Development of Electronic Reporting Tools for IPPC Directive and WI Directive

1. Development of Electronic Reporting Tools for IPPC Directive and WI Directive Workshop – Sessions One and Two (IPPC) Tuesday 3rd March 2009Meeting room 0A, DG ENV, Avenue de Beaulieu, Brussels Peter Stouthuysen

2. 4/5. Session One: Tool 1 (Implementation of IPPC Directive)

3. IPPC: Explanation of general approach • Restructuring of questionnaire • Use of pre-filled answers and standardised answers • Guidance and validation rules

4. IPPC: Explanation of general approach Restructuring of questionnaire: • Thematic regrouping based on LDK analysis of the previous reporting period (2003-2005) to improve the logics of the questionnaire’s structure. • 5(6) major themes: • General description • Permit application and determination process • Access to information, public participation and transboundary cooperation • Compliance and enforcement • Views of Member States • Coverage of activities and installations (not in this presentation) Based on the questionnaire’s template, this will be incorporated into the tool. • Content of questionnaire kept • Tool available in all EU languages

5. IPPC: Use of pre-filled answers and standardised answers • Pre-filled answers : • Based on answers from previous reporting periods some questions will have pre-filled answers • Text in English • MS will have the possibility to amend these answers if necessary. • Pre-filled answers will generally be the summaries made by LDK • General Binding Rules: information gathered in the GBR project will also be used to define pre-filled answers.

6. IPPC: Use of pre-filled answers and standardised answers • Standardised answers: • If possible standardised answers are defined instead of open text boxes. • Simplest form of standardised answer: YES/NO • Sources to determine standardised answers: • Analysis of implementation reports (2003-2005) by LDK (2007) • IPPC expert judgement • Suggestions from MS as part of the project • MS can select the relevant answer(s) through • Option box: MS can select one (and only one) selection from a number of options. For example: • Tick box: MS can make multiple selections from a number of options. For example:

7. IPPC: Examples of restructuring and pre-answers ORIGINAL QUESTION 1.1. Have any significant changes been made since the last reporting period (2003-2005) to national or sub-national legislation and to the permitting system(s) that implement Directive 96/61/EC? If so, describe these changes and the reasons for them, and provide references to new legislation.

8. IPPC: Examples of restructuring and pre-answers Restructuring 1. General descripition

9. IPPC: Examples of restructuring and pre-answers Restructuring

10. IPPC: Examples of restructuring and pre-answers ORIGINAL QUESTION 5.1. Describe any changes made since the last reporting period in the organisational structure of the permitting procedures (levels of authorities, distribution of competencies, etc.).

11. IPPC: Examples of restructuring and pre-answers Restructuring 1. General descripition

12. IPPC: Examples of restructuring and pre-answers Restructuring

13. IPPC: Guidance and validation rules • Guidance: • Where appropriate, guidance is provided by means of additional information or by allowing only a certain data type as answer. • Questions containing conditional clauses are marked such as ‘If available’ or ‘If known’ are marked as ‘Optional’ • Guidance document will be circulated to Member States to support and guide them for filling the electronic questionnaire • Validation rules: • IT tools to see if the correct type of answer is given: • For example: • Option box: only one answer can be selected • Number box: only numbers are allowed • Validation of sum of numbers given (f.e. numbers of installations)

14. IT Functionality Built on EEA Reportnet • Allows for upload / import of XML files for responses • Use of Web Forms • Validation and Quality Assurance Checks • Export (via Transformations) to HTML and other formats

15. 6/7. Session Two: Tool 2 (ELV and BAT Reporting

16. ELV and BAT: Selection of 2 sectors (LCP and Chlor-alkali) • LCP: electricity generation sector (coal, lignite and liquid fuels) Main reasons for selecting this sector: • Upcoming review of the LCPBREF • Highest emissions of key air pollutants • Inventory under LCP Directive: no information on ELVs or on techniques applied • Because of the large number of installations, focus on • specific sector: electricity generation • specific type of fuels: coal, lignite and liquid (no gas, no gas turbines) • 6 largest NOx emitters for each of the following capacity categories: • 50-100 MWth • 100-300 MWth • > 300 MWth

17. ELV and BAT: Selection of 2 sectors (LCP and Chlor-alkali) • LCP: electricity generation sector (coal, lignite and liquid fuels) Focus of permit information gathering: • Combustion activity(not fuel storage, fuel handling, pre-treatment of the fuels,….) • Emissions to air: • NOx, SO2, CO, dust and Hg (for coal/lignite fired plants) • Emissions to water (in case of water emissions from flue gas treatment) • Suspended solids, COD, Nitrogen compounds, sulphate, sulphite, sulphide and Hg (for coal/lignite fired plants) • Information on techniques applied • Possibility to select techniques in a tick box (based on BREF LCP)

18. ELV and BAT: Selection of 2 sectors (LCP and Chlor-alkali) • Chlor-Alkali: Main reasons for selecting this sector: • Upcoming review of the Chlor-AlkaliBREF • Follow-up of Commission initiative launched on implementation assessment in this sector (questions to the IEG) • Good spread of the industry throughout the EU but limited number of installations (+/- 80 installations in 20 MS) • Therefore, information on all the installations will be gathered • Conversion programme for Mercury cells • Phase-out not yet completed in several installations • ELVs in the transition period?

19. ELV and BAT: Selection of 2 sectors (LCP and Chlor-alkali) • Chlor-alkali Focus of permit information gathering: • Conversion of mercury cells • Emissions to air: • Chlorine • Hg and compounds (for Mercury cells) • Emissions to water • Chlorate, Bromate (for Membrane cells) • Hg and compounds (for Mercury cells) • At this stage, no specific questions on the techniques applied – MS views welcome.

20. ELV and BAT reporting tool: general approach • Similar approach as for Tool 1: • Pre-anwers and standardised answers if available • Guidance texts where appropriate • Structure: 3 themes: • General information • Technical background information • ELV/BAT information

21. ELV and BAT reporting tool: LCP General information • Facility name: based on EPER/E-PRTR – database • Facility E-PRTR code: based on EPER/E-PRTR – database • Installation’s GIS coordinates: based on EPER/E-PRTR – database • Year the permit has last been updated: YYYY • Status of the installation under the IPPCD: new/existing • If available, weblink to permit:______

22. ELV and BAT reporting tool: LCP Technical background information • Facility level • How many combustion plants does this facility consist of?: ___ • What is the total rated thermal input of the combustion plant(s) at facility level in MWth?: ___ • Combustion plant level • What is the total rated thermal input of the combustion plant in MWth?: ___ • What is the fuel use of the combustion plant?: option box + number • What is the status of the plant under the LCP Directive: existing / ’old’new / ’new’ new • In case of solid fuel firing, what type of combustion process is used?: Option box • Is this a co-generation plant? Yes/No

23. ELV and BAT reporting tool: LCP Definition of “Combustion plant”: A "combustion plant" is in principle to be understood as a combination of (one or more) technical units in which fuels are combusted and which are sharing a common stack. It is assumed that the emission limit values and techniques to prevent/reduce emissions are applied at the plant level. If this would not be the case, this should be indicated and reporting can then be done at a more aggregate/disaggregate level, but the configuration of the "plant" reported should be provided (number of units, stacks, rated thermal input).

24. ELV and BAT reporting tool: LCP ELV/BAT information • ELVs set in permit for emissions to air - limited list of pollutants (NOx, SO2, CO, dust and Hg (for coal/lignite fired plants)) • Standardised answers for: • Unit (mg/ Nm³ or t/year) • ELV related time period • Reference conditions to improve comparability between different plants • Information requested on actual monitored emissions during reporting period. (expressed in same unit as ELV) • Techniques thatare applied? (Non-limited Option box with BAT from BREF LCP)

25. ELV and BAT reporting tool: LCP ELV/BAT information • ELVs set in permit for emissions to water (resulting from waste gas treatment) – limited list of pollutants (Suspended solids, COD, Nitrogen compounds, sulphate, sulphite, sulphide and Hg (for coal/lignite fired plants)) • Standardised answers for: • Unit (mg/l or t/year) • ELV related time period • Reference conditions to improve comparability between different plants • Information requested on actual monitored emissions during reporting period. (expressed in same unit as ELV) • Techniques thatare applied? (Non-limited Option box with BAT from BREF LCP)

26. ELV and BAT reporting tool: LCP

27. ELV and BAT reporting tool: Chlor-alkali General information (same as for LCP) • Facility name: based on EPER/E-PRTR – database • Facility E-PRTR code: based on EPER/E-PRTR – database • Installation’s GIS coordinates: based on EPER/E-PRTR – database • Year the permit has last been updated: YYYY • Status of the installation under the IPPCD: new/existing • If available, weblink to permit:______

28. ELV and BAT reporting tool: Chlor-alkali Technical background information • Does the installation consist of several chlorine production lines? Yes/No • If Yes, how many:____ • What is the total chlorine production capacity of the installation (tons)?: ___ • Which was/were the process(es) applied for the chlorine production at the end of the reporting period?: diaphragm/membrane/mercury • If diaphragm or membrane: • Conversion from mercury? Yes/No • If yes, when? YYYY • If Mercury: • When is conversion complete? YYYY • Indicate on which basis the planing for conversion has been decided by CA? ____

29. ELV and BAT reporting tool: Chlor-alkali ELV/BAT information • ELVs set in permit for emissions to air/water - limited list of pollutants depending on process (air: Chlorine, Hg and compounds (for Mercury cells); water: Chlorate, Bromate (for Membrane cells),Hg and compounds (for Mercury cells)) • Standardised answers for: • Unit (air: mg/ Nm³ / water: mg/l or t/year) • ELV related time period • Reference conditions to improve comparability between different plants • Information requested on actual monitored emissions during reporting period. (expressed in same unit as ELV)