1

Large Combustion PlantsData reporting – data management and quality assurance processes

Daniel Martin-Montalvo AlvarezIndustrial Pollution GroupAir and Climate Change Programme

www.eea.europa.eu

Table of contents - LCP dataflow management

1. Content of the reporting and timelines

2. Quality assurance procedures1. Step 1 – plausibility of the data

and CLRTAP cross-checks2. Step 2 – cross checks with E-

PRTR

3. Historical database cleaning

4. Summary of Eionet processes

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 SO2, NOx and dust emissions from all combustion plants with a rated thermal input of 50 MW or more.

[…] following data:• the total annual emissions of SO2, NOx 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;• 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

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/);

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

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

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

Quality assurance procedures - step 1 checks

Reference Name DescriptionLCP1.1 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.

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.

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.

LCP2.4 - E-PRTR IDPlant ID Plant name Finding Response

8 Fortum Termest AS E-PRTR ID is not provided16 Sillamäe Soojuselektrijaam AS E-PRTR ID is not provided

LCP2.5 - Appraisal of commentsPlant ID Plant name Finding Response

(PLEASE ADD MANUALLY)

LCP3.2 - Rated thermal input valuePlant ID Plant name Finding Response

3 Anne Soojus AS Please justify: The rated thermal input is below 49.5MWth4 Anne Soojus AS, koostootmisjaam Please justify: The rated thermal input is below 49.5MWth5 Eesti Energia AS, Iru Elektrijaam Please confirm: The rated thermal input is above 10000MWth6 Eesti Energia Narva Elektrijaamad AS, Balti ElektrijaamPlease provide the rated thermal input: The value is 07 Eesti Energia Narva Elektrijaamad AS, Eesti ElektrijaamPlease provide the rated thermal input8 Fortum Termest AS Please provide the rated thermal input

10 Horizon Tselluloosi ja Paberi AS Please provide the rated thermal input13 Narva Elektrijaamad AS, Balti Elektrijaam, reserve boiler housePlease justify: The rated thermal input is below 49.5MWth14 Narva Elektrijaamad AS, Eesti Elektrijaam, fluidised bed combustionPlease confirm: The rated thermal input is above 10000MWth15 Narva Elektrijaamad AS, Eesti Elektrijaam, pulverised combustionPlease provide the rated thermal input16 Sillamäe Soojuselektrijaam AS Please provide the rated thermal input17 Tallinna Elektrijaam OÜ Please provide the rated thermal input18 Tallinna Küte AS, Kadaka katlamaja Please provide the rated thermal input19 Tallinna Küte AS, Mustamäe katlamaja Please provide the rated thermal input: The value is 020 Tallinna Küte AS, Ülemiste katlamaja Please provide the rated thermal input21 VKG Energia OÜ, Põhjajaam Please provide the rated thermal input22 VKG Soojus AS, Tipu- ja reservkatlamajaPlease provide the rated thermal input

LCP3.3 - Implausible fuel inputPlant ID Plant name Finding Response

1 Alexela Sillamäe AS Please justify: The ratio of total fuel input to thermal input is too high

LCP3.4 - Implausible capacity addedPlant ID Plant name Finding Response

7 Eesti Energia Narva Elektrijaamad AS, Eesti ElektrijaamThe capacity added is smaller than 50MW

Quality assurance procedures - step 2 (cross-check with E-PRTR)

Reference Name Brief description

Step2_general

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.

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

EEA partnership for this task - an outstanding team

Leading partner

Contributors

CONTACT DETAILS

Daniel Martin-Montalvo AlvarezDirect phone: +45 3343 5974

Skype: daniel.eeadaniel.montalvo@eea.europa.eu