Transposition of the industrial emissions directive in Scotland: consultation

IED Chapter IV - waste incineration

Preamble

35. With the small exception noted in paragraph 10 of Appendix A to this consultation paper, Chapter IV and Annex VI of the IED generally maintain the requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive. These are currently implemented by the Pollution Prevention and Control (Waste Incineration Directive) (Scotland) Directions 2003 ^[8] , issued by the Scottish Ministers directing SEPA to include conditions in permits to give effect to these requirements. In the interests of greater transparency, and bringing all of the relevant requirements together in one piece of legislation, regulation 26 in the draft Regulations will transpose those requirements, largely through reference to the relevant Articles.

36. Note that, as under the current Waste Incineration Directive, the Chapter IV requirements apply to all waste incineration and co-incineration activities other than those specifically excluded by Article 42(2). There is no lower capacity threshold. Note also that the Chapter IV requirements are self-contained: they do not bring in any IPPC requirements from Chapter II. But activities above the relevant threshold in point 5.2 of Annex I of the IED are additionally subject to IPPC and that may possibly drive more stringent permit conditions.

Requirements for incineration and co-incineration installations not subject to IED

37. Activities subject to the current Waste Incineration Directive are assigned to Part A in Part 1 (chapter 5) of Schedule 1 to the PPC Regulations. These plant will thus be subject to the principles of BAT listed in Schedule 3 to the draft Regulations, as already implemented in permits under the current Regulations. However, incineration and co-incineration installations that do not exceed the relevant thresholds ^[9] in Annex I of the IED will not be subject to the BAT reference document or associated BAT conclusions but will require a permit under regulation 26. There are some 10 installations in this position. Q8: Do you agree with this proposal? What environmental consequences and compliance cost savings may arise?

PCB and PAH monitoring

38. Paragraph 2.1(c) of Part 6 of Annex VI of the IED maintains the requirement of Article 11(2)(c) of the Waste Incineration Directive in respect of monitoring for heavy metals and furans. However, in transposing these requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive through the Pollution Prevention and Control (Waste Incineration Directive) (Scotland) Directions 2003, the words ‘dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls and poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons’ were added to this requirement. The effect is to require monitoring of dioxin-like PCBs and PAHs at least twice yearly (and every 3 months during the initial 12 months of operation).

39. It is normally for SEPA to take a view on what pollutants are likely to be emitted in significant quantities and to set permit and monitoring conditions accordingly. While the emissions of these substances are normally very low, the proposed regulation 26 retains an explicit requirement in respect of monitoring for dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls and poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These substances are normally monitored by the same method and at the same time as the other pollutants for which monitoring is required by the IED, so the additional cost of doing so is marginal. We consider that this provides valuable reassurance to the public. Q9: Do you agree with this proposal? If not, why not?

IED Chapter V - activities using solvents

Preamble

40. Chapter V and Annex VII of the IED maintain without significant change the requirements of the current Solvent Emissions Directive.

41. The Chapter V requirements are self-contained: they do not bring in any IPPC requirements from Chapter II. To better reflect this, the provisions on solvents now appear as separate regulations (27 and 28) and in Schedule 2 rather than being dealt with alongside installations subject to IPPC in Schedule 1. Where activities using solvents - even if they lie below the solvent consumption thresholds in Part 2 of Annex VII - are also covered by an activity description in Annex I of the IED, the resulting IPPC requirements may possibly drive more stringent permit conditions.

Registration option for solvent activities

42. Article 4(1) of the IED maintains an option available in the Solvent Emissions Directive by stating that ‘by way of derogation from the first subparagraph, Member States may set a procedure for the registration of installations covered only by Chapter V’. That Chapter contains the provisions of the current Solvent Emissions Directive virtually unchanged.

43. We have considered again whether it would be any less onerous for operators and SEPA if the current permit system for solvent activities were to be replaced by a registration system. As a general rule, the Scottish Government and SEPA consider that a tiered system of permissioning is an important step forward, as set out in our joint consultation on Proposals for an Integrated Framework of Environmental Regulation ^[10] which envisages a three-tier structure of permits, registrations and general binding rules similar to that which already exists under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. However it is not clear that the introduction of a registration system at this stage for solvent activities alone would lead to any significant benefits for operators or SEPA. We therefore propose not to implement this derogation now, but to deal with it as part of the outcome of the wider consultation on environmental regulation, at which point solvent emissions activities might be a prime candidate for application of a registration system.

44. Q10: Do you consider that the introduction of a registration system for solvent activities would be worthwhile in longer term?

Removal of BAT requirement from solvent activities

45. Solvent activities are currently regulated as a ‘Part B’ activity, meaning that they are subject to BAT-based requirements in respect of any emissions to air which are likely to be significant, whether or not they are of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This goes beyond what is required by the current Solvent Emissions Directive and also by Chapter V of the IED: the use of BAT is mentioned only in relation to item 19 of the table in Part 2 of Annex VII of the IED and in the context of the derogations provided by Article 59(2) and (3) of the IED.

46. Initial indications from operators and regulators are that, in general, the BAT requirement does not add much or anything by way of compliance costs which would not in any case be necessary to meet the relevant solvent emission limit values. There is also a possibility that the removal of the BAT requirement could result in businesses taking less care in controlling emissions of some pollutants (mainly particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide) other than solvents from the installations in question. However, there may be savings to some operators, were the BAT requirement to beremoved.

47. The draft Regulations would remove BAT requirements from installations carrying out nothing but solvent activities. Q11: Do you agree with this proposal? What are your views on the environmental consequences and compliance cost savings which may arise?