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

Background Legal provisions –Article 17 E-PRTR Regulation: …the Commission shall review the information provided by Member States according to Article 7 ETC/ACC carried out the review of reported data in cooperation with EEA, ETC/SCP and ETC/W The work of ETC ACC is supported by EEA

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,…)

Stage 1 tests 1.Number of facilities reporting by country and activity 2.Number of pollutant release/transfer reports per country and activity 3.Number of pollutant release/transfer reports per pollutant 4.Number of waste transfer reports 5.Test on confidential data 6.Test on accidental releases per country 7.Test on PRTR outliers 8.List of top 20 polluting facilities and of top 20 transferring waste 9.Comparison of total releases with previous years (EPER for 2009) - Comparision of total waste transfers with previous years (from 2010 onwards) 10.List of disappeared facilities per country and activity 11.List of disappeared pollutant release/transfer reports and waste transfer reports (for waste from 2010 onwards) 12.List of release reports with significant changes compared to previous years

E-PRTR structure 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 CO 2, NO x and SO x, –28 countries of PM 10, –27 countries of NH 3, CH 4 and Zn, and –25 countries releases of Cd, CO, N 2 O and NMVOC.

Number of facilities reported under E-PRTR 2007 and EPER = total number of facilities reported under E-PRTR 2007

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

TOP5 cont.

Review stage 2 E-PRTR data comparison with other data (e.g. under CLRTAP/NECD directive) on air (ETC/ACC), water (ECT/W), waste (ETC/SCP) Objective: put E-PRTR data into wider context and –highlight (potential) inconsistencies in reporting under different reporting obligations –highlight potential errors in reporting

Stage 2 review – air Comparison of E-PRTR data per country with national totals : –reported under CLRTAP/NEC Directive ( APs, PM10, POPs, HMs) –reported under UNFCCC/EU MM (CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, F- gases) –Comparison of E-PRTR national totals with totals of EU ETS (CO 2 ) Comparison of E-PRTR emissions reported by aggregated activities with sectoral emissions reported under CLRTAP and UNFCCC (APs, PM 10, POPs, HM, CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, F-gases)

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

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 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%.: –CH 4 – Italy; N 2 O – Finland, PFCs – Belgium, Greece, Slovenia, UK; HM – Czech Republic, Malta, Germany; –PCDD/F – France, Poland, Spain; PCBs – Italy, PAHs –Denmark

Findings cont. SO 2 and CO 2 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)

NO x emissions

SO x emissions

NMVOC

PM 10

CO 2 reported under E-PRTR / UNFCCC totals

NH 3

Comparison of E-PRTR with sectoral emissions under CLRTAP and UNFCCC Example of mapping NFR/CRF groups „level 1“ Name of aggregated sectors used E-PRTR Level 1Description 6AD15c, 5dLandfills/waste disposal 6BD25f, 5gWaste water treatment List of aggregated sectors A Energy, manufacturing industries and waste incineration B Fugitive emissions from mining C Agriculture (poultry, pigs) D1 Landfills/waste disposal D2 Waste water treatment

Sectoral comparisons Energy E-PRTR with CLRTAP/UNFCCC 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)

Sector A Energy, manufacturing industries and waste incineration

Energy – significant contributors

Chemical industry – significant contributors

Significant contributors cont. Mineral industry Other Paper and wood processing Waste and waste water management

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

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

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

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 SO 2 –TOP5 plants for different HM contribute to total E- PRTR by 19-33%

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

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

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:

Thank you for your attention!