1 / 20

From EPER to E-PRTR

From EPER to E-PRTR. EPER/E-PRTR module ECENA training workshop Szentendre,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

verlee
Download Presentation

From EPER to E-PRTR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. From EPER to E-PRTR EPER/E-PRTR module ECENA training workshop Szentendre,15/16 October 2007 Michel Amand Belgian Head of delegation PRTR Chair of the WG UNECE Protocol on PRTRs

  2. Content of the presentation • EPER and E-PRTR • 2nd EPER review report • status of E-PRTR implementation • Conclusions

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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) • Reportingby operators mustbe 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

  6. 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

  7. 2nd EPER review report • Requested by Art.3 of EPER Decision • Prepared by the Commission with EEA • Available onhttp://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

  8. 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)

  9. 2nd EPER review report • 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

  10. 2nd EPER review report • 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)

  11. 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

  12. 2nd EPER review report • 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

  13. 2nd EPER review report • 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)

  14. 2nd EPER review report • 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

  15. 2nd EPER review report • 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)

  16. 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

  17. 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)

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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: m.amand@mrw.wallonie.be

More Related