1. Large Combustion Plants Data reporting – data management and quality assurance processes Daniel Martin-Montalvo Alvarez Industrial Pollution Group Air and Climate Change Programme www.eea.europa.eu 1

2. Table of contents - LCP dataflow management 1.Content of the reporting and timelines 2.Quality assurance procedures 1.Step 1 – plausibility of the data and CLRTAP cross-checks 2.Step 2 – cross checks with E- PRTR 3.Historical database cleaning 4.Summary of Eionet processes

3. Content of the reporting and timelines The legal requirement Annex VIII(B) to the Directive 2001/80/EC + Art 4(4) opt-outs; […] starting in 2004 […] an inventory of SO 2, NO x and dust emissions from all combustion plants with a rated thermal input of 50 MW or more. […] following data: the total annual emissions of SO 2, NO x and dust […]. the total annual amount of energy input, related to the net calorific value, broken down in terms of the five categories of fuel […] […] communicated to the Commission every three years […] The yearly plant-by-plant data shall be made available to the Commission upon request. […] Reporting obligations database: http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/9;http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/9 European Commission discussed with the relevant community and subsequently sent a letter establishing a yearly procedure. Deadline 31 December, with a grace period up to 31 March

4. Content of the reporting and timelines How the EEA conducts the reporting Dedicated web-form at the Central Data Repository (http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/);http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/

5. Content of the reporting and timelines Web-form features Pre-linking E-PRTR vs LCP – a big thank you to EIONET NRCs for having contributed A web-service to load E-PRTR data in support of the reporter Very basic built-in QA/QC rules – to be enhanced for next year’s reporting

6. Content of the reporting and timelines Timelines 31 March  Reporting ends (as established by DG ENV) Up to mid June  Quality assurance/control step 1 – bilateral communication with countries September  Quality assurance/control step 2 – single feedback file to all countries As soon as ready  country specific historical databases – countries will be contacted bilaterally August/September  validation of historical database by Eionet NRC IP October  Final 2004-2013 database

7. Quality assurance procedures - content of the work Objectives Reports are complete and include all relevant plants, fuels and pollutants for which reporting is required. Reports are accurate and neither under- nor overestimate emissions. No miss-allocations or ambiguous descriptions. Correct linking with E-PRTR when relevant. Data are comparable across Member States (nomenclature, units and reporting years). Reporting is consistent across different pollutants and with other national reporting on emissions (E-PRTR, CLRTAP). LCP data are consistent over time. Due to data availability, QA/QC is split up in two steps Step 1 – plausibility checking and cross comparison with CLRTAP data Step 2 – cross check with the E-PRTR data

8. Quality assurance procedures - step 1 checks ReferenceNameDescription LCP1.1 Basic data completeness The data inserted in the sheet ‘Basic data’ is complete and allows for a unique identification of the reporter for further contact if need be. LCP1.2 Number of plants The number of plants reported is similar to the number reported in the previous year. LCP2.1 Unequivocal naming of plants Each plant needs to have a unique name. LCP2.2 Consistency of plant ID and name over time Plant ID and name need to be consistent over time for plants reported in previous years. LCP2.3 Location check Geographical coordinates are located within the reporting country. LCP2.4 E-PRTR ID For each LCP, the corresponding E-PRTR ID is provided. LCP2.5 Appraisal of comments The comment box offers transparent explanation which is understandable to the QA/QC reviewers. LCP3.1 Consistency of plants’ legal regime The field ‘status of the plant’ does not vary compared to previous year or, if it varies, sufficient explanation is given in the comment box. LCP3.2 Rated thermal input value Rated thermal input > 7,000 MWth or < 50 MWth is flagged and confirmation is requested. LCP3.3 Plausibility of fuel input Flag cases where total fuel input is larger than rated thermal input. LCP3.4 Plausibility of capacity added When ‘Extension by 50 MW’ is true, ‘Capacity added [MW]’ needs to be greater than 50MWth. LCP3.5 Plausible reporting of substantial change When ‘Substantial change’ is true, Capacity affected [MW] needs to be reported. LCP3.6 Date of start of operation and legal status The ‘status of the plant’ is consistent with the date of start of operation.

9. Quality assurance procedures - content of the work LCP4.1 Share in overall reported emissions The sum total LCPD emissions by pollutant is given as a percentage of national totals (reported under CLRTAP) for Energy, industrial combustion and refineries (NFR category 1A). LCP4.2 SO2 emission outlier test SO2 emissions are estimated from fuel input, using average emission factors, and compared to actual reported emissions. LCP4.3 NOx emission outlier test NOx emissions are estimated from fuel input, using average emission factors, and compared to actual reported emissions. LCP4.4 Dust emission outlier test Dust emissions are estimated from fuel input, using average emission factors, and compared to actual reported emissions. LCP4.5 Consistency with emission trend at national level Emissions reported at national level for the reference year are similar to the average of the three previous years. LCP5.1 Hours operated (opt- outs) The number of hours is equal or higher to the number reported the previous calendar year. LCP5.2 Hours operated beyond limit The number of hours is not beyond the 20.000 limit. LCP6.1 Art. 5 compliance Plants that apply Article 5 of the LCPD are checked manually. LCP6.2 Nota bene check „Nota bene“: Check whether the combination of SO2 ELV, desulphurisation rate and rated thermal input are in line with the „nota bene“ provisions under Annex III.

10. Quality assurance procedures - results of the step 1 checks A feedback file will be communicated to each country. It will aim at flagging potential errors and/or trigger re-submissions.

11. Quality assurance procedures - step 2 (cross-check with E-PRTR) ReferenceNameBrief description Step2_gener al Completeness of LCPs For all E-PRTR facilities under category 1C, check whether a corresponding LCP has been reported. Flag missing LCPs Step2_2.1 Postal code Flag plant postal codes which do not match facility postal codes between datasets. Step2_2.2 Location check Compare the coordinates given for the LCP to the coordinates given under E-PRTR Step2_4.1 SO2 emissions Flag cases where SO2 emissions reported under LCP are higher than under E-PRTR Step2_4.2 NOx emissions Flag cases where NOx emissions reported under LCP are higher than under E-PRTR Step2_4.3 Energy input vs. CO2 emissions Flag cases where CO2 emissions divided by energy input are below the emissions expected based on fuel input Step2_4.4 Total emissions Compare the sum of emissions under LCP and E-PRTR (relevant activity code) for the whole Member State.

12. Historical database - migration of the LCP data to a structured database LCP data have been reported by means of Excel sheets evolving over time. The data was analised up to now by a Commission’s contractor every three years. QA/QC and storing used different criteria. The absence of a common EU identifier over time prevents coherent time series. EEA took over the responsibility for the data management – XML submission with and aggregation tool EEA will migrate the reported data for the period 2004- 2013 into an integrated database

13. EEA partnership for this task - an outstanding team Leading partner Contributors

14. CONTACT DETAILS Daniel Martin-Montalvo Alvarez Direct phone: +45 3343 5974 Skype: daniel.eea daniel.montalvo@eea.europa.eu