Consultation on modernising environmental permitting for industry

As set out in the ‘Case for Change’ chapter, in the EPRs industrial activities are split into different categories based on the origin of the legal requirements and the regulator and regulatory approach for the activity. This creates significant complexity for industry, introduces thresholds which distort markets and leaves loopholes that allow pollution. 

Part A installations must apply BAT and have an integrated framework of pollution control, whereby measures are in place to control the full range of pollution and environmental impacts produced by an installation. This includes emissions to air, land and water as well as noise, handling of waste, accident prevention, energy efficiency and the return of the site to a satisfactory state upon closure. Where there are no published BAT conclusions, or where these do not fully address environmental or health impacts from a sector, under Article 14(6) of the IED (implemented through the EPRs) regulators can set permit conditions on the basis of their determination of BAT for that particular circumstance. 

Outside of Part A installations, the other regulatory categories (Part B installations, small waste incineration plant, solvent emission activities and medium combustion plant and specified generators) include a variety of approaches to BAT and integrated pollution control which have developed piecemeal over time. There is an opportunity to simplify the categorisation within the EPRs while also improving environmental outcomes through more integrated regulation. The direction of travel we would like to test is amending the EPRs to apply the principles of BAT and integrated pollution control to all regulatory categories outlined above. Future reviews of standards for each sector would therefore consider the full range of pollutants and environmental impacts from each sector and set standards in line with BAT where required. Where a particular sector does not involve a particular type of emission (for example emissions to water) or wider environmental impact (for example handling of waste) then BAT would not need to be set, in line with the existing approach for Part A installations. Permitting would become more flexible and responsive to environmental and health risks on the principle of proportionate, risk-based regulation.  

We have set out considerations specific to different existing regulatory categories below. We would like feedback on this direction of travel, in particular the question of whether the ‘Part A’ approach to BAT and integrated pollution control would be appropriate for these other categories of activities, and whether there are any aspects of the ‘Part A’ approach that would be disproportionate to apply.