1 / 71

EUROWATERNET-Emissions and EPER

EUROWATERNET-Emissions and EPER. EEA - ETC Water / EIONET WORKSHOP Budapest, Hungary 22-23 May 2003. Benoît FRIBOURG-BLANC. INTRODUCTION. Two types of emissions reporting tools: Mandatory tools, of which EPER, tool of IPPC Directive for DGEnv of the Commission

stella
Download Presentation

EUROWATERNET-Emissions and EPER

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. EUROWATERNET-Emissions and EPER EEA - ETC Water / EIONET WORKSHOP Budapest, Hungary 22-23 May 2003 Benoît FRIBOURG-BLANC

  2. INTRODUCTION Two types of emissions reporting tools: • Mandatory tools, of which EPER, tool of IPPC Directive for DGEnv of the Commission • Non-mandatory, of which EUROWATERNET-Emissions for ETC/WTR of the EEA (=>they take into account mandatory reporting data first + other data)

  3. EPER : Context • Directive IPPC 96/61 on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control • Decision adopted on 17 July 2000 related to public access to information (art. 15) • Implementation of a European Pollutant Emission Register EPER • emissions from individual facilities to air and to water • 56 industrial activities (including waste treatment, landfills, intensive rearing of poultry and pigs) • First reporting from MS in June 2003 (emissions in 2001) • EEA assists the Commission : data publicly accessible on the Internet

  4. Status of EPER implementation • Detailed description of data to report available (guidance) • Consultant to develop tools to collect, store and disseminate EPER data • tools for MS (validation and data exchange module) • tool at EEA (database, GIS, and web site) • Schedule • Tool for MS 15th May 2003 • Reporting by MS End June 2003 • Design document of the web site : Mid June 2003 • Role of EEA • participation in the design of the tools, metadata, global checks of the reported data…) • Operating the web site

  5. Link with Eurowaternet emissions • Collection of data for individual facilities • Consistency between reporting years • … but some gaps • Not final emissions to water • Limited set of substances • Thresholds • Reporting limited to MS (and not member countries of EEA)

  6. EUROWATERNET-Emissions database • Ewn-e database is at a development stage • 6 data sources taken into account: • OSPAR (HARP-HAZ) • Emissions Inventory of ICPDR (Danube) • EUROSTAT-Newcronos • Denmark, DMU • Hungary, Vituki Consult Rt • The Netherlands, Ministry of Environment • Objective : conduct a practical application of EWN-e database

  7. Thanks to all partners who have given us data for 2003 program • Austria (Karin WEBER) • The Netherlands (Jan VAN DER PLAS) • ROD (Anita KÜNITZER) • Hungary (János FEHER) • Denmark (Jens BOGESTRAND ) • Bavaria (Anton STEINER) • UK (EA)

  8. Status of data collection • Marine Conventions: expecting data from OSPAR (HARP-Nut), HELCOM (IGMW), • PRB’s: contact with EEA and PRB WGs, • EPER: expecting data from June 2003, • French data: received data from 1996 to 2000, • Germany data: data received in concentration, • Slovenia: contact with Slovenian NFP.

  9. PRINCIPLE of EWN-e database

  10. PRINCIPLE of EWN-e database • Required data • Assessment Unit: area code and area name • Source categories: 7 emission sources in EWN-e • Individual sources: activities/location behind emissions • Determinands: name, amount and unit • Temporal Aggregation: year and period EWN-e database tables

  11. PROCESS (1) • Differences between collected data and required data : • file format: ACCESS, Excel, etc • determinands name • emission units: kg/day, kg/year • sources categories • geographical coverage: country or sub-basin Turn the collected data into the right format

  12. Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 PROCESS (2) EWN-e database main structure Data in original format Data converted into Access format and processed

  13. DATABASE STRUCTURE (1) • Main structure tables T_EWN_e_SOURCES_CATEGORY T_PRESSURES T_ASSESSMENT_UNIT T_EMISSIONS T_IND_SOURCES_LIST T_EWN_e_ DETERMINANDS

  14. T_EMISSIONS description • Amount of emissions per determinand, per year, and links with others tables

  15. T_ASSESSMENT_UNIT description • Localisation of emission area. It has a unique code and a unique name to allow future identification of the same area.

  16. T_PRESSURES description • Pressures (type and value) by assessment unit and by year/period

  17. T_EWN-e_DETERMINANDS description • Determinands used in EWN-e database, their unit and their identification code : CAS number, EU number, National code

  18. T_EWN-e_SOURCES_CATEGORY description • Classification of emission sources used in EWN-e.

  19. T_IND_SOURCES_LIST description • Name of the individual sources (activities or locations) that are behind emissions

  20. OTHER TABLES description (1)

  21. OTHER TABLES description (2)

  22. 1 T_ASSESSMENT_UNIT T_EMISSIONS DATABASE STRUCTURE (2) • Relationships: • ONE-TO-MANY. Enforced referential integrity (cascade update only) Ex: • LIST BOX : to facilitate addition of data Ex: name of determinands, units, emission source in T_Emissions table

  23. Relationships scheme

  24. OSPAR : HARP-Haz • Oslo-Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic: Harmonised Quantification and Reporting Procedures on Hazardous substances • Objective of OSPAR for hazardous substances: prevent pollution of the maritime area by continuously reducing their release • Data format: ACCESS tables

  25. HARP-Haz vs EWN-e emission sources (1)

  26. HARP-Haz vs EWN-e Emission sources (2)

  27. HARP-Haz vs EWN-e Emission sources (3) • HARP-Haz sources not classified: • - Rivers • - Directs inputs from point sources : general • - Other loads directly into the marine environment: general and offshore • EWN-e source not provided: - Forestry Creation of the link between sources : addition of EWN-e sources code in OSPAR Sub-group of sources table

  28. OSPAR HARP-Haz vs EWN-e:Assessment Unit (1) • Geographical coverage: national level but restricted to the river basins that discharge to the maritime area • 8 countries in HARP-Haz

  29. OSPAR HARP-Haz vs EWN-e:Assessment Unit (2) • 8 Assessment Units:

  30. OSPAR HARP-Haz vs EWN-e:Emissions • Substances: 66 substances, 17 included in WFD priority substances • Units: kg/year in OSPAR • Years provided: 1985 and 1990 • Recipient: air and water • Approach: SOA and LOA Pressures and individual sources • No data provided

  31. Process from OSPAR to EWN-e (1) Ospar_ SubGroupsOf Sources Ospar_ Discharge Ospar_ Recipient Ospar_ Hazardous Substances Ospar_ Country EWN-e sources Amount Year Water SOA/LOA EWN-e Determinands Emissions Data source determinands Assessment Unit • Realise links between EWN-e and OSPAR features • Create fields in table: primary and foreign key

  32. Process from OSPAR to EWN-e (2) • Data analysis • Removal of empty records • Updating general category data : adding its sub-groups amount when there is no value • Change of unit: from kg/year to t/year • Sum of emission per EWN-e sources Ex 1 Ex 2

  33. = 100 + 200 Process from OSPAR to EWN-eExample • Updating general category data

  34. Process from OSPAR to EWN-eExample • Sum of emission per EWN-e sources

  35. Conclusion about OSPAR use in EWN-e • 8 assessment units • 66 determinands of which 17 are WFD priority substances • 498 emissions for 6 sources (no forestry sources) • very interesting data source but: • assessment unit at an aggregated level and limited to river basins that discharge into the maritime area • no pressures specified • no individual sources specified

  36. ICPDR • International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) • Emission Inventory realised by Emissions Expert Group (EMIS/EG) • Available in ICPDR web site • Data copied and imported in Excel sheets

  37. ICPDR vs EWN-e emission sources Creation of a link table in EWN-e database

  38. ICPDR vs EWN-e:Assessment Unit (1) 270 Assessment Units created

  39. ICPDR vs EWN-e:Assessment Unit (2) • Link fields between ICPDR and Assessment Unit table: Country  Country_ID River Basin  Basin_NM Main River  Catch_NM Ex: 270 Assessment Units created

  40. ICPDR vs EWN-e:Emissions • 4 substances: BOD, COD, N, P Other determinands can be added. • Units: t/year • Years provided: 2000 • Approach: SOA Pressures and individual sources • No pressures specified • 771 individual sources specified: activities and location name

  41. Process from ICPDR to EWN-e (1) Country River Basin Location Sector COD P Main River AV Code BOD N EWN-e Sources Determinand/Amount Assessment Unit Individual sources Emissions

  42. Process from ICPDR to EWN-e (2) • Data analysis • no calculation • putting the right shape • other information about emissions and individual sources available in next tables (one per individual source) but difficult to reach for a data treatment Example

  43. Process from ICPDR to EWN-eExample ICPDR T_IND_SOURCE_LIST T_ASSESSMENT_UNIT T_EMISSION

  44. Conclusion about ICPDR use in EWN-e • 270 assessment units • 4 determinands: BOD, COD, N, P • 2674 emissions for 3 sources (urban, industrial, agricultural) • 771 individual sources • very interesting data source but: • Only 4 determinands and for one year • Quality of data variable • No pressures specified • The data must be completed afterwards

  45. EUROSTAT-Newcronos • Statistical information service of the European Union • Newcronos database available on internet and loaded in CSV format (Excel) • 2 tables used in Environmental statistics domain (Theme 8) and Water section:

  46. TABLES PRESENTATION (1)IWQ 4 : % population connected 2.1 Primary 2.2 Secondary 2.3 Tertiary 2 UWW treatment 3 Other UWW treatment 4 UWW collecting system with treatment 5 UWW collecting system without treatment 7 Independent WW collecting system 6 Total UWW collecting system 100 % National Population

  47. TABLES PRESENTATION (2) IWQ 4 • Objective: calculate raw and net pollution from these values • Only 6 fields are used in the calculations • Relationships : data coherence verified in a Excel table • When obvious missing value in these 6 fields, value completed by ETC/WTR • When no coherence (underestimated emission), it would be specified in EWN-e database on remarks field

  48. TABLES PRESENTATION (3) IWQ 7 • Raw pollution provided for 15 water parameters of which 13 are determinands. • 20 sources provided, only 3 general sources are used: • WW3_1_1 : Waste water generated by agriculture, forestry, fishing (point source) • WW3_1_6: Waste water generated by all industrial activities • WW3_1_7: Waste water generated by domestic sector (Total)

  49. Eurostat vs EWN-e emission sources • Calculations necessary to calculate raw and net pollution • No distinction between agricultural emissions and forestry emissions

  50. Ex : Eurostat vs EWN-e Assessment Unit • Geographical coverage: national level • 38 countries in IWQ 4 table • 29 countries in IWQ 7 table 38 Assessment Unit but 9 of them have no value

More Related