COMPLIANCE MONITORING IN NORWAY

 

GRO RODLAND

 

Head of Department, State Pollution Control Authority, Norway, SFT.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This paper covers how the work of monitoring industry's compliance with environmental legislation is organized in Norway.  Development in, methods used and results gained by, compliance monitoring are described.

 

1        THE STRUCTURE OF INSPECTION SERVICES - CENTRALIZED AND LOCAL ACTIVITIES

 

The monitoring of compliance with rules and regulations is carried out by the body that is given the authority to do so in the respective laws and regulations.  The authority that grants the permit also exercises supervision and control to ensure that any conditions imposed in the permit are complied with.

In Norway this means that compliance monitoring in industry is centralized to one authority, SFT, which is also responsible for all reassessment/review of industry's self-monitoring activities.

The local county pollution control authorities are responsible for compliance monitoring in aquaculture, agriculture, sewage treatment, municipal land fills and so on.

The local municipalities are responsible for health and for land use.

In SFT the responsibility for environmental enforcement in industry is divided between two departments.  The Department of Industry issues discharge permits to various industrial enterprises or companies.  The Control Department is responsible for determining the industry's compliance with the terms of the permits.  In 1992 a total of 22 persons are occupied with monitoring the industries compliance.

 

2          SFT'S PROGRAMME FOR MONITORING COMPLIANCE

 

            In Norway 1500 enterprises have been granted discharge permits.  The permits are usually multimedia, and cover water, air, noise, industrial waste and hazardous waste.  This means that it is possible for the inspectors to monitor compliance on a multimedia basis during one and the same visit to the enterprise.

It is not adequate nor necessary to inspect all the 1500 enterprises at the same frequency or with equal thoroughness.  In order to get the best possible effect from our limited inspection capacity, enterprises that have been granted permits are divided into four control classes.

The classification is based on the potential emissions from the enterprise and their toxicity.  The environmental sensitivity (air and water quality) of the surroundings are also taken into account.

The most polluting enterprises are placed in class 1, which includes 50-60 enterprises/ plants (e.g. chemical industry, pulp and paper industry, aluminum industry, ferro alloy industry, large foundries, off-shore oil installations).  Small enterprises producing only a limited amount of Pollution are placed in class 4 (e.g. small dairies, slaughterhouses and small asphalt plants).

SFT monitors compliance by means of:

·         reports submitted by the enterprises

·         inspections

·         environmental auditing

·         source testing

 

          A schedule for compliance monitoring for the enterprises depending on control class has been worked out.  This is outlined schematically in Table 1.

 

Table 1    Schedule for compliance monitoring in facilities with discharge permit

 


Class       No. of facilities     Reports to SFT            Inspections           Audit frequency

                                                                                       frequency             source testing

                                                                                       (minimum)             (minimum)

 


1          50                           once or twice                 annually                  once every 3 years

                                           a year

 

     2         100                          once or twice                 once every              once every 6 years

                                                a year                             2nd year

 

     3         350                          once a year                    once every 2nd       depending of type of

                                                                                       - 3rd year                discharge

 

     4          1000                                                              depending of

                                                                                       type of

                                                                                       discharge and

                                                                                       complaints

 

TOTAL     1500

 

 

 


3          COMPLIANCE MONITORING

 

3.1       Self-monitoring

 

            In the case of large enterprises (classes 1 and 2) the permit includes a requirement to

establish and maintain a well defined self-monitoring programme.  Smaller enterprises (classes 3 and 4) are usually required to have a less comprehensive self-monitoring programme.

            A self-monitoring programme will usually contain:

·         a source testing programme

·         record keeping

·         written procedures for important activities that can effect the discharges

·         routines for submitting reports to the authorities

 

All major enterprises also have to submit a report on emissions to SFT, usually once or twice a year.  This provides information on emissions from the enterprise (seen in relation to the requirements and emission limits) and on waste.  This self-monitoring is indeed the backbone of the programme to monitor compliance and the reports are used to help to set priorities for the inspection programme.

 

During 1992 SFT will examine and revise the self-reporting system.  The reports submitted by enterprises are to be standardized in order to simplify processing and use.

In case of violation the report is to include a description of the corrective action taken to avoid recurrence.

From 1. January 1992, all enterprises have to meet the requirements in a new regulation concerning internal control.

This regulation places an increased emphasis on the responsibility of the enterprise/ company management for controlling pollution.

 

3.2       Inspections

 

            Inspections are unannounced and last for 3-8 hours in the field.

The total workload per inspection is 3 - 5 days.

The objectives of an inspection are :

·         To check whether the enterprise is in compliance or not

·         To collect evidence in the case of non-compliance, to ensure the necessary enforcement action.

·         To ensure high quality of the self-reported data

·         To demonstrate that the authorities take compliance seriously

 

            Inspections may focus on one or more of the following :

·         Does the enterprise have a valid discharge permit ?

·         Has the required pollution monitoring or control equipment been installed ? 

·         Is the equipment being operated correctly ?

·         Are records of self-reported data properly prepared and maintained ?

·         Is the enterprise conducting the required sampling and analysis properly ? 

·         Does the enterprise management plans and practice support the required compliance activities ?

·         Are there any signs of willful violation of regulations and/or tampering with data ?

 

A written report is always sent to the enterprise following an inspection.  The inspector presents findings from the inspection supported by, monitor readings, copies of files, photographs and other material of importance for enforcing the regulation.  Any collected samples are sent to an approved laboratory for analysis.

The Control Department carries out 300-400 inspections annually.

 

3.3       Environmental auditing and source testing

 

            Until 1988 compliance was monitored only through the reports submitted by the enterprises and through inspections.

It was then decided that a more thorough inspection was needed for enterprises in control classes 1 and 2. The first year these inspections had the form of emission source testing only, out already in 1989 SFT started to include an element of auditing.

The extent of environmental auditing has since increased gradually.  In 1992 all the thorough inspections contain elements of auditing.

Source testing is still used to a large extent, but mainly to verify findings in connection with the audit.

            Through inspections and reports submitted by the enterprises we have learned that the continuous discharges and the most elementary problems in pollution control are reduced.  But violations often occur in connection with accidents, irregular production, or poor maintenance.

By performing audits SFT does not only monitor whether the facility is in compliance, we also often find the reason for non-compliance.  Often non-compliance is caused by inadequate management and the lack of control systems.

Auditing also gives us a possibility to underline the managements responsibility towards better housekeeping.  A follow up of the audit from authorities is quite often a demand for better preventive actions and systems.

The main parts of an audit cover:

·         interviews with personnel at all levels of the enterprise (from management to operators on the production floor)

·         reviewing files and documents

·         verifying that procedures are followed. e.g. by source testing, reviewing records and watching operations.

 

These inspections are usually carried out by 2 or 3 inspectors who stay in the field/at the enterprise for 4-5 days.  The total time involved in an audit varies from 3 to 7 weeks.

In 1991, 39 audits were carried out by SFT.  The number will be increased to 50 in 1992.

 

4          FUNDING

 

            SFT's control activities are financed by fees (imposed since 1986), based on the principle that the polluter must pay.  In 1 992 the fees were as follows :

 

Table 2   Fees

 

 


               Control class                           Per inspection                          Per source test

                                                                                                               environmental (audit 1)

 


                                                                           US Dollar                               US Dollar

                                     1                                            2,200                             23,700/15,000

 

                                     2                                            1,600                             15,000/ 9,000

 

                                     3                                            1,200                                  5,000

 

                                     4                                               500

 

 

 


5          RESULTS

 

            In one third of the unannounced inspections compliance is found.  For the remaining two

thirds, more or less severe violations are found.  Approximately 10% of the inspected enterprises have what we consider serious violations.  These percentages have been relatively constant throughout the years, but the cause for violation have changed.

The development in types of violations from 1987 till 1991 is given in the following table.

 

Table 3    Violations revealed during unannounced inspections (in %)

 


Violation                                                      1987         1988         1989         1990         1991

 


     Exceeding production limits                        11               6               6               3               9

 

   Acute Pollution                                                1               4               2               4               7

 

   Defective or insufficient technical

   equipment                                                     22             13             13               9             17

 

   Insufficient maintenance                                 5             10               7               7             11

 

   Insufficient self-monitoring                            22             21             21             27             29

 

   Exceeding discharge limits                           22             26             21             20             22

 

   Insufficient/illegal handling of waste

   or chemicals                                                 13             11             18             19             24

 

 


            From 1987 till 1991 we inspected mainly enterprises in control classes 1 2 and 3, and an improvement with regard to technical equipment was found.  There are also fewer cases of

violation of production limits.

The increase in number of violations concerning the handling of waste and chemicals are probably due to intensified control in this field.  Increased attention and a demand for better quality from the authorities explains the development with regard to self-monitoring.

During 1991 we carried out an inspection campaign for enterprises in control class 4. The inspected enterprises had seldom or never been inspected before.  The results are suggestive.  The causes for violation are mainly the same as for enterprises in the higher control classes several years ago.

This campaign is the reason for the increase in violations uncovered due to exceeding production limits and insufficient/defective technical equipment found in the reports from 1991.

The results from the campaign clearly demonstrated : Inspection is necessary in order to gain compliance.

The results from the audits carried out in 1991 are given in table 4.

 

Table 4    Violations and observations revealed during audits in 1991

 


                                    Number of

                                    enterprises with

 

Cause                                                     violations                                observations

 


Insufficient control/

management system                                           26                                                   35

 

Insufficient system for

self-monitoring                                                      21                                                   21

 

Exceeding discharge limit                                    15                                                     3

 

Insufficient reports to SFT                                    13                                                     4

 

Insufficient/illegal handling

of waste/chemicals                                                8                                                     8

 

Insufficient prevention

against accidents                                                   7                                                   13

 

Defect or lack of technical

equipment                                                               4                                                     3

 

Total number of audits: 39

 

 


Findings from an audit are reported either as violations or as observations.  Findings which can not be considered as non-compliance, but where SFT finds it necessary to point out a possi­bility for improvement are defined as observations.

The pattern of violations are to a great extent the same for audits as for the unannounced inspections.

The audits, however, give us a better possibility to reveal non-compliance and possibility/ need for improvement in the control/management system.