Summary of the first EPER Review Report
Shared by: student19
Summary of the first EPER Review Report 1 Objective of the Report In June 2004 the Commission published the first review report on the implementation of a European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER; see text box below). According to the EPER decision the European Commission reviews the reporting process and the results of the reporting after each reporting cycle. The first EPER Review report evaluates the reporting process and the data delivered by the 15 old Member States, Norway and Hungary for the year 2001. The report analyses the link between the reported emissions of pollutants and their origin (countries, industrial activities, type (receiving media), determination methodology). Based on these evaluations, conclusions are drawn that lead to recommendations for further improvement of the EPER data collection and reporting process, the completeness and the quality of data for the next reporting period. This summary provides an overview of the results. 2 The data collection and reporting process The review has shown the following: 1) Strengths: a) The first data set in the European Pollutant Emission Register, published in February 2004 on the internet i) stores emission data for 9,256 individual facilities in all Member States of the European Union and Norway; ii) contains 22,719 emission records for these facilities; two thirds of these are emissions to air and one third emissions either directly or indirectly to water. The first EPER database therefore is a large and comprehensive source of information on the environmental pressure as caused by large and medium-sized individual facilities that will prove its usefulness to both the general public, NGOs, industry and other lay and professional users. b) The procedure to collect this large amount of data has worked reasonably well: i) all Member States were able to deliver EPER data to the Commission; ii) most Member States have established additional legislation to ensure the data flow from individual facilities towards the authorities and the EPER reporting process; iii) all national experts have used the tools as provided by the Commission (both the Guidance Document and the software tools) and regard these tools as very useful; iv) the use of the validation tool has resulted in the absolute absence of any corrupt data in the sense of non-existing pollutants, activities or other attributes, showing that an electronic data delivery procedure is feasible and well suited for the reporting of large amounts of environmental data. v) National reports on the EPER Reporting website were generated by the EEA from the facility reports. This procedure could be also applied in future EPER reporting cycles. 2) Weaknesses a) a) The first data set of EPER should be used with care since i) not all Member States were able to submit complete data sets. Some countries do not report any data for some activities, e.g. pig and poultry farms, landfills as well as surface treatment; ii) both facilities and national and regional authorities in the Member States had sometimes difficulties in finding the appropriate methodology to determine the emissions of certain pollutants; iii) it appears that Member States have understood the quality indicators “measured”, “estimated” or “calculated” as defined in the Guidance Document in different ways, which hinders the interpretation of the quality of the data in the database. b) The data collection and reporting procedure encountered a few problems and difficulties i) some Member States indicate that actors in the data collection and reporting process need some more experience in determining emissions and in delivering these in the formats as requested by the EPER guidance; these problems are partly to be seen as start-up problems that might be overcome in future reporting cycles; ii) the EPER software tools were not always compatible with the hard- and software as installed at the Member States’ experts desks; the software showed difficulties in older versions and non-English versions of the Windows operating system. 3 Conclusions on the resulting data Figure 1 and Table 1 present an overview of the amount of data collected in the first reporting cycle in EPER. These data are described and analysed in detail in the review report. Sum of Count 4000 3500 3000 2500 value Facilities 2000 Emissions to Air Emissions to Water 1500 1000 500 0 Norway Italy Hungary Sweden Germany Austria Finland France Greece Ireland Spain Portugal Netherlands Luxembourg Belgium United Kingdom Denmark -1 0 EU15 Country Figure 1 Number of facilities and emission reports (air and water) per country The analyses of these data presented in the Review report lead to the following conclusions: 1) No facilities with main activity “Installations for the production of asbestos or asbestos-based products” were reported. 2) For nine pollutants (Organotin – compounds, Chloroalkanes (C10-13), Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), Hexachlorocyclohexane(HCH), Trichloroethane-1,1,1 (TCE), Trichlorobenzenes (TCB), Brominated diphenylether, Pentachlorophenol (PCP)) 10 or less emissions have been reported. 3) Users of the data set as now published on the EPER website, can be quite confident that most of the data are reasonably well representing the real emissions at facility level, although they cannot be sure that each and every number is accurate. 4) Comparison of the data with the expected emission reports on the basis of the “sector-specific sub-lists of pollutants” (tables 4 and 5 in the Guidance Document) shows a) that most pollutants expected for each of the activities indeed have been reported. b) a number of pollutants, not marked for a specific activity in the sub-lists have been reported additionally. This information could be used to update the sector-specific sub-lists from the Guidance Document. Doing so however is not easy since many facilities comprise more than one activity and pollutants reported but not marked in the sub-list for the main activity could be emitted from such additional activities. 5) Within the framework of the review report, only a preliminary and limited analysis could be performed on the accuracy or precision of the data. Table 1 Overview of releases to air and water reported in EPER for each pollutant. Air Water Direct Water Indirect Threshold Number Emission Threshold Air Number Emission Water Number Emission CH4 1,287 2,277,828,000 100,000 - - - - - CO 495 3,983,349,400 500,000 - - - - - CO2 1,570 1,513,039,000,000 100,000,000 - - - - - HFCs 97 975,279 100 - - - - - N2O 418 146,425,200 10,000 - - - - - NH3 3,016 111,269,900 10,000 - - - - - NMVOC 793 567,161,000 100,000 - - - - - NOx 2,161 2,958,836,360 100,000 - - - - - PFCs 29 384,589 100 - - - - - SF6 23 63,045 50 - - - - - SOx 1,321 4,590,383,000 150,000 - - - - - Total - Nitrogen - - - 315 103,283,300 50,000 159 45,705,860 Total - Phosphorus - - - 284 7,961,368 5,000 308 7,987,302 As and compounds 238 31,270 20 238 24,387 5 69 2,857 Cd and compounds 269 24,058 10 181 14,281 5 49 4,835 Cr and compounds 222 222,805 100 242 997,815 50 136 252,041 Cu and compounds 183 137,746 100 356 205,544 50 127 52,799 Hg and compounds 357 24,439 10 166 2,170 1 43 639 Ni and compounds 480 492,785 50 480 171,422 20 284 41,419 Pb and compounds 288 629,578 200 305 115,832 20 107 28,089 Zn and compounds 360 1,792,396 200 547 1,159,902 100 197 172,568 Chloroalkanes (C10-13) - - - 3 196 - 3 18 Dichloroethane-1,2 (DCE) 46 3,076,680 1,000 39 18,798 10 14 5,267 Dichloromethane (DCM) 151 6,025,650 1,000 34 100,471 10 29 13,205 Halogenated organic compounds - - - 133 3,558,121 1,000 33 229,440 Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 3 84 10 3 14 - - - Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) - - - 4 26 1 1 0 Hexachlorocyclohexane(HCH) - - - 3 167 - - - PCDD+PCDF (dioxins+furans) 89 1 - - - - - - Pentachlorophenol (PCP) 1 469 10 - - - - - Tetrachloroethylene (PER) 34 754,250 2,000 - - - - - Tetrachloromethane (TCM) 20 103,974 100 - - - - - Trichlorobenzenes (TCB) 2 72 10 - - - - - Trichloroethane-1,1,1 (TCE) 2 776 100 - - - - - Trichloroethylene (TRI) 106 2,704,144 2,000 - - - - - Trichloromethane 37 236,014 500 - - - - - Benzene 220 3,968,630 1,000 - - - - - Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes - - - 52 194,019 200 33 153,479 Brominated diphenylether - - - - - 1 1 1,400 Organotin - compounds - - - 7 2,810 50 3 521 Phenols - - - 211 369,624 20 150 958,082 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 116 342,217 50 62 42,918 5 19 6,090 Total organic carbon (TOC) - - - 653 576,242,130 50,000 815 333,953,150 Chlorides - - - 189 17,160,682,000 2,000,000 42 971,470,000 Chlorine and inorganic compounds 403 37,574,900 10,000 - - - - - Cyanides - - - 77 304,946 50 30 83,308 Fluorides - - - 178 11,145,750 2,000 34 424,424 Fluorine and inorganic compounds 236 10,289,723 5,000 - - - - - HCN 34 136,618 200 - - - - - PM10 554 149,508,655 50,000 - - - - - Please note that the indirect emissions to water are transfers into a sewer system and typically transported to off site waste water treatment facilities. The first EPER data set provides all actors in the European Union with a valuable and comprehensive set of data on individual facilities. However using these data for bench marking might be hampered by the fact that no underlying information for the emissions (size of the facility, type of fuel used, technology applied (BAT or other)) is available. It is obvious that a larger facility will in general emit more of the same pollutants, whereas the implementation of BAT might decrease the emissions and the use of another fuel might give rise to the emission of other pollutants. EPER provides data for large and medium-sized point sources in the industrial sectors covered by the IPPC Directive. EPER covers mainly industrial sources. It excludes for example emissions from the transport sector and from most agricultural sources. For some air pollutants the EPER share can be assessed, whereas for direct and indirect emissions to water it is more difficult due to a lack of pan-European data sets. As an example: a comparison with the EU15’s total emissions of some important greenhouse gases and air pollutants (as reported under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution) shows that EPER covers around: • 42% of EU15 total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions; • 15% of EU15 total methane (CH4) emissions; • 13% of EU15 total dinitrogenoxide (N2O) emissions; • 6% of EU 15 total non-methane volatile organic carbon (NMVOC) emissions; • 26% of EU15 total nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions and • 70% of EU15 total sulphur oxides (SOx) emissions. The share of emissions from all sources covered by EPER inevitably varies for each Member State, industrial activity and pollutant. Total air emissions data can be found at: • EEA: http://dataservice.eea.eu.int/dataservice/, • CLRTAP/EMEP: http://webdab.emep.int/, • UNFCCC: http://ghg.unfccc.int/. 4 Recommendations Over all the review report concludes that the first EPER reporting was reasonably successful, although a number of starting-up problems have been encountered. Additional attention should be focused on the completeness of the reports by the Member States and on the use and understanding of the emission determination methodology. Member States need to take action to ensure that reporting in the second EPER reporting cycle for reporting year 2004 is fully complete. For some Member States this might mean that additional legal or other provisions must be implemented. The Commission might consider to improve the existing software tools to make them better portable to the different operational systems as used by the Member States. In addition, both facilities and authorities indicate that a better accessibility to emission determination methods is needed. The Commission might consider in addition to the information already given in the Guidance Document to further enhance and facilitate the information exchange with expert groups in the framework of international conventions as are (UNECE Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollutants (LRTAP), United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTR) as developed under the rhus Convention). Whether or not the threshold values are set on such a level that indeed about 90 % of the emissions is reported, is very difficult to assess, since emissions below the threshold are not reported and hence not known. Further statistical analyses on the data available might give more information on this matter. The EPER website could be improved by adding translations to the various official European Union languages and by reviewing part of the meta-information to allow better interpretation by the general public. Within the framework of this report it was not possible to review the accuracy of the emission data in the EPER database. Such a review would require additional information and efforts, whereas methods for such a review are not readily available. The UNFCCC and LRTAP Conventions are developing methods to review emission data reported by the parties. The applicability of such methods to the EPER data could be investigated. In addition, the availability of more than one reporting year will enable better analyses in this respect. The review of the next reporting cycle therefore should include an analysis of the differences between the first and second reporting.