From EPER to E-PRTR

From EPER to E-PRTR

EPER/E-PRTR module ECENA training workshopSzentendre,15/16 October 2007

Michel Amand

Belgian Head of delegation PRTR

Chair of the WG UNECE Protocol on PRTRs

Content of the presentation

EPER and E-PRTR 2nd EPER review report status of E-PRTR implementation Conclusions

2000/479/EC EPER Decision

Objective : implementation of Art. 15.2 and 15.3 Directive 96/61 IPPC

Report by MS every 3 years Releases to air and water Indirect releases of WW to WWTP Sites with at least 1 IPPC Annex I activity (56 activities) 50 substances or parameters 1st report in June 2003 on 2001 releases 2nd report in June 2006 on 2004 releases

Regulation 166/2006 on E-PRTR

Entry into force : 24 February 2006 Objective : UNECE PRTR Protocol transposition at EU level

and ratification by EC Annual reporting by operators to competent authorities and

by MS to the Commission Sites with at least one Annex I activity Annex 1 : see Protocol => 65 activities 91 substances: Annex II Protocol + 5 additional release thresholds by medium and substance (Annex II) Releases to air, water and land off site transfers of waste

Regulation 166/2006 on E-PRTR Reporting of total releases (including fugitive and accidental) Separate additional reporting for accidental releases where data available operators keep record of data for 5 years release to land if waste subject to disposal operations “land treatment” or “

deep injection” (according to Directive 2006/12) Reporting by operators must be based on best available information and in

accordance with internationally approved methodologies where available Commission includes in the E-PRTR already available information on

releases from diffuse sources Art. 15.3 IPPC Directive and Art.8.3 Directive 91/689 deleted

Regulation 166/2006 on E-PRTR

Time Table

reporting by MS/internet

data of 2001(EPER) June 2003/+8

data of 2004 (EPER) June 2006/+5

data of 2007 E-PRTR June 2009/+4

data of 2008 E-PRTR March 2010/+1

data of 2009 E-PRTR March 2011/+1

2nd EPER review report

Requested by Art.3 of EPER Decision

Prepared by the Commission with EEA

Available on http://www.eper.cec.eu.int or http://www.prtr.ec.europa.eu

Two main parts: data collection and reporting, completeness and quality of the data

In addition: analysis of emission threshold, comparison of data from the two reporting cycles, comparison with national inventories for emission to air

2nd EPER review report 25 MS reported 2004 data + Norway

9 countries reported for the 1st time (10 new MS except Hungary)

Hungary reported also for 1st EPER reporting cycle

11417 sites within EU reported 27039 emissions (70 % for air)

24% of IPPC sites reported (range : 20 - 65 %)

In 2001: 9227 sites and 23109 emissions reported

38% of the 2001 facilities not reported in 2004

50% of the 2004 facilities are new (40 % for the countries reporting for the 2nd time)


20 countries have specific or EPER-related legislation Two countries (new 2004 MS) use existing legislation Identification of facilities: mainly through implementation

of IPPC Directive or by using more extended reporting obligation (=> selection)

Mainly validation by national (or regional) authorities More facilities use electronic reporting (big efforts made

by the countries) Generally, facilities have 3 - 4 months to deliver their

datas


Similar difficulties in data collection for facilities facing 1st reporting exercise

Lack of personnel with sufficient background No reference data for comparing and checking No previous experience of emission reporting including

electronically Facility identification (agriculture, geographical coordinates) Meaning of « estimation » Calculation and estimation for some parameters (PM10 &

CH4 for landfills in particular)

2nd EPER review report Similar difficulties in data collection for countries facing

1st reporting exercise Pig and poultry Landfill No comparison possible with another reporting year Incomplete data especially for PM10 Identification of NOSE-P code Incorrect data on the emitted amounts Main activity identification MS reporting for 2nd time had same difficulties in 2003


Difficulties for facilities facing 2nd reporting cycle Determining total annual emission on few

measurements Using reporting tools Understanding of the chemical compounds in EPER Meeting the timescale for reporting Harmonization with national laws


Difficulties for authorities facing 2nd reporting cycle Missing/wrong data Lack of resources for validation Change in facility’s name, activities and co-ordinates Different determination methodologies used by facilities

Confidentiality Raised by 7 countries mainly regarding personal data such as names,

address , geographical co-ordinates (550 pig and poultry facilities) 1 country for economic reason (14 facilities)


87 % CH4 emissions by disposal of non hazardous waste and landfills

75 % ammonia emissions due to pig & poultry 2/3 CO2, NOx & SOx emissions due to LCPs Activity « Slaughterhouses, milk, animal and vegetables

raw materials » explains 72% N and 98 % P indirect releases to water

Basic inorganic chemicals and pulp & paper or board production represent 22% N and 21% P releases to water


Statistical analysis concludes that all emission threshold values ensure that 90% of the emission in each activity are included in the EPER

One exception: NH3 (great influence of pig & poultry)

2nd EPER review report Comparison with national totals (NEC, CLRTAP,

UNFCCC) for air pollutants (CO2, CH4, N2O, NOx, NMVOC, SO2, NH3)

Need to link respective sector and activity classifications For major combustion-related pollutants (CO2, NOx,

SO2) EPER data correspond quite well (20-30% below national totals - emissions below threshold, non EPER activities)

For the other pollutants, EPER datas << or >> national totals with differences between MS => importance of integrated and streamlined reporting scheme

E-PRTR implementationGuidance document

Main task for MS and Commission between July 2005 and May 2006

Using experience gained from EPER Key tool for implementing E-PRTR for

Commission, MS and operators Interpretations for topics like measurement,

calculation, estimation, confidentiality, background load,determination limit values, internationally approved and « equivalent » methodologies (examples)

E-PRTR implementation

Finalized or on its way

4 main topics for all MS Amendment of legislation Streamline and integrate different reporting obligations for

MS and industry (Electronic) reporting tool Training for new activities involved

Ratification of PRTR Protocol

Conclusions

1st EPER: 1st attempt => gaps and lessons learned

2nd EPER: more complete data E-PRTR: strong cooperation between MS and

Commission Need for MS to streamline environmental

reporting process => electronic tools Importance of guidance document Next step: entry into force of PRTR Protocol

Michel AMAND Chair UNECE WG on PRTR Protocol Belgian Head of delegation for PRTR

(EU Regulation & UNECE Protocol)

Vice Chair OECD PRTR TF Tel: + 32 81 33 63 01 email: [email protected]

From EPER to E-PRTR

Documents

Transcript of From EPER to E-PRTR