Ms ippc cz2015

Public participation in integrated permitting Experience from the Czech Republic Martin SkalskĂ˝ / September 2015 Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Legislation  EU Directive 2010/75/EU from 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated prevention and pollution control - IPPC)  Act No. 76/2002 on integrated prevention  Act. No. 25/2008 on integrated pollutant emission register and integrated system of reporting on environmental performance

Permitting and the public

EIA process

Zoning permitting

Integrated permitting

Building permitting

Participation of the public (including NGOs) allowed and expected in all processes.

Public participation in permitting  Integrated permit is issued in administrative procedure  Permit is administrative decision  Participants of permitting are among others NGOs focused on protection of professional or public interests  Interested NGOs have to register writing at the authority within 8 days of the publication of brief summary of the application  Rights of participants:  access to the file  propose evidence  express their opinions  to object  appeal against the decision

Information accessible on-line IPPC information system http://www.mzp.cz/ippc

Content of the website:  Current permitting procedures  Serch engine (regions or industries)  Legislation

Judicial protection  It is possible to submit administrative lawsuit against issued integrated permit  Lawsuite can submit also NGO (violation of procedural rights)  Czech courts dealt with integrated permitting in several cases

Deadline for participant’s comments Environmental Law Service (NGO) versus the CZ Ministry of Environment

The Supreme Administrative Court decided:  If the integrated permitting is to lead to a responsible approach by participants to request evaluation, they have to be granted sufficient space to excercise their legal rights.

(Deadline for submission of the comments cannot be too short – at least 30 days).  The purpose of integrated permitting is integration of individual permits issued according to particular regulations on environment protection, not bypassing them.

Major change in integrated permit Environmental Law Service (NGO) versus the CZ Ministry of Environment (Change in integrated permit issued for ArcelorMittal) The Supreme Administrative Court decided:  In administrative process concerning change of a permit, NGO can participate only if the change in question is a major one

Major change in integrated permit The Supreme Administrative Court:  It is a key issue with respect to participation of the plaintiff in administrative proceeding, because it grants plaintiff procedural rights, by means of which the plaintiff attempts the best possible outcome of the proceeding in respect to public health and environment protection.  Protection of these values is one of the aims of the integrated prevention act, that aims to sustainable development utilising maximum possible prevention of industrial pollution of all components of the environment. = The authority is obliged to properly justify its decision, both in relation to • effects of human activity on the environment and • in relation to potential exceeding of limit values

Cases from the Czech Republic Untidy dump was closed • 2002 - 2006 / Vyskytná (Vysočina)

Formaldehyde from hardboard production • 2005 - 2008 / Jihlava (Vysočina)

Yellow clouds from chlorine factory • 2007 - 2015 Neratovice Pardubice (Central Bohemia)

Sick children and the steelworks • 2008 - 2013 / Ostrava (North Moravia)

โ ถ Untidy landfill / Vyskytnรก

❶ Untidy landfill / situation  Vyskytná is surrounded by forests of the BohemianMoravian Highlands – one of the most picturesque regions of the Czech Republic  Municipal waste landfill operated by .A.S.A. – one of the biggest waste management companies in CZ  Releases of poisonous water were from the landfill into the forest, offensive smell and litter spreading into the surroundings, rodents multiplied excessively.  .A.S.A. announced a plan in 2002 for the landfill expansion in 2007

❶ Untidy landfill / case  Locals prepared a petition  Mayor did not want to deal with the case  Repeated controls of the CZ Environmental Inspectorate – analysis and evidence  Fines of thousands euro  In 2007, local civic association established

❶ Untidy landfill / solution  2008: Regional Authority issued EIA statement – agreed on expansion with 52 conditions  2008: Parliament changed the Act on Waste, changing beneficiary of obligatory financial compensations (no benefit for municipality)  The Supervision Commission with participation of citizens established  Company realized higher costs and abandoned the project, even not started IPPC  Landfill gradually recultivated

â?ˇ Hardboard factory / Jihlava

❷ Hardboard factory / situation  Kronospan is one of the biggest woodworking corporations in the world  1994: Kronospan bought bankrupted factory on Jihlava outskirts  2004: Problems appeared when new line for OSB production (glued chipboard) started  Hundreds of people started to complaint about health problems  Because of the smell and dust, it was impossible in some days to open the windows

❷ Hardboard factory / case  2005: data of the Integrated Pollution Register were published for the fist time (474 t of airborne dust, 22 t of formaldehyde per year)  The biggest producer of formaldehyde in CZ  2007: announcement to expand production  2007: MoE issued agreement on EIA  Hardboard production does not fall under IPPC and factory refused voluntary procedure

❷ Hardboard factory / solution  2007: Environmental Inspectorate found violation of technological standards  2007: Citizens participated in building permitting and enforced EIA results  People could control parameters of factory operation only due to participation (data)  2008: After pressure of citizens, MoE forced Kronospan to voluntary investments in environmental measures  60 % decrease of formaldehyde emissions

â?¸ Chlorine factory / Neratovice

❸ Chlorine factory / situation  Largest chemical factory for sodium hydroxide and chlorine in CZ  Obsolete method of amalgam electrolysis for decades (toxic mercury discharge to river Elbe)  Accidents with chlorine releases threatened local residents  More than 100 kg of Hg per year (measured levels 3 x higher than EU limits)  City of Hamburg had to pay 70 mil. EUR per year for cleanup

❸ Chlorine factory / case  2006: IPPC started  2007: expert study recommended allowing Spolana operate amalgam until 2015  Arnika demanded following EU regulation and switch to clean technology until 2009  Regional Authority decided on compromise year 2014  2012: New Polish owner asked for extension of exception until 2020

❸ Chlorine factory / solution  Both citizens and authority did not accept another extension  Civil society was not able to enforce strict deadline 2009  1 year of earlier technology change saved river from 100 kg of Hg

â?š ArcelorMittal / Ostrava

❸ ArcelorMittal / situation  1950: establishment of the steelworks  2002: ArcelorMittal bought the factory and increase of production by 50 %  Significant polluter of the whole region  Extreme air pollution, increased illness, especially of children  Legal limits for benzo(a)pyrene in the air exceeded for 800 %  Coalition of NGOs including Arnika established

❸ ArcelorMittal / case    

Altogether 7 integrated permits issued Numerous irregularites Mittal appealed repeteadly Attempt to change IP in insignificant change mode without participation of the public  Issued permits allowed higher than sectoral law limits = lawsuits of citizens  Ministry of Industry recommened lower limits because of economic situation

❸ ArcelorMittal / solution  Lawsuits of the citizens against issued permits demanding lower emissions  2011: voluntary agreement of Mittal with MoE  Ombudsman said that stricter limits must be applied, Regional Authority started to act  2013: Industrial Emissions Directive transposition in CZ law  AMO was forced to de-dust the factory and introduce new technologies

IPPC and NGOs  Authorities are sometimes to „weak“, participation of citizens is essential  Integrated permitting is only one of mechanisms, not always applicable o Always necessary to follow all decision making prodedures o Sometimes EIA is more imporant

 Good function of Environmental Inspectorate is crucial for control

IPPC and NGOs in 10 points ❶ Preparation needed well before ❷ Contact experts for particular technology ❸ Study BAT documents ❹ Many comments can be based on simple logic ❺ Find similar cases in other towns or countries ❻ Always participate at public hearings ❼ Participate in EIA process ❽ Submit the comments in written ❾ Follow the IPPC renew procedure ❿ Do not be afraid to submit lawsuits

Thank you for your attention Martin Skalsky martin.skalsky@arnika.org Arnika – Citizens Support Centre Chlumova 17, 130 000 Prague 3 The Czech Republic More information: www.english.arnika.org