering (clean and foul)
Ocnla ^neflt of sto-ed na'er als
Z'larcardesuiprrenr
Staf competency/training
Management system and ope*3t rg
prcced-res
Maiera.8 accecta«ce
Sto*3ge handling, labelling a^d segregate^
Site security
Accident, energency and incident olann rg
Air
..and and grcundftate^
Surface wa;er
Sewer
'Waste
Odour
No se
Diisi:inbre3''particjtates and litrer
Pests, biris and scavengers
Dews Is on road
rVoni'oring oreniss onsa^'i er:virc^nc^t
Records cf activity, site d sry.'joumal'evems
Maintenarce records
Reporting and notif cation to the
EnvircrnefttAgency
Q Energy efficiency
The term "cerrr t for the purposes of this fofir includes -cences
aut-orisatons and consents.
Understanding your non-compliance scores
Nc--:onp 5fiCr'Hidings are csssr'ied us^gourcublisrted Con-iisnce
Clsssif cation Scherre. (CCS.}.
Th -s schene categoriEss breaches of pe-nit cc'-iitc-ns based on fesr ccle-'lsa
fc- envirc-ne-ta irroact as shewn below f you wish tc discuss futhe- any
ccnments rrsde by the officer on Ih s fc-n, contact your local s*ea oHce c- "or
no*e -Kta s of the CCS schene. see the Environment Agency s nebs te or
cc"tact your local oflce.
CCS category
Descripvion
A wn-conpliance wh ch has a poieniially
major envonrrsntal sfecl
A ron-conahance wh ch has a poieniially
significant enyironirenal effect
A ron-cons'lisnce wh ch has a poieniialsy
minor envircmiefl'al effect
A pon-corrfflliance wh ch has no jote.itia;
environmental effect
Corrective action
V.'e have varo-s op"ions:c ensure rat you ccresac'ual or oote-itsi
non-cone iance
* We rr ay advise on corrective actionE, verbally or i- writ fg
\Ve ray require you tc take specnc actons, by letter or by -ssuing a notice
We rray require ycu to 'evie1/; yourcroceduresormarjagsnentsystens
\Ve rr ay change E-orreoftrie condtionsof your cerrnt
We rray decide to u-dertake a Lll -eviev/ of your permit
Vy breach of a permit is an cpence a--3 we nsy t3f;e legs actson:
We rray serve a warning on site or by letter. The officer nsy cons-ete the .site
war" 'a 7£C -3f3t c-ri 0" this torn" A warning J£ c--f nin num enforcene^t
espon.se: however, t does -ot preclude us taking ad-5it»:''al e^fc'cenent
action including the ssue of a fornai caution taking a wotec-tic^ an-s/c'the
service of s -otce
Ceoend "a on the offe-ce.:hepe-5!tes irroosed by a Co-rton prcsecuton
can include £ub£.:antial f-esanieven irroriEonrrent.
We have published our En'ofcerrent ana -^secution Policy which see-,5 to
achieve s cc-sistent app»03C' to enforcenent across all our regulated actvitiss.
Environment Protection Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal (EP OPRAI
Corrpliance assessnerit f -dings nsy affect your EP OPRA score This score
dete-Tiines yo-r cha^e a-d afeds the allocation of ou( resources to ::*ec< yc-r
corroliance w Ih tre pern t
Data protection notice
The Environment Agency is -espons fcie fcr reg-.at -g e^vironnenta! p^tectbn
lood defence water 'esourc-rs and fshe'ies It -=: a duty tod schargr its
"unctons to crotec: a^-d enhance the e-viro'neit airs to :'orrote conservston
a"d 'rcreahc*. T's -fcriation prcvide-3 will be processed by the Enviromieni
Agency to Julf I its regulatory an-3 monitoring f-ictic"3 5*dto n-aintsif'the relevant
p-bl'cregsteric) The Environment Agency rray also u&ea-d.;o'd5clci&e it i
connection rtth:
* of ering/prcvidrg you w Ih its iitergture-'se^ices re all's to environmental
natters
consulting fl th t"& c-blic. pufc ; todies and otrer organisations ir.g. Health
3:"s( Safety Executive, local suforites. energency services) on environ nental
ss-ues
carrying out statical a."=i/3i£ resea-ch ana develcpne-t on environmental
3SU6E
crov -jing oubhc -eaiste- information tc eno-ifers
-vestigating coESifcefc^cac-eE cf eiv onrrentai :=.'- and tak -ga^y resulting
action
* prevent-a benches c*'envonrr&ntal art
sss&Esrg custone-service sat £;actjc- a--i inprcving its servce
Free-3-on c" In'ormaton Ac:'Environirental In'ormiat'on Regulations resuest
The Environment Agency rray pass t on tc its age-ts>eciresentatives to do these
things on te tehal". You Ehoufd ensure t-st any ?ersD"is naneo on fis fo^r a-e
inforned o; the conte-ts cf f IE data orotection nctice.
Disclosure of information
The Environment Agency will provide a copy of this report to the public
registers!. However, if you consider that any informaiion contained in this
report should not be released to the pubiic registers) on the grounds of
commercial confidentiality, you must write to your local area office within
twenty working days of receipt of the assessment form indicating which
information it concerns and why it should not be released, giving your
reasons in full
Customer charter - What can I do if 1 disagree with the compliance
assessment report?
f you-sre -nable toresc ve t-e ssue *:h your site officer you shoJd first y
dscuss t*e natter with the officer si me na-ager A'ea Env-onrrent Manager o*
A'es Ma'-sget 1 you wish to ra se your .3 sp^e f-rfer. this c£*i fee ^one though
c-r ctfic 3 Complaints a*d Scnrr&ndaticns procedure pho-e our genera enq-iry
n-ncer Cfi~08 5065C6 (Mon to Fn 08 50-15.CC; a-i ask for t-r Custone- Contact
teaiii alternatively you can send an email to e'ouiriesifJie-v -current-
agziw gov.-t f. after folloiving our Ccnp 3ints and Connerwstcns prcced.re
you are stilt disssttsfel youca" makes corrolainitc feOnb*dsnan. Fo'aovtce
C" hc'rt to cc'irolain to the Parliane-ta*y Orbudsn=n chone rreir "slpline en
C945C154533
M-2
------- |