ECENA Study Tour – Copenhagen 19nd June 2006

Environmental inspection system in DenmarkGudmund Nielsen, DEPA

• Environmental administrative system

• The Environmental Protection Act

• Environmental inspectors work

• Minimum frequencies for inspection

• Planning and prioritising inspection (differentiated inspection)

• Benchmarking of inspectorates

MINISTER• contact to parliament• statutory orders• circulars

DANISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (DEPA)• advising the Minister• preparation of bills• instructions and guidance• instance of appeal

• marine environment• chemicals• summary of environmental conditions• investigations• international work

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARDSecond instance of appeal

275 MUNICIPALITIES• most industrial plants (app. 80.000) & all griculture (70.000 animal farms) – inspec- tion and approval• county plants• neighbour complaints• waste (collection, treatment and depositing)• wastewater cleaning• drinking water• local planning

14 COUNTIES• 2.700 most environmental complicated industrial plants - inspection and approval• municipal plants• monitoring environment• mapping groundwater resources• chemical waste sites• nature conservation• regional planning 900 pers. 1.000 pers.

285 pers.

80 pers.

The Environmental Protection System in Denmark

MINISTER• contact to parliament• statutory orders• circulars

DANISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (DEPA)• advising the Minister• preparation of bills• instructions and guidance

• marine environment• chemicals• summary of environmental conditions• investigations• international work

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARDFirst and final instance of appeal

98 MUNICIPALITIES• most industrial plants (IPPC and other) & agriculture (IPPC and other) - inspection and approval• neighbour complaints• waste (collection and depositing)• wastewater treatment• drinking water• local and regional planning• monitoring environment

7 STATE INSPECTORATES• 215 environmental complicated industrial sites - inspection and approval• municipal plants (wastewater treatment plants, Incinerators etc.)• mapping groundwater resources• nature conservation (Natura 2000, Water Frameword Directive etc.)

700 pers.

285 pers.

80 pers.

The Environmental Protection System in Denmark 2007

1.200 pers.

Danish Environmental Protection Act

Objectives to:

• prevent and abate pollution

• make regulation

• reduce use and waste of resources

• strengthen cleaner technology

• strengthen recycling

The environmental solutions have changed

• Dilution

• Purification

• BAT

• Sustainability

Higher smokestacks

Reduced concentrations

End of pipe purification

Cleaner technology

Best av. cleaning tech.

Life cycle concept (Product policy)

???

The environmental solutions have changed

1973

Dilution

2001

1980

Purification

C.T.(1991) BAT SUSTAINABILITY

Life cycle concept

Product policy

Role of the env. authority• Approving: permits/licenses

• Enforcing: inspection and control

• Advisory: voluntary dialogue on better env.performance, e.g. cleaner production, env. management schemes etc.

National minimum frequencies for total inspections

• Licensed installations – appr. 7.000 (IPPC or national regulation): 100 % in 3 years

• Installations regulated by specific branch orders and installations on a specific inspection list – appr. 15.000: 100 % in 4 years

• Animal farms except IPPC – appr. 40.000: 100 % in 6 years

A ”TOTAL INSPECTION” = ”Checking all relevant environmental matters at the

installation (industrial plant or animal farm)”

• Responsibility of the env. authority that all relevant environmental matters are checked by 1 total inspection

• Authority guarantees in reporting to DEPA that the quality of the single inspection is OK

• National minimum frequencies for total inspections

Purpose of differentiated inspection:- prioritizing inspection resources depending on

company’s environmental performance

Level 3 Level 2 Level 1

Company’s environmental effort

Minimum frequency for total inspection

Authority’s inspection effort

DEPA guideline on differentiated inspection - a resource prioritizing tool

Categorizing industry and farms into level 1, 2 or 3 depending on:

• System in environmental work

• Information to authority

• Compliance with environmental regulation

Categorizing companies and farms

High 3 1 1

Middle 3 2 1

Low 3 2 2

Low Middle High

En

vir

on

me

nta

l sys

tem

a

nd

op

en

in

form

ati

on

Respect for environmental regulation

Including pollution risk etc. in the overall prioritization

• Installation’s potential for pollution - including risk in relation to the location

• Authority’s environmental control campaigns or tracking down of polluting sources

Categorized level (which the installation can influence by better performance)

1

2

3

Potential heavy impact Pot. light impact (The potentially env. impact which the installation cannot influence)

Example of total prioritisation of inspection resources

Typ

e of in

stallation

Company name

Raw

material an

d

pro

du

cts

Wastew

ater

Air

Nu

isances

Risks

So

il/Gro

un

dw

ater

Waste

Su

m o

f scores

Categ

orized

level

SU

M T

OT

AL

K02d A 1 1 1 1

A11 B 1 1 2 1 2

E07 C 1 1 1 1 4 2 8

D11 D 1 1 1 3 2 6

D11 E 1 1 1 1 4 3 12

K08a F 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 5

D01a G 1 1 2 2 4

E07 H 1 1 1 3 1 3

W02 I 1 1 1 3 3 9

Prioritizing: Score 1 if environmental important, otherwise score 0

Report to Danish EPA May 2006

_________________________

(Type of installation)Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Number of installations which had a total inspection in 2005

Inspection fee for the above inspections (35 € per hour)

Number of inspection hours for voluntary dialogue with the industry / farm

Example on distribution of resources

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Average distribution of inspection resources per type of installation for 1 total inspection, compared to categorisation

IMPEL Report on Benchmarking of Environmental Inspectorates

Why benchmarking?• To promote uniformity in inspection

approach• To make inspection procedures more

transparent• To make inspectorates’ decisions more

uniform• To stimulate efficiency in inspectorates

Ideas of parameters ( input, output or outcome)

- suitable for benchmarking

• Resources - staffing, equipment, salaries etc.•

Average time for licensing/inspection etc.

• Education level/variety of education in inspectorate• Proportion of installations for inspection/inspector• Proportion of permits with public participation• Customers’ (companies’) satisfaction • Quality and quantity of public relations (press

information, prints, websites etc.)• Auditing of licenses/inspections• Risk classification systems for prioritisation• Positive changes of operators’ behaviour• Better EMS in comparable installations • Etc.

How to connecting goals/targets with parameters/indicators

1. Goals/targets (what to achieve?)

2. Justification (why?)

3. Parameter (what to measure)

4. Indicator (Are we on the right track?)

5. Means of verification (How to measure)

6. Barriers/obstacles?

1. Goal or Target A top qualified inspectorate staff2. Justification Effective organisation

Attractive organisationBeing a vocation for staff members

3. Parameter 1. Salary state - within the country (e.g. the private sector) 2. Variety of education 3. Inspectors’ "independency" 4. Inspectors’ responsibility 5. Inspectors’ motivation 6. Inspectors’ initiatives 7. Customers’ (citizens & companies) satisfaction 8. Short time for a permit or fixed time 9. Clear conditions in permits10. Enforceable and achievable permits - also seen from the industry point

of view

4. Indicators Ability to recruit staffStaff turnoverInvestigation / interviews / auditing of reports etc.Number of appeals against authority's decisions - approved/rejectedSalary

5. Means of verification Audits, internal and externalCo-operation internalSurveys of internal satisfactionStatisticsAbility to do the job - linked to education/vocationResources for training

6. Barriers/Obstacles Lack of "standards"SalariesPolitical prioritiesConflict of interest between private and public sector

1. Goal or Target A. Inspectorates are working consistently (not uniformly!), site specific but with similar approach and fairness.

B. Guarantee for citizens that the environment gets same level of treatment throughout country or area.

2. Justification The expectations to inspectorates' work are well knownEnsures minimum standard (legally compliant)

3. Parameter 1. Measurement of activity (according to working programme)2. Work based on same structure/plan (including philosophy, principles,

procedures and systems)3. Meetings/Networks/Co-operation between inspectorates4. Exchange of staff (inland and between countries) - for cross fertilising of

ideas5. No. of issued guidelines - based on working groups and/or review

system

4. Indicators Increased knowledge/experience Common working systemFunds for promotion, Encouragement, CooperationPresence of National campaigns

5. Means of verification ISO 9000 at basic principle level - same procedure used (Not international comparison)Working programme, specific system - e.g. exchange of staffBenchmarking – e.g. do you have a system?

6. Barriers/Obstacles Different cultures - entranced views Lack of initiative because success not guaranteedLack of cooperationLack of funds to promote cooperationNo review system for guidelines etc.

• Benchmarking of inspectorates

• Quality system (ISO 9000, EMAS)

• Quality ensurance procedures

• Training in inspection principles

• Inspection and planning procedures/guidelines

• Multi-agency enforcement actions

• Registration and reporting systems (number, time,

costs etc. per main item)

Existing or planned quality measurement systems in environmetal inspectorates (national and/or regional and/or local authorities)

FIN