1. From EPER to E-PRTR EPER/E-PRTR module ECENA training workshop Szentendre,15/16 October 2007 Michel Amand Belgian Head of delegation PRTR Chair of the WG UNECE Protocol on PRTRs

2. Content of the presentation n EPER and E-PRTR 2nd EPER review report n status of E-PRTR implementation n Conclusions

3. 2000/479/EC EPER Decision n Objective : implementation of Art. 15.2 and 15.3 Directive 96/61 IPPC n Report by MS every 3 years n Releases to air and water n Indirect releases of WW to WWTP n Sites with at least 1 IPPC Annex I activity (56 activities) n 50 substances or parameters n 1st report in June 2003 on 2001 releases 2nd report in June 2006 on 2004 releases

4. Regulation 166/2006 on E-PRTR n Entry into force : 24 February 2006 n Objective : UNECE PRTR Protocol transposition at EU level and ratification by EC n Annual reporting by operators to competent authorities and by MS to the Commission n Sites with at least one Annex I activity n Annex 1 : see Protocol => 65 activities n 91 substances: Annex II Protocol + 5 additional n release thresholds by medium and substance (Annex II) n Releases to air, water and land off site transfers of waste

5. Regulation 166/2006 on E-PRTR n Reporting of total releases (including fugitive and accidental) n Separate additional reporting for accidental releases where data available n operators keep record of data for 5 years n release to land if waste subject to disposal operations “land treatment” or “ deep injection” (according to Directive 2006/12) n Reporting by operators must be based on best available information and in accordance with internationally approved methodologies where available n Commission includes in the E-PRTR already available information on releases from diffuse sources n Art. 15.3 IPPC Directive and Art.8.3 Directive 91/689 deleted

6. Regulation 166/2006 on E-PRTR Time Table reporting by MS/internet data of 2001(EPER) June 2003/+8 data of 2004 (EPER) June 2006/+5 data of 2007 E-PRTR June 2009/+4 data of 2008 E-PRTR March 2010/+1 data of 2009 E-PRTR March 2011/+1

7. 2nd EPER review report n Requested by Art.3 of EPER Decision n Prepared by the Commission with EEA Available on http://www.eper.cec.eu.int or http://www.prtr.ec.europa.eu Two main parts: data collection and reporting, completeness and quality of the data n In addition: analysis of emission threshold, comparison of data from the two reporting cycles, comparison with national inventories for emission to air

8. 2nd EPER review report n 25 MS reported 2004 data + Norway n 9 countries reported for the 1st time (10 new MS except Hungary) n Hungary reported also for 1st EPER reporting cycle n 11417 sites within EU reported 27039 emissions (70 % for air) n 24% of IPPC sites reported (range : 20 - 65 %) n In 2001: 9227 sites and 23109 emissions reported n 38% of the 2001 facilities not reported in 2004 n 50% of the 2004 facilities are new (40 % for the countries reporting for the 2nd time)

9. 2nd EPER review report n 20 countries have specific or EPER-related legislation n Two countries (new 2004 MS) use existing legislation n Identification of facilities: mainly through implementation of IPPC Directive or by using more extended reporting obligation (=> selection) n Mainly validation by national (or regional) authorities n More facilities use electronic reporting (big efforts made by the countries) Generally, facilities have 3 - 4 months to deliver their datas

10. 2nd EPER review report n Similar difficulties in data collection for facilities facing 1st reporting exercise n Lack of personnel with sufficient background n No reference data for comparing and checking n No previous experience of emission reporting including electronically n Facility identification (agriculture, geographical coordinates) n Meaning of « estimation » n Calculation and estimation for some parameters (PM10 & CH 4 for landfills in particular)

11. 2nd EPER review report n Similar difficulties in data collection for countries facing 1st reporting exercise n Pig and poultry n Landfill n No comparison possible with another reporting year n Incomplete data especially for PM10 n Identification of NOSE-P code n Incorrect data on the emitted amounts n Main activity identification n MS reporting for 2nd time had same difficulties in 2003

12. 2nd EPER review report n Difficulties for facilities facing 2nd reporting cycle n Determining total annual emission on few measurements n Using reporting tools n Understanding of the chemical compounds in EPER n Meeting the timescale for reporting n Harmonization with national laws

13. 2nd EPER review report n Difficulties for authorities facing 2nd reporting cycle n Missing/wrong data n Lack of resources for validation n Change in facility’s name, activities and co-ordinates n Different determination methodologies used by facilities n Confidentiality n Raised by 7 countries mainly regarding personal data such as names, address, geographical co-ordinates (550 pig and poultry facilities) n 1 country for economic reason (14 facilities)

14. 2nd EPER review report n 87 % CH4 emissions by disposal of non hazardous waste and landfills n 75 % ammonia emissions due to pig & poultry n 2/3 CO2, NOx & SOx emissions due to LCPs n Activity « Slaughterhouses, milk, animal and vegetables raw materials » explains 72% N and 98 % P indirect releases to water n Basic inorganic chemicals and pulp & paper or board production represent 22% N and 21% P releases to water

15. 2nd EPER review report n Statistical analysis concludes that all emission threshold values ensure that 90% of the emission in each activity are included in the EPER n One exception: NH 3 (great influence of pig & poultry)

16. 2nd EPER review report n Comparison with national totals (NEC, CLRTAP, UNFCCC) for air pollutants (CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, NO x, NMVOC, SO 2, NH 3 ) n Need to link respective sector and activity classifications n For major combustion-related pollutants (CO 2, NO x, SO 2 ) EPER data correspond quite well (20-30% below national totals - emissions below threshold, non EPER activities) For the other pollutants, EPER datas > national totals with differences between MS => importance of integrated and streamlined reporting scheme

17. E-PRTR implementation Guidance document n Main task for MS and Commission between July 2005 and May 2006 n Using experience gained from EPER n Key tool for implementing E-PRTR for Commission, MS and operators n Interpretations for topics like measurement, calculation, estimation, confidentiality, background load,determination limit values, internationally approved and « equivalent » methodologies (examples)

18. E-PRTR implementation n Finalized or on its way n 4 main topics for all MS n Amendment of legislation n Streamline and integrate different reporting obligations for MS and industry n (Electronic) reporting tool n Training for new activities involved n Ratification of PRTR Protocol

19. Conclusions n 1st EPER: 1st attempt => gaps and lessons learned n 2nd EPER: more complete data n E-PRTR: strong cooperation between MS and Commission n Need for MS to streamline environmental reporting process => electronic tools n Importance of guidance document n Next step: entry into force of PRTR Protocol

20. n Michel AMAND n Chair UNECE WG on PRTR Protocol n Belgian Head of delegation for PRTR (EU Regulation & UNECE Protocol) n Vice Chair OECD PRTR TF n Tel: + 32 81 33 63 01 n email: m.amand@mrw.wallonie.be