THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OFIPPC: CASE STUDIES FROM THEUK AND HUNGARY AND THEIMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE EUENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

Neil Emmott, Institute for European Environmental Policy, London, UK

The concept of integrated pollutionprevention and control (IPPC) is examinedand the way in which some of itsprinciples are being put into practice isreviewed. Integrated industrial licensing isconsidered, with an examination of thesystem developed for common applicationacross the EU, and case studies ofimplementation in the UK and Hungaryare presented. The UK system ofintegrated pollution control wasdeveloped before the EU’s IPPC regimeand some of the differences between thetwo are highlighted. Analysis of theHungarian situation, which reflects a lessadvanced starting point than that of theUK, identifies issues arising fromHungary’s need to implement the EU’sIPPC regime to support its goal ofaccession to the Union. Conclusionsregarding further EU activity relating toIPPC are drawn, including the desirabilityof common principles for the effectiveinterpretation of integrated controlrequirements. More broadly, the increaseduse of procedural measures, greater accessto justice and closer scrutiny of thenational application of EU laws are

identified as desirable elements of the EU’senvironmental policy as it evolves to meetthe needs of enlargement.

THE BROAD CONCEPT OF IPPC

I ntegrated pollution prevention and control(IPPC ) is not a single or specific system ofcontrol. Rather, it is a concept or philosophy

which can be implemented in many different ways.The fundamental premise of IPPC is that pollutionproblems should be addressed in an integratedmanner that takes account of all three environ-mental media (air, land and water) in contrast withmore traditional forms of regulation which onlyfocus on one medium at a time. The rationale forintegration is that the single medium focus mayresult in the transfer of pollution to the othermedia; it may overlook the biogeochemical andcommercial cycles of pollutants; or it may fail toconsider multiple exposure paths for humans andthe environment (OECD, 1985).

One of the broadest interpretations of IPPC isfound in an OECD Recommendation (OECD,1991). The Recommendation advises OECD mem-ber countries to:

. . . practice integrated pollution preventionand control, taking into account the effectsof activities and substances on the envir-onment as a whole and the whole com-mercial and environmental life cycles ofsubstances when assessing the risks they

CCC 0961-0405/97/010001–06# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

European Environment, Vol. 7, 1–6 (1997)

EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT

pose and when developing and imple-menting controls to limit their release.

An Appendix to the Recommendation sets outguidance about the principles and means ofimplementation of the IPPC concept. The guidancenotes that integration can be pursued not onlythrough specific environmental legislation, but alsothrough laws in related areas such as energy,transport and taxation. It is additionally recognizedthat integration can be achieved through a varietyof management instruments, including single per-mits for polluting sources, the linking of environ-mental measures with land-use planning and otherbroad approaches, environmental impact assess-ment (EIA) and economic instruments.

The guidance also identifies the possibilities ofconcentrating IPPC approaches around the pollut-ing substance, the geographical region which is beingpolluted, or the source of pollution. The rationalefor these foci and some examples of their adoptionare summarized in the following.

Substance-based approaches may be appropriatein respect of particularly hazardous, persistent orotherwise problematic pollutants. Ideally, regula-tion should take account of the possible harmfuleffects of a chemical, and different possible routesfrom release to exposure, before identifying controlstrategies. In the Netherlands, for example, anintegrated approach to the management of chemi-cals involves the compilation of a dossier on asubstance’s uses, properties and hazards, as well aseconomic and technological factors, before devel-oping control policies (Irwin, 1990).

The region-based approach to IPPC aims toachieve a desired environmental standard in adefined area by controlling inputs via all media. Byway of illustration, initiatives to improve waterquality in areas such as the Great Lakes and theNorth Sea initially focused only on direct dis-charges to the aqueous environment, but have nowrecognized the need to also look at deposition fromthe air and seepage through the ground. TheNetherlands again provides a national example ofregion-based thinking, in which controls on landand soil conditions aim to realize a level of envir-onmental quality allowing use for a specific pur-pose such as agriculture or species conservation(Irwin, 1990).

Source-based approaches apply controls toindustrial processes, products or economic sectorswhich are responsible for pollution. Sources, and inparticular industrial facilities, are the most com-mon focus of integration, with several countrieshaving sought to apply integrated permitting sys-tems, including the UK and Hungary. The appli-cation of IPPC to industry aims to support the

introduction of clean technologies in preference tomore traditional end of pipe solutions which mayameliorate an emission to one medium at theexpense of creating a release to another medium(Irwin, 1990).

THE EU AND THE DIRECTIVE ON IPPC

The EU currently comprises 15 Member States,although this number is set to increase in the nextfew years in accordance with plans for the acces-sion of several Central and Eastern EuropeanCountries (CEECs). One of the pre-conditions foraccession is satisfactory compliance with EU lawsin the field of environmental protection. Althoughthe development of EU environmental legislationto date has largely followed medium-specific andother sectoral lines, a Directive on IPPC applicableto certain industrial plants has recently beenadopted (Directive 96=61, OJ L257, 10 October1996). Important elements of the Directive aresummarized in the following.

The purpose of the Directive is the achievementof integrated prevention and control of pollutionfrom certain industrial activities to attain ‘a highlevel of protection for the environment taken as awhole’. The Directive applies to six categories ofindustry: energy; the production and processing ofmetals; minerals; chemicals; waste management;and ‘other’.

Member States’ competent authorities mustensure that installations are operated in such a waythat certain general principles are followed. Theseare: to take all appropriate preventive measuresagainst pollution; to ensure no significant pollutionis caused; to avoid waste production and recover orsafely dispose of the waste produced; to use energyefficiently; to take the necessary measures to pre-vent accidents; and to protect and clean up the siteon cessation of the industrial activity.

From the day the Directive comes into effect (30October 1999), new installations may not beallowed to operate without a permit. Pre-existinginstallations must be made subject to permittingeight years thereafter.

All permits must include details of the arrange-ments made for air, water and land. Emission limitvalues must be defined for pollutants likely to beemitted in significant quantities and, if necessary, apermit must prescribe requirements for the pro-tection of soil and groundwater and the manage-ment of waste. Permits must also containconditions to minimize long distance andtransboundary pollution.

Emission limits in permits are to reflect at leastthe standard of Best Available Techniques (BAT), in

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF IPPC

2 EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT

which ’available’ is defined to mean economicallyand technically viable, taking into considerationcosts and advantages. If the attainment of anyenvironmental quality standard needs strictercontrol than is achievable by BAT, then additionalmeasures must be required in the permit. Indetermining BAT, special consideration must begiven to certain factors, including the use of low-waste technology, the use of less hazardous sub-stances, the furthering of recovery and recycling,the consumption of raw materials and water andenergy efficiency. The determination of BAT is alsoto take account of the technical characteristics ofthe installation, its geographical location and localenvironmental conditions. These factors will varythroughout Europe, as will economic considera-tions, so it is to be expected that significant varia-tions will emerge in the emission limits specified indifferent countries. The Directive recognizes thisfact and sets out a procedure for the exchange ofinformation and possible establishment of mini-mum EU emission limit values for priority sub-stances.

The Directive reflects some, but not all, aspects ofthe OECD Recommendation on IPPC which couldbe applied to industrial authorizations. For exam-ple, the Directive requires licensing to take accountof waste management and the consumption of rawmaterials and energy as well as polluting releases,but does not go as far as considering ‘the wholecommercial and environmental life cycles of sub-stances when assessing the risks they pose andwhen developing and implementing controls tolimit their release’.

THE UK SYSTEM OF INTEGRATEDPOLLUTION CONTROL

The UK system of integrated pollution control(IPC) was introduced under the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1990 and so pre-dates the EU legis-lation by several years. It prohibits the operation ofcertain industrial processes without prior author-ization, the receipt of which requires the use of BestAvailable Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost(BATNEEC) to prevent, minimize or render harm-less the release of any substances prescribed inregulations, and to render harmless the release ofany other substances. A further requirement is toensure compliance with any environmental qualitystandards or objectives. For processes involving therelease of substances into more than one medium,determination of BATNEEC must have regard tothe Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO).

In common with the EU system of IPPC, IPC inthe UK makes no attempt to adopt a life cycleapproach to decision-making, so any environ-mental impacts which take place off-site gounrecognized; in contrast with IPPC, however, IPConly weakly integrates the consideration of wastemanagement and resource consumption issueswith other environmental impacts (Emmott andMacrory, 1995). Clearly, therefore, the UK system ofIPC does not realize all elements of the OECDRecommendation, although this does not createany legal obligation for change, nor does it suggestthat it would be desirable or even possible toimplement the full IPPC concept in a single systemof control. Nevertheless, the OECD Recommenda-tion can still provide guidance on areas wherefurther steps towards integration may be taken,both at national and EU levels. Furthermore, dif-ferences between the UK and EU systems willnecessitate change in the UK, in so far as the EUregime introduces requirements beyond those of itsUK counterpart. A detailed discussion of the dif-ferences is given in Emmott and Haigh (1996); asummary of some key issues is presented in thefollowing.

(i) IPPC applies to some areas not currentlyregulated under IPC, such as intensive agri-culture and food production.

(ii) IPPC’s purpose is broader than that of IPC asthe former aims to reduce waste reductionand conserve resources as well as preventpollution.

(iii) IPPC’s definition of ’pollution’ includes noiseand vibrations which are not covered by IPC.

(iv) Determination of BAT in IPPC may require abroader appraisal of costs and advantagesthan is involved with BATNEEC for IPC, andmust consider issues such as waste reduction,energy efficiency and resource consumption.

(v) IPPC includes certain specific requirementsfor information to be described in permitapplications which are not mandatory in IPC.

(vi) IPPC requires information obtained underEIA procedures to be considered in permit-ting, whereas there is no formal link betweenEIA and IPC in the UK.

(vii) IPPC requires emission limits to be specifiedfor pollutants likely to be emitted in sig-nificant quantities, whereas in IPC the settingof emission limits is discretionary (even if inpractice it is done). IPPC’s list of prioritypollutants is also broader in some respectsthan the list of prescribed substances for IPC.

(viii) IPPC requires the specification of measuresfor the management of waste, where neces-sary, in a manner integrated with other con-

N. EMMOTT

EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT 3

ditions, whereas IPC is excluded fromimposing certain controls on waste genera-tion and its disposal.

(ix) IPPC requires operators to be obligated toreport on incidents, which is not the case inIPC (although it is covered for some facilitiesunder other regulations).

There are also some areas where the require-ments of IPC exceed those of the EU regime. Inaddition, one area where the UK system is clearlymore developed concerns the mechanisms bywhich integrated decision-making may occur.Much work has been undertaken on this area in theUK through the evolution of the BPEO (RoyalCommission on Environmental Pollution, 1986;Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution, 1996). Incontrast, the EU Directive aims to protect theenvironment ’taken as a whole’, but gives no spe-cific detail on what this really means or how dif-ferent options for environmental protection may becompared. Without an adequate basis for suchassessments there is a danger that the theory ofIPPC will remain just that—a theory—while prac-tical application reflects disparate, medium-specificcontrols bundled together in a show of apparentintegration. Even in the UK, the development ofmethodologies for the BPEO has been limited andcontentious, as has been noted previously (Owens,1990), suggesting a need for more work in this areato support the effective implementation of the IPPCDirective at both national and EU levels.

IPPC AND HUNGARIAN ACCESSION TOTHE EU

The information provided here is based on workundertaken by the Institute for European Envir-onmental Policy for the Hungarian EnvironmentMinistry on the harmonization of Hungarianenvironmental law with EU requirements.

Hungary has no current system equivalent toIPC in the UK, but must implement the EU’s IPPCDirective and other laws to support its goal of EUaccession. The European Commission has indi-cated that compliance by a Member State with anEU Directive such as that for IPPC involves threeareas of activity: transposition, administrativeimplementation, and application and enforcement(Commission of the European Communities, 1996).Hungarian implementation of IPPC can be sum-marized under these three headings.

Transposition involves the adoption of thenecessary legislative, regulatory or administrativemeasures to incorporate the obligations, rights andduties specified by an EU Directive into national

law. Hungary already appears to be fairly wellplaced to achieve compliance in this respect. Abroad Act adopted in 1995—the Act on GeneralRules of Environmental Protection—contains lan-guage reflecting an integrated approach to envir-onmental management and provides for thelicensing of industrial facilities. Indeed, a form ofintegrated licensing has existed in Hungary since1993, when a process of EIA was introduced for theapproval of certain new projects. EIA is to be con-tinued and expanded under the new Act, whichalso provides for a similar process to authorize thecontinuing operation of existing facilities, and thesetwo procedures have been designated by theHungarian authorities as the mechanism for theimplementation of the IPPC Directive. AlthoughEIA and IPPC are specified as distinct processesunder EU law, and are likely to operate separatelyin countries such as the UK, this need not preventHungary from applying a combined approach aslong as the requirements of both systems are met.

The Hungarian EIA procedure involves thesubmission by an applicant of information on thenature and environmental effects of a facility,leading to the issuance of an environmental licencewith appropriate control conditions or rejection ofthe application. Licences are granted by one of 12Regional Environmental Inspectorates (REIs)operating within defined geographical boundaries.During the procedure, the controlling inspectorateis required to consult with several other bodiesresponsible for nature conservation, water man-agement, public health and so on, each of whichmay specify legally binding conditions that mustbe included in the resulting licence. In addition, theREI must incorporate into licences the relevantrequirements of various items of medium-specificlegislation relating to air, water and waste, many ofwhich are currently written as fixed limits orstandards. The procedure to authorize the con-tinuing operation of existing facilities is similar inmost respects to that of EIA.

Overall, therefore, some modifications to Hun-garian law will certainly be necessary to implementthe IPPC Directive, but there appear to be no areasof such inconsistency as to demand major struc-tural changes. Some of the areas in which mod-ifications appear necessary include theintroduction of a requirement for licence conditionsto be integrated, and a move from fixed emissionlimits to minimum standards. The expected time-frame for EU accession (which, as an estimate,could be around 2003) gives the Hungarianauthorities several years to consider how best tomake the necessary alterations and to develop aschedule for implementation through an orderlyseries of modifications.

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF IPPC

4 EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT

It is relatively straightforward for legislators tocompose laws and rules which reflect the philoso-phy of an integrated approach, but it is anothermatter to actually put the theory of integration intopractice. This is the subject of the next two elementsof compliance—administrative implementationand application and enforcement—which have thecollective goal of ensuring that the exercise of legaltransposition does not simply produce ’dead letterlaw’. These areas are likely to pose the main chal-lenges for the Hungarian authorities in theirimplementation of the IPPC Directive.

The administrative implementation of a Direc-tive involves the establishment of the necessaryadministrative structures, and the allocation ofsufficient resources therein, to ensure that theprovisions of the EU legislation may be carried out.Particular requirements may include the designa-tion of competent authorities and the establishmentof systems for environmental monitoring. A majorissue here, with regard to the IPPC Directive, con-cerns the ability of the REIs to apply the system inHungary. It is understood that there is a shortage ofstaff and technical resources in the REIs, whoseresponsibilities extend well beyond industriallicensing into many other areas of environmentalcontrol. Allocation of the REIs’ resources for IPPCis therefore a task that requires detailed con-sideration by the Hungarian authorities, and willinevitably be affected by the country’s significantbudgetary constraints during its ongoing process ofeconomic transition.

A further administrative issue requiring atten-tion concerns the division between environmentalcontrol by the REIs and water management byparallel Regional Water Authorities (RWAs). Thiscreates the risk of overlapping and possibly con-flicting conditions, in respect of water, in separateenvironmental licences and water managementlicences for a single plant. The possibility ofamending the existing structure is currently underdiscussion in Hungary, however, with possibleoutcomes including a merger of the REIs andRWAs which could support a more effective, uni-fied licensing process.

The application and enforcement of a Directiveinvolves the actual exercise of the law by theadministrative structure established for this pur-pose. A key challenge here is likely to be the rea-lization of an integrated approach in respect ofdetermining BAT and setting licence conditions. Inview of the fact that Hungarian pollution controlhas traditionally operated along medium-specificlines, it may be necessary for enforcing officials toundertake some additional training so that they canapply effective integrated controls. This could besupported by the preparation of explanatory and

guidance materials, similar to those produced inthe UK (Department of the Environment and WelshOffice, 1996; Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollu-tion, various dates), although there are clear eco-nomic constraints on the scope for such activity inHungary.

In addition, it has been reported that some ofHungary’s previous environmental standards wereunrealistic, imposing emission limits that were notachievable and so were not enforced in practice,whereas fines for violations were too low to create areal disincentive to polluters (Rakics, 1994). It isclearly important, therefore, that the introductionof an integrated approach reflects realistic day today operational requirements as well as imple-mentation in law, together with an appropriatelevel of response to non-compliant behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of the UK and Hungarian case stu-dies raises questions about the implementation ofIPPC across the EU as it expands to encompass theCEECs, and indeed about the evolution of EUenvironmental policy in general. The accession ofHungary and other CEECs will create a body ofperhaps 20 or more Member States with sig-nificantly different environmental conditions, cul-tures, and technical and economic capabilities. It ispertinent to consider how, in such an arrangement,it will be possible to agree environmental controlswhich are applicable across the EU.

The proposed IPPC Directive illustrates some ofthe challenges facing environmental policy as theEU enlarges. The current EU membership reflects agroup of mostly wealthy countries, whereas theCEECs are undergoing significant political transi-tions accompanied by severe economic constraints.Therefore, any absolute standards of environ-mental protection (for example, numerical emis-sion limits) developed in the EU for the currentMember States may be inapplicable for the CEECs.This suggests that greater reliance could be placedon specifying procedures for environmental controlat the EU level, while allowing standards of per-formance to be determined nationally.

To a large extent the IPPC Directive alreadyreflects a procedural approach because it leavesemission controls to be based on national assess-ments of BAT taking account of economic issuesand local factors. Difficulties may arise later, how-ever, if the EU tries to agree common emissionlimits as provided for under the IPPC framework.In a body of 20 or more Member States the only EUemission limits achievable in all countries would bethose reflecting the level of the ’lowest common

N. EMMOTT

EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT 5

denominator’. The problem then might be thatalthough such EU standards should be establishedas minimum requirements, there is a possibilitythat they would be used as fixed limits by severalof the Member States, rather than just by thecountries with genuine grounds to do so. Someform of mechanism may therefore be needed toenforce the status of any such EU emission limits asminimum conditions under a higher BAT require-ment.

Placing increased reliance in EU environmentalpolicy on procedures while reducing the use ofnumerical standards would not be without itsdangers. In particular, there is a risk that nationalauthorities may apply procedural approaches in aformulaic way without truly considering the needsof environmental protection. Furthermore, in thecase of the IPPC Directive, the elusive nature of thephilosophy of integration increases the possibilityof formulaic implementation by default. To coun-terbalance such tendencies, mechanisms are nee-ded to ensure that procedures are appliedobjectively and consistently, giving adequate con-sideration to environmental impacts of varioustypes. This could be underlined through the use ofEU guidance materials for IPPC—for example,setting out principles relevant to the goal of pro-tecting the environment ‘taken as a whole’. TheUK’s ongoing experience of developing integratingmethodologies (for the BPEO) has been a long andcomplicated process, suggesting that some EUactivity in this area could be of particular benefit tothe CEECs, who face severe economic constraintsto individual action.

More generally, a greater use of procedures forenvironmental control could also be protectedagainst abuse by increasing the opportunities foraccess to environmental justice, plus greater scru-tiny of the national application of EU law in prac-tice. Developments are underway in both theseareas, although whether or not they will come toeffective fruition remains to be seen.

Finally, returning to the specific issue of IPPC, itis clear that the EU’s Directive represents just anarrow segment of the full IPPC concept as set outby the OECD. In the area of source-based control,there are increasing possibilities for the incorpora-tion of life-cycle approaches into environmentalpolicy, as well as complementary techniques suchas mass balances. Further promise arises in respectof substance- and region-based measures. Expan-sion across Central and Eastern Europe presents anadded dimension, giving the evolution of the EU’senvironmental policy the dual tasks of pursuing

greater integration for holistic environmental con-trol, while in parallel adapting to the needs of agrowing community of nations.

REFERENCES

Commission of the European Communities (1996) Pre-paration of the Associated CEECs for the Approximation ofthe EU’s Environmental Legislation, unpublished work-ing document prepared for a joint meeting of the EUEnvironment Council and Associated Countries,Brussels.

Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office(1996) Integrated Pollution Control: a Practical Guide,HMSO, London.

Emmott, N. and Haigh, N. (1996) Integrated pollutionprevention and control: UK and EC approaches andpossible next steps, Journal of Environmental Law, 8(2).

Emmott, N. and Macrory, R. (1995) The contribution ofIPC to waste minimisation, Environmental Policy andPractice, 5(3).

Haigh, N. (Ed.) (first published 1992) The Manual ofEnvironmental Policy: the EC and Britain (loose-leaf,updated biannually), Cartermill in association with theInstitute for European Environmental Policy, London.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution (1996) Best Prac-ticable Environmental Option Assessments for IPC: aSummary, HMSO, London.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution (various dates)Process Guidance Notes for IPC, HMSO, London.

Irwin, F. (1990) Introduction to integrated pollutioncontrol. In: Integrated Pollution Control in Europe andNorth America (Eds N. Haigh and F. Irwin), The Con-servation Foundation, Washington DC and Institutefor European Environmental Policy, London.

OECD (1985) The State of the Environment, OECD, Paris.OECD (1991) Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control,

Environment Monograph No 37, OECD, Paris.Owens, S. (1990) The Unified Pollution Inspectorate and

Best Practicable Environmental Option in the UnitedKingdom. In: Integrated Pollution Control in Europe andNorth America (Eds N. Haigh and F. Irwin), The Con-servation Foundation, Washington DC and Institutefor European Environmental Policy, London.

Rakics, R. (1994) Legal Framework of Air Pollution Controlin Hungary, unpublished paper presented at an EUHarmonisation Seminar, Siofok, Hungary.

Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1986)Best Practicable Environmental Option, Cm 310, HMSO,London.

BIOGRAPHY

Neil Emmott is a research fellow with the Institute forEuropean Environmental Policy (IEEP), London andspecializes in industrial management, pollution andwaste policy issues. Neil Emmott, Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy, 158 Buckingham Palace Road,London SW1W 9TR, UK. Tel.: 0171 824 8787. Fax.: 0171824 8145.

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF IPPC

6 EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT