EPER reporting process in Hungary with emphasis on the experiences Edina Gampel Counsellor National Inspectorate for Environment, Nature and Water Budapest, 17 October 2007

2 Objectives Introduction To provide information on the Hungarian EPER inventories - statistics To provide an overview of the EPER reporting processes in Hungary To identify the main challenges encountered To make suggestions for consideration

3 Introduction Art 15 (3) of 96/61/EC IPPC directive  Requires MS to make an inventory and supply data on principle emissions and responsible sources 2000/479/EC EPER decision  European Pollutant Emission Register  The details of the inventory were laid down in this decision  EPER act was removed from the active acquis (2007/C 110/01) 166/2006/EC E-PRTR regulation  European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register  which will succeed the EPER inventory

4 Hungarian EPER inventories Both reports (2001, 2004) were provided  First report for gathering information and experiences (only EU15, Hungary and Norway) Number of facilities  included in first report: 86, in second report: 96 ca. 9 % of the IPPC installations  reporting in both cycles: 63 Activities  Similar to IPPC installations (energy industry, metal processing, chemical industry…), big difference: intensive livestock farming

5 IPPC installations - EPER facilities

6 Emission to air and water in HU

7 „EPER settlements” in HU

8 Web: It gives you access to information on the EPER emissions of industrial facilities in Hungary for the year 2001 and 2004 It is possible to see detailed data on individual facilities (also map) You can search (by name, pollutant, environmental media, geographical location etc.) It lets you group information easily (by pollutant, sector, air and water etc.) It gives you background information about E-PRTR and PRTR, too Forum

9 Legal background of reporting in HU Government decree on IPPC permitting procedure No EPER related legislation was in place Strategy  not to establish a new EPER related data supply system and legislation to avoid a duplicated data supply The EPER data were collected from yearly incoming media specific environmental reports  21/2001. (II. 14.) Gov. decree on air-quality protection → air- quality report LM (degree of air pollution)  27/2005. (XII. 6.) Min. decree on surface water protection → water-quality report VÉL (self monitoring - used & wastewater discharges)

10 Reporting process in HU Parties  Operators  Regional inspectorates for environment, nature and water  National Inspectorate for Environment, Nature and Water  Ministry of Environment and Water (Hungary)  Public, media Main tasks, pathway  see figure

11 data supply (yearly incoming media specific environmental reports: LM, VÉL) Overview of the EPER reporting process in HU OperatorRegional Inspectorate National Inspectorate validation and digitalization of LM, VÉL data (e.g. using waste water fine register) contact to operators identification and selection of the EPER relevant facilities determination of pollutant specific emissions by facilities validation of data report according to formats website validation of data (using validation tool) website submission of reported data to the Commission + EEA (using the preferred format and software tools) Ministry of Environment EU

12 Experiences during the implementation EPER requirements and aims were not clear for all parties  What is the EPER decision? Why EPER?  How to deal with an EU decision if there is no Hungarian law?  Interpretation of the reporting thresholds for pollutants How to understand the threshold values?  What must be reported? The emissions of non-IPPC (non-Annex I) activities carried out at the same site are allowed to be included or must be included in the report?

13 Experiences during the implementation II Difficulties with identification of IPPC facilities relevant to EPER  Facility as reporting unit (different reporting units)  IPPC database was not 100% ready at that time  Changes in the owners/operators (ID) Need for electronical data transfer instead of delivery on paper Need for a software which makes easier to fulfill the requirements of the reporting format  Special requirements in the Hungarian IPPC law compared to EPER Different geographical coordinates (EOV vs. WGS) Different IPPC activity codes (other activities have sub-titles and codes)  „Extra requirements” of EPER Identification of the NOSE-P codes Identification of the main Annex I activity of the facility All emission data have to be expressed in kg/year All emission data have to be expressed with three significant digits

14 Experiences during the implementation III Identification of data gaps  Not all EPER relevant pollutants had to be monitored (water self monitoring)  Missing or no data on emission determination methodology (M/C/E)  Only few estimated emission data were supplied Who is able to / should estimate emissions? What kind of emission factors/methods can be used?

15 Steps for the better implementation Providing more and detailed information on EPER (workshops, website) For the second report new government decree on surface water protection was established  which prescribed the reporting of surface data obliged for EPER by using a new data sheet Electronically data supply is possible (air) Development of a new software and database (pre-report, statistics, public web)

16 Conclusions It seems we have solved many of the problems in the second reporting cycle EPER 2004 reporting seems to be more complete  We could detect an increase in the number of facilities in the second report (more precise data)

17 Thoughts for consideration A useful tool for providing information on emissions from large and medium sized industrial facilities to the public Are EPER data comprehensive and comparable enough?  Comparison between the two reporting years are only possible for EU15 + Hungary + Norway  Different techniques were used to determine emissions in different MS  There is no information about the applied techniques The optional fields – which were mainly not filled in – indicate the size of the facility and its production volume A facility with good environmental performance can emit more than a facility with poor performance because of the different size or differences in the products Is the quality of EPER data good enough? Are all relevant industrial facilities and their emissions included?

18 Contact, web information Web:   Thank you for your attention!