Why the topic of sources requiring additional permitting is being addressed
After the amendment to the Air Protection Act, the view of whether certain activities at some operations are listed stationary sources and whether they have a separately valid operating permit has changed. The Ministry of the Environment is gradually publishing methodological communications that seek to unify interpretation for regional authorities, operators, and preparers of expert documentation.
Especially significant is the communication on code 12.1 of Annex No. 2 to the Air Protection Act, i.e. handling of bulk materials including their storage on open areas, not listed elsewhere, with a total designed deposit area of 3,000 m² or more, with the exception of construction sites.
But the topic is not only about one new item in the annex to the Act. In practice it is a broader question: is the source actually permitted, or is it only described in the decision?
The fundamental difference is between a source being expressly permitted in the operative part of the decision and being only mentioned in the reasoning, technical description, or as related activity.
This difference can determine whether the operator must file an application for a new operating permit or only an application for a change to the existing permit.
What "source requiring additional permitting" means
The term "source requiring additional permitting" is not a separate statutory definition, but in practice it is used for situations where it is found at an existing operation that a certain activity or part of technology newly falls among listed sources, or was previously stated in the permit only indirectly and it is not clear that it was actually permitted as a stationary source under the Air Protection Act.
Typically this may concern open deposits of bulk materials, handling areas, storage of aggregate, coal, wood chips, sawdust, bulk soil, slag, ash, or construction rubble. In some operations these activities may have been part of the site for a long time but were not separately permitted as a listed stationary source.
| Situation in the permit | Practical significance |
|---|---|
| source is expressly stated in the operative part | it is usually clear that it was permitted |
| source is only in the reasoning | it is usually not a permit to operate the source |
| source is described as related activity | it is necessary to verify whether it is actually a permitted source |
| source was previously part of another code | it may remain in the original regime if that is clear from the decision |
| source newly falls under Annex No. 2 | a new operating permit may be required |
Practically important: it is not enough that the activity is described somewhere in the documentation. What matters is whether its operation is actually permitted by the operative part of the decision.
First check: is the source in the operative part?
The operator's first step should be simple: take the valid operating permit or integrated permit and check the operative part. The operative part determines what is permitted, in what capacity, under what conditions, and for which source.
If the source is stated only in the reasoning of the decision, in the technical description, in an annex, or as accompanying information, that does not necessarily mean that its operation was permitted. In the communication on code 12.1, the Ministry of the Environment expressly distinguishes whether the source is permitted by the operative part or only mentioned.
For an integrated permit the situation is similar. It is necessary to determine whether it is clear from the operative part that the given stationary source is permitted within the operating permit replaced by the integrated permit. Stating it as directly connected activity does not automatically mean that it is a permitted stationary source under the Air Protection Act.
Deadlines of 1 March 2026 and 1 March 2027
For sources requiring additional permitting, it is essential to distinguish two situations. The first is that the source was previously unlisted but after the amendment newly falls under Annex No. 2 to the Act. The second is that the source was already stated in the permit in some way, but the existing permit does not contain all newly required particulars.
| Situation | What this usually implies |
|---|---|
| source was previously unlisted and newly falls under Annex No. 2 | application for operating permit should have been filed by 1 March 2026 |
| source is permitted but permit does not contain new particulars | application for change of operating permit must be filed by 1 March 2027 |
| source is expressly permitted and conditions comply with the new arrangement | compliance check without a new application may suffice |
| source is only mentioned in the reasoning | a new operating permit is usually required |
This difference is crucial in practice. If the operator incorrectly assesses that the source is already permitted, but in reality it is only mentioned in the reasoning or as related activity, they may fall into delay with the obligation to file an application.
Code 12.1: open areas with bulk materials
Code 12.1 concerns handling of bulk materials including their storage on open areas, if it concerns activities not listed elsewhere and the total designed deposit area reaches 3,000 m² or more. Construction sites are an exception.
Several things are important. It must be bulk material, an open area, active handling or storage, and a designed deposit area. Not only the current size of the pile on the day of inspection is assessed, but the area designated for the given activity.
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Is it bulk material? | the code targets materials that can be handled as bulk matter |
| Is the area open? | covered and enclosed storage may have a different regime |
| Is active handling taking place? | old reclamation or an abandoned spoil heap is not the same thing |
| Is the area designed for the given activity? | the entire designated area decides, not the current pile |
| Is the activity not listed elsewhere? | code 12.1 is not used if the activity is already under another code |
| Does the area exceed 3,000 m²? | threshold for classification under code 12.1 |
Typical examples may be aggregate deposits, coal stockpiles, raw material stockpiles, wood chip or sawdust stockpiles, open areas with construction rubble or other bulk materials, if they are not already classified under another code.
Designed area is not the current pile
One of the most important methodological interpretations of the Ministry of the Environment is the question of area. For assessing the 3,000 m² threshold, one does not proceed only from the place where material is currently piled. The decisive factor is the entire area designed for storage and handling of bulk materials.
If design documentation does not exist or the area cannot be determined from it, other documentation may be used, for example map data or permitted capacity. This is practically important mainly for older operations where original documentation may be incomplete.
In practical terms: one cannot rely on the argument that "today there is only a small pile on the area". If the entire area is designated for deposits and handling, it is assessed as the designed area of the source.
Overlap with other codes
Code 12.1 is used only for activities not listed elsewhere. If a certain activity is already classified and permitted under another code of Annex No. 2, it should not be classified again under code 12.1.
This is important, for example, for quarries, landfills, concrete plants, asphalt plants, recycling lines, or technological operations where part of material handling may be part of another listed source.
| Example | How to think about it |
|---|---|
| sorting and transport of aggregate under code 5.11 | it is not automatically code 12.1 again |
| separate open aggregate deposit outside activity 5.11 | may fall under code 12.1 |
| landfill under its own code | code 12.1 does not apply to the landfill itself |
| active soil deposits outside the landfill body | may be assessed separately under code 12.1 |
| concrete plant or asphalt plant | necessary to distinguish what is part of the original source and what is separate activity |
Most important is to demonstrate under which code the activity has been permitted to date and whether that is clear from the decision. If the decision is silent or only describes the activity, supplementation or a new permit may be required.
Aggregation rules: when areas are added and when not
The Ministry of the Environment also clarifies how to approach multiple areas. Several piles on one active handling area are regarded as one stationary source. Conversely, truly separate areas, separated for example by buildings or terrain, do not have to be added automatically.
What matters is operational and spatial connection. If materials are moved within one area, piles arise and disappear, and the entire site serves one handling activity, it is typically one source. If there are two separate activities or two separate areas, there may be separate sources.
This is important mainly for operations where several deposits exist in one site. Incorrect aggregation can lead either to underestimation of obligations or, conversely, to excessively strict classification.
Expert opinion
For newly permitted sources under code 12.1, the Ministry of the Environment infers that the Act requires submission of an expert opinion. This concerns especially sources that were previously unlisted and newly fell under Annex No. 2 to the Act.
A different situation applies to sources that were already actually permitted within an operating permit for a listed source and only a change of permit is now being addressed. There an expert opinion may not be required depending on circumstances, especially if there is no increase in designed output, capacity, or emissions and it is not a determination of a technical condition replacing a specific emission limit.
| Situation | Expert opinion |
|---|---|
| new source under code 12.1 | usually yes |
| previously unlisted source newly in Annex No. 2 | usually yes |
| change of permit without increase in capacity or emissions | exception may apply |
| source already actually permitted in operative part | must be assessed according to the specific change |
| only supplementation of formal particulars | depends on scope of proceedings and authority requirement |
The operator should therefore first determine whether it will be a new permit or only a change to the existing permit. The need for an expert opinion follows from that.
Dispersion study
For a dispersion study the situation according to the Ministry of the Environment differs from the expert opinion. For already operated sources that were newly classified among listed sources by the amendment, submission of a dispersion study is generally not required in operating permit proceedings if it is not a new source, a change with increased capacity, or increased emissions.
But that does not mean a dispersion study will never be needed. If capacity is changed at the same time, area is expanded, new technology is added, emissions increase, or the authority requests assessment with regard to local conditions, a dispersion study may be relevant documentation.
For bulk materials it is also important how emissions are determined for calculation. When using emission factors, material moisture, dust suppression measures, handling method, and real operation must be taken into account. If values lower than standard methodological values are used, their use must be explained and demonstrated.
What the operator should check
The operator should carry out a simple but thorough audit of the existing state. It is not just a legal check of the decision, but also a check of actual operation, capacities, areas, and dust suppression measures.
Checklist:
| Check point | What to verify |
|---|---|
| source classification | whether the activity newly falls under Annex No. 2 |
| source code | whether it is code 12.1 or another newly relevant code |
| operative part of permit | whether the source is actually permitted, not only described |
| designed capacity | whether total permitted capacity is stated in the operative part |
| deposit area | whether total designed area does not exceed 3,000 m² |
| active handling | whether repeated or seasonal handling takes place on the area |
| overlap with another code | whether the activity is not already permitted under codes 1 to 10 |
| aggregation of areas | whether multiple areas should or should not be assessed jointly |
| deadline | whether 1 March 2026 or 1 March 2027 applies |
| expert opinion | whether it is required for new permit or change |
| dispersion study | whether it is required according to type of proceedings and change in emissions |
| operating measures | whether they are specifically described and verifiable |
It is advisable to go through this checklist before communication with the authority. If the operator submits complete documentation, it is usually easier to agree the correct process.
Operating conditions and dust suppression measures
For sources requiring additional permitting it is not enough to file an application formally. The operating permit should contain specific and verifiable conditions. For bulk materials these will typically focus on limiting dust.
This may include, for example, sprinkling, cleaning of roads, speed limits, adjustment of drop heights, covering of conveyors, storage of fine fractions in boxes, interruption of handling in adverse weather conditions, or keeping records of operation and measures used.
Practically important: a general formulation such as "the operator will limit dust" may not be sufficient. The authority and inspection body need to know what measures will be applied, when, where, and how their implementation will be demonstrated.
Most common mistakes
The most common mistake is the assumption that if an activity is mentioned somewhere in the permit, it is automatically permitted. The Ministry of the Environment, however, emphasises the operative part of the decision. It must be clear there that operation of the given stationary source is permitted.
A second mistake is assessing only the current state of piles. For code 12.1 the decisive factor is the total designed deposit area, not the immediate configuration of material on the site.
A third mistake is an unclear relationship to other codes. If the operator does not demonstrate that handling or storage is already part of another permitted source, separate additional permitting may be required.
A fourth mistake is a general proposal of dust suppression measures without link to the specific area, material, and operating regime. For bulk materials, measures must be practical and verifiable.
How to proceed in practice
First it is advisable to gather valid permits, integrated permits, operating rules, design documentation, site plans, and map data. The legal state is then compared with actual operation.
If the source is expressly permitted in the operative part, verify whether the permit contains new particulars, especially total permitted capacity and specific operating conditions. If the source is not expressly permitted, it is necessary to assess whether the obligation to file an application for operating permit applies.
In unclear cases it is advisable to prepare a short technical-legislative assessment. It should describe the source, areas, materials, capacities, existing permits, classification under Annex No. 2, and recommended procedure. Such documentation is also useful for communication with the regional authority.
Summary
New methodological guidance from the Ministry of the Environment on sources requiring additional permitting shows that operators cannot rely only on a certain activity having been operated historically or described somewhere in the permit. What matters is whether the source is actually permitted in the operative part of the decision, whether it has correct classification, capacity, and specific operating conditions.
For newly classified sources, especially under code 12.1, it is necessary to check designed deposit area, active handling of bulk materials, relationship to other codes, aggregation rules, deadlines of 1 March 2026 and 1 March 2027, need for an expert opinion, and possibly a dispersion study.
Send us your existing operating permit or integrated permit, operating rule, site plan, map data, description of stored materials and areas. We will verify whether additional source permitting concerns you and propose further procedure with the regional authority.
Factual basis of the article
The article is based mainly on these sources:
- Air protection news – Ministry of the Environment,
- Ministry of the Environment communication on application of code 12.1 of Annex No. 2 to the Air Protection Act,
- Act No. 201/2012 Coll., on air protection,
- Act No. 42/2025 Coll., amending the Air Protection Act,
- Decree No. 415/2012 Coll., on permissible pollution level and its determination.
The Ministry of the Environment communication on code 12.1 distinguishes in detail when a source is actually permitted in the operative part, when it is only stated as related activity or mentioned in the reasoning, and how deadlines for a new permit or change of operating permit apply in these cases. It also addresses expert opinion, dispersion study, emission calculation, aggregation rules, and definition of designed deposit area.