Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Final Consultation Paper

Part 4: Transitional Arrangements

43. After 31 October 1999 new installations (ie. generally those put into operation after 31 October 1999) will be required to apply for an IPPC permit. Existing installations will be phased in over 8 years. They will not need to apply for a new permit until the prescribed phase in date or until they undergo a substantial change as described below. "Existing installation" includes not only installations which are in operation on 31 October 1999 but also installations which are authorised or in relation to which there has been a request for authorisation before that date, provided that they are put into operation by 31 October 2000. In this context the authorisation concerned will generally be an IPC/LAPC authorisation under Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or a waste management licence under Part 2 of that Act. In the case of installations such as intensive livestock units and food and drink installations which are not covered by these 1990 Act regimes the relevant authorisation will be planning permission where it is required.

44. The transitional arrangements consider how existing installations will be phased from October 1999 up to 2007. Three key implementation issues are addressed. The first section deals with the transfer of authorisations from existing regimes under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 into permits under PPC following a substantial change at an installation, or upon a sector reaching its phase in date. Arrangements will need to be in place in order to transfer:

i. existing IPC authorisations into Part A

ii. existing LAPC authorisations into Part A permits

iii. existing LAPC authorisations into Part B permits

iv. existing waste management sites with a licence under Part II of the 1990 Act into Part A permits

45. The second section in this part of the paper explains the special interim arrangements necessary so that certain aspects of the Directive can be implemented ahead of industry sectors being brought into the regime. The third section sets out the transitional timetable which indicates when various industry sectors will be phased into the new regime and considers the criteria behind this.

ISSUING PPC PERMITS

Part A Installations

46. Scottish Ministers propose that SEPA should issue new permits to all Part A installation instead of updating existing IPC authorisations. Operators of existing installations will therefore need to apply for a new permit when their industry sector is phased in during the transitional period between 2000 and 2006. Regulators will then consider the additional information provided by operators such as the site condition report and information on noise and energy efficiency along with the existing provision to issue a new integrated PPC permit.

Part B Installations

47. In contrast to the arrangements for Part A installations, the Scottish Executive proposes that LAPC processes, which will become Part B installations, should be brought into the new regime through SEPA updating the current LAPC permits on a sector-by-sector basis. For Part B installations there should be no requirement for the regulators to receive additional information. The purpose of bringing these installations into the new regime is to maintain consistency - the change from BATNEEC to BAT control is one of terminology rather than substance.

48. Scottish Ministers will, however, maintain a general power (currently specified in section 19 of the EPA 1990) to require additional information, should this be needed by the regulator. In any case where the regulator must take account of new information, it is proposed that an application for a new permit will need to be made.

49. In cases where there are current IPC and LAPC processes operating on one site, the regulators will need to consider with the operator, on a site by site basis, whether to bring the installation under one new PPC permit and have one regulator, or whether it is more sensible to keep them as separate installations with separate regulators and introduce them into the new regime one activity at a time in line with their respective phase in dates.

The Scottish Executive would welcome consultees views on the proposed arrangements for permitting Part A and Part B installations.

SPECIAL MEASURES DURING THE TRANSITION:

50. Interim measures will be needed during the transition period for the following reasons:

To collect data for the European Polluting Emissions Register under article 15 of the Directive

51. The Commission has indicated that it will expect data for the register to be collected from existing installations even though they may not yet have received a permit under IPPC. A mechanism will need to be provided to collect and compile such information, and where practicable enable the costs to be recovered from operators.

To allow installations to be phased in early

52. A mechanism needs to be provided for existing installations subject to IPC or LAPC to apply for a PPC permit in advance of the phase-in date for their sector. This will provide a safety valve, should circumstances arise whereby an installation needs to be phased in early. The ability to "jump the queue" in this way would be confined to individual installations which, for example, could demonstrate that as a result of other legislative requirements they would suffer if they were not brought into the system early. One example, might be where there are two installations on the one site and the operator wants to bring both installations into PPC at the same time under the same permit. It would not be a general facility for any operator to opt into the new system early.

TIMETABLE FOR PHASING IN PART A INSTALLATIONS

53. The timetable for phasing installations into the new regime roughly follows the order of production of the European BAT Reference documents (BREF notes). It also takes into account the need to try and spread the regulatory burden as evenly as possible, and the impact of new legislation and government policies. As a result some sectors are timetabled to be phased in some time after production of the relevant BREF note. The dates also differ from those set out in the England and Wales consultation document, as in Scotland all Part A installations in each group will be phased in by the same date, probably midway through the year.

54. As these installations will be phased in on a sector by sector basis the Government proposes to delay IPC reviews for Part A installations where they fall within 6 months to a year of the PPC implementation date for that sector. This will avoid any duplication in reviewing under IPC and then permitting under PPC.

Do consultees agree with these proposals?

PHASING IN FOLLOWING A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE

55. An existing installation will need to be brought at least partially under PPC control ahead of is transposition date where it undergoes a substantial change within the meaning of the Directive.

56. The Directive requires Member States to ensure that any change to an existing installation after transposition that meets the Directive’s definition of a substantial change has a PPC permit. This means that even where an application in relation to a substantial change to an existing installation has been submitted or granted before the 31st October 1999 deadline, if the change takes place after that date it must be authorised by a PPC permit. There is no "pipe line" provision corresponding to that contained in the Directive definition of "existing installation", where account is taken of authorisations granted or applications made before the transposition deadline.

57. It should be noted however that the Directive’s definition of a substantial change is "A change in operation which in the opinion of the competent authority may have significant negative effects on human beings or the environment". This will not apply to most operational changes. So in most cases operators will be able to make operational changes after the 31 October without the need for a PPC permit. The changes will take place under the existing IPC, LAPC and waste management licensing regime. The Scottish Executive’s view is that only substantial changes which have a significant negative effect should require a PPC permit.

58. In deciding whether a change to an existing installation requires a PPC permit, SEPA will first need to determine whether the change will have a significant negative effect. The test of significance should not be based on the relative increase in emissions from the site but on the absolute effect those emissions will have on the environment.

59. For example a small factory which applies for a variation to increase its capacity by two or three times, would probably not be considered to have a significant negative effect. Although the change could result in a negative effect through the resulting increase in emissions, the absolute increase in substances to be released would not be considered significant. The application for a variation should be handled under the existing IPC or LAPC regime.

TIMETABLE FOR PHASING IN PART B INSTALLATIONS

60. Part B installations will be phased in at a suitable point after 2000. There are three possible options for phasing in Part B processes.

1. Part B processes could be phased in on a sector by sector basis in a similar way to Part A installations. The timetable identifying when permits are to be amended will need to take into account factors such as the timetable for updating the existing Part B guidance notes and any links with Part A process in the same industry sector.

2. Processes can be phased in as permits are reviewed. This option relies on SEPA keeping up to date with their permit review timetables.

3. All Part B processes are brought into the new regime at a given date. For example, after 31 December 2003, all Part B processes would be deemed to be brought under the new regime. SEPA would be given a specified period of time from the given date within which they would be expected to update all the permits.

61. The attached draft Regulations have been drafted on the basis of option 2, subject to the outcome of the consultation process. Whichever option is preferred (and combinations of some of the options would be possible e.g. some installations phased in at different dates according to sector, with the rest phased in on one date), there will need to be a degree of flexibility in deciding when to amend Part B permits. In cases where, for example, an operator has two Part B processes on the same site, the option should be available to have both permits reviewed at the same time if it is practicable and cost effective to do so.

The Scottish Executive would welcome comments on the options for phasing in Part B processes

TRANSITIONAL TIMETABLE FOR PART A INSTALLATIONS

The Scottish Executive would welcome comments on the proposed timetable.

62. As explained in paragraph 53, this timetable is broadly based on the expected availability of the BREF notes. Where the phasing in date differs from this criteria an explanation for the alternative phase in date is given below.

Energy industries : these have been phased in from 2006 to allow time for the Government’s energy policy to operate and to allow time for SEPA to implement their proposals to control pollution from coal and oil fired power stations.

Landfills : these are timetabled to be phased in from 2003 to 2006 to allow for implementation alongside the recently adopted EU Landfill Directive.

Large volume gas and liquid inorganic: although the BREF is scheduled for production in 1999, the proposed timetable delays phasing in these activities until 2005 to tie in with their second IPC review. This is to ease the regulator work load and avoid an excessive number of installations applying for permits in 2001-2002.

Large volume organic sector : due to the large number of installations and complexity of the sector, the Scottish Executive proposes to split implementation over two years in order to balance the regulatory workload. The Executive would welcome comments on its proposal to allow SEPA longer to determine applications and issue the permits over the extended time.

Livestock- Pigs and Poultry: to avoid overloading the regulator these are timetabled to be phased in different years.

Food production: the food sector has suggested that it would be helpful if the application timetable took account of the seasonal nature of some sectors in the industry. Comments are also sought on the two proposals put forward to overcome this problem:

a) allow one calendar year for food producers to apply, advising them that this is specifically to allow for seasonal variation, but that no extension will be allowed beyond that, or

b) set the usual four month windows in regulation, noting that food processors have the option to apply early if they think that they will have a seasonal problem.