1 / 36

E-PRTR data review 2009

E-PRTR data review 2009. 11 May 2010, TFEIP/EIONET meeting , Larnaca , Cyprus Katarina Mareckova, Stephan Poupa, Nicole Mandl, Katrin Seuss, ETC ACC (Umweltbundesamt, Austria). Background. Legal provisions

leif
Download Presentation

E-PRTR data review 2009

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. E-PRTRdatareview 2009 11 May 2010, TFEIP/EIONET meeting, Larnaca, Cyprus Katarina Mareckova, Stephan Poupa, Nicole Mandl, Katrin Seuss, ETC ACC (Umweltbundesamt, Austria)

  2. Background • Legal provisions • Article 17 E-PRTR Regulation: …theCommissionshallreviewtheinformationprovidedbyMember States accordingtoArticle 7 • ETC/ACC carried out thereviewofreporteddata in cooperationwithEEA , ETC/SCP and ETC/W The work of ETC ACC is supported by EEA

  3. Main objective of the 2009 review • Assist MS by improving the quality of reported data (consistency and comparability of reporting) • Highlight potential inconsistencies and anomalies and provide detailed feedback to MS • Stage 1 – Semi-automated checks (comparison of 2007/2004, top5,....) • Stage 2 Air – Comparison with other data reported by MS (CLRTAP, UNFCCC, EU ETS,…)

  4. Stage 1 tests • Number of facilities reporting by country and activity • Number of pollutant release/transfer reports per country and activity • Number of pollutant release/transfer reports per pollutant • Number of waste transfer reports • Test on confidential data • Test on accidental releases per country • Test on PRTR outliers • List of top 20 polluting facilities and of top 20 transferring waste • Comparison of total releases with previous years (EPER for 2009) - Comparision of total waste transfers with previous years (from 2010 onwards) • List of disappeared facilities per country and activity • List of disappeared pollutant release/transfer reports and waste transfer reports (for waste from 2010 onwards) • List of release reports with significant changes compared to previous years

  5. E-PRTR structure • 45 activities in E-PRTR, 44 activites reported • Tresholds for more than 60 pollutants • 54 pollutants reported as releases to air • Most countries (29) reported releases of CO2, NOx and SOx, • 28 countries of PM10, • 27 countries of NH3, CH4 and Zn, and • 25 countries releases of Cd, CO, N2O and NMVOC.

  6. Number of facilities reported under E-PRTR 2007 and EPER 2004 24 313 = total number of facilities reported under E-PRTR 2007

  7. E-PRTR point sources 2007 Data source : European Commission 2009

  8. TOP5 cont.

  9. TOP5 cont.

  10. Review stage 2 E-PRTR datacomparisonwithotherdata(e.g. under CLRTAP/NECD directive) on air (ETC/ACC), water (ECT/W), waste (ETC/SCP) Objective: put E-PRTR datainto wider contextand • highlight (potential) inconsistencies in reportingunder different reporting obligations • highlight potential errors in reporting

  11. Stage 2 review – air • Comparisonof E-PRTR data per countrywithnational totals: • reportedunderCLRTAP/NEC Directive( APs, PM10, POPs, HMs) • reportedunderUNFCCC/EU MM (CO2, CH4, N2O, F-gases) • Comparison of E-PRTR national totals with totals of EU ETS (CO2) • Comparisonof E-PRTR emissionsreportedbyaggregatedactivitieswithsectoralemissionsreportedunder CLRTAP and UNFCCC (APs, PM10, POPs, HM, CO2, CH4, N2O, F-gases)

  12. Legend - No data reported under EPRTR. 25% Share of EPRTR between 0% and <50%. EPRTR Data reported under EPRTR only. 75% Share of EPRTR between >= 50% and <=100%. 101% Share of EPRTR > 100%. Share of E-PRTR on UNFCCC/CLRTAP national total emissions 2007

  13. Findings • 9 countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, United Kingdom) did not report 2007 emissions under CLRTAP (at least one pollutant) but they report such emissions under E-PRTR 2007. • Number of countries reported higher emissions under E-PRTR 2007 than their national totals reported under CLRTAP. In a number of cases the difference is bigger than 200%.: • CH4 – Italy; N2O – Finland, PFCs – Belgium, Greece, Slovenia, UK; HM – Czech Republic, Malta, Germany; • PCDD/F – France, Poland, Spain; PCBs – Italy, PAHs –Denmark

  14. Findings cont. SO2 and CO2 E-PRTR emissions account for more than 50% (up to 90%) of the national total emissions in most of the countries, E-PRTR facilities contribute significantly to national total emissions of all pollutants reported under CLRTAP/UNFCCC. Detailed comparisons on the sectoral level showed that sometimes releases were reported for an E-PRTR activity (e.g. Energy and heat production) but no emissions were reported under the corresponding CLRTAP category (in this case 1A1a)

  15. NOx emissions

  16. SOx emissions

  17. NMVOC

  18. PM10

  19. CO2 reported under E-PRTR / UNFCCC totals

  20. NH3

  21. Comparison of E-PRTR with sectoral emissions under CLRTAP and UNFCCC Example of mapping

  22. Sectoral comparisons Energy E-PRTR with CLRTAP/UNFCCC • Challenges • E-PRTR Industry – it is no possible to distinguish between emissions occurring by combustions and by industrial processes without looking at NACE codes • Mapping used for sectoral comparison A • E-PRTR = Energy + manufacturing industries + waste incineration • CLRTAP = 1A1 (Public electricity and heat production, Petroleum refining , Manufacture of solid fuel ) + 1A2 (Stationary combustion) + 1A3e (Pipeline compressors) + 1B (Fugitive emissions) + 2 (Industrial processes) + 3 (Solvent use and production) + 6C (Waste incineration)

  23. Sector A Energy, manufacturing industries and waste incineration

  24. Sector A Energy, manufacturing industries and waste incineration

  25. Energy – significant contributors

  26. Chemical industry – significant contributors

  27. Significant contributors cont. Mineral industry Wasteandwastewatermanagement Paper andwoodprocessing Other

  28. Detailed comparison of sectoral data (example)E-PRTR 1(c), 5(b) (NACE 35.11; 35.31) with NFR08 1A1a • E-PRTR reporting; • 28 NOx/NO2 • 26 SOx/SO2 • 21 PM10 • 27 CO2

  29. Sectoral comparison – Iron and steel 2.(a); 2.(b); 2(c) NACE 24.10; 24.20 with 1 A 2 a; 2 C 1

  30. Stage 2 findings (examples) • E-PRTR emissions are higher than national total CLRTAP/UNFCCC emissions – particularly POPs and HMs, but also CH4 (Italy), CO, PM (Luxembourg) • reserves in communication at national level • different methods used for emission estimation • Some pollutants are reported only by one facility within the whole Europe • More detailed comparisons in stage 2 (disaggregated sectoral level) is limited but e.g. “Refineries” provide interesting results …. in some countries 100% match

  31. Summary • 30 countries submitted 2007 E-PRTR data (in 2009) • Often a small number of facilities make a large overall contribution to the total release of a pollutant in Europe. E.g.: • 5 LCP were collectively responsible for more than 20% of all E-PRTR SO2 • TOP5 plants for different HM contribute to total E-PRTR by 19-33%

  32. Summary cont. Stage 1 and 2 review cannot prove the correctness of the data Review can highlighted potential inconsistencies and anomalies – countries have to check findings Comparison of detailed sub categories (e.g.NACE level) could help to identify inconsistencies of reporting at national level

  33. Summary cont. Detailed comparisons is resource demanding and limited to sectors which can be easily matched Precise description of facilities (national codes, coordinates, addresses) is crucial for comparison between the years Review of E-PRTR provided useful information to the countries (countries provided feedback to EEA/ ETC ACC ) As follow up number of countries resubmitted corrected data

  34. Next steps • Review of the data will be continued in 2010 with stage 1 and stage 2 • Stage 1: E-PRTR 2007 (resubmitted) with E-PRTR 2008 EEA contact point: eva.goossens@eea.europa.eu

  35. Thankyouforyourattention!

More Related