2016 Environmental Statement - European Commission
324
2016 results Consolidated version Environmental Statement s u s t a i n a b l e @ P R I N T I N G s u s t a i n a b l e @ C O M M U T I N G s u s t a i n a b l e @ H O M E s u s t a i n a b l e @ E N E R G Y s u s t a i n a b l e @ 3 R s s u s t a i n a b l e @ P U R C H A S I N G SUSTAINABLE@WORK REG.NO.BE-BXL-000003
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
1 -
download
0
Transcript of 2016 Environmental Statement - European Commission
2016 resultsConsolidated version
Environmental Statement
sustainable@ PRIN
TING
sustainable@ COMMUTI
NG
sustainable@ HOME
sustainable@ ENER
GY
sustainable@ 3Rs
sustainable@ PUR
CHASIN
G
SUSTAINABLE@WORK
REG.NO.BE-BXL-000003
Prepared by the EMAS Coordination Unit of DG HR with the support of EMAS site coordinators and teams in Brussels, Luxembourg, the JRC sites, and DG SANTE in Ireland.
Supervision: Michael Rourke, EMAS Officer
European Commission-DG Human Resources and Security-D2 Working Environment & Safety
Contact: EMAS Coordination Team (HR.D.2) Celso Sanchez Martinez: EMAS Management Representative Michael Rourke: EMAS Officer Sofia Gregou: EMAS Communication and Training E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/emas_registrations/emas_in_the_european_institutions_en.htm
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018
© European Union, 2018
Cover illustration: Sustainable@work poster, original artwork produced by the European Commission’s corporate communication unit (HR.A.4) in the framework of the “How sustainable are you?” campaign (May 2018)
All other illustrations: © European Union unless otherwise stated.
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.
Print ISBN 978-92-79-81987-2 ISSN 2529-4040 doi:10.2774/763326 KT-04-18-334-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-79-81986-5 ISSN 2529-4059 doi:10.2774/799793 KT-04-18-334-EN-N
Printed by the Publications Office in Luxembourg
Printed on elemental chlorine-free bleached paper (ECF)
Printed on Energy Star 2.0 and ISO 14001 certified printer
Contents
Environmental Statement –2016 results – Corporate Summary ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1-65
Environmental Statement – 2016 results – Annex A: Brussels ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ A1-A29
Environmental Statement – 2016 results – Annex B: Luxembourg ��������������������������������������������������������������������� B1-B25
Environmental Statement – 2016 results – Annex C: JRC Petten ������������������������������������������������������������������������� C1-C23
Environmental Statement – 2016 results – Annex D: JRC Geel ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� D1-D32
Environmental Statement – 2016 results – Annex E: JRC Sevilla ������������������������������������������������������������������������� E1-E26
Environmental Statement – 2016 results – Annex F: JRC Karlsruhe ������������������������������������������������������������������� F1-F27
Environmental Statement – 2016 results – Annex G: JRC ISPRA ���������������������������������������������������������������������������G1-G43
Environmental Statement – 2016 results – Annex H: DG SANTE at Grange �������������������������������������������������� H1-H22
Environmental Statement
2016 resultsCorporate Summary
Final
sustainable@ PRIN
TING
sustainable@ COMMUTI
NG
sustainable@ HOME
sustainable@ ENER
GY
sustainable@ 3Rs
sustainable@ PUR
CHASIN
G
SUSTAINABLE@WORK
REG.NO.BE-BXL-000003
Prepared by the EMAS Coordination Unit of DG HR with the support of EMAS site coordinators and teams in Brussels, Luxembourg, the JRC sites, and DG SANTE in Ireland.
Supervision: Michael Rourke, EMAS Officer
European Commission-DG Human Resources and Security-D2 Working Environment & Safety
Contact: EMAS Coordination Team (HR.D.2) Celso Sanchez Martinez: EMAS Management Representative Michael Rourke: EMAS Officer Sofia Gregou: EMAS Communication and Training E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/emas_registrations/emas_in_the_european_institutions_en.htm
Cover illustration: Sustainable@work poster, original artwork produced by the European Commission’s corporate communication unit (HR.A.4) in the framework of the “How sustainable are you?” campaign (May 2018)
All other illustrations: © European Union unless otherwise stated.
Environmental Statement
2016 resultsCorporate Summary
Final
REG.NO.BE-BXL-000003
2
FOREWORD
The European Commission is responsible for policies and regulations designed to ensure that Member States develop more sustainable economies thereby reducing their environmental impact to the benefit of all interested parties including EU citizens.
Initiatives such as the Clean Energy Package, successive Water Framework Directives, the Circular Economy Pack-age and support for the Paris climate agreement ensure that Europe leads in delivering a more sustainable future in line with the global vision provided by the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
And as you would expect, the Commission has for many years sought to reduce the environmental impact of its everyday activities. Since registering part of its Brussels headquarters under the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) in 2005, it has expanded the registration to include its eight largest sites in Europe: Brussels, Lux-embourg, JRCs Geel (Belgium), Petten (Netherlands), Seville/Sevilla (Spain), Karlsruhe (Germany), and Ispra (Italy), along with DG SANTE at Grange (Ireland).
This Corporate Summary contains aggregated results for the Commission and specific annexes for each of the eight sites along with all information required by the EMAS Regulation. It identifies long-term trends of reducing natural resources consumption and environmental impact, and progress towards 2020 targets for core parameters.
While economic constraints remain severe, we will continue to improve the Commission’s environmental perfor-mance and deliver significant benefits by implementing the Commission’s vision of a more sustainable Euro-pean Union.
Irene Souka
Director-General President of the EMAS Steering Committee
3
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Progress in implementing the EU’s Eco Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS)Since deciding in 2001 to improve its environmental performance by seeking registration under the Eco- Man-agement and Audit System (EMAS), the Commission achieved its first EMAS registration, and published its first Environmental Statement in 2005.
It then covered four services and eight buildings accommodating 4 043 staff and with a useful surface area of 206 166 m2 but has since expanded to include its eight largest sites which are located in seven European countries and which accommodate 34 413 staff in EMAS registered premises with a total useful surface area of 1 595 920 m2. This Environmental Statement supports the renewal of the EMAS registration for 2017, including:
� All occupied buildings in Brussels (62) and 10 (1) of 18 buildings at the Luxembourg site which was first included in the Commission EMAS registration in 2011;
� The five Joint Research Centre (JRC) sites:
� JRC Petten (Netherlands) included since 2012;
� JRCs Geel (Belgium) and Sevilla (Spain) included since 2013; and
� JRCs Karlsruhe (Germany) and Ispra (Italy) included since 2014;
� DG SANTE at Grange (Ireland) also included since 2014.
The 2017 EMAS registration renewal is similar to that for 2016, the significant change being the addition of three additional buildings in Luxembourg and will include 52 % of Commission staff and 58 % of Commission useful floor space at that site.
EMAS (2) is a rigorous system, requiring continuous improvement in environmental performance through the iden-tification of environmental impacts, implementation of policy, setting objectives and monitoring performance, legal compliance, communication and training all verified through mandatory internal and external audit leading to registration delivered by public bodies. Indicators are defined in areas including energy and resource consump-tion, and waste generation. This report describes how the eight EMAS sites have performed, and draws conclu-sions for the Commission’s performance as a whole. A summary is provided in the following pages.
Overall performanceThe Brussels site has reported under EMAS since 2005, and unsurprisingly its size relative to the others heav-ily influences the Commission’s overall performance for most parameters. It has recorded significant reductions in several parameters including the following over the longer term (since 2005) although it is evident that gains since 2012 have been more limited.
Luxembourg has also recorded reduced consumption in most indicators in recent years. Year-to-year perfor-mance is also recorded under EMAS, and in 2015 targets for 2020, based on 2014 data, were established for parameters such as buildings energy consumption, CO2 emissions and waste generation.
JRC Seville (Spain) and DG SANTE at Grange (Ireland) have similar office activities to Brussels and Luxembourg and have also improved their environmental performance since they joined the Commission’s EMAS registration.
The JRC sites at Ispra (Italy), Geel (Belgium), Petten (The Netherlands) and Karlsruhe (Germany) require sig-nificantly more resources, particularly for energy and/or water consumption than the more administrative sites. JRC Geel has many laboratories and large experimental apparatus including multi megawatt Van De Graaff and Gelina nuclear accelerators while JRC Petten undertakes long-duration fuel cell experiments.
(1) The remaining buildings will be certified EMAS by 2020.(2) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/index_en.htm
5
As a nuclear installation JRC Karlsruhe must operate a ventilation system ‘24/7’ with resulting high energy costs. Despite higher energy needs at these sites, their relatively small size in relation to Brussels and Luxembourg means that their impact on overall Commission consumption is fairly small. Ispra is a much larger site, generat-ing its own power, with infrastructure typical of a small town including water and wastewater treatment plants, fire stations, extensive water heating and cooling networks. For this reason, Ispra heavily influences the Commis-sion’s overall water consumption.
The Commission’s annual per capita CO2 emissions from business travel was calculated at 1.24 tonnes including 0.41 tonnes of ‘indirect’ effect from aviation, down from 1.35 in tonnes in 2015 and less than that for emissions from buildings energy consumption (1.7 tonnes).
The performance of the Commission’s fleet improved again in 2016 slightly. Overall emissions from vehicles and refrigerant leaks are approximately the same order of magnitude but much less than 5 % of the CO2 emissions due to buildings energy consumption.
Green procurement is being more actively practiced whether directly through the inclusion of specific criteria in procurement contracts or through purchasing ‘green’ items in the office supply catalogues.
In 2016, the annual per capita cost of coordinating EMAS, comprising staff time, audit and support contracts, remained near EUR 70. Buildings energy costs are by far the most expensive single resource cost, over 10 times that for water consumption or waste disposal. Commission per capita energy costs were EUR 589 in 2016, a more than 10 % drop since 2014. Cumulated savings in Brussels from reduced energy consumption in build-ings in the EMAS area estimated using historical unit costs indicate that in 2016 costs were less than half per person than in 2005 when reporting began.
Assuming similar costs for non-EMAS areas, Brussels’ annual energy bill is estimated to have fallen from around EUR 25 million in 2005 to under EUR 12 million in 2016, a cumulative saving of EUR 96 million over this period. In Brussels per capita buildings energy consumption in 2016 was more than 10 times greater than that for water consumption (EUR 44), office paper supply (EUR 24) and for general (nonhazardous) waste disposal (EUR 36). Although disposal of controlled waste has a high unit cost the low quantities generated result in low per capita costs.
Progress of the Commission in relation to targets for selected parameters for 2014-20:The Commission’s performance trends in recent years and progress towards 2014-2020 targets are summarised for selected core parameters below.
Performance has improved at most sites and for most parameters with approximately two thirds of figures above showing improvement (green). And indeed some cases of apparently poor performance (red) are ‘artificial’.
In Luxembourg for example, since 2015, reporting (3) for most parameters has been for the entire site in order to give more representative overall results (rather than only for EMAS-registered buildings, which made it more dif-ficult to discern trends from year to year — particularly when newly registered buildings were very different to existing ones). This was the case in 2014 when the data centres were included in the registration resulting in far higher energy consumption and consequently CO2 emissions.
(3) For verification purposes data for EMAS-registered buildings only is also available.
6
Summary of performance for selected parameters at EMAS sites
Physical indicators Historic data values Performance trend (%) since: Target
(Number, description, unit)
First EMAS
data (1)
2013 2014 2015 2016 First EMAS
data (1)
2013 2014 2015 2020 (2)(3)
Δ %
Value
1a) Energy bldgs (MWh/p)
Brussels 19.06 7.30 6.99 7.51 7.26 – 61.9 – 0.6 3.9 – 3.3 – 5.0 6.64
Luxembourg 8.35 10.71 17.42 17.70 18.43 120.8 72.1 5.8 4.1 – 5.0 16.55
JRC Petten 37.46 31.84 23.99 23.52 24.00 – 35.9 – 24.6 0.0 2.0 – 5.0 22.79
JRC Geel 60.52 54.90 51.19 49.52 53.16 – 12.2 – 3.2 3.8 7.4 – 5.0 48.63
JRC Sevilla 11.17 9.55 9.13 8.98 8.05 – 28.0 – 15.7 – 11.9 – 10.4 – 5.0 8.68
JRC Karlsruhe 78.64 75.02 64.03 70.77 67.56 – 14.1 – 9.9 5.5 – 4.5 – 5.0 60.82
JRC Ispra 44.09 39.80 37.43 38.74 35.51 – 19.5 – 10.8 – 5.1 – 8.3 – 5.6 35.33
Grange 10.21 12.42 12.69 13.47 12.52 22.6 0.8 – 1.4 – 7.1 – 5.0 12.05
Commission 12.96 11.45 12.48 12.06 – 6.9 5.4 – 3.4 – 5.2 10.85
1d) Water consumption (m3/person)
Brussels 28.44 11.66 12.57 12.40 11.77 – 58.6 0.9 – 6.3 – 5.1 0.0 12.57
Luxembourg 12.26 15.24 14.48 10.50 18.61 51.8 22.1 28.5 77.2 0.0 14.48
JRC Petten 11.50 19.26 11.14 11.67 14.05 22.1 – 27.1 26.1 20.3 – 5.0 10.58
JRC Geel 79.57 51.43 34.75 30.06 26.86 – 66.2 – 47.8 – 22.7 – 10.7 – 5.0 33.01
JRC Sevilla 42.81 27.34 21.73 21.07 17.85 – 58.3 – 34.7 – 17.9 – 15.3 – 3.0 21.08
JRC Karlsruhe 16.51 18.24 21.03 20.86 19.24 16.6 5.5 – 8.5 – 7.7 – 5.0 19.98
JRC Ispra 1 257 760.8 620.6 827.0 680.8 – 45.8 – 10.5 9.7 – 17.7 – 5.0 589.5
Grange 30.66 24.82 27.69 28.16 19.76 – 35.6 – 20.4 – 28.6 – 29.8 – 5.0 26.30
Commission 105.4 66.82 75.54 65.40 – 38.0 – 2.1 – 13.4 – 4.2 64.02
1e) Office paper (sheets/p/day)
Brussels 77.4 42.6 35.2 34.6 29.4 – 62.0 – 30.9 – 16.4 – 15.0 0.0 35.18
Luxembourg 32.1 26.8 24.1 18.6 16.8 – 47.7 – 37.4 – 30.3 – 9.9 0.0 24.06
JRC Petten 40.0 19.9 15.9 20.6 8.9 – 77.8 – 55.3 – 44.0 – 56.8 – 5.0 15.06
JRC Geel 0.0 20.4 10.3 19.0 0.0 0.0 – 6.8 84.3 – 5.0 19.41
JRC Sevilla 30.6 9.0 12.6 13.5 11.1 – 63.7 24.0 – 11.5 – 17.6 – 3.0 12.17
JRC Karlsruhe 14.9 17.5 15.0 22.8 0.0 52.9 30.7 51.5 0.0 17.45
JRC Ispra 18.5 15.5 16.0 14.5 12.2 – 34.3 – 21.3 – 23.8 – 16.2 – 9.0 14.54
Grange 0.0 0.0 9.9 19.9 33.3 0.0 0.0 235.9 67.4 – 5.0 9.43
Commission 36.2 31.5 30.1 26.0 – 28.2 – 17.5 – 13.8 – 0.4 31.4
2a) CO2 emissions from buildings (tonnes/person)
Brussels 4.77 0.74 0.64 0.71 0.65 – 86.4 – 12.1 0.9 – 8.3 – 5.0 0.61
Luxembourg 1.15 1.10 1.80 1.97 2.24 95.2 102.8 24.1 13.4 – 5.0 1.71
JRC Petten 14.49 11.79 9.79 9.53 8.66 – 40.2 – 26.5 – 11.5 – 9.1 – 5.0 9.30
JRC Geel 16.48 14.81 13.90 13.34 14.37 – 12.8 – 2.9 3.4 7.7 – 5.0 13.20
JRC Sevilla 4.18 3.46 2.84 3.18 2.63 – 37.1 – 23.9 – 7.4 – 17.3 – 5.0 2.70
JRC Karlsruhe 18.48 20.56 17.36 17.96 16.89 – 8.6 – 17.8 – 2.7 – 6.0 – 5.0 16.49
JRC Ispra 8.66 7.83 7.38 7.56 7.02 – 18.9 – 10.4 – 5.0 – 7.2 – 5.6 6.97
Grange 3.98 4.63 4.68 4.83 4.49 12.9 – 2.9 – 4.1 – 7.1 – 5.0 4.45
7
Physical indicators Historic data values Performance trend (%) since: Target
(Number, description, unit)
First EMAS
data (1)
2013 2014 2015 2016 First EMAS
data (1)
2013 2014 2015 2020 (2)(3)
Δ %
Value
Commission 2.06 1.73 1.81 1.72 – 16.2 – 0.7 – 4.6 – 5.1 1.65
3a) Non-hazardous waste (tonnes/person)
Brussels 0.30 0.21 0.24 0.22 0.22 – 27.3 3.9 – 7.6 – 1.2 – 2.0 0.23
Luxembourg 0.25 0.12 0.10 0.19 0.23 – 7.3 82.8 121.7 17.4 0.0 0.10
JRC Petten 0.08 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.12 50.5 – 24.9 11.3 16.7 – 5.0 0.10
JRC Geel 0.27 0.18 0.48 0.35 0.36 36.3 101.7 – 24.1 3.7 – 5.0 0.46
JRC Sevilla 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.0 0.0 172.7 212.5 – 5.0 0.02
JRC Karlsruhe 0.00 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.25 0.0 – 25.6 – 24.0 – 20.2 – 5.0 0.32
JRC Ispra 0.39 0.47 0.41 0.46 0.32 – 18.9 – 32.1 – 23.2 – 31.3 NA NA
Grange 0.00 0.20 0.25 0.23 0.27 0.0 34.2 7.1 19.7 – 5.0 0.24
Commission 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.23 – 1.3 – 7.8 – 3.6 – 2.1 0.24
Note: NA — not applicable,(1) Earliest reported data: 2005 — Brussels, Grange; 2008 — Karlsruhe; 2010 — Petten, Sevilla; 2011 — Geel, Ispra, Luxembourg; (2) Compared to 2014; (3) EMAS Annual Action Plan 2017.
In relation to per capita energy consumption:
1. All sites (other than Luxembourg owing to its newly included datacentres and Grange) have reduced consumption by between 12 % (Geel), and 62 % (Brussels) since first recorded data;
2. In 2016 Sevilla and Grange both exceeded their 2020 targets, while Ispra was close. Petten’s consump-tion was close to that of the baseline year (2014) while the remaining sites consumed nearly 5 % more in 2016 than 2014. Nuclear regulations require Karlsruhe to operate ventilation systems continually making energy consumption reduction difficult. More difficult climate conditions in 2016 compared to 2014 may explain the performance in Geel and Brussels, and overall why Commission performance is under trend for the 2020 target; and
3. Six sites recorded similar or better performance in 2016 than in 2015.
In relation to water consumption:
1. Five sites have reduced consumption between 36 % (Grange) and 66 % (Geel) since first recorded data;
2. Geel, Sevilla, Karlsruhe and Grange have already easily met their 2020 target in 2016. Although Brus-sels didn’t set a 2020 target, consumption was 6 % below 2014 value, and overall the Commission has reduced consumption since 2014; and
3. Six sites recorded at least a 5 % reduction in consumption in 2016 compared with 2015.
In relation to office paper consumption:
1. All sites have recorded significant reductions with Brussels, Petten and Sevilla all exceeding 45 % since first recorded data;
2. Brussels, Luxembourg, Petten, Geel, Sevilla and Ispra have met their 2020 target in 2016. Increases at Karlsruhe and Grange may be related to purchasing and distribution patterns rather than consumption because at smaller sites deliveries maybe relatively infrequent and stock used over longer periods. The Commission easily exceeded its 2020 target in 2016; and
3. Five sites recorded improved performance in 2016 compared to 2015, over four of them by more than 10 %.
8
In relation to CO2 emissions (which normally are related to energy consumption):
1. All sites have experienced a reduction in the longer term;
2. Petten, Sevilla and Grange have already exceeded their 2020 target in 2014, while Ispra was close and both Geel and Brussels experienced slightly higher consumption than in 2014. Overall the Commission has reduced emissions since 2014; and
3. Six sites had similar or improved performance in 2016 compared with 2015.
In relation to non-hazardous waste generation:
1. All sites except Petten and Geel have recorded significant reductions since first data reporting. In research environments waste generation may be closely related to the amount of research activity;
2. Brussels, Geel and Karlsruhe have already met their 2020 target, but overall the Commission has increased waste generation since 2014; and
3. Five sites recorded more waste in 2016 than in 2015, significantly so in the case of Sevilla and Grange.
Going forward, we will continue to deliver improvements including:
1. Further developing the carbon footprint management as required by the European Court of Auditors, and within the Interinstitutional Group on Environmental Management;
2. Continue to consolidate the system following years of rapid growth, internal structural staff changes, and in view of the updated version of the EMAS Regulation;
3. Improve the performance of the EMAS network of correspondents; and
4. Further expand the Commission’s registration to include the Executive agencies under Commission Facil-ities Management Control.
9
CONTENTS
FOREWORD ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................2EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................................4
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................111.1 About this Environmental Statement ..................................................................................................................................111.2 What is the European Commission? .....................................................................................................................................111.3 Assessing the environmental impacts of European Union policies ....................................................................121.4 Corporate responsibility and environmental management at the Commission ..........................................121.5 Why implement EMAS? ................................................................................................................................................................131.6 The development of environmental management through EMAS at the Commission ...........................141.7 Who implements EMAS in the Commission? ...................................................................................................................161.8 Key components of the EMAS system ................................................................................................................................161.9 Benchmarking ...................................................................................................................................................................................21
2 THE COMMISSION’S ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE IN 2016 ........................................................................222.1 Overview of the evolution of selected indicators at the EMAS sites .................................................................222.2 Description of activities ...............................................................................................................................................................222.3 Environmental impact of Commission activities and actions for mitigation ................................................232.4 More efficient use of natural resources .............................................................................................................................272.5 Reducing emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases and air pollutants, carbon footprint ..................322.6 Improving waste management and sorting .....................................................................................................................412.7 Protecting biodiversity .................................................................................................................................................................442.8 Green public procurement (GPP) ............................................................................................................................................452.9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness .........................................................................462.10 Internal communication and training ..................................................................................................................................472.11 External communication .............................................................................................................................................................532.12 EMAS costs and savings .............................................................................................................................................................552.13 Benchmarking with the European Parliament and European Council ...............................................................59
3 LESSONS LEARNED AND THE WAY FORWARD .............................................................................................................603.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................................603.2 Going forward ...................................................................................................................................................................................60
Table of conversion factors used in site annexes ...................................................................................................................................62Glossary of terms .....................................................................................................................................................................................................64
10
ANNEXES A TO H ARE THE SITE REPORTS VALIDATED SEPARATELY DURING THE VERIFICATION AUDITS AT EACH SITE, BUT WITH COMMON STRUCTURE PAGE NUMBERS AS FOLLOWS:
Anne
x A:
Bru
ssel
s
ANNE
X B
Luxe
mbo
urg
ANNE
X C:
JRC
Pet
ten
ANNE
X D:
JRC
Gee
l
ANNE
X E:
JRC
Sev
illa
ANNE
X F:
JRC
Ka
rlsru
he
ANNE
X G:
JRC
Ispr
a
ANNE
X H:
san
te a
t Gr
ange
1 Overview of core indicators A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G4 H3
2 Description of activities A4 B4 C4 D4 E5 F4 G5 H4
3Environmental impact of activities
A6 B7 C6 D8 E8 F6 G10 H5
4More efficient use of natural resources
A7 B9 C7 D9 E8 F7 G12 H7
5 Reducing emissions to air A11 B14 C10 D15 E16 F13 G20 H10
6Improving waste management and sorting
A16 B18 C13 D20 E19 F18 G28 H13
7 Protecting biodiversity A17 B19 C15 D22 E21 F19 G34 H15
8 Green public procurement A18 B19 C15 D22 E22 F20 G36 H17
9Legal compliance and emergency preparedness
A18 B19 C15 D23 E23 F21 G36 H17
10 Communication A19 B22 C17 D24 E24 F21 G38 H19
11 Training A20 B24 C17 D26 E24 F24 G41 H21
12 EMAS costs and savings A21 B24 C18 D27 E25 F25 G41 H22
13 Conversion factors A21 B25 C18 D28 E26 F26 G42 H22
14Summary buildings table (optional)
A22 C18 D29 H22
11
1 Introduction
1.1 About this Environmental StatementThe European Commission (EC) implements the Eco-Management and Audit System (EMAS) Regulation which requires organisations to publish an Environmental Statement (ES). The EC achieved its first EMAS registration in 2005 which covered part of its activities in Brussels.
The EC has since expanded the scope of its EMAS registration considerably and developed a sitebased approach. This ES, which reports on 2016 activities, is the basis for the EMAS registration update for the EC’s eight main sites in Europe as listed in Table 1.1 in their order of incorporation into the EC’s EMAS registration.
Table 1.1 Commission sites included in the EMAS registration
Country Commission site
Belgium Brussels (EC main administrative centre,with over 40 directorates and services plus 5 Executive agencies), with buildings located in the Brussels Region and in Flanders.
Luxembourg Luxembourg (EC second administrative centre plus one Executive agency).
Netherlands JRC Petten (formerly Institute for Energy and Transport, IET), near Alkmaar.
Belgium JRC Geel (formerly Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements, IRMM).
Spain JRC Sevilla (formerly Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, IPTS).
Germany JRC Karlsruhe (formerly Institute for Transuranium Elements, ITU).
Italy JRC Ispra (JRC’s largest site and administrative centre), including the Institutes for Environment and Sustainability (IES), Health and Consumer Protection (IHCP) for Protection and Security of the Citizen and parts of (or staff from) the JRC Institutes in other countries.
Ireland Facility of the Directorate-General of Health and Food Safety, located at Grange, near Trim, County Meath (DG SANTE Grange).
This ES was produced in two phases:
� Phase 1: Separate ‘stand-alone’ reports were prepared for each of the eight sites, as Annexes A to H of this report. The same structure was adopted for reporting at each site as described in the previous page; and
� Phase 2: The site data was aggregated where possible to produce Commission results which are described in Chapter 2 of this report. Virtually all data included in this volume originates in the site annexes.
The remainder of this chapter provides information on EC activities and its environmental management system, as required by the EMAS Regulation.
1.2 What is the European Commission?The European Commission (4) is the executive arm of the European Union. Alongside the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, it is one of three main institutions that govern the Union, and by far the largest. The Commission’s activities are steered by 28 Commissioners, assisted by over 30 000 civil servants and other staff working in 31 directorates-general (DGs), 15 services/offices (5) and departments all over the world. Each Commissioner takes responsibility for a particular area of policy and heads one or more entities that are generally known as DGs.
The Commission’s primary role is to propose and enact legislation, and to act as ‘Guardian of the Treaties’, which involves responsibility for initiating infringement proceedings at the European Court of Justice against Member States and others whom it considers to be in breach of the EU Treaties and other Community law. The
(4) A glossary of terms is provided at the end of the document.(5) http://ec.europa.eu/about/ds_en.htm
12
Commission also negotiates international agreements on behalf of the EU in close cooperation with the Coun-cil of the European Union.
The Commission’s headquarters are in Brussels (Belgium), but it also has offices in Luxembourg, Ispra (Italy), Grange (Ireland) and many other places, agencies in a number of Member States and representations in all EU countries. On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force giving the Commission the institutional tools needed for the various enlargements and for meeting the challenges of an EU of 28 Member States (EU-28).
1.3 Assessing the environmental impacts of European Union policiesThe Commission takes environmental issues into account when drafting and revising EU policies, through the impact assessment system usually managed through the Secretary-General. It provides financial support for environmental projects via the LIFE programme and has policies on combating global warming and on energy and transport.
The impact assessment system and its application to the myriad of EU policies are not considered in this doc-ument (6), but you can find information on these on the Commission’s Europa website. The following pages are among those dedicated to particular policies and important initiatives:
1. Impact assessment system: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/cia_2016_en.htm
2. EU environment policy and evaluation: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.htm
3. LIFE+ programme: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm
4. Global warming policy: http://ec.europa.eu/climateaction/index_fr.htm
5. Energy policy: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/index_en.htm
6. Transport policy: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/index_en.htm
The environmental aspects of EU policies for Member States are therefore addressed by the impact assessment system that applies to each legislative initiative. All draft impact assessment reports have to be submitted for quality and scrutiny to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) (7) which replaced the Impact Assessment Board in July 2015. A positive opinion is in principle needed from the Board for an initiative accompanied by an impact assessment to proceed. RSB opinions (8) are published alongside the final impact assessment report and proposal at the time of adoption. The EMAS management system is not the appropriate tool for managing these policies. The Commission’s management system therefore deals with the Commission’s operational activities, i.e. those that are under the control of or can be influenced by EC management.
1.4 Corporate responsibility and environmental management at the CommissionThe Commission does not look at environmental management in isolation, but rather within the broad context of its approach to corporate social reponsibility. One important way in which the Commission has begun to empha-sise and encourage its employees to have a positive impact on their local communities is through encouraging them to participate in volunteering.
Staff in Brussels have been encouraged in 2016 to participate in a range of voluntary activities across the city, for which they can receive up to one day of special leave per year. Corporate support was provided for staff to participate in a worldwide week long initiative by Serve the City to introduce staff to volunteering activities. While directly benefiting the local community, including disadvantaged groups such as the homeless and refugees, par-ticipation also enabled small groups of Commission staff to get to know one another.
The importance of using a hollistic approach to staff wellbeing and working conditions has been highlighted in the recent management restructuring by dedicating one directorate of DG HR to Health, Wellbeing and Work-ing Conditions and creating the role of Corporate Social Responsibility adviser. An initiative entitled fit@work has been established which brings together a wide range of corporate services with a focus on:
(6) Detailed information on EU policies available on www.europa.eu(7) http://ec.europa.eu/info/law-making-process/regulatory-scrutiny-board_en(8) http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/cia_2015_en.htm
13
� improving physical health by focussing on disease prevention though promoting more active lifestyles, and based on health data;
� improving mental health, for example by dispelling myths and stigma associated with certain health conditions;
� promoting exercise and leisure activities for example though the Commission’s 30 sports clubs;
� promoting a healthy work/life balance, for example recognising the additional stresses caused by an expatriate lifestyles and offering flexible work patterns to accommodate this;
� improving the quality of the physical working environment, particularly aspects such as ventilation and light levels which significantly effect staff comfort and motivation; and
� providing supportive working conditions (for example by making it easier to obtain psychological support).
So there are obvious synergies between initiatives such as fit@work and environmental management (EMAS). Taking the stairs instead of the lift not only improves staff fitness, but reduces buildings energy consumption and CO2 emissions. And cycling or walking to work instead of driving will reduce energy consumption and CO2 emis-sions associated with commuting. Encouraging staff to think about eating less meat similarly reduces the amount of non-renewable energy used in the food chain, and consequently CO2 emissions and may also have health ben-efits. These issues that can be influenced through our building and mobility policies.
Other than the Serve the City volunteer week, voluntary team buildings events in 2016 included:
� A team-building away day for colleagues in DG GROW who repaired and decorated the facilities of an organisation thaat runs summer camps for disadvantaged children;
� An environmental away day for colleagues at the Secretariat-General who cut grass and maintained paths in meadows located at Genval on behalf of a non-profit organisation that preserves natural habi-tats in Brussels and Wallonia;
� Participation of staff from 13 directorates-general in the Belgian Eneco Clean Beach Cup which targeted 17 beaches with a total of 2 230 volunteers who collected over 7 tonnes of rubbish, Commission staff averaging over 6.4 kg; and
� JRC Ispra colleagues who volunteered throughout the weekend to help clean the shores of Lake Maggiore.
1.5 Why implement EMAS?The EC developped EMAS in the 1990s as a tool to improve environmental management across Europe. It was designed first for implementation in industrial sectors and then later modifed so that it could be used for less energy intensive and polluting sectors such as public administration.
Since EMAS was introduced, the International Standards Organisation (ISO) developped ISO 14001, the interna-tional standard for environmental management which has been more widely adopted both in Europe and world-wide. EMAS remains however a more rigorous system than ISO 14001, with additional requirements such as:
� a commitment to continual improvement;
� an obligation to publish results (Environmental Statement);
� commitment to demonstrating legal compliance;
� employee involvement; and
� registration by a public authority after verification by an accredited/licensed verifier.
The latest version of ISO 14001 (ISO14001:2015) incorporated some elements of the EMAS Regulation, but not some important ones such as mandatory reporting. So while the ongoing revision to the EMAS Regulation will incorporate the ISO 14001:2015 requirements so that it remains attractive for those who also need ISO 14001 certification, especially for commercial reasons, EMAS will still be considered the ‘premium’ environmental man-agement system. A new version of the EMAS Regulation will come into force in September 2018.
14
1.6 The development of environmental management through EMAS at the CommissionTable 1.2 presents a chronology of the main developments in EMAS implementation at the Commission. Of par-ticular significance was the introduction of the EMAS III Regulation (9) in 2009, replacing the 2001 version and which made it easier to implement EMAS by making it possible to include sites in several different countries under one registration. This has greatly facilitated the expansion of the Commission’s EMAS registration which, subject to ongoing administrative procedures by the Brussels EMAS authority, now covers eight sites in seven countries.
Historically and for operational reasons, the Commission separated the EMAS registration of its staff activities (departments) and buildings. While the system’s communication aspects can be relatively quickly addressed ena-bling all staff across the Commission to be included, additional buildings must be inspected and certified by the national authorities. This is time consuming, and for this reason buildings at larger sites (Brussels and Luxem-bourg) have been added to EMAS each year according to resources available. Smaller sites, such as those of the JRC have been added whole. Figure 1.1 shows how the ‘useful’ surface area within the EMAS scope has evolved and reflects progress in incorporating new buildings individually at Brussels and Luxembourg, and new sites.
Table 1.2: The Chronology of EMAS Implementation at the European Commission
Year Action
2001 � The EC launches a pilot exercise to apply EMAS (Regulation (EC) No 761/2001) to the activities and buildings of a number of its departments.
2005 � The EC obtains the first EMAS registration for the activities of four Commission departments in Brussels, and covering eight buildings (based on data from 2002-2004).
2005-2009
� More buildings were added to EMAS scope in Brussels, giving 32 in total for the verification exercise for 2009.
2009 � EMAS III Regulation comes into force enabling the Commission to register sites in different Member States under one authority and with a single reference number.
2009 � The EC decides to extend EMAS to all its departments in Brussels and Luxembourg with effect from 1 January 2010. New buildings are to be added annually in accordance with a schedule agreed in Brussels with the Institut Bruxellois pour la Gestion de l’Environnement (IBGE) (Brussels Competent Body for EMAS).
2011 � The registration was extended to include all EC departments in Brussels.
2012 � The registration is further extended to include all its departments in Luxembourg and first two buildings (based on data reported for 2011).
2013 � The EC decided to further extend the EMAS to the JRC sites in Europe and to SANTE Grange (Ireland). � JRC Petten included in EMAS registration (based on data reported for 2012). Data is reported in this Environmental Statement for JRC sites at Geel and Sevilla in anticipation of their inclusion in the EMAS registration in 2014.
2014 � JRC sites at Geel and Sevilla undergo succesful verification and are included in the Commission’s EMAS registration. JRC Karlsruhe’s verification is postponed until 2015 for administrative reasons.
� EMAS begins to address the findings of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) report 2014/14 into how the European Institutions address their Carbon Footprint.
� The Environmental Statement is upgraded by incorporating (i) a new standardised approach for reporting at site level to ensure consistency among sites and a first step towards analysing the Commission’s performance by aggregate site level data, (ii) estimating greenhouse gas emissions associated with missions, and for Brussels also emissions associated with commuting; and (iii) incorporating unit cost information to track management costs and key resource expenditure such as energy, water, waste disposal.
2015-2016
� Verification audits were successful at new sites JRC Karlsruhe, JRC Ispra, and SANTE Grange based on reporting for 2014. The Commission’s EMAS registration includes eight sites in seven countries.
� Responding to the findings contained in the ECA’s Carbon Footprint report, HR COORD started to make the Commission’s agencies aware of EMAS and to follow uptake among other European Institutions through the Interinstitutional Environmental Management Group (GIME).
� Longer-term objectives for key environmental parameters were proposed to management targetting a 5 % reduction over the period 2014-2020 in several parameters, and were adopted in early 2016, while automated workflows were became operational for the tracking of audit findings.
(9) Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), repealing Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 and Commission Decisions 2001/681/EC and 2006/193/EC.
15
Year Action
2017 � Repeat verifications to again be sought at the eight Commission sites. � Additional workflow solutions to be developed to track the status of environmental actions, and potentially to manage communications.
� The EC to continue to work closely with the other European institutions and agencies in relation to Carbon Footprint estimation and compensation specifically to respond to the European Court of Auditors Report on the subject, and by engaging in joint environmental awareness initiatives.
� The EC to continue to prepare for the EMAS Regulation coming into force in September 2018. This is to include switching the timing of the internal and verification audits in 2018 so that the latter occurs in the first half of the year and the first in the second half.
Figure 1.1: Evolution of floor space in Commission managed premises (10) to be registered under EMAS (m2)
200 000
0
400 000
600 000
800 000
1 000 000
1 200 000
1 400 000
1 600 000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 206 166 257 557 272 324 446 562 533 285 633 228 748 748 889 116 1 169 923 1 595 920
Grange 10 010
JRC Ispra 254 356
JRC Karlsruhe 43 170
JRC Sevilla 6 497 7 165
JRC Geel 46 390 50 538
JRC Petten 19 150 19 150 20 502
Luxembourg 27 710 49 938 64 703 140 697
Brussels 206 166 257 557 272 324 446 562 533 285 633 228 721 038 820 028 1 033 183
1 524 243
10 010
256 077
41 735
7 017
48 815
19 458
65 759
1 075 372
1 551 764
10 010
253 428
41 735
7 165
50 538
21 397
100 221
1 067 270 1 069 482
In 2017 the EC is to seek re-registration of eight sites with over 1.5 million square metres of useful floor space, based on reporting for 2016 including three new buildings at Luxembourg. The number of staff working within the EMAS-certified buildings has risen from 4 033 in 2005 to 34 413 in 2015.
(10) In Brussels this includes space occupied by Executive agencies. The premises of all Commission sites have been registered under EMAS other than Luxembourg where the 2017 registration includes 10 of 18 buildings.
16
1.7 Who implements EMAS in the Commission?EMAS is implemented under a Decision (11) taken by the College of Commissioners, ensuring its legitimacy at the institution’s highest level. DG HR’s Director-General chairs the EMAS Steering Committee (12) (ESC) which meets twice yearly. It defines environmental policy, adopts the annual global action plan, sets environmental objectives and monitors progress.
Day-to-day EMAS coordination is assured by a team based in Brussels (HR COORD) within the Working Environ-ment and Safety Unit of DG HR. The EMAS Management Representative leads the team and is responsible to Management for EMAS implementation, and is the contact point for external organisations such as IBGE (Brus-sels Environment) and other EU institutions. Its two other staff members work predominantly on system coordi-nation and on communication and training.
Owing to the Commission’s size and presence across the continent, HR COORD works with a network of over 35 correspondents and eight site coordinators within the directorates-general and departments and whose job descriptions include their EMAS responsibilities. The network includes:
(i) EMAS site coordinators: at each of the eight sites who are HR COORD’s main contact points and responsible for implementing EMAS at the site level. As such they report on performance at site level, contributing to the Envi-ronmental Statement and participate in preparing site-level objectives and actions;
(ii) EMAS correspondents providing a link between their directorate-general/department and HR COORD, particu-larly for communication. The correspondents participate in formal meetings on average three times a year, usu-ally before the start of information campaigns. They are nominated by their services;
(iii) operational EMAS correspondents (13) from services with a greater role to play in system implementation owing to their representation on the EMAS Steering Committee such as DG ENER and DG CLIMA.
EMAS site coordinators at OIB and OIL implement the system in Brussels and Luxembourg respectively as do those at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and one located at DG SANTE at Grange. The JRC has EN ISO 9001/14001 certifications, in addition to OHSAS 18001, which provides a useful base for introducing EMAS. HR COORD communicates directly with the site coordinators. JRC Ispra coordinates some strategic elements of JRC EMAS implementation.
Other staff contribute to EMAS, for example when providing data for reporting on resource consumption or waste generation, or when participating in internal and verification audits. And all staff is exposed to communication campaigns, and can benefit from training designed to improve environmental behaviour. HR COORD conducts an environmental survey every 2 years to gauge the evolution in staff attitudes.
1.8 Key components of the EMAS systemThe main elements of the EMAS system are defined in the process diagram in Figure 1.2 which shows the steps required to achieve and maintain an EMAS registration. Further description of some of the elements are defined below.
Most of the activities occur annually, but the whole cycle is completed in 3 years for practical purposes. The size and spread of the Commission’s premises across Europe dictates that activities such as auditing are phased over the 3-year cycle.
(11) Commission Decision C(2013) 7708 of 18.11.2013 on the application by the Commission services of the Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS).
(12) The Steering Committee is made up of the following directorates-general and services: BUDG, CLIMA, DIGIT, ENER, ENV, HR, JRC, MOVE, SG, SANTE, OIB and OIL.
(13) Operational EMAS correspondents are those whose services fall under the remit of the EMAS Steering Committee; they also act as EMAS correspondents.
17
Figure 1.2 Achieving and maintaining EMAS registration (an overview)
18
The Commission’s environmental policy
The environmental policy is one of the starting points of the environmental management system. It is signed by the Director-General of DG HR, who chairs the EMAS Steering Committee and sets out the Commission’s political objectives in concise terms. It was last updated in 2014. Commission indicators and objectives for environmen-tal performance are derived from the individual policy statements:
19
Identification of significant environmental aspects
Environmental aspects are the elements of activities, products and services which have or may have an impact on the environment, and these are determined at site level. A central procedure is used to identify the significant environmental aspects — those aspects for which associated impacts include a risk that the Commission may find itself in contravention of applicable legislation or for which at least three of six assessment criteria are met.
Monitoring, managing and mitigating significant environmental aspects is a priority of the management system. The environmental impact of each of the significant aspects is identified along with the activities, products and services associated with them. The relevant legislation is identified and monitored to ensure legal compliance, and objectives/targets are set along with the actions required to deliver them.
System documentation
HR COORD maintains the system documentation of which the most important elements are the EMAS Handbook, which provides a system overview and defines roles and responsibilities. Sites must apply the 10 ‘central’ pro-cedures (or equivalent alternatives), and may develop their own standard operating procedures to cover local conditions.
The procedures include (i) identifying and evaluating significant aspects, (ii) legal compliance, (iii) preparation of the global action plan, (iv) training and awareness raising, (v) internal communication, (vi) external communica-tion, (vii) document and records control, (viii) internal environmental audits, (ix) management review and (x) man-aging non conformities, preventative and corrective actions.
Monitoring of indicators and setting of objectives
EMAS requires organisations to continually improve their environmental performance, so they must identify indi-cators to measure and set objectives. While indicator and objective definition logically follows the review of sig-nificant environmental aspects conducted at each site and may therefore vary from site to site, Annex IV of the EMAS Regulation nevertheless defines ‘core’ indicators for which data is expected to be collected, including energy efficiency, material efficiency, water consumption, waste generation, biodiversity and emissions.
According to the Regulation, and as an administrative organisation, the Commission’s core indicators are primar-ily expressed as output per person. The total number of employees within the EMAS area is therefore a common denominator of most indicator measurements. In addition some indicators, such as energy consumption and gas emissions are expressed per square metre, according to common practice in facilities management.
Every year the Commission updates its Global Annual Action Plan. This comprises two elements:
� A review of the evolution of indicators against targets, and the setting or future targets; and
� An update in the status of existing actions and the identification of new actions to improve environmen-tal performance and meet targets.
The EMAS Steering Committee approves the Global Action Plan annually. Following consultation with the sites the ESC adopted medium-term objectives for the period 2014-2020 for several indicators.
Indicators are defined in the data tables contained in the individual reports for each site in Annexes A to H. These are grouped under eight main headings that encompass the political objectives set out in the Environmental Pol-icy and as shown in Table 1.3. Not all sites report on all parameters:
Table 1.3 Summary of main policy objectives and associated indicators
No Environmental Policy Objective
Indicators
Physically based parameters (14)
I More efficient use of natural resources
(a) Total energy consumption (buildings), (b) total energy consumption (site vehicles), (c) renewable energy use, (d) water consumption, (e) office paper consumption and (f) offset (professional printing) paper consumption.
(14) Usually requiring invoices and/or measurements for their definition. For several resource consumption parameters, technical staff may also report results per square metre. This applies to ‘useful surface’ areas which are often defined in lease or service contracts.
(15) Results obtained in these areas will ultimately be seen through improvements in the areas of policy objectives I to IV, and most parameters measured input based.
20
No Environmental Policy Objective
Indicators
II Reducing CO2 emissions, (including CO2 equivalent of other gases) and other air pollutants
(a) CO2 emissions from buildings energy consumption, (b) other greenhouse gas emissions (as CO2 equivalent from buildings (i.e. refrigerants), (c) vehicle CO2
emissions (manufacturer) (d) vehicle CO2 emissions (actual) and (e) actual total air emissions including SO2, NOx, PM. Also evaluated are emissions from other business travel, and for six sites, commuting.
III Improving waste management and sorting
(a) Total waste, (b) controlled waste and (c) separated waste (as % of total).
IV Protecting biodiversity (a) Built surface area, total site surface area.
Communication/training ‘soft’ parameters (15)
V Promoting ‘greener’ procurement
(a) Percentage of contracts over EUR 60 000 incorporating additional ‘green’ criteria and, (b) percentage, fraction and value of ‘green’ products in the office supply catalogue.
VI Ensuring legal compliance and emergency preparedness
(a) Risk prevention and management, (b) progress in registering for EMAS, (c) non-compliance in external EMAS audits and (d) emergency preparedness.
VII Improving communication (sustainable behaviour of staff; suppliers, and training)
(a) Centralised formalised EMAS campaigns, (b) environmental training for new colleagues, (c) take-up of e-learning, (d) staff awareness (through two yearly external survey), (e) register of training needs and (f) response to internal questions.
VIII Enjoying transparent relations with external partners
(a) Response to external questions, (b) register of information sessions for main subcontractors and suppliers, (c) register of local and regional stakeholders and (d) dialogue with external partners.
This document summarises results for each site along with a Commission-wide summary presented in the order in the above table and consistent with the Global Annual Action Plan.
Legal compliance
The Commission maintains European, national and, where relevant, regional registers of applicable legislation for its sites. It applies host country legislation, and requires its contractors to do so, with a particular focus on main-tenance and inspection contracts.
In addition to complying with general legislation applicable to its facilities, the Commission must fulfil the require-ments of environmental permits, where these are granted by the authorities. In Brussels and Luxembourg individ-ual buildings each have their own environmental permit. However the Commission seeks, when it is not the permit holder for example when renting premises, to ensure that the permit holder is compliant.
Each site is responsible for its own legal compliance which is checked through sampling each year as part of the activity of two audit campaigns organised and coordinated by HR COORD. In 2018 the timing of these will be switched:
� ‘Verification’ audits that are required to maintain the EMAS registration and which will take place in the spring; and
� ‘Internal’ EMAS audits in the autumn.
HR COORD also monitors the follow-up of these audit findings on a corporate register and reports on progress twice yearly to EMAS Steering Committee. Furthermore, operational checks and corrective actions are routinely carried out at each site under the normal working conditions usually by infrastructure services and/or health and safety units.
1.9 BenchmarkingThe EMAS regulations require an organisation’s environmental performance to be put into context through com-parison with other organisations, i.e. benchmarking. Because implementation of EMAS has been incremental at the Commission, and reporting overall results as an organisation (as opposed to as individual sites) began in 2014, current efforts at benchmarking at an organisational level are limited to very recent data. However
21
individual sites with a long history of reporting, such as Brussels, where EMAS data has been published since 2005 are more useful for benchmarking.
This report includes operational data from eight sites in seven countries, with activities ranging from office administration, to laboratory analysis to large specialist technical and even nuclear installations. Finding suitable organisations to benchmark against is therefore challenging, although in this report results for Brussels site are compared with those for the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.
22
2 The Commission’s environmental performance in 2016
This section presents an overview of the individual results for the eight sites participating in EMAS, each of which has a separate report in Annexes A to H and where possible aggregated data representing the Commission.
2.1 Overview of the evolution of selected indicators at the EMAS sites(See executive summary)
2.2 Description of activitiesBrussels is the main site, the Commission’s administrative centre, with a range of buildings dominated by offices but including conference centres, catering facilities, storage depots, print shops, childcare facilities, and sports facilities. The Luxembourg site is of a similar nature, though smaller but also includes a small nuclear laboratory operated by DG ENER.
The five JRC sites are all incorporated under EMAS and include:
� JRC’s main site at Ispra (Italy): a large campus with offices and research facilities, encompassing in addition many of the activities of a small town with its own power plant, fire station and water treat-ment works, and over 400 buildings in total. Most of its nuclear activities (including reactors), are no longer operational. Nuclear plants and storage facilities are under a decommissioning programme which aims to restore ‘green field’ status by 2033.
� JRC Karlsruhe (Germany) a relatively modern self-contained site located in a research campus on the outskirts edge of Karlsruhe, with ongoing nuclear activities.
� JRC Petten (Netherlands) accommodates experimental equipment notably conducting research on fuel cells.
� JRC Geel (Belgium) contains Van de Graaff and Gelina Nuclear Accelerators, large power hungry installa-tions, and an array of laboratories.
� JRC Sevilla (Spain) has advanced computing infrastructure, but lacks experimental laboratories. From an EMAS perspective, it is more similar in nature to the administrative centres of Brussels and Luxembourg, than to the other JRC sites, with the added complexity of being in wholly rented accommodation.
DG SANTE’s site at Grange Ireland is a purpose built low-level wooden clad structure dating from 2002 and set in countryside 45 km north west of Dublin. It accommodates Directorate F, Health and Food Audits and Analysis but was formerly known as the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). Many staff members are inspectors or auditors and travel frequently, and typically up to half may be away from the office at any one time.
The NACE codes (general industrial classification of economic activities within the European Union) for the Com-mission’s eight EMAS sites are presented in Table 2.2. Characteristics of these sites relating to EMAS are shown below in Table 2.3.
Table 2.1 NACE codes and descriptions of activities at the sites
Code Description
Brus
sels
Luxe
mbo
urg
JRC
Pett
en
JRC
Geel
JRC
Sevi
lla
JRC
Karls
ruhe
JRC
Ispr
a
SANT
E Gr
ange
99Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies
84.1Administration of the State and the economic and social policy of the community
71.2 Testing and technical analysis
23
Code Description
Brus
sels
Luxe
mbo
urg
JRC
Pett
en
JRC
Geel
JRC
Sevi
lla
JRC
Karls
ruhe
JRC
Ispr
a
SANT
E Gr
ange
72.1Research and experimental development in natural sciences and engineering
72.2Research and experimental development on social science and humanities
35.11 Production of electricity
35.30 Steam and air conditioning supply
36.00 Water collection, treatment and supply
37.00 Sewerage
Table 2.2 Basic characteristics of the Commission EMAS sites 2016
Site Staff Buildings for registration
Useful surface (m2)
EMAS Total EMAS Total EMAS Total
Brussels (all EMAS buildings)
26 361 26 361 62 64 1 069 482 1 082 033
Luxembourg 3 912 4 653 10 18 140 697 241 464
JRC Petten 276 276 16 16 20 502 20 502
JRC Geel 296 296 16 16 50 538 50 538
JRC Karlsruhe 324 324 4 4 43 170 43 170
JRC Sevilla 300 300 1 1 7 165 7 165
JRC Ispra 2 754 2 754 410 410 254 356 254 356
Grange 190 217 3 3 10 010 5 453
Total 34 413 35 181 522 532 1 595 920 1 704 681
The Brussels site clearly dominates staff numbers with approximately three times more total staff than the other sites combined. Both Brussels and Luxembourg have buildings and facilities spread out throughout their respec-tive cities and have implemented EMAS gradually. Brussels includes all its occupied buildings (16) within EMAS reporting effectively completing a phased implementation that started with its first EMAS registration in 2005 which included eight buildings.
Luxembourg started EMAS registration for its buildings in 2011 and by 2016 EMAS registered buildings accounted for 59 % of floor space and accommodating 79 % of staff. Remaining buildings will be incorporated by 2020. During 2016 staff remaining in the JMO building were relocated to new office buildings. As self-contained sites (17), each of the JRC sites as well as SANTE Grange is incorporated ‘whole’ into EMAS.
2.3 Environmental impact of Commission activities and actions for mitigationEach site undertakes its own review of environmental impact in order to identify those which are significant and determine how they should be managed. Details for each site are presented in the annexes to this report, and there is no review for the Commission as a whole.
(16) Buildings managed by OIB, not including some Executive Agencies. Note Palmerston (unoccupied) is not included.(17) JRC Sevilla occupies part of a commercial building.
24
Table 2.3 Significant environmental aspects at EMAS sites 2016, associated indicators and Commission-level targets for 2014-2020
A. Significance of aspects at site level
B. Indicator and Commission-level target for 2014-2020 (where stated)
Political objective group and significant aspect
BX LX PE GE SE KA IS GR Indicator Units Target %
Target
1. Efficient resource use
Buildings energy consumption 1a Total energy consumption (bldgs.)
MWh/p kW/m2
EUR/p
– 5.2 – 5.2 – 4.6
10.8224689
1c Non-renewable energy use (bldgs.)
% – 3.3 60.7
Vehicle energy consumption 1b vehicle energy consumption
MWh/p kW/m2
Water consumption 1d Water consumption
M3/p L/m2
EUR/p
– 4.2 – 4.2 – 1.3
641 326
52.6
Paper consumption 1e Office paper consumption
T/p Sheet/p/d
– 0.5 – 0.4
0.03131.3
2. Reducing emissions to air
CO2 emissions (from buildings energy consumption)
2a CO2 emissions (buildings)
TCO2/p kgCO2/m2
– 5.1 – 5.2
1.6534.1
Equivalent CO2 emissions refrigerants (from buildings)
2b Refrigerant losses
TCO2/p kgCO2/m2
Emissions from transport 2c CO2 emissions (vehicle fleet) manufacturer actual
gCO2/km
gCO2/km
– 5.5 – 4.9
161214
Emissions of particles, dust, noise etc
2d Bldgs emissions (NOx,SO2, PM10)
Tonnes/p
Nuclear emissions
3. Improving waste management
Non hazardous waste 3a Non-hazardous waste
T/p – 2.1 0.241
Hazardous waste 3b Hazardous waste
T/p – 2.6 0.0077
3c Separated waste
% + 6.0 66.7
Wastewater/liquid waste 3d Non-dom. wastewater discharge
M3/p
Nuclear waste
4. Protecting biodiversity
Protecting biodiversity 4a Built surface area
m2/p, %
25
5. Promoting green procurement
Contractor behaviour 5a Contracts with ‘eco’ criteria
%
6. Legal compliance and emergency preparedness
Ensuring emergency compliance and preparedness
However a summary of the results of the significant aspects review is presented in Table 2.3 along with associ-ated indicators, and where they have been set — objectives for Commission wide indicators associated with the target for 2014-2020 performance.
The table indicates that resource consumption, particularly in relation to energy, CO2 emissions and other air emissions along with managing waste generation are particularly significant at virtually all the sites.
2.3.1 The Annual Action Plan
The EMAS Steering Committee adopted the 2017 Annual Action plan which includes, as usual, two elements: (i) tar-gets/objectives and (ii) individual actions designed to help meet the targets and improve environmental performance.
Targets
The EMAS Steering Committee adopted Commission-level targets for 2014-2020 for core parameters (as expressed in percentage terms) in Table 2.3. These were formulated through consultation with the sites and cover most of the significant aspects that were identified by a majority of sites. They will be reviewed and revised if nec-essary in 2018 after 2017 reporting. The Commission-level target is a weighted average of sites’ individual targets.
Sites may also develop individual targets or objectives for indicators for which no Commission-level target has been set. This may the case particularly in the sites with, nuclear activity.
Actions
The 2017 Annual Action Plan contains individual actions identified at the site to achieve the objectives listed under the eight political objectives on Table 2.3. Of the 369 actions (over 100 more than 2016), approximately 60 % are active.
26
Figure 2.1 EMAS annual action plan 2017, actions by political objective and site
Brus
sels
Luxe
mbo
urg
JRC
Pett
en
JRC
Geel
JRC
Sevi
lla
JRC
Karls
ruhe
JRC
Ispr
a
Gran
ge
Tota
l
91
10
3
24
10
4
0
4
8
28
62
1
0
0
22
3
0
11
5
20
12
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
6
63
0
0
9
17
4
2
8
4
19
41
2
0
17
5
2
0
6
2
7
22
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
4
12
64
0
0
3
4
5
3
8
7
34
14
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
8
369
13
3
55
66
20
7
40
31
134
9) Other
8) External dialogue
7) Communication
6) Legal compliance
5) ‘Green’ procurement
4) Protecting biodiversity
3) Reducing waste
2) Reducing CO2 emissions
1) Efficient resource use
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
1) Efficient resource use
2) Reducing CO2 emissions
3) Reducing waste
4) Protectingbiodiversity
5) ‘Green’ procurement
6) Legal compliance
7) Communication
8) External dialogue
9) Other
Brussels
Luxembourg
JRC Petten
JRC Geel
JRC Sevilla
JRC Karlsruhe
JRC Ispra
Grange
Total
1) Effi-cientresour-ce use
2) Re-ducing CO2emis-sions
3) Re-ducingwaste
4) Pro-tectingbiodi-versity
5) ‘Greenpro-cure-ment’
6) Legalcom-pliance
7) Com-muni-cation
8) Ex-ternaldial-ogue
9) Other
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
1
Total
28
20
6
19
7
12
34
8
134
8
5
1
4
2
4
7
0
31
4
11
1
8
6
0
8
2
40 7
4
3
1
4
2
0
5
1
20
10
22
2
17
5
5
4
1
66
24
0
0
9
17
1
3
1
55
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
10
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
13
The data shows that:
1. There are many actions targeting environmental aspects that were identified with significant environ-mental impacts — notably efficient resource use (including energy), CO2 emissions, and reducing waste and relatively fewer actions relating to green public procurement and biodiversity. This which is expected as these were not so prominent in the analysis of the significant aspect at site level. As expected the largest sites Brussels, Luxembourg, and JRC Ispra recorded the largest number of actions.
2. Resource consumption dominated the actions at most sites, Luxembourg and JRC Sevilla being excep-tions perhaps owing to a larger proportion of rented accommodation.
3. There were also many actions relating to communication and legal compliance. Although these were not prominent in the significant aspects analysis, they are requirements of the EMAS Regulation. Legal com-pliance actions were a significant proportion of the total at Brussels and Luxembourg (because individ-ual buildings in both cities require environmental permits) and also JRC Karlsruhe which is very closely monitored by the German authorities owing to its nuclear activities and has extensive legal operat-ing requirements. Registration of individual buildings is not required for the JRC sites and DG Grange at SANTE because their special legal status permits them to be incorporated into EMAS as a whole.
The relatively large number of actions for more efficient resource use, and waste is in line with important interna-tional policy developments. To slow global warming by limiting greenhouse gas emissions, at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris 2015 (COP 21) all 195 countries adopted the first universal climate change agreement which aims to limit temperature rise to well under 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Under the agreement the EU will seek to reduce CO2 emissions by 40 % in 2030. The EU recently adopted the circular economy package to reduce waste generation and under which by 2030 the EU should achieve a common munic-ipal waste recycling target of 65 %, a 75 % target for recycling packaging waste, and an EU-wide landfill reduc-tion target of 10 %.
27
2.4 More efficient use of natural resourcesBuildings’ energy consumption is influenced by climate. One simple means of describing the annual variability is temperature, and Figure 2.1 shows the number of heating degree days and cooling degree days for meteorolog-ical stations near the Commission EMAS sites in recent years.
Comparing the total number of degree days from year to year at a site should suggest whether more energy could be expected to be consumed.
According to Figure 2.2, the northern continental sites of Brussels, Luxembourg, Petten, Geel and Karlsruhe all experienced more degree days in 2016 and 2015 and would therefore be expected to have greater energy con-sumption than in 2015, making it more difficult to meet energy consumption-related performance targets. Such targets are also challenging because the baseline year 2014 was relatively mild.
Figure 2.2 Heating and cooling degree days for weather stations close to the EMAS sites
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
4 000
Brus
sels
2012
Brus
sels
2013
Brus
sels
2014
Brus
sels
2015
Brus
sels
2016
Luxe
mbo
urg
2012
Luxe
mbo
urg
2013
Luxe
mbo
urg
2014
Luxe
mbo
urg
2015
Luxe
mbo
urg
2016
Pett
en 2
012
Pett
en 2
013
Pett
en 2
014
Pett
en 2
015
Pett
en 2
016
Gee
l 201
2G
eel 2
013
Gee
l 201
4G
eel 2
015
Gee
l 201
6
Sevi
lla 2
012
Sevi
lla 2
013
Sevi
lla 2
014
Sevi
lla 2
015
Sevi
lla 2
016
Karls
ruhe
201
2Ka
rlsru
he 2
013
Karls
ruhe
201
4Ka
rlsru
he 2
015
Karls
ruhe
201
6
Ispr
a 20
12Is
pra
2013
Ispr
a 20
14Is
pra
2015
Ispr
a 20
16
Gra
nge
2012
Gra
nge
2013
Gra
nge
2014
Gra
nge
2015
Gra
nge
2016
Cooling degree days (summer) Heating degree days (winter)
2.4.1 Energy consumption
The contribution of each of the EMAS sites to the Commission’s total buildings energy consumption in 2016 is shown below.
Brussels and JRC Ispra (18) account for nearly three quarters of energy consumption at the Commission sites, reflecting that they have the largest amount of infrastructure.
Figure 2.4 shows the evolution in per capita and per square metre buildings energy consumption for the EMAS sites, together with the Commission value obtained by ‘weighting’ the values for individual sites and the target for the period 2014-2020.
Although degree day data suggests that climatic con-ditions were more extreme in 2016 than 2015 for the northern European sites, overall Commission con-sumption decreased in 2016.
(18) JRC Ispra has its own power plant to produce electricity based on gas (methane).
Figure 2.3 Buildings energy consumption at EMAS sites in 2016 (MWh)
Brussels; 191 343
Luxembourg; 85 766 JRC Petten;
6 623
JRC Geel; 15 735
JRC Karlsruhe;21 889
JRC Sevilla;2 414
JRC Ispra; 97 798
Grange; 2 378
28
The JRC sites with laboratory or heavy experimental apparatus (Karlsruhe, Geel, Ispra and Petten) have the high-est per capita energy consumption from 20 to 80 MWh per annum with the predominantly office-dominated sites of Brussels, Luxembourg, Grange and JRC Sevilla closer to 10 MWh.
Figure 2.4: Annual buildings energy consumption at Commission sites to 2016
kWh/m2
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Target 2014-20
Luxembourg
JRC Geel
JRC Karlsruhe
JRC Sevilla
JRC Ispra
Grange
Commission
MWh/person
2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Commission
Target 2014-20
Brussels
Luxembourg
JRC Petten
JRC Geel
JRC Karlsruhe
JRC Sevilla
JRC Ispra
Grange
18.64
10.85
19.05
10.20
16.34
10.85
16.64
8.40
14.25
10.85
14.41
9.44
2008
12.31
10.85
10.57
78.64
10.92
10.78
10.85
9.43
78.36
6.65
10.65
10.85
8.97
37.45
78.43
11.17
10.85
13.76
10.85
7.72
8.35
29.10
60.52
69.00
9.13
44.08
10.09
12.95
10.85
7.72
10.74
25.35
61.80
68.71
10.48
42.53
12.34
11.65
10.85
7.30
10.71
31.83
54.89
75.02
9.55
39.79
12.41
11.44
10.85
6.99
17.41
23.99
51.19
64.02
9.13
37.42
12.68
12.48
10.85
7.51
17.70
24.86
49.51
70.76
8.98
38.74
13.46
12.05
10.85
7.26
18.43
23.99
53.15
67.56
8.05
35.50
12.51
365 326 293 269 249 250 281 277 257 235 255 250
223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223
373 344 306 260 241 234 201 206 186 167 181 179
229 283 235 395 359 355
472 362 350 437 348 323 323
426 423 404 363 321 311
610 601 648 591 577 548 491 546 507
425 393 434 414 376 355 337
502 493 489 404 407 384
199 164 184 213 129 204 188 233 226 227 242 238
JRC Petten
Brussels
Most sites have shown a downwards trend in energy consumption, either over time or in recent years. The marked increase in Luxembourg in 2014 is due to the inclusion of two data centres in the EMAS reporting in 2014. Karlsruhe has the highest consumption figures, and this is due to the legal requirement to continue full time cir-culation of air through the nuclear facilities (a permanent flow of around 300 000 m3).
The Commission performance is heavily influenced by Brussels, although from 2011 when more JRC sites were included, it rose significantly. However even with the addition of the more energy intensive JRC sites the overall trend in per capita energy consumption has been downwards even following the rise in 2011. The weighted Com-mission’s energy consumption is around two thirds than that of 2005.
Buildings’ energy consumption per square metre displays broadly similar trends although the difference between the experimental and non-experimental sites is less and reducing. Several sites show a downward trend in recent years. And this could continue as buildings are renewed, particularly on the JRC campuses such as Geel, Karlsruhe and Ispra.
29
Energy from renewable sources
The percentage of buildings metered energy consumption generated from non-renewable sources has been decreasing as shown in Figure 2.5. Both Brussels and Luxembourg have been purchasing almost all of their elec-tricity from renewable sources, the former introducing its renewable energy contract in August 2009.
The Commission’s trend of reducing energy use from non-renewable sources continued in 2016.
Several sites have developed photovoltaics to gener-ate energy on site, and both Ispra (starting in 2015) and Petten use ground source heat pumps.
Part of Luxembourg’s electricity supply is generated by a wood chip boiler, served by sustainable forests in the immediate region.
2.4.2 Water consumption
Figure 2.6 shows the JRC Ispra is by far the greatest consumer of water, and along with Brussels accounts for 98 % of water consumed.
Instead of a mains source JRC Ispra manages its own surface water intake from a nearby lake. The site con-tains also fire services, a water treatment works and has extensive water cooling circuits (for buildings, laboratories, nuclear plants and installations, etc.), sports centres and also supplies residential proper-ties for Commission staff; its consumption is inevita-bly higher than that of other sites.
Figure 2.7 shows water consumption measured on a per capita and per square metre basis for the sites.
As with energy, consumption has fallen at most sites in recent years. Data for Ispra are in tabular format only, as they are off the graphical scale.
Per capita water consumption in Brussels has more than halved since 2005. And the JRCs at Sevilla, Geel and Ispra have recorded the largest reductions in consumption over the last 3 to 4 years, with Ispra introducing through several infrastructure-related initiatives.
JRC Petten suffered a major leak in 2011/2 owing to a faulty valve control in the water treatment plant of the fuel cell laboratory building resulting in a spike in water consumption.
Figure 2.5 Percentage of Commission buildings’ energy generated from non-renewable sources
010
203040506070
8090
100
Luxembourg
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
83.8
60.6
100
60.0
60.6
70.1
100
100
52.7
60.6
48.4
90.1
95.5
60.3
60.6
42.9
89.2
87.8
93.1
93.4
100
68.9
60.6
45.5
41.3
99.4
88.7
88.4
94.3
94.2
67.2
60.6
46.0
42.8
97.3
90.2
87.8
94.2
94.1
62.7
60.6
41.0
27.8
97.8
99.5
82.0
77.4
95.5
94.3
63.8
60.6
45.5
53.7
97.0
99.5
78.8
83.2
94.0
94.3
62.7
60.6
43.9
53.2
96.5
99.5
78.8
84.2
94.9
92.8
JRC Geel
JRC Karlsruhe
Commission
Grange
JRC Petten
JRC Ispra
Luxembourg
JRC Sevilla
Brussels
Target 2014-20
Figure 2.6 Water consumption at Commission sites in 2016 (m3)
Brussels; 310 324
Luxembourg; 86 589
JRC Petten;3 877
JRC Geel;7 950
JRC Karlsruhe; 6 235
JRC Sevilla;5 356
JRC Ispra;1 875 214
Grange; 3 754
30
Figure 2.7: Annual water consumption in the EMAS area to 2016
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
1 400
1 600
1 800
2 000
litres/m2
558
1 316
556
597
539
1 316
555
605
490
1 316
499
681
411
1 316
464
128
383
348
1 316
384
144
284
357
1 316
384
145
210
1 627
377
3 177
1 316
312
352
354
560
147
1 489
14 297
400
2 255
1 316
299
442
398
514
148
1 145
10 921
411
1 698
1 316
297
335
264
378
133
1 187
9 339
451
1 374
1 316
300
329
161
246
161
895
6 705
495
1 546
1 316
299
213
152
195
161
832
8 686
506
1 355
1 316
290
359
189
157
144
748
7 372
375
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200m3/person
Commission 29 27 24 19 15 15
Target 2014-20 64 64 64 64 64 64
Brussels 28 27 22 19 15 15
Luxembourg
JRC Petten 12
JRC Geel
JRC Karlsruhe 17 19 25
JRC Sevilla 43
JRC Ispra
Grange 31 31 35 20 15 20
156
64
12
12
28
80
17
35
1 257
22
105
64
11
17
29
75
18
28
942
22
77
64
12
15
19
51
18
27
761
25
67
64
13
14
11
35
21
22
621
28
76
64
12
11
12
30
21
21
827
28
65
64
12
19
14
27
19
18
681
20
Target 2014-20
Brussels
Luxembourg
JRC Petten
JRC Geel
JRC Sevilla
Grange
Commission
JRC Karlsruhe
JRC Ispra
Ispra’s consumption heavily influences the weighted Commission value as indicated by the sudden increase in 2011 when it started reporting. In this instance the weighted Commission value is quite unrepresentative of most of the Commission sites. The increase in water consumption in 2015 at Ispra was due to (i) extraordinary main-tenance interventions lasting 8 months resulting in the newly installed water pumping regulation system being unoperational and (ii) to a particularly hot summer requiring more cooling water than normal.
Overall Commission per capita water consumption reduced significantly in 2016 and almost met the 2014-2020 target.
2.4.3 Paper consumption
Figure 2.8 shows annual total paper consumption at the Commission, which in both Brussels and Luxembourg applies to the whole Commission site.
Total paper consumption comprises:
(i) Office paper — A3 or A4 typically used for printing in offices and representing about 80 % of total paper consumption; and
(ii) Offset paper — used in high quality or large for-mat printing usually in a print shop for publications and used at fewer sites.
Brussels was by far the largest consumer of paper in 2016, followed as expected by Luxembourg and Ispra with these three sites responsible for more than 95 % of the total.
Figure 2.8: Total paper consumption at the Commission EMAS sites in 2016 (tonnes)
Brussels;998
Luxembourg;77.0
JRC Petten;2.4
JRC Geel; 5.9
JRC Karlsruhe;7.8 JRC Sevilla;
5.0
JRC Ispra;39.1 Grange;
6.3
31
(a) Office paper
Figure 2.9: Office paper consumption at Commission EMAS sites in 2016
76.7
31.4
77
70.9
31.4
71
66.7
31.4
67
58.2
31.4
59
52.8
31.4
54
49.6
31.4
51
40
31
41.0
31.4
46
32
20
19
23
19
36.2
31.4
40
27
29
0
19
16
18
37.2
31.4
43
27
20
0
15
9
15
31.5
31.4
35
24
16
20
17
13
16
10
30.1
31.4
35
19
21
10
15
13
15
20
26.0
31.4
29
17
9
19
23
11
12
33
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Sheets/person/day
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
Tonnes/person
Target 2014-20
Brussels
Luxembourg
JRC Petten
JRC Karlsruhe
JRC Geel
JRC Sevilla
Grange
Commission
JRC Ispra
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Commission 0.081 0.075 0.070 0.061 0.056 0.052 0.043 0.038 0.038 0.031 0.030 0.026
Target 2014-20 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031
Brussels 0.081 0.075 0.071 0.062 0.057 0.053 0.048 0.042 0.043 0.035 0.034 0.029
Luxembourg 0.034 0.029 0.028 0.024 0.018 0.017
JRC Petten 0.042 0.021 0.030 0.021 0.017 0.021 0.009
JRC Geel 0.022 0.011 0.020
JRC Karlsruhe 0.019 0.020 0.015 0.018 0.016 0.024
JRC Sevilla 0.032 0.024 0.017 0.009 0.012 0.013 0.011
JRC Ispra 0.020 0.018 0.016 0.017 0.015 0.013
Grange 0.010 0.020 0.033
Paper consumption has decreased at most sites, more than halving at Brussels since 2005, with the Commission consumption in 2016 already meeting the 2014-2020 target. While continual promotion of electronic circuits and communication explains the decrease, OIB also introduced 75 g/m2 office paper in 2013 (replacing 80 g/m2 paper in Brussels) and this was soon adopted by other sites.
The JRC sites have lower consumption than either Brussels or Luxembourg. At JRC Petten, office paper is ordered in bulk, and the reported figures reflect purchase rather than consumption which may explain the ‘peaky’ trend.
(b) Offset paper consumption:
JRCs Petten, Geel, Karlsruhe and Grange have no print shop and/or undertake a negligible amount of print-ing, and are therefore not included in Figure 2.10.
Luxembourg switched from conventional offset print-ing to using digital presses in 2013. JRC Sevilla con-tracts a large amount of offset printing per capita compared to other sites.
In 2011 OIB introduced a new parameter for meas-uring waste paper in the print shop in Brussels. The percentage of paper waste was nearly 26 % in 2011, and reduced to 5 % by 2013.
Figure 2.10 Evolution of offset paper consumption (tonnes/person)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0.017 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.010 0.008 0.009 0.011 0.009 0.010
0.008 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.011 0.008 0.007 0.008 0.004 0.004 0.006
0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.020
JRC Sevilla
Brussels
JRC Ispra
Luxembourg
32
2.5 Reducing emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases and air pollutants, carbon footprint
Reporting on greenhouse gases emitted owing to its direct or indirect activities is an important part of establish-ing an organisation’s carbon footprint. Emissions are typically defined under different ‘scopes’ (19).
Scope I: ‘Direct’ emissions typically arising from own fuels combustion (e.g. boilers, furnaces), owned transport (Commission-owned or -operated vehicles), process emissions and fugitive emissions (refrigeration and air con-ditioning leaks);
� Scope II: ‘Indirect’ emissions from energy consumed but produced by others (purchased electricity, heat, and steam cooling); and
� Scope III: Other ‘indirect’ emissions including, transport-related activities (commuting and business travel, distribution), waste disposal (waste, recycling), leased assets franchising and outsourcing, pur-chased goods and services, purchased materials and fuels (e.g. extraction, processing and production).
Although strictly belonging to Scope 3, emissions from leased buildings and vehicles are included for operational purposes under Scope 1 as they are under direct the Commission’s direct management control. The table below shows the elements reported for each EMAS site:
Table 2.4 Contributions to the Commission’s Carbon Footprint by site (2016)
Scope Description
Brus
sels
Luxe
mbo
urg
JRC
Pett
en
JRC
Geel
JRC
Sevi
lla
JRC
Karls
ruhe
JRC
Ispr
a
Gran
ge
1 Fuel for buildings: mains gas NA
1 Fuel for buildings: tanked gas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
1 Fuel for buildings: diesel
1 Fuel for Commission vehicle fleet NR
1 Refrigerant leaks (tCO2 equivalent) NR NR
2 External electricity supply
2 District heating NA NA NA NA NA
3 Business travel: air
3 Business travel: air radiative forcing)
3 Business travel: rail
3 Business travel: hire car
3 Business travel: private car (1)
3 Business travel: air taxi (2) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
3 Staff Commuting (3) NR NR
3 Fixed assets - - - - - - - -
3 Purchased goods and services - - - - - - - -
3 Waste - - - - - - - -
Notes: NA Not applicable; NR Not recorded; (1) fixed proportion of hire car mileage; (2) attributed to Brussels as this is due to Commissioner’s travel; (3) Data estimated using the two yearly staff mobility survey undertaken for Brussels and from site surveys at other locations.
A working group of the interinstitutional environment group (GIME) chaired by the Commission is drafting a meth-odology for calculating carbon emissions in response to the European Court of Auditors (ECA) 2014 report on the subject. The reporting adopted by the Commission is consistent with the draft methodology and is extensive for Scope I and II emissions, while including as a priority both business travel and commuting under Scope III.
(19) http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/faq
33
Figure 2.11 shows the estimated carbon emissions for the Commission using data provided under the catego-ries listed above. The two largest contributors are buildings energy consumption (fuel consumption (scope 1), and both electricity and district heating) (Scope 2) and business travel (Scope III).
Emissions generated by staff commuting are also significant. Before 2016 these were reported only for Brussels, but in 2016 JRCs Geel, Karlsruhe, Sevilla and Ispra also reported, along with Grange. For the first time the data includes equivalent CO2 emissions from air travel.
Figure 2.11: CO2 or equivalent emissions generated by the Commission 2013 to 2016 (tonnes)
Total (CO2 + CO2 e)
2013
133 652
10 850
25 307
36 747
785
1 332
4 808
12 852
40 973
2014
123 685
10 672
23 194
33 482
797
1 181
3 517
14 109
36 731
2015
122 102
10 672
14 526
31 979
807
1 994
6 630
12 853
42 643
2016
120 808
12 754
14 526
28 356
829
3 802
7 036
10 866
42 640
20 000
0
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
Staff commuting (contributing sites)
Missions — radiative forcing from air travel (CO2 e, RFI = 2)
Missions travel
Vehicle fleet — fuel consumption
Buildings — coolant losses (CO2 e)
Buildings — district heating/cooling
Buildings — electricity
Buildings — fuel for heating
Table 2.5 Per capita CO2 or equivalent (CO2e) emissions in 2015 and 2016 by scope (tonnes)
2015 2016
Scope 1 — Own direct fuel consumption and direct losses 1.32 1.34
Buildings fuel consumption 1.24 1.21
Vehicle fleet 0.02 0.02
Coolant losses (CO2 e) 0.06 0.11
Scope 2 — Purchased energy 0.57 0.51
Electricity 0.37 0.31
District heating/cooling 0.19 0.20
Scope 3 — Other ‘indirect’ sources 1.66 1.58
Business travel 0.93 0.81
Business (air travel radiative forcing (CO2 e, RFI = 2) 0.42 0.41
Commuting (contributing sites) 0.31 0.36
Total 3.55 3.44
Per capita emissions are evaluated from the above totals for the two most recent, and complete years as pre-sented in Table 2.6.
Annual per capita emissions from buildings energy consumption is equivalent to nearly 1.9 tonnes, exceeding business travel (1.3 tonnes) and commuting (0.3 to 0.4 tonnes).
34
Overall measured emissions have reduced very slightly in 2016. More detailed discussions of each of the above emissions categories, and the trends at the sites is presented in the following sections.
2.5.1 CO2 emissions from buildings energy consumption (Scopes 1 and 2)
(a) Energy use in buildings
The relative contribution of individual EMAS sites to the Commission’s overall emissions in 2016 is presented in Figure 2.12. Brussels and JRC Ispra together accounted for nearly two thirds of CO2 emissions, with JRC Sevilla and Grange responsible for very small amounts.
JRC Ispra accounts for a significantly greater propor-tion of the total, and Brussels significantly less than their contributions for energy consumption, reflect-ing in Brussels’ case, that electricity is supplied from renewable sources.
At JRC Ispra the co-generation gas plant provides for a more efficient energy supply for the site, than would be provided by the market.
The historical trends in buildings emissions gener-ation are demonstrated below in Figure 2.13 along with the weighted Commission value and the 2014-2020 target.
Figure 2.13 Evolution of CO2 emissions from buildings to 2016
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200kg/m2
Target 2014-20
Grange
Commission
JRC Petten
JRC Ispra
Brussels
Luxembourg
JRC Geel
JRC Sevilla
JRC Karlsruhe
0
5
tonnes/person
10
15
20
25
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Commission 4.73 3.89 3.33 2.89 2.02 1.43 2.21 2.06
Target 2014-20 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65
Brussels 4.77 3.92 3.31 2.46 1.66 0.86 0.67 0.73
Luxembourg 1.15 1.03
JRC Petten 14.48 12.03 9.40
JRC Geel 16.47 16.77
JRC Sevilla 4.18 3.43 3.80
JRC Karlsruhe 18.48 18.52 17.94 15.51 18.67
JRC Ispra 8.66 8.35
Grange 3.98 3.31 3.81 3.86 2.58 3.77 3.90 4.58
1.84
1.65
0.74
1.10
11.78
14.80
3.46
20.55
7.83
4.63
1.73
1.65
0.64
1.80
9.79
13.89
2.84
17.36
7.38
4.68
1.81
1.65
0.71
1.97
9.81
13.33
3.18
17.96
7.56
4.83
1.72
1.65
0.65
2.24
8.66
14.37
2.63
16.88
7.02
4.49
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
92.6
33.8
93
77
77.8
33.8
81
65
68.5
33.8
70
74
63.2
33.8
61
143
75
46.6
33.8
41
142
50
33.6
33.8
21
183
159
148
71
45.0
33.8
16
31
150
116
148
133
98
72
44.0
33.8
18
27
131
115
157
157
97
86
40.6
33.8
19
24
162
109
150
150
96
84
35.7
33.8
15
41
142
99
117
133
80
84
36.9
33.8
17
40
127
87
126
139
79
87
35.7
33.8
16
43
117
84
110
127
76
85
Figure 2.13 shows similar downwards trends as described for energy consumption with JRCs Geel and Petten recording the highest per capita emissions.
Figure 2.12 CO2 emitted from Commission buildings’ energy consumption in 2016 (tonnes)
Brussels; 17 061
Luxembourg;11 052
JRC Petten; 2 390JRC Geel;
4 273
JRC Karlsruhe;5 567
JRC Sevilla; 789
JRC Ispra; 19 242
Grange; 853
35
Brussels has reduced per capita emissions by over a half since 2005. Both Brussels and Luxembourg have the lowest emissions in recent years because they contract 95 % and 100 % respectively of their electricity from renewable sources. However, these lower emissions are balanced by higher emissions from the JRC sites, where energy is largely from non-renewable sources, resulting in almost constant overall Commission emission levels since the JRC sites started reporting (2010) by both types of measure. Karlsruhe has seen a significant reduction in emissions since 2012/13 and this is due largely to a new heating control system in one of the laboratory wings.
Overall Commission emissions have been relatively stable since 2014, slightly above the 2014-2020 target.
(b) Loss of refrigerants from buildings
Refrigerants have global warming potential (GWP) typically between 1 000 and 10 000 meaning that a leak of just a few kilograms can have the equivalent atmospheric global warming impact of a few tonnes of CO2. But they typically account for no more than 1 to 2 % of buildings CO2 emissions.
All sites have had programmes to replace R22 as required by legislation. Figure 2.14 shows that, per-haps not surprisingly, the three largest sites are responsible for 95 % of the total emissions.
When measured on a per capita basis, however, as shown in Figure 2.15, until 2016 JRC Geel had the highest losses although these have diminished signif-icantly since 2013, and in 2016 expanded monitoring picked up unusually high losses. Thirteen refriger-ants are recorded across the sites. A large increase in reporting was noted at JRC Ispra.
Figure 2.15 Refrigerant losses recorded at Commission sites 2013-2016 (tCO2e, and tCO2e/person)
2013
2014
2015
2016
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.034
0.033
0.032
0.055
0.000
0.000
0.091
0.017
0.020
0.042
0.059
0.318
0.700
0.567
0.264
0.190
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.181
0.000
0.063
0.036
0.220
0.776
0.000
0.000
0.026
0.000
0.038
0.035
0.058
0.110
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
4 000
Gran
ge
Brus
sels
Luxe
mbo
urg
JRC
Pette
n
JRC
Geel
JRC
Karls
ruhe
JRC
Sevi
lla
JRC
Ispra
Com
miss
ion
Brus
sels
Luxe
mbo
urg
JRC
Pett
en
JRC
Geel
JRC
Karls
ruhe
JRC
Sevi
lla
JRC
Ispr
a
Gran
ge
Com
miss
ion
914
872
821
1 435
427
84
0.5
12
17
88
239
196
87
56 0.0
51
0.0
173
101
587
2 139
4.7
0.0
1 332
1 181
1 994
3 802
2013
2014
2015
2016
Figure 2.15 shows per capita annual refrigerant losses reported from 2013 to 2015 for Brussels, Petten, Geel and Ispra. Karlsruhe experienced no losses during normal operations until 2016. High losses at Geel in relation to the other sites are due to the presence of large experimental installations requiring cooling. The high per capita losses reported by JRC Geel largely comprised R404a. Luxembourg started to report data in 2015, and data was from installations in all the buildings.
Figure 2.14 CO2 losses from refrigerant leaks at the Commission sites in 2016 (tonnes)
Brussels; 1 435
Luxembourg; 84
JRC Petten; 88JRC Geel; 56
JRC Karlsruhe; 0.0 JRC Sevilla; 0.0
JRC Ispra; 2 139
Grange; 0.0
36
2.5.2 CO2 emissions from the site vehicle fleet
CO2 emissions from Commission fleet vehicles are presented in Figure 2.16. As expected the three larg-est sites, Brussels, Luxembourg and JRC Ispra gener-ate the most emissions.
Overall Commission measured vehicle emissions were 829 tonnes, up from 807 in 2015 and about 2 % of emissions from buildings energy consumption and 20 % of the equivalent emissions from refriger-ant losses.
The size of the Commission vehicle fleet has been falling steadily since 2012, as shown in the table below, but more efficient use of the fleet has resulted in the total number of km driven and km per vehicle increasing.
Figure 2.16 CO2 emissions from Commission fleet vehicles in 2016 (tonnes)
Brussels; 545.0
Luxembourg;171.1
JRC Petten;12.2
JRC Geel; 6.2
JRC Karlsruhe;36.9
JRC Sevilla; 0.6 JRC Ispra; 56.5
Grange; 0.0
37
Tabl
e 2.
6 Si
te v
ehic
le fl
eet c
hara
cter
istic
s
Site
Flee
t veh
icle
s (a
vera
ge)
Tota
l km
sKm
s/ v
ehic
le
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Brus
sels
16
012
011
411
710
72
638
992
2 60
3 29
72
456
406
2 47
7 07
22
805
112
16 4
9421
694
21 5
4721
172
26 2
16
Luxe
mbo
urg
2827
2525
3052
1 53
760
2 92
762
3 89
066
5 99
277
1 82
418
626
22 3
3124
956
26 6
4025
727
JRC
Pette
n5
55
44
NR6
000
4 50
030
513
55 4
40NR
1 20
090
07
628
13 8
60
JRC
Geel
NRNR
77
7NR
NRNR
NRNR
NRNR
NRNR
NR
JRC
Karls
ruhe
88
1011
11NR
NR18
3 40
013
7 61
613
3 52
0NR
NR18
340
12 5
1112
138
JRC
Sevi
lla1
11
11
9 88
96
455
4 44
04
356
3 19
29
889
6 45
54
440
4 35
63
192
JRC
Ispr
a10
410
310
412
212
326
8 14
526
8 44
225
8 62
228
6 51
721
6 75
32
578
2 60
62
487
2 34
91
762
Gran
ge1
11
11
NRNR
7 67
4NR
NRNR
NR7
674
NRNR
Com
mis
sion
307
265
267
288
284
3 44
4 56
33
487
121
3 53
8 93
23
607
221
3 98
8 76
911
220
13 1
5913
254
12 5
2514
045
38
Site vehicles at Brussels and Luxembourg are used the most intensively, averaging over 25 000 km in 2016. The increase in the number of vehicles at Ispra results from the addition of over 20 electric vehicles in the last cou-ple of years which will replace older fuelled vehicles.
Figure 2.17 Manufacturer (left) and actual (right) emissions for Commission vehicle fleet 2016 (gCO2/km)
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
229 225 225 224 208
214 214 214 214 214
227 217 213 219 194
228 217 220 218 202
247 292 236 220
229 248 276
158 203 191 196
264 270 277 245 261
174 174 174
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Commission 163 160 170 168 161
Target 2014-20 161 161 161 161 161
Brussels 160 155 148 145 129
Luxembourg 182 179 171 167 161
JRC Petten 180 168 148 148
JRC Geel
JRC Karlsruhe 202 172 165
JRC Sevilla 136 136 136 136 136
JRC Ispra 191 191 190
Grange 174 174 174
Target 2014-20
Brussels
Luxembourg
JRC Sevilla
JRC Geel
Grange
JRC Ispra
Commission
JRC Petten
JRC Karlsruhe
Emissions per kilometre as defined by the manufacturers’ specifications and also as estimated from actual fuel purchases have fallen since 2012. Ispra purchased 17 additional electric vehicles in 2015 to add to the numbers already used on site, and Brussels has installed electric charging points for four new service vehicles. Further installations are planned including for staff vehicles. While actual emissions were 40 % greater than manufac-turer’s declared emissions in 2012, in 2016 the figure was 29 % suggesting more efficient vehicle operation. It is possible that the relative inefficiency of the JRC Ispra fleet compared to those of other sites shown in Figure 2.17 is due to a large number of journeys being of a very short distance. If conventional engines do not warm up they do not approach optimum performance.
The Commission 2014-2020 target for vehicle fleet emissions was met in 2016 for manufacturer’s emissions and exceeded for actual emissions.
2.5.3 Scope 3 CO2 emissions from missions and commuting
CO2 emissions resulting from missions undertaken by staff at the EMAS sites have been estimated using data from the Commission’s proprietary management system (20) along with data reported by the Commission’s travel agency (21). Estimates of emissions from staff commuting to work are derived from mobility surveys at each of the sites. Combined results for 2016 are presented below.
(20) Commonly known as MIPS.(21) American Express report CO2 emissions for air train and hire cars, as calculated by Atmosfair who use an approach developed with the
German environmental authorities. Note that travel arrangements for Ispra staff are not generally made through this agency so figures are under-reported in 2013, 2014, estimations made from 2015.
39
Business travel by air accounts for over 90 % of emissions from business travel. Air travel and staff commuting together represent nearly 95 % of the measured emissions as indicated in Figure 2.18 (not taking into account radiative forcing (22)).
Figure 2.18 CO2 emissions from commuting and business (‘mission’) travel in 2016 (tonnes and %), excluding radiative forcing effects of air travel
Air missions;26 956
Rail missions;204
Car hire missions;1 116
Private carmissions;
641
Air taxi(Brussels only);
606Commuting(excl. Lux,Petten);12 754
Air missions;63 %
Rail missions;0 %
Car hire missions;3 %
Air taxi(Brussels only);
1 %
Private carmissions;
2 %
Commuting(excl. Lux,Petten);
30 %
The overall warming effect of emissions at cruising altitude, for flights exceeding 400-500 km, is thought to be between two and four times that generated by CO2 emissions alone. Although there is considerable uncertainty, and research is ongoing, a radiative forcing index (RFI) of 2 is commonly adopted to estimate the equivalent amount of CO2 that would be needed to generate the warming observed. Applying an RFI of 2 to CO2 emissions as shown in Figure 2.11 adds equivalent emissions of CO2 from air travel by about 50 %.
Figure 2.19: Per capita emissions for air (without radiative forcing), car rental and rail travel for missions (tCO2) (
23)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0Air (excluding radiative forcing)
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40Car rental
Brus
sels
Luxe
mbo
urg
JRC
Pette
n
JRC
Geel
JRC
Karls
ruhe
JRC
Sevi
lla
JRC
Ispr
a
Gran
ge
Com
miss
ion
0.0
Brus
sels
Luxe
mbo
urg
JRC
Pette
n
JRC
Geel
JRC
Karls
ruhe
JRC
Sevi
lla
JRC
Ispr
a
Gran
ge
Com
miss
ion
2013
2014
2015
2016
2013
2014
2015
2016
1.21 0.34 0.82 0.97 0.60 0.95 0.01 3.86 1.01
1.031.12 0.33 0.85 1.00 0.61 0.02 3.58 0.94
0.85 0.22 0.63 0.65 0.53 1.32 0.77 2.44 0.76
0.85 0.20 0.63 0.90 0.48 1.26 0.61 2.31 0.75
0.0068 0.1036 0.0000 0.0028 0.2023 0.0003 0.0000 0.0471 0.0193
0.0069 0.0965 0.0072 0.0003 0.1746 0.0012 0.0000 0.0392 0.0187
0.0066 0.0916 0.0136 0.0168 0.1858 0.0028 0.1443 0.0308 0.0308
0.0060 0.1111 0.0137 0.0131 0.2327 0.0019 0.1289 0.0291 0.0323
Regarding air travel, Grange greatly exceeds the other sites, but this is consistent with its food and veterinary inspectors conducting frequent missions throughout the world.
Luxembourg staff travel less frequently by air, but in common with JRC Karlsruhe, conduct more journeys by rental car for which per capita emissions (for sites other than Karlsruhe), are less than a tenth of those for air.
(22) Radiative forcing is a measure of man’s contribution to disturbing the natural balance between incoming solar radiation and reflected outgoing radiation as measured at the top of the troposphere, the atmospheric layer extending 10 to 18 km from the earth’s surface, where weather processes occur
(23) Reduced from Agency data, no corrections applied to account for journeys not booked through the Commission’s travel agency.
40
2013 2014 2015 2016
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060Rail
Brus
sels
Luxe
mbo
urg
JRC
Pette
n
JRC
Geel
JRC
Karls
ruhe
JRC
Sevi
lla
JRC
Ispr
a
Gran
ge
Com
miss
ion
0.0077 0.0503 0.0031 0.0046 0.0324 0.0052 0.0000 0.0087 0.0122
0.0051 0.0326 0.0043 0.0056 0.0088 0.0037 0.0000 0.0022 0.0080
0.0083 0.0454 0.0098 0.0046 0.0184 0.0094 0.0105 0.0074 0.0136
0.0063 0.0012 0.0099 0.0066 0.0158 0.0060 0.0084 0.0070 0.0059
2013
2014
2015
2016
Per capita rail emissions are roughly one hundredth of those for air travel.
DG DIGIT has steadily increased the number of video conferencing facilities across the Commission.
The equipment inventory increased from 494 in 2011 to 2 707 in 2015 (24), and data shows that the equipment has been used more frequently in the last few years which should save on emissions for business travel.
2.5.4 Total air emissions of other pollutants
The EMAS Regulation requires emissions of other air pollutants to be reported where appropriate (including as a minimum NOx, SO2 and PM10), and the results for 2016 are as follows:
Table 2.8 ‘Other’ air emissions at Commission sites in 2016 (kg)Site Emissions of:
NOx SO2 PM10 VOC CO
Brussels 16 983 375 104 1 896 NR
Luxembourg NR NR NR NR NR
JRC Petten 564 NM NM 60 NR
JRC Geel 179 38 13 0 NR
JRC Karlsruhe NA NA NA NA NA
JRC Sevilla NR NR NR NR NR
JRC Ispra 14 756 NA NA NA 22 028
Grange NR NR NR NR NR
Commission 32 482 413 116 1 956 22 028
NA — Not Applicable, NR — Not Recorded, NM — Not Measured
Brussels and Ispra are responsible for over 95 % of reported values. JRC Ispra generates electricity at its own gas power plant, and is therefore responsible for a majority of the reported emissions. Brussels, owing to the large number of buildings, and consequently boilers, is the second largest contributor. JRC Petten has reported since 2010 and includes physical measurements and calculations for NOx and whereas volatile organic compounds (VOC) data is based on purchase and consumption of solvents. SO2 and PM10 are excluded, being considered neg-ligible by the authorities.
Table 2.8 is based on calculations using energy consumption data, and for Geel on diesel consumption only. The evolution of reported total emissions is presented in Table 2.8a.
(24) According to the DI-07310-VC-Yealy Statistics Report — Service Evolution 2015.
41
Table 2.8a Emissions of NOx, SO2, PM, VOC, CO at Commission sitesSite Total Tonnes per person
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Brussels NR NR 21 18 20 19 NR NR 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Luxembourg NR NR NR 0.00 0.00 0.00 NR NR NR NR NR NR
JRC Petten 0.54 0.69 0.80 0.61 0.75 0.62 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.002
JRC Geel NR 4.19 4.19 0.67 0.22 0.23 NR 0.000 0.012 0.002 0.001 NR
JRC Karlsruhe 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
JRC Sevilla NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
JRC Ispra 61 49 36 33 37 37 0.024 0.019 0.013 0.012 0.014 0.013
Grange NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
Commission 62.0 54.2 62.1 52.4 57.1 57.0
Note: NR — Not Reported, JRC Ispra figure includes NOx and CO.
Per person annual emissions were reported at between 0 and 13 kg in 2016. The emissions for JRC Geel, having fallen sharply in 2015, continued their low level in 2016. Owing to its active nuclear activities, air emissions at Karslruhe are filtered and subject to regular testing for nuclear emissions (alpha and beta particles).
2.6 Improving waste management and sortingWaste management practices vary from site to site. Some, such as Geel, consider all waste that is generated on site to be the Commission’s direct responsibility and therefore include all contractors’ waste in their waste reporting system, and Karlsruhe which due to its nuclear status must ensure that all site waste generated is disposed of by controlled chan-nels. In most other sites, the quantity of waste directly disposed by contractors may not be included in the site’s figures.
2.6.1 Non hazardous waste (25)
Figure 2.20 indicates that in 2016 Brussels generated nearly 75 % of the Commission’s non-hazardous waste, with JRC Ispra and Luxembourg responsible for much of the remainder. It should be noted that at some sites contractors’ construction and demolition waste is included in the total (Petten, Geel) and this can give rise to significant year-to-year fluctuations. The evolution of per capita waste generation at Commission sites and the 2014-2020 targets are presented in Figure 2.20.
Figure 2.20 Generation of non-hazardous waste at Commission sites in 2016 (tonnes)
Figure 2.21 Evolution of non-hazardous waste generation (tonnes/person)
Brussels;5 608
Luxembourg;1 058
JRC Petten;32.2
JRC Geel;108
JRC Karlsruhe; 81.9
JRC Sevilla;18.1
JRC Ispra;878
Grange;51.2
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0.297 0.288 0.279 0.288 0.276 0.249 0.259 0.230 0.229 0.246 0.236
0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241 0.241
0.300 0.291 0.282 0.290 0.278 0.249 0.248 0.225 0.210 0.236 0.221
0.245 0.110 0.124 0.103 0.194
0.078 0.132 0.120 0.155 0.105 0.100
0.267 0.276 0.180 0.479 0.351
0.365 0.256 0.354 0.340 0.333 0.317
0.022 0.019
0.393 0.343 0.470 0.415 0.464
0.201 0.251 0.225
0.227
0.241
0.218
0.227
0.117
0.364
0.253
0.060
0.319
0.269
Target 2014-20
JRC Geel
Commission
Grange
JRC Petten
Luxembourg
JRC Sevilla
Brussels
JRC Karlsruhe
JRC Ispra
(25) Definition of non-hazardous and hazardous waste according to the EU Waste Directive 2008/98/EC.
42
Overall, the Commission has reduced non-hazardous waste generation significantly in the long term from nearly 300 kg/person in 2005 to under 230 kg/person in 2016. In 2016 (as in 2015), the Commission achieved the long-term objective set for the period 2014-2020. There is some fluctuation in recent years particularly of sites newer to EMAS. JRC Sevilla developed a new waste management plan in liaison with the landlord and started reporting in 2014.
Luxembourg experienced a considerable reduction in per capita waste generation in 2012, but the relocation of staff from the JMO building generated considerably more waste in 2015 and 2016. JRC Ispra site’s rate of waste generation has fluctuated in recent years owing to variable infrastructure works across the site.
2.6.2 Hazardous waste (26)
Hazardous waste generation, is far less than non-hazardous waste generation as shown below:
Figure 2.22 Hazardous waste in 2016 (tonnes) Figure 2.23: Evolution in hazardous waste generation at Commission sites (tonnes/person)
Brussels;197
Luxembourg; 15.2
JRC Petten;0.00
JRC Geel;24.
JRC Karlsruhe;8.23
JRC Sevilla;2.23
JRC Ispra;60.9
Grange; 1.40
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160.0020 0.0031 0.0044 0.0059 0.0037 0.0041 0.0078 0.0067 0.0088 0.0079 0.0070 0.00890.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.00770.002 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.008
0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0030.003 0.006 0.003 0.007 0.003 0.010 0.000
0.075 0.054 0.024 0.079 0.093 0.0810.008 0.015 0.035 0.045 0.033 0.032 0.025
0.012 0.009 0.0070.047 0.023 0.027 0.018 0.021 0.022
0.000 0.000 0.007
Target 2014-20
JRC Geel
Commission
Grange
JRC Petten
JRC Ispra
Luxembourg
JRC Sevilla
Brussels
JRC Karlsruhe
Although Brussels is also responsible for generating the most non-hazardous waste it accounts for a smaller pro-portion of the total than for hazardous waste. The experimental JRC sites, especially Geel (but also Karlsruhe and Ispra), generated a larger proportion of the waste in 2016 — typically more than 20 kg/person. For sites com-prising predominantly office space, annual per capita generation of hazardous waste has typically been below 10 kg (Figure 2.23).
Ispra has recorded a significant drop since 2011 due to a new site policy aimed at reducing the quantities of chemicals used and stored in laboratories. Karlsruhe achieved a significant drop in 2014 which continued in 2015. Karlsruhe, Geel and Sevilla all reduced waste generation in 2016.
Year-to-year comparisons for the research sites may not always be appropriate because some hazardous wastes may be stockpiled prior to disposal for months or even years. And although the Commission target for 2014-2020 was met in 2015, the Commission figure increased in 2016 above the longer term target.
(26) Such as batteries, oils, greases, toners, fluorescent tubes, chemicals mineral oils, etc.
43
2.6.3 Waste sorting
Figure 2.24 presents the percentage of waste that is sorted into different streams and represents all waste except that which is ‘thrown away’ after all other sorting options have been exhausted. It can be thought of as everything except what is usually referred to as ‘domestic’ or ‘municipal’ waste.
The overall Commission figure is close to that for Brussels and has fluctuated between 55 % and 60 % most of the last few years.
The JRC sites and Grange sort considerably more of their waste than either Brussels or Luxembourg. But Luxembourg and Sevilla achieved significant improvements in the last few years and particularly since 2014. Results in 2016 compared were mixed, and despite a small overall improvement in Commis-sion performance, the sorting rate remains more than six percentage points below the 2014-2020 target.
Recycling obselete IT and office equipment:
DG DIGIT has a framework contract with Oxfam Solidarité (Oxfam), for the ‘removal and recycling, for humanitarian pur-poses’, of goods no longer used by the Commission but still useful beyond their economic life, and thus providing a use-ful social outcome. The sales fund its humanitarian and welfare activities. Through the contract, DIGIT aims to reuse on average at least 70 % of units collected from the Commission. Actual recycling rates have usually been far higher and within the range of 66 % (2007) to 91 % (2012) as shown in Table 2.9 which was compiled for IT collected in Brussels.
Table 2.9 Number of IT items collected and recycled in BrusselsYear of collection
Parameter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Collected items
8 844 14 004 16 139 12 014 15 462 12 531 19 360 24 744 27 513 28 005 23 969
Processed items 1
18 273 10 090 11 175 7 861 15 301 12 531 19 251 19 935 27 375 27 987 10 246
Items for sec-ond hand use
13 157 6 659 8 381 5 739 12 509 10 960 17 469 17 298 24 759 25 204 9 103
Second hand use (%)
72 66 75 73 82 87 91 87 90 90 89
Recycled or dismantled (%)
28 34 25 27 18 13 9 13 10 10 11
Weight of col-lected items (tonnes)
24.44 38.69 44.59 33.19 42.72 34.62 53.49 68.37 76.02 72.33 45.00
Note 1 — processing could take place in following years; 2 — weight of collected items for 2014 from Oxfam Solidarité report (Rapport d’activité matériaux déclassés 2014), supplied by DG DIGIT — earlier years estimated by pro rata.
Since 2010 the reuse rate has exceeded 80 %. Left over equipment is transferred to authorised operators on behalf of Recupel, the non-profit organisation responsible for recycling electrical and electronic waste in Belgium. During the annual audit of Oxfam Solidarity under its EMAS registration, the auditor verified that its recycling measures complied with environmental regulations and noted the generally good progress it had made in rela-tion to legal requirements.
Figure 2.24 Evolution of sorted waste as a percentage of total waste at EMAS sites
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201653.90 57.90 56.90 54.36 55.51 57.30 59.46 60.42 61.39 62.89 59.7267 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 6753.90 57.90 56.90 54.36 55.51 57.05 57.47 58.24 56.18 59.16 55.16
38.18 41.40 40.08 44.69 49.91 62.7372.86 71.15 67.50 76.13 61.01 68.32
83.57 84.76 84.63 70.96 67.7569.75 71.18 73.90 77.20 69.15 73.20
77.40 90.8371.31 73.93 82.09 81.50 83.41
94.86 96.28
59.986755.60
56.5167.7471.1992.1079.1496.07
Target 2014-20
JRC Geel
Commission
Grange
JRC Petten
JRC Ispra
Luxembourg
JRC Sevilla
Brussels
JRC Karlsruhe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
44
In 2012 there was a 74 % increase in the number of items collected, coinciding with the signing of the new con-tract following a lull in activity after the previous one expired. The high reuse rates particularly since 2010 were achieved despite the falling cost of new IT goods, which make older IT equipment less attractive. This is due to the generally good quality of the collected items, and systematic recycling effort made by Oxfam Solidarity in the context of its EMAS registration.
The weight of IT material collected was reported by Oxfam for the first time in 2015 at 72 tonnes almost dou-bling the quantity of hazardous waste that is generated by Brussels, and has been incorporated into the Brussels waste reporting, but falling to 45 tonnes, about a quarter in 2016.
Detailed figures for IT collected by the Namur facilities of OXFAM Solidarité (where Luxembourg IT equipment is recycled) were available for the first time in 2015. The reuse rate (92 % of 2 318 processed items) is compara-ble to the one in Brussels but still need confirmation over years.
Recycled office equipment under the same contract amounted to 253 tonnes in 2016, about 5 % of the Brussels total for non-hazardous waste, and down from 349 tonnes in 2015.
2.7 Protecting biodiversitySites started collecting data to report for the EMAS biodiversity indicator (per capita built surface area at ground level in 2013). The JRC sites have reported this figure, but both Brussels and Luxembourg, with more property, are considering how to report in future, given that most of their sites are entirely built up.
Table 2.10 Biodiversity indicators, 2012 to 2016Site Built surface (m2) Built surface (m2/p) Built surface (% of site)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Brussels
Luxembourg
JRC Petten 13 365 13 365 13 248 14 545 13 526 50 51 47 52 49 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.8 4.4
JRC Geel NR 68 811 70 623 71 286 71 286 NR 202 NR NR NR NR 18.1 NR NR NR
JRC Karlsruhe
68 000 68 000 68 000 71 640 71 640 227 223 213 222 221 73 73 73 77 77
JRC Sevilla 7 073 7 073 7 073 8 168 8 168 29 25 24 29 27 61 61 61 70 70
JRC Ispra 0 0 692 984 664 907 663 999 NR NR 250 NR NR NR NR 42.7 NR NR
Grange 10 100 10 100 10 100 56 56 53 11.8 11.8 11.8
NR: Not Reported.
As shown in Table 2.10, per capita built surface area in 2016 was between 25 m2 and 221 m2. The JRC sites, with the exception of Sevilla, have larger footprints than both Brussels and Luxembourg owing to their extensive lab-oratories, technical installations and/or nuclear facilities.
Part of the JRC Petten site is located in a Natura 2000 protected habitat, and the site is one of the stakeholders involved in its management. A forestry management plan at JRC Geel aims to restore diversity in the surround-ing forest which in recent years has become overwhelmingly dominated by pine at the expense of native broad leave species.
JRC Ispra recently conducted a study to record the main plant species and natural habitats and map the differ-ent types of green areas. A field survey recorded the population of different species of amphibians. The site used the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) certification process for the refurbishment of a new building under which it evaluated its ecological impact from construction to operation and designed mitigation measures for implementation.
45
2.8 Green public procurement (GPP)
2.8.1 Incorporating GPP into procurement contracts
Table 2.11 Contracts greater than 60k EUR with additional ‘eco’ criteria (%)
Site 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Brussels 0 94 80 100 82
Luxembourg 65 92 100 100 94
JRC Petten NR NR NR NR NR
JRC Geel NR NR NR NR 22
JRC Karlsruhe NR NR 18 18 18
JRC Sevilla* NR NR 1 2 1
JRC Ispra 0 17 32 8.8 8.8
Grange* 0 0 2 4 3
* Number of contracts rather than percentage of total; NR — Not Recorded
Both Brussels and Luxembourg have increased the number of their procurement contracts, managed by OIB and OIL respectively that include some form of ‘green’ criteria in the contract or award process, in addition to the standard clauses. The JRC sites and Grange have also started to incorporate such criteria.
DG ENV chairs an inter-service working group on developing and promoting GPP as part of the Commission’s response to its obligations under the Circular Economy Package.
(a) IT procurement
DG DIGIT is responsible for IT across the Commission sites. It uses environmental criteria in the technical eval-uation of all invitations to tender for the purchase of IT hardware and incorporates these criteria into the finan-cial evaluation. Where pertinent the financial evaluation includes the cost of energy consumed by the equipment during its lifecycle.
In addition to continuing to include environmental criteria in various stages of a range of procurement contracts DIGIT provides information and training to staff who are involved in preparing calls for tender for the provision of equipment and services. The performance of computers purchased by the Commission has improved while power consumption has decreased as shown below.
Figure 2.25 Improved power consumption in Commission recent computers
DI-6720 DI-7350
Energy Star 5.0
Energy Star 5.0
Energy Star 5.2
Energy Star 5.2
Energy Star 5.2
Energy Star 6.1
Power Consumption (Wattage)
Dell Optiplex 780 DT
Dell Optiplex 790 DT
Dell Optiplex 7010 DT
Dell Optiplex 3020 SFF
HP ProDesk 600 G1 SFF
HP ProDesk 600Ω G2 SFF
Year in production 2009 2011 2012 2014 2014 2016
Maximum 114.04 78.03 70.76 78.15 42
Short Idle 14.66
Idle Mode 55.65 47.15 39.25 26.09 17.5 12.71
S3 ‘Sleep’ Mode 0.94 0.94 0.87 1.36 1.5 2.13
Off 0.46 0.57 1.15
ETEC (kWh/year) 72.17 50.30 67.13
2.8.2 Office supply contracts
Data in Table 2.13 shows that Brussels and Luxembourg have increased the number of ‘green’ products in the standard office supply catalogue, and Luxembourg has increased their value as a proportion of total sales.
46
Table 2.12 Proportion and value of ‘green’ products in the office supply catalogue
Percentage ‘green’ Number ‘green’
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Brussels 27 36 36 46 47 169 186 186 330 364
Luxembourg 18 23 26 23 26 99 88 94 89 87
JRC Ispra 26 26 24 24 32 153 153 165 171 232
NR: Not reported; NA: Not available.
JRC Geel introduced an office furniture supply contract in 2013 including only items meeting ecological criteria.
2.9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness
2.9.1. Prevention and risk management
Sites have their own standard operating procedures including internal and external audits that are required to demonstrate compliance with operating licences and legislation. These take into account environmental compli-ance which is typically integrated with health and safety compliance.
They also monitor the number of EMAS non conformities (27) (NCs) identified through external verification audits as shown in Table 2.13. As well as highlighting examples of good practice the audits also identify scopes for improvement, and observations that should also be addressed. Of the more than one hundred audit findings from the external verification audits each year the evolution in the number of NCs between sites provides a qualitative measure of performance improvement and are summarised below in Table 2.13.
Table 2.13 Non-conformities from EMAS verification audits at Commission sites
Site 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Non conformity type in 2016
Brussels 21 5 3 3 4 1* A.5.2 - Evaluation of compliance (COLE kitchen)
Luxembourg 19 3 0 0 2 4 Annex IV - Environmental reporting (3), A.4.7 Emergency preparedness and response (Joseph Bech building (BECH) kitchen)
Petten 1 1 1 1 Annex IV - Environmental reporting
Geel 3 3 2** A.6 - Management review, B2 - Legal compliance,
Sevilla 1 0 0
Karlsruhe 4 4 A.6 - Management review, A.3.1 - Environmental aspects, A.4.7 - Emergency preparedness and response, A.5.2 Evaluation of compliance
Ispra 0 0
Grange 4 3 A.6 - Management review, Annex IV - Environmental reporting, A.4.6 - Operational control
Notes: * an open non conformity from 2015, ** non conformities with several elements.
HR COORD encourages the external auditors to take into account the resources available to Commission staff when formulating their findings particularly in relation to non-conformities (NCs), and prioritise accordingly. The verification audit of 2016 identified more than one NC in relation to (i) legal compliance, (ii) emergency, (iii) envi-ronmental reporting and (iv) management review.
Each Commission site has structures and procedures for responding to different emergency situations. In 2015, a new page was created in the EMAS intranet corporate portal (MyIntracomm) to explain the different emergency situations are in Brussels and Luxembourg with links to all pages related to the follow-up of incidents and emer-gencies. This was done because for these large centres the emergency preparedness and response is assured by multiple services and it is sometimes difficult to see exactly where responsibilities lie between the Security office,
(27) NCs can be either ‘major’ — posing an immediate threat to the integrity of the management system and which if not addressed in the short term can result in unsuccessful EMAS verification (non-renewal of certification), and ‘minor’ which if not addressed could become ‘major’.
47
Health and Safety services, infrastructure services, etc. In addition summary sheets of emergency contact num-bers are circulated to offices.
2.9.2 Registering more buildings in EMAS
Brussels and Luxembourg are both large urban sites with many buildings. Owing to the administrative workload associated with incorporating new buildings in EMAS (including system implementation, data preparation and reporting internal and external audits), its scope has expanded gradually by adding a ‘manageable’ number of buildings every year.
EMAS reporting for Brussels in 2015 reached a milestone with all (28) occupied buildings (62) included for the first time. But the real estate portfolio changes year to year, and in 2016 although the number of buildings did not change, these had a useful floor space of 1 082 033 m2 slightly down on 2014 which compares with 206 166 m2 for the first registration in 2005 that included eight buildings.
In Luxembourg, reporting on environmental performance has included all buildings although the number of EMAS-registered buildings is 10 out of 18 (140 697 m2 out of 241 464 m2 (or 59 % of useful floor space — both figures having increased since the move from the JMO building to three new premises in 2015/6).
Overall for the Commission, referring to Table 2.3, 522 of 532 building structures (98 %) (29) are included in the EMAS scope in 2016, representing 93.6 % of useful floor space (1 595 920 out of 1 704 681 m2).
2.10 Internal communication and trainingThis section describes the corporate communication and training actions common for all the Commission sites. Every year, HR COORD prepares detailed corporate communication and training action plans, sets up corporate internal communication campaigns, supports individual services in setting up local staff awareness campaigns, updates EMAS training material and delivers training and technical support to the EMAS Correspondents Network and to the EMAS Site Coordinators. The more important actions are outlined below.
2.10.1 Communication to management
In 2016, the Commission relaunched a call of interest for EMAS Ambassadors across Commission sites. As a result, 40 new members joined the group in Brussels, Luxembourg and Ispra. They are representatives of mid-dle and senior EC Management, who ‘lead by example’, sharing their experiences with other Commission staff and inviting colleagues to follow their example through environmentally conscious behaviour in both their profes-sional and private lives, and offering tangible support in annual environmental campaigns.
(28) Excluding some Executive agencies, and Palmerston buildings (unoccupied).(29) Not including Executive agencies and Representations in Member States, the latter of which are shared with the European Parliament.
48
In the context of the European Week for Waste Reduction, the new EMAS Ambassadors — from Brussels and Lux-embourg — shared their examples of eco-friendly behaviour both at work and at home, through four inspirational videos on the themes: ‘Using fewer plastic bottles’, ‘Stop food waste’, ‘Print less, save paper’ and ‘Less in better’. The videos were viewed by more than 2 000 colleagues on the Commission’s intranet.
Vice-President Kristalina Georgieva launched the first Interinstitutional EMAS Week (23-27/05/2016) on Commission’s intranet. The Vice-President tested a new Commission’s electric car during this campaign.
During 2017, the Commission wished to expand the group with more senior management staff from dif-ferent Commission sites.
2.10.2. Communication towards all staff
(a) Corporate seasonal communication campaigns:
There were two main corporate communication campaigns which are further discussed below:
� Interinstitutional EMAS week (23-27 June 2016); and
� Waste Reduction campaign (November-December 2016)
Interinstitutional EMAS Week 2016
From 23 to 27 May, just before Green Week 2016, the Commission, the Parliament, the General Secretariat of the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, joined forces to organise their own ‘green week’ entitled ‘EU Institutions invest for a greener future’ dedicated to sustainable infrastructures, alternative mobility, green purchasing and staff involvement. The programme (30) included the-matic debates, info stands, film screenings, staff forums, photography and drawing competitions including, among others:
A Guided Bike Tour on 24 May aiming at promoting sustainable mobility among staff and decreasing the environmental impact of our daily commuting by pro-moting the cycling-friendly infrastructures available at the European neighbourhood of Brussels.
A Staff Forum on 25 May where volunteers hosted thematic ‘discussion tables’ on: (i) cycling (with the EU Cyclists’ Group, EUCG (31)), (ii) the zero waste move-ment, (iii) sustainable gardening, (iv) sustainable food choices and (v) composting. Volunteers shared their eco-friendly inspirations and experience with hun-dreds of colleagues.
(30) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/pdf/other/PROGRAMME_WEB.pdf(31) https://ecg.eu
49
A workshop on the ‘greening’ of EU buildings on 26 May where institutions showcased some of the lat-est operational measures and technological advances relating to the eco-friendliness of EU buildings. Nearly 40 experts had the chance to exchange know-how and best-practice on eco-construction and innovation.
Colleagues from Commission Research Centre pre-sented some case-studies on e-mobility (32), energy production and savings (33) and on energy efficient buildings (34).
Sustainable food choices info-stands on 26 May with awareness-raising actions on sustainable food choices. Those were repeated on the following Thurs-days during June at stands in several EC buildings located near the EC restaurants. On these days addi-tional vegetarian dishes were served at the EC restaurants.
The action was supported the by Food and Agricul-ture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) in the framework of the International Year of Pulses (35), the Association EVA Brussels in view of the Thursday Veggie Day (36) initiative and other associations, such as the Humane Society International/Europe and the Compassion in World Farming.
A competition for staff ‘Take a selfie for EMAS’ sought to highlight eco-friendly practices at the office, with the five winners promoting waste sorting and recycling and the ‘taking the stairs’ action.
(32) https://youtu.be/gF4VGkeba4o(33) https://youtu.be/H6zTH7l9BdI(34) https://youtu.be/Gh02o_MEIz0(35) http://www.fao.org/pulses-2016/en/(36) http://www.evavzw.be/fr/jeudiveggie/
50
A competition for children entitled ‘Draw the future’ resulted in 11 winning artworks and included entries from different sites of the Commission.
Waste Reduction Campaign
The main elements of the waste reduction campaign included:
A panel discussion, named ‘Waste, a valuable resource: Everything you wanted to know about and never dared to ask’ was organised on 25 November by DG ENV experts, EMAS Project Managers or Team Leaders and volunteers. This event considered par-ticularly: (i) EU waste reduction objectives for 2020 and the Circular Economy Package; (ii) the Commis-sion’s waste management performance and (iii) Per-sonal testimonials of waste reduction by EC-staff.
A collection of winter clothes and children’s toys collection in Brussels, organised in collaboration with Les Petits Riens non-profit social enterprise (37), at six Com-mission buildings to help people in need living in Belgium.
In addition to being a waste reduction measure the initiative is also coherent with the Commission’s Corporate Social Responsibility policy, addressing both community engagement (contribution to local communities) and environmen-tal awareness. Nearly 1 ton of donated textiles and toys were sorted and resold with the resulting funds directed to help those in need.
(37) http://petitsriens.be/
51
(b) Additional campaigns:
Additional corporate environmental campaigns have been conducted in relation to:
� A Sustainable Mobility campaign organised by the EMAS Site Coordina-tion Teams in Brussels, Luxembourg and Ispra (as described in the site Annexes);
� A campaign on ‘Taking the stairs’. The action included promotional posters, signposting of staircases, and a promotional video. The cam-paign generated several discussions in the Commission’s intranet forum identifying concerns such as the perceived conditions of the staircases in several EC buildings (dirty or unpleasant), security measures that restrict access to some staircases, but also many positive and supportive comments;
� A campaign about the automatic shutting down of PCs measure decided by the EMAS Steer-ing Committee in 2016 to roll out the automatic switching off of all PCs across the Commission. A poll of 1 069 staff, conducted after the cam-paign started, revealed that 83 % turn off their PC themselves daily, and 14 % weekly.
(c) Other corporate communication
In addition, the Commission:
� published three articles in the Commission’s internal magazine ‘Commission en Direct’;
� made several announcements on the Commission’s intranet and flat-screens;
� improved the internal EMAS webpages; and
� hosted an EMAS stand during the information day for EC Newcomers and their families at Berlaymont Piazza on 16 March that was attended by more than 600 people.
(d) Communication actions initiated by EMAS Correspondents
Examples of local environmental actions:
� DG AGRI and DG RTD joint collection of 878 kg electronic waste benefiting the Jane Goodall Institute;
� DG COMM — posters and teaser campaign under the concept ‘Go Green in 2016!’;
� DG DGT — Guided visits to the sorting centre ‘Centre de Collecte et de Tri Spendchen’ in Cloche d’Or on 29 November and 1 December;
� DG RTD (2 June), and DGs ENV/CLIMA and DG CNECT (on 30 June). Info-stand on ‘We can make a differ-ence for the Planet by our food choices!’;
� DGs MOVE-ENER — Sustainable mobility actions including: (a) breakfast for sustainable commuters (on 22 September) and promotion of e-cars/e-bikes (in collaboration with OIB) in Brussels and (b) an aware-ness event on public transport options at EUFO1 (in collaboration with OIL);
� DG BUDG — Formation of a cyclist group in to promote cycling, identify the needs of cyclists and enhance facilities;
� DG SCIC — Corks and plastic bottle tops collection;
� DG RTD — ‘Walk to Work Week’ in (23-27 May), including thematic posters and photo competition;
� DG RTD — Waste sorting workshop on 24 May in collaboration with Bruxelles Propreté.
In 2017, the Commission is to continue to work in Brussels with other EU institutions to organise an interinstitu-tional EMAS event, and to exchange best-practice. We will also seek to invite outside speakers to appear at gath-erings and meetings that will be open to all staff.
52
2.10.3. Dialogue with internal stakeholders
The Commission has a corporate register of internal questions and suggestions that recorded 38 entries in 2016, down from 62 in 2015, all of which received responses. The significant decrease may be attributed to the increasing visibility of the EMAS team’s members, receiving suggestions/inquiries directly instead of the func-tional mailbox or the staff forums. In addition, at a local level, EMAS Correspondents and EMAS Site Coordinators keep records of questions and suggestions from staff along with responses.
The Commission conducts a two yearly online survey on staff environmental behaviour and awareness; the next survey was to take place in June 2017.
2.10.4. Communication among the EMAS Network
Based on the ECOR annual survey we less good results arose (see below), the EMAS Steering Committee consid-ered in its meeting on 21 September, whether EMAS correspondent function should be continued in Commission services. Based on an analysis conducted by HR COORD, the Steering Committee, decided on 31 January 2017 to retain the EMAS Correspondents’ Network in its current form.
Nevertheless steps were taken to strengthen the EMAS correspondent (ECOR) role including: (i) a note to man-agement encouraging ECORs to be identified on a voluntary basis through internal calls of interest, (ii) providing additional hands-on training and practical toolboxes, and (iii) creating a corporate group of environmental volun-teers across the Commission to support the ECORs.
Survey year (38) 2013 2014 2015 2016
Average ECOR score 5.3 5.5 4.4 4.3
In 2017, HR COORD is to work to enhance the EMAS network’s efficiency.
2.10.5 Training
Site specific training is described further in the annexes of the environmental statement. This section describes corporate level EMAS training organised during 2016.
(a) EMAS training for all staff
During 2016, 1 278 staff, Commission staff were offered EMAS-training either as part of (i) an induction session for newcomers or (ii) as a general-interest EMAS e-learning course, in relation to 1 510 in 2015.
EMAS Presentations to EC Newcomers:
A 10-15 minute presentation is included in the introductory programme for Commission newcomers in Brussels, Luxembourg and the JRC sites (39). In 2016, there were 1 189 attendees in the induction sessions in Brussels and in Luxembourg (compared to 1 439 in 2015). Additionally, ‘EMAS in EC’ is included as a specific section in the EC newcomers’ e-learning module (40), and is also mentioned in their official acceptance letter.
In Luxembourg, as a result of an internal reorganisation, the presentation to EC Newcomers was discontinued in November 2016. New arrangements for EMAS EC Newcomers’ training in Luxembourg will be made, in collabo-ration with the EMAS site coordinator.
Since 14 November 2016, the induction training in Brussels has been replaced with a more hands-on and in-depth 1.5 hours training session held every 2 months entitled ‘EMAS basics for EC Newcomers’. There were 49 participants at the first session, and attendance has continued to grow in 2017.
The EMAS e-learning course:
This course has been available to all staff in both English and French since 20 February 2012 with 40 additional participants in 2016 (also including participation of other EU organisations), reaching up 839 participants to date. The course was revised during 2014 and included in the list of highly recommended courses for Commission staff
(38) The criteria are: presence at the network meetings and training sessions, the presence of local volunteers, local action plans, evidence of direct contact with top management, implementation of centrally prepared campaigns and local actions.
(39) The periodicity of the newcomers’ presentations is twice monthly in Brussels and Luxembourg; for the other sites it depends on the number of new colleagues. Information relevant to JRC and Grange newcomers’ training are provided in the relevant annexes.
(40) Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/newcomers/WELCOME_EN/lws/euid_A7.htm
53
in addition to being available for staff from other EU institutions and bodies. In 2017, the e-learning course is to be further revised in order to include updated information.
The new EMAS section in the new Commission’s Training Portal has been improved.
(b) EMS Training
EMAS introductory training sessions for new EMAS Correspondents (ECORs) were held on 11 April 2016 (11 par-ticipants), and another on 8 November (four participants) adjusted to the needs of the newly appointed EMAS Site Coordination Team in JRC Geel. An additional workshop on setting up and managing local groups of vol-unteers was held on 8 November, as a response to the EMAS Network’s request and benefited 13 ECORs/Site Coordinators.
HR COORD also hosted the annual 2-day EMAS Site Coordinators’ workshop on 13 and 14 April for 14 partic-ipants. This brought together once again the EMAS Site Coordinators for all EMAS sites. These gatherings are essential to encourage mutual learning and to harmonise local EMAS implementation.
In 2017, HR COORD is to host the annual EMAS Site Coordinators’ workshop at a different EC site in order to pro-vide local case studies and ensure site senior management participation.
(c) Specialised courses
Selected staff whose activities may have potentially significant environmental impacts may benefit from exter-nally provided environmental training sessions. This is not managed at corporate level. Examples are the energy counsellor course by Brussels Environment (IBGE) and eco-driving training for Commission drivers.
Aiming to map the current situation regarding the special training offered by the sites, HR COORD established a register of training needs for groups with significant environmental impact. During 2015-2016, this register was gradually updated by the majority of the EMAS Site Coordinators.
2.11 External communication
2.11.1 Environmental Statement and websites
The Environmental Statement summarises all the important elements of the environmental performance of the Commission’s environmental Eco-Management and Audit Scheme, is the basis of the verification exercise conducted by external accredited verifiers, and is the ‘go to’ document for most responses to questions on the subject.
It is published on the ‘EMAS in EU Institutions’ section (41) at the official EMAS website managed by DG ENV.
Moreover, additional ‘EMAS in EC’ informational webpages have been created at:
� The homepage of DG HR on Europa (42) under: ‘About us’/‘A modern administration’/ ‘Eco-friendly Com-mission (EMAS)’;
� The homepage of DG ENV on Europa (43).
(41) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/emas_registrations/emas_in_the_european_institutions_en.htm(42) http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/admin/green/index_en.htm(43) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/index_en.htm
54
In 2017, the ‘EMAS in EU Institutions’ section at the official EMAS website is to be updated including overall envi-ronmental results and best-practices by the EMAS-registered EU institutions and bodies, as part of an interinsti-tutional communication project in the framework of the Interinstitutional Group on Environmental Management (GIME), see also in paragraph 2.11.4.
2.11.2 Press announcements
The programme (44) of the Interinstitutional EMAS Week, as well as the follow-up promotional video (45) has been posted on a special section the official EMAS website managed by DG ENV (with nearly 2 500 views).
2.11.3 Parliamentary questions
The EMAS Coordination Team responded to three parliamentary questions in 2016. The questions addressed waste management and Green Public Procurement, paper consumption and energy consumption.
2.11.4 Communication with external stakeholders
HR COORD responded to all eight external queries recorded during 2016, down from 21 in 2015. This is due to the fact that the main exchanges are currently ongoing via existing interinstitutional networks, through which the Commission plays a leading role among other EU institutions and bodies such as Chair of the Group Interinstitu-tionnel de Management Environnemental (GIME).
Interinstitutional collaboration has been established on specific themes on a regular basis with EU or interna-tional organisations, including the European Parliament, the General Secretariat of the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Committee of the Regions, the European Central Bank, the Euro-pean Court of Auditors, the European Court of Justice, the European Investment Bank, the European Agencies and other EU bodies.
During 2016 the following initiatives were organised within the framework of the GIME:
(i) As part of the global earth hour movement, a common announcement on 19 March 2016 by 13 EU institutions and bodies (up from five in 2014) regarding Earth Hour.
(ii) Three meetings of the GIME on 21 April, 7 July and 30 November 2016, with the following major outcomes:
� The new GIME Governing Rules were validated;
� The Commission presented updated results on the current state of environmental management sys-tems’ (EMS) implementation and the results on the current state of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission cal-culation and compensation in EU institutions and bodies;
� The Commission presented the EMAS Sectoral Reference Document on Public Administration;
� The EMAS Helpdesk explained the changes deriving from ISO14001 and the expected changes on the EMAS Regulation;
� A new Wikipedia Encyclopaedia workgroup was created, coordinated by European Central Bank;
� Another working group on carbon footprint analysis was created, coordinated by the European Parliament.
(iii) HR COORD made presentations at the Inter-agency Greening Network meeting on 15 and 16 September in Warsaw, including on (a) how the GIME works, (b) the status of EU institutions and bodies in implementing EMS (including EMAS), (c) greenhouse gas emission calculation and compensation.
(44) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/pdf/other/PROGRAMME_WEB.pdf(45) http://europa.eu/!RD36BK
55
(iv) the Interinstitutional EMAS Week ‘EU Institutions invest for a greener future’ from 23 to 27 May, just before Green Week 2016, by the Commission, the Parliament, the General Secretariat of the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions. The week was dedicated to sustainable infrastructures, alter-native mobility, green purchasing and staff involve-ment. The week culminated with the EU Open Doors Day event on Saturday, 28 May.
Irene Souka, Director-General in DG HR and President of the Commission’s EMAS Steering Committee and her counterparts, William Shapcott, Director-General in the General Secretariat of the Council, Vice-President Ulrike Lunacek, Vice-President of the European Parliament (46) and Cornelius Bentvelsen, Director in European Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions, stressed their institutions’ commitments for continuous environmental improvements and more ambitious sus-tainability objectives.
The Commission participates in environmental conferences, fora and discussion groups at local, regional, national and European level (as described in the site annexes to this report) such as the EMAS Regional Networks. An example of cooperation was a video describing the European Commission’s promotion of sustainable mobility that was produced by Club EMAS of Catalonia in September 2016.
In 2017 the Commission, in line with the recent recommendations of the Court of Auditors, is to continue to play a leading role among EU institutions and bodies in promoting EMAS implementation, and work on defining a com-mon approach for calculating and reducing GHG emissions and compensating for residual emissions, in addition to promoting green public procurement (GPP).
2.11.5 Information for suppliers and sub-contractors
To better understand how main EC suppliers and sub-contractors (with contracts over EUR 60 000) address envi-ronmental considerations, a register was established with a view to developing a Commission-wide communi-cation procedure to implement Green Public Procurement (including guidelines, indicators and follow-up). During 2015-2016, this was gradually updated by the majority of the EMAS Site Coordinators.
In 2017, the Commission is to help run an interinstitutional contract for a Helpdesk on Green Public Procurement which will be coordinated by the European Parliament.
2.11.6 Identification of ‘key’ External Stakeholders at site level
To facilitate EMAS extension, in 2013 HR COORD established a local contacts register for all sites with details on local and regional contact persons relevant to the system’s implementation. The register was gradually updated in 2015-2016.
In 2017, HR COORD is to create a common EMAS directory of external contacts across the EC sites also explor-ing stakeholder’s expectations and if they are currently met.
2.12 EMAS costs and savingsThe Commission has reported on the estimated costs of implementing EMAS and savings that can be associ-ated with reduced resource consumption since 2012. The availability of data varies from site to site and by year.
2.12.1 Costs of staff and contracts for implementing EMAS
Table 2.14 summarises the estimated direct cost of human resources of Commission staff (47) along with those of consultancy, and other contracts directly linked with coordinating EMAS implementation.
(46) See video message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zs1v0qgq5U&feature=youtu.be(47) Using standard average cost of administrators: EUR 134 000 (RUF/2015/34 of 01/12/2015 – ARES(2015)5703479; https://
myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/budgweb/EN/pre/legalbasis/Pages/pre-040-020_preparation.aspx
56
Tabl
e 2.
14 D
irect
cos
t of i
mpl
emen
ting
EMAS
(EUR
/per
per
son
and
tota
l) fo
r eac
h si
teSi
teTo
tal c
osts
in:
Chan
ge in
20
15-2
016
Per p
erso
n co
sts i
n:Ch
ange
in
2015
-201
620
1220
1320
1420
1520
1620
1220
1320
1420
1520
16HR
COOR
D+ E
COR
netw
ork 1
1 122
884
928 0
521 0
07 25
21 0
21 25
21 0
21 25
2 0
30.7
26.8
29.6
29.8
29.6
– 0.2
Brus
sels
132 0
0013
2 000
132 0
0013
4 000
134 0
00 0
4.60
4.98
5.13
5.23
5.21
0.0Lu
xem
bour
g39
6 000
462 0
0046
2 000
469 0
0046
9 000
099
.111
411
410
0.510
0.80.3
JRC
Pette
n66
000
66 00
066
000
67 00
067
000
024
825
123
424
124
31.7
JRC
Geel
066
000
66 00
067
000
67 00
0 0
194
191
204
226
22.1
JRC
Karls
ruhe
10
81 00
071
000
72 00
072
000
026
622
222
422
2– 1
.4JR
C Se
villa
132 0
0015
1 840
132 0
0013
4 000
134 0
00 0
541
538
457
473
447
– 26.8
JRC
Ispra
148
6 799
383 7
6036
8 168
446 2
0078
032
178
139
138
162
23.7
Gran
ge 1
00
47 40
047
900
48 35
6 4
5626
526
625
5– 1
1.6Co
mm
issio
n1 8
48 88
42 3
73 69
12 3
67 41
12 3
80 31
92 4
58 80
878
488
55.7
68.8
69.7
69.3
71.3
1.9
of w
hich
%
cont
ract
s 15
.210
.29.4
12.3
Note
: Inc
lude
s al
l sta
ff a
t Lux
embo
urg
and
Brus
sels
site
s, ba
sed
on s
ites
parti
cipat
ing
in v
erifi
catio
n.1 —
Cos
t inc
lude
s co
ntra
cts
57
Contract costs typically represent approximately 10 % of the total although in 2016 this increased slightly owing to additional contractor costs at Ispra. Per capita costs of implementing the management system increased slightly to EUR 71.3.
2.12.2 Savings from reduced energy consumption in buildings
Reduced costs for buildings energy consumption represent by far the greatest savings associated with reduced resource use. Total costs in 2016 are shown along with the evolution of per capita expenditure.
Figure 2.26 Building energy costs in 2016 (EUR) and evolution of per capita costs (EUR/p)
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
Brussels;12 005 120
Luxembourg;2 590 576
JRC Petten;330 934
JRC Geel;1 191 927
JRC Karlsruhe;1 769 470
JRC Sevilla;284 907
JRC Ispra;2 428 729
Grange;116 481
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
961 815 924 611 589
709 709 709 709 709
1 168
709
1 168 961 815 924 611 455
557
1 199
4 027
722
709
600
1 858
6 263
733
709
557
1 510
5 114
5 572 5 461
683
709
530
1 221
5 162
5 583
1 211 950
734
709
521
692
1 520
3 922
5 981
1 177
1 699 882
743
709
519
1 354
1 225
3 856
5 210
1 142
1 499
687
731
709
500
1 108
1 237
3 656
5 711
1 062
1 261
663 613
JRC Geel
Commission
Grange
JRC Petten
JRC Ispra
Luxembourg
JRC Sevilla
Brussels
JRC Karlsruhe
Target 2014-20
These vary widely, and the JRC sites, owing to their energy intensive experimental and/or nuclear activities, are far higher than either Brussels or Luxembourg. Luxembourg’s costs nearly doubled in 2014 because two data centres were included in EMAS reporting but have fallen in 2015 because Luxembourg now reports operational data for all its buildings. Reported data indicated that the Commission reached its 2014-2020 target for reduc-tion in energy costs in 2016.
Since first EMAS registration in 2005, Brussels has reduced its per capita energy costs by more than half. A more detailed account of reducing annual expenditure on energy for office buildings in the Brussels EMAS area is pre-sented in Annex A. It concludes that, if historical per capita expenditure in the EMAS area were assumed to be similar to that in the non EMAS areas, then total expenditure would have been nearly EUR 25 million in 2005, compared with EUR 11.7 Million in 2015. Cumulative savings in 2016 (since 2005) are estimated to amount to nearly EUR 96 million.
JRC Geel has recorded the greatest per capita savings in recent years, spending nearly EUR 1 200 less per per-son in 2015 than in 2011 although there was a small rise in 2016.
2.12.3 Water consumption costs
Per capita water consumption data (Figure 2.24) indicates broadly similar costs across the EMAS sites, other than Ispra, of typically between EUR 20 and 50 and per capita costs rose from EUR 53 in 2015 to EUR 56 in 2016.
58
Figure 2.27 Water consumption cost in 2016 (EUR), and evolution of per capita costs (EUR/p)
Brussels;1 154 069
Luxembourg;368 001
JRC Petten;7 754
JRC Geel;9 905
JRC Karlsruhe;13 717
JRC Sevilla;6 695
JRC Ispra;412 547
Grange; 4 617
JRC Geel
Commission
Grange
JRC Petten
JRC Ispra
Luxembourg
JRC Sevilla
Brussels
JRC Karlsruhe
Target 2014-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
41.13 50.12 53.36 52.82 56.24
53 53 53 53 53
40 42 47 46 44
30 29 21 79
57 39 22 23 28
80 56 39 36 33
35 40 46 46 42
49 48 38 39 22
137 137 182 150
34 35 24
Ispra’s per capita costs are higher than the other sites but it faces additional costs of maintaining infrastructure related to water supply including pumping and filter stations, and a waste water treatment plant. Its costs there-fore include routine and unscheduled maintenance of these structures. The per capita consumption however is far higher than elsewhere, owing to the cooling circuits. It also has extensive cooling networks related to the techni-cal facilities, a fire station and mains. Luxembourg’s costs rose considerably in 2016.
2.12.4 Savings from reduced office paper consumption
Figure 2.28 Office paper cost in 2016 (EUR), and evolution of per capita costs (EUR/p)
Brussels;622 500
Luxembourg;59 521
JRC Petten;3 872
JRC Geel;6 462
JRC Karlsruhe;9 180
JRC Sevilla; 31 839 JRC Ispra;44 860
10
20
30
40
50
60
02012 2013 2014 2015 2016
50.97 31.37 24.85 24.70 21.80
52 33 27 28 24
20 17 13 13
49 33 27 33 14
21 11 19
23 18 22 19 28
19 11 11 8 6
21 19 16
JRC Geel
Commission
Grange
JRC Petten
JRC Ispra
Luxembourg
JRC Sevilla
Brussels
JRC Karlsruhe
Figure 2.28 shows that the trend at most sites is towards reduced paper consumption, reflected by a sharp decline in overall Commission costs since 2012, with the cost in 2016 at around 22 EUR/p.
2.12.5 Reducing costs of waste disposal
Sites have reported waste disposal costs in recent years as shown in Table 2.15.
59
Table 2.15 Non-hazardous and hazardous waste costs (EUR/person)
Site Non-hazardous waste costs in : Hazardous waste costs in:
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Brussels 34.21 38.50 36.00 35.55 5.31 4.59 4.02 5.97
Luxembourg 41.63 35.07 66.23 77.75 3.78 4.58 4.01 10.29
JRC Petten 10.82 13.98 9.43 9.00 10.50 2.04 5.52 2.55 4.12 4.12
JRC Geel 1.00 2.00
JRC Karlsruhe
JRC Sevilla 13.75 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05
JRC Ispra 95.26 82.63 86.21 102.40 96.92 67.61 34.80 30.74 28.34 51.04
Grange
Commission 38.67 42.42 46.07 47.35 7.90 6.90 14.69 17.21
JRC Sevilla hazardous waste includes medical waste only.
Overall hazardous waste disposal costs represent a third of those for non-hazardous waste. While in 2013 and 2014 the Commission per capita value for reporting sites was around EUR 40, this increased to EUR 47 in 2016. Much of this is due to rising costs at Luxembourg reflecting the move from the JMO building to three new office buildings.
The evolution of hazardous waste costs also shows a sharp rise in 2015. These costs could fluctuate signifi-cantly from year to year as some sites stockpile hazardous waste and undertake disposal relatively infrequently.
2.13 Benchmarking with the European Parliament and European CouncilTable 2.16 Benchmarking European Commission against other institutions
European Parliament SG of Council of EU Commission (Brussels)Unit 2012 2013 2014 2015 2012 2013 2014 2015 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Buildings energy consumption (1)
MWh/ FTE or staff
15.830 14.526 12.815 13.720 18.606 16.909 16.463 16.362 7.719 7.301 6.986 7.508 7.259
Paper tonnes/ FTE or staff
0.047 0.052 0.043 0.031 0.052 0.047 0.042 0.029 0.050 0.053 0.045 0.043 0.039
Water consumption
m3/FTE or staff
17.7 18.1 17.7 17.6 16.2 15.3 13.9 11 11.7 12.6 12.6 13.6
Waste tonnes /FTE or staff
0.183 0.162 0.187 0.149 0.273 0.237 0.221 0.208 0.229 0.217 0.242 0.226 0.226
Note: Based on information from Environmental Statements reporting for 2015. The institutions are not fully comparable and they calculate figures using different assumptions. Consequently, the above figures should be treated with caution and not used for direct comparison. Nevertheless the table gives provides an inedication of the magnitude and trends observed in each Institution.(1) EP and Council energy figures are for primary energy, Commission metered energy
It is difficult to directly compare results in one category between institutions, particularly energy consumption, because the basis of the calculations can be quite different. For example the European Parliament takes into account visitors. However, more informative are the broad trends in performance.
Broadly, there has been improvement in parameters in at the EP, EC and the Commission in Brussels, although reducing per capita water consumption and waste generation has proved more difficult for the Commission in Brussels.
60
3 Lessons learned and the way forward
This report is the third to include information for the eight largest Commission sites in Europe, and represents consolidation of an EMAS system which started with Brussels in 2005, incorporated Luxembourg in 2012 and since then the five JRC sites and DG SANTE at Grange.
3.1 ConclusionsThe information presented indicates that:
1. The environmental factors that could give rise to significant environmental impact vary from site to site, but common to most sites are:
� resource consumption (particularly energy for buildings, water consumption);
� carbon dioxide (or equivalent) emissions from buildings energy consumption and mobility; and
� waste management and disposal, especially at nuclear sites such as Karlsruhe.
2. Commission sites regularly monitor the progress of environmental performance on these and other environmental parameters. The annual action plan includes targets for the period 2014-2020, and a significant number of actions have been identified under legal compliance and communication, as required by the EMAS Regulation. The internal and external audits of the EMAS system yielded over 200 individual findings for action in 2016 comprising predominantly scopes for improvement but also non-conformities.
3. Commission environmental performance has improved significantly in most areas over the longer term, but progress in recent years for some parameters such as energy and water consumption has been more difficult. Brussels, as the largest site, is responsible for the largest proportion of environmental impact on many environmental parameters, but not for example water consumption where JRC Ispra is the largest consumer. Commission performance exceeded the 2014-2020 target in 2016 for paper con-sumption and vehicle emissions, and several sites exceeded the 2020 target for at least one parameter. Targets will be reviewed mid-term in 2018.
4. The main elements of the carbon footprint have been evaluated. This includes scope I emissions (direct fuel consumption — mainly gas), scope II (energy supplied by others (mainly electricity), and in relation to scope III (business travel, and for six of the eight sites, commuting). The most important contributors to the carbon footprint are:
� Energy for buildings;
� Missions travel, particularly by air; and
� Commuting.
There are no Commission-level targets for reducing emissions arising from missions travel and commuting. The footprint does not include emissions from contributors such as fixed assets (building construction, office furni-ture and equipment), waste disposal, and other supplies and services.
3.2 Going forwardReporting for 2016 suggests the following courses of action should be undertaken in order to continue to improve environmental performance, and to meet stakeholder expectations.
Developing the carbon footprint
1. The Commission will continue its leading role in the GIME to contribute to developing a common approach for managing footprint and measures for carbon compensation. More specifically it should:
� continue to develop the calculation of its own carbon footprint by including emissions due to com-muting at all sites and adopt the framework to be proposed by the GIME in 2017;
61
� consider when/and which methodology to adopt to incorporate fixed assets, waste and supplies and services;
� consider how to achieve further reductions in emissions from the largest contributors: buildings energy consumption, business travel and commuting;
� formulate Commission-wide medium-term indicators and targets for reducing emissions from busi-ness travel and emissions.
Expanding the Commission’s EMAS registration
2. The Commission will seek to fully include executive agencies in Brussels whose premises are man-aged by its services by in the first instance inviting the management and extending the ECOR network to those agencies; and
3. Subject to further evaluation a formula to include the Commission representations in Member States that are managed by the Commission services (DG COMM).
Consolidating the EMAS system
4. The system has incorporated six new sites since 2012, and consequently processes and procedures should be reviewed progressively (48) to ensure their continued fitness for purpose under the new struc-ture developed to permit individual sites to report under a single registration; and
5. The Commission will work more efficiently by further developing a workflow for the annual action plan, and by using platforms such as the communication and information resource centre for administrations, businesses and citizens (CIRCABC) for collaborative working.
Communication
6. Explore how to reverse the EMAS Correspondents’ network drop in performance in 2015-2016 and to achieve greater participation in communication events.
(48) Resources reduction need to make priorities and to establish a cost-effective plan taking into account that limitations.
62
Tabl
e of
con
vers
ion
fact
ors
used
in s
ite a
nnex
es
NoFa
ctor
Fact
or v
alue
and
refe
renc
e
OIB
OIL
JRC
SANT
E
Brus
sels
Luxe
mbo
urg
Pett
enGe
elSe
villa
Karls
ruhe
Ispr
aGr
ange
1kW
h en
ergy
pro
vide
d by
one
litre
of
die
sel
12.1
1a10
.89
1b10
.89
10.8
910
.710
.89
10.1
210
.89
2kW
h en
ergy
pro
vide
d by
one
litre
of
pet
rol
9.4
2a9.
42 2b
9.42
9.42
11.0
09.
428.
569.
42
2akW
h en
ergy
pro
vide
d by
one
litre
of
LPG
7.1
20
3w
orkin
g da
ys in
the
year
212
321
121
121
121
121
121
121
1
4kg
s co
2 fro
m 1
kw
h el
ectri
city
0.27
5 4a
0.67
1 4b
0.58
64 4c
0.28
5 4d
0.34
4e0.
281
4f0.
375
0.53
5
5kg
s CO
2 fro
m 1
kW
h na
tura
l gas
0.20
1 5a
0.19
5b0.
203
5c0.
202
5d0.
252
0.21
30.
201
0.20
4
6kg
s CO
2 fro
m 1
kW
h di
esel
0.26
4 6a
0.26
40.
267
6b0.
234
0.26
40.
201
0.26
4
7kg
s CO
2 fro
m d
istric
t hea
ting
(hot
w
ater
)0.
264
7a0.
267
7b0.
213
7c
8kg
s CO
2 fro
m 1
litre
die
sel (
vehi
cle
fleet
)2.
6 8a
2.67
8b2.
672.
672.
682.
672.
682.
67
9s
CO2 f
rom
1 li
tre p
etro
l (ve
hicle
fle
et)
2.3
9a2.
28 9b
2.28
2.28
02.
282.
262.
28
10gl
obal
war
min
g po
tent
ial o
f R22
1 81
0 10
1 81
01
810
1 81
00
1 81
01
760
171
810
11gl
obal
war
min
g po
tent
ial o
f R41
0a2
090
112
090
2 09
02
088
02
090
2 08
8 18
2 09
0
12gl
obal
war
min
g po
tent
ial o
f R13
4a1
430
121
430
1 43
01
430
01
430
1 43
0 18
1 43
0
13gl
obal
war
min
g po
tent
ial o
f R40
4a3
920
13a
3 26
0 13
b3
922
13c
3 92
2 18
14gl
obal
war
min
g po
tent
ial o
f R40
7c1
770
14a
1 52
6 14
b1
775
14c
1 77
4 18
15gl
obal
war
min
g po
tent
ial o
f R50
7a3
985
153
300
3 98
5 18
3 30
0
16an
nual
cos
t of o
ne F
TE13
4 00
0 16
134
000
134
000
134
000
134
000
134
000
134
000
1913
4 00
0
63
Note
s1a
, 2a
By N
eil P
acke
r, St
affo
rdsh
ire u
nive
rsity
, Uni
ted
King
dom
— 2
011
1b, 2
bw
ww.
carb
ontru
st.co
m, C
onve
rsio
n fa
ctor
s 20
13
3DG
-HR
data
(Em
ail E
l-Bou
rai-R
ourk
e 13
/03/
2014
)
4aAs
95
% o
f ele
ctric
ity in
Bru
ssel
s is
rene
wabl
e, fa
ctor
pre
sent
ed is
0.0
5 ×
0.27
5 (0
.275
val
ue a
refe
renc
ed in
not
e 5a
/6a)
4b10
0 %
ele
ctric
ity fr
om re
new
able
sou
rces
, con
sider
ed to
not
gen
erat
e CO
2 em
issio
ns
4cCo
nver
sion
fact
ors:
= m
3 nat
ural
gas
× 3
1.65
/3.6
, 1 k
Wh
= 0.
671
kg C
O 2/kW
h, 1
m3 n
atur
al g
as =
1.7
91 k
g CO
2/m3 f
rom
ES
2012
(Foo
tnot
e 39
)
4dEU
Cov
enan
t of M
ayor
s, re
com
men
datio
n fo
r Bel
gium
, ww
w.co
vena
ntof
may
ors.e
u/IM
G/pd
f/tec
hnica
l_an
nex_
en.p
df (2
/02/
2014
)
4eKg
s CO
2 gen
erat
ed b
y co
nsum
ing
1 kW
h of
ele
ctric
ity: d
ata
rect
ified
: 0.4
0 kg
CO 2 b
y KW
/h E
NDES
A En
ergí
a XX
I
4fSo
urce
: EnB
W
(4a)
, 5a,
6a
Emai
l of 2
7/03
/201
3 de
l’IG
BE (I
nstit
ut B
ruxe
llois
pour
la G
estio
n de
l’En
viro
nnem
ent),
l’Ad
min
istra
tion
de l’
Envi
ronn
emen
t et d
e l’E
nerg
ie d
e la
Rég
ion
de B
ruxe
lles-
Capi
tale
. Fac
teur
pou
r le
gaz:
0.20
1 kg
/kW
h, p
our l
’elec
tricit
é 0.
275
kg/k
Wh,
pou
r le
fuel
: 0.2
64 k
g/kW
h
5bw
ww.
enov
os.e
u —
refe
renc
e fr
om E
nviro
nmen
tal S
tate
men
t (da
ta fo
r 201
2)
5cKg
s CO
2 gen
erat
ed b
y co
nsum
ing
1 kW
h na
tura
l gas
(ES
for 2
012
data
, foo
tnot
e 39
: 1 7
91/8
792
)
5dEU
Cov
enan
t of M
ayor
s, re
com
men
datio
n fo
r Bel
gium
, ww
w.co
vena
ntof
may
ors.e
u/IM
G/pd
f/tec
hnica
l_an
nex_
en.p
df (2
/02/
2014
)
6bw
ww.
rest
scre
en.n
et/a
ng/e
miss
ion_
fact
ors_
for_
dies
el_g
ener
ator
_im
age.p
hp p
rese
nted
2,6
whi
ch is
hig
her t
han
othe
r site
s, (e
g IB
GE h
ave
prop
osed
for f
uel -
pro
pose
low
er v
alue
mor
e co
here
nt w
ith o
ther
sit
es
7aFr
om E
mai
l fro
m P
iere
tte K
arge
s to
Jea
n Ha
as 1
4/04
/201
4 (D
istric
t hea
ting
for D
ROSB
ACH
only
)
7cUm
wel
tbun
desa
mt
8a, 9
aIn
tern
al d
ata
OIB
(cal
cula
ted
from
bas
ic ch
emica
l prin
ciple
s)
8b, 9
bIn
tern
al d
ata
OIL
(from
Eco
fleet
man
agem
ent s
oftw
are)
10, 1
2IP
PC, 4
th a
nnua
l rep
ort 1
00 y
ear v
alue
11Gl
obal
War
min
g Po
tent
ial (
GWP)
for R
410A
(Han
dboe
k CO
2 Pre
stat
iela
dder
, Ver
sion
2.1,
ES
data
201
2 fo
otno
te 4
1)
13a,
14a
http
://w
ww.
ipcc
.ch/p
ublic
atio
ns_a
nd_d
ata/
ar4/
wg1
/en/
ch2s
2-10
-2.h
tml
valu
es o
f the
GW
P 10
0-yr
, wei
ghte
d av
erag
e of
the
diff
eren
t com
pone
nts
of th
e ga
s
13b,
14b
Inte
rnat
iona
l Ins
itute
for R
efrig
erat
ion
(ww
w.iif
iir.o
rg d
ata
shee
ts fo
r 404
A an
d 40
7C) b
ut n
o lo
sses
dat
a re
cord
ed fo
r OIL
for t
hese
refr
iger
ants
13c,
14c
Sour
ce: 2
0120
718_
Hand
boek
_CO2
_Pre
stat
iela
dder
_Ver
sie_2
_1 (B
ijlag
en, p
ar. 6
.2)
15ht
tp://
ww
w.en
gine
erin
gtoo
lbox
.com
/Ref
riger
ants
-Env
ironm
ent-
Prop
ertie
s-d_
1220
.htm
l
16No
te c
ircul
aire
RUF
/201
5/34
of 0
9.12
.201
5 AR
ES(2
015)
5703
479
17GW
P ha
s be
en c
alcu
late
d ac
cord
ing
to C
limat
e Ch
ange
201
3: T
he P
hysic
al S
cienc
e Ba
sis (A
R5) —
IPCC
, 201
3, C
hapt
er 8
, App
endi
x 8A
, pag
e 73
1
18GW
P ha
s be
en c
alcu
late
d ac
cord
ing
to th
e UE
Reg
ulat
ion
UE n
.517
of 1
6/04
/201
4.
19Un
der v
erifi
catio
n
20LP
G Ta
nk U
ser M
anua
l
64
Glossary of terms
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2
Carbon dioxide: A colourless, odourless, incombustible gas, formed during respiration, combustion and organic decomposition and used in food refrigeration, carbonated beverages, inert atmospheres, fire extinguishers, and aerosols
DGDirectorate-General and including: BUDG (Budget); CLIMA (Climate Action); DIGIT (IT); DGT (Translation); ENER (Energy); ENV (Environment); HR (Human Resources and Security); JRC (Joint Research Centre); MOVE (Mobility and Transport)
EC European Commission
ECF Elementally chlorine-free
ECOR EMAS correspondent in the DGs and departments
EC SiteA geographical settlement per country, under a common infrastructure management, it is different from the notion of site in the EMAS regulation
EMAS Eco-Management and Audit Scheme
EMS Environmental management system
EMS-SOPStandard operational procedures relating to the management of environmental aspects at the European Commission Environmental management system
EPI EU Fire picket
ESSOR Essais Orgel
EU European Union of 27 Member States since 1 January 2007
Gelina Geel Electron Linear Accelerator
GIME Interinstitutional group on Environmental Management (GIME for French equivalent)
GPPGreen Public Procurement — Procuring works, goods or services such that the negative impact on the environment reduced beyond that which would be achieved under standard procurement procedures
GWPGlobal Warming Potential — a number expressing the potential of a gas to contribute to global warming based on CO2 having a value of 1
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HDD (CDD)
Heating degree days (cooling degree days), a measure of the temperature conditions in winter, describes the amount of time below a reference temperature and for which heating is therefore required. CDD applies to summer, and reflects the amount of time above the reference temperature when cooling may be necessary
HRCOORD Team co-ordinating implementation of EMAS in the European Commission, located in DG.HR D.2
HVAC Heating, ventilation and air conditioning
IBGE Institut Bruxellois pour la Gestion de l’Environnement (Brussels Institute for Environmental Management)
ICT Information and communication technologies
ISO 14001 Internationally-agreed standard for environmental management
KIT Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
NOx Nitrous oxides, gases released to the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels
OIB Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels, Reports to DG HR
OIL Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg, Reports to DG HR
OP Publications Office of the European Union
Oxfam Development, relief and campaigning organisation that works to find solutions to poverty around the world
PAG Annual Management Plan (Plan Annuel de Gestion) for EMAS
PC Personal computer
PMC Paper, metal and cartons (for drinks) = packaging
65
PMParticulate matter, usually referring to particles released to the atmosphere as the result of combustion of fossil fuels, especially diesel
RFIRadiative Forcing Index: A factor applied to CO2 emissions to take into account their greater impact at higher atmospheric levels
R22Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC-22), an ozone-depleting gas used as a refrigerant. It has a smaller ozone-depleting potential than CFC-12. It is a temporary replacement for CFC-12 and its use in the EU will be banned in 2015
SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises
SO2
Sulphur dioxide, a gas produced by combustion of fossil fuels which can have harmful consequence for the environment by forming acid rain
STIB Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles (Intercommunal Transport Company in Brussels)
TCF Totally chlorine-fee
VOCVolatile organic compounds: Produced by combustion of fossil fuels but also through other chemical processes are air pollutants
Environmental Statement2016 resultsAnnex A: BrusselsFinal
Prepared by the EMAS Site Coordination Team for Brussels:Melina GIANNAKIS: Environmental Coordinator and Team LeaderAntónio NOBRE: EMAS Site CoordinatorDesidério RODRIGUEZ ROBLES: Environmental AssistantPaddy WICKHAM: Environmental AssistantCharley AGREDANO HERRERA: EMAS Communication AssistantBart DE BLEECKERE: Environmental AssistantGaby DEL SAVIO: Administrative Assistant
Unit: OIB.RE.3.002Supervision: Melina GIANNAKISContact: [email protected]
Cover illustration: Photo provided by the EMAS Site Coordination Team for Brussels
All other illustrations: © European Union unless otherwise stated.
Environmental Statement
2016 resultsAnnex A: Brussels
Final
A2
A1 Overview of core indicators at Brussels since 2005 ..................................................................................................A3A2 Description of Brussels activities and key stakeholders ...........................................................................................A5A3 Environmental impact of Brussels activities ...................................................................................................................A7A4 More efficient use of natural resources .............................................................................................................................A8A5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint...............................................................................................................A12A6 Improving waste management and sorting ..................................................................................................................A17A7 Protecting biodiversity ..............................................................................................................................................................A18A8 Green Public Procurement (GPP) .........................................................................................................................................A19A9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness ......................................................................A19A10 Communication .............................................................................................................................................................................A20A11 Training ..............................................................................................................................................................................................A21A12 EMAS Costs and saving ............................................................................................................................................................A22A13 Conversion factors ......................................................................................................................................................................A23A14 Site breakdown: characteristics of buildings and performance of selected parameters
(indicative data) ...........................................................................................................................................................................A24
Contents
A3
ANNEX A: BRUSSELS — Administrative activities
Brussels is the largest site in the European Commission structure, hosting the headquarters of the Commission, including its flagship building the Berlaymont. The Office for Infrastructures and Logistics in Brussels, has the mission of ensuring a functional, safe and comfortable workplace for Commission staff and providing good qual-ity support and well-being services, based on a client-oriented approach in an environmentally friendly and cost-effective way. It is responsible for ensuring EMAS implementation in Brussels.
A1 Overview of core indicators at Brussels since 2005OIB has been collecting data on core indicators for the Brussels site since 2005. Their values in 2005 and from 2013 to 2016 are shown in Table A1, along with performance trend, and targets where applicable for 2020.
A4
Tabl
e A1
: His
toric
al d
ata,
per
form
ance
and
targ
ets
for c
ore
indi
cato
rs fo
r Com
mis
sion
leve
l rep
ortin
gPh
ysic
al in
dica
tors
:Hi
stor
ic d
ata
valu
esPe
rfor
man
ce tr
end
(%) s
ince
:Ta
rget
(Num
ber,
desc
riptio
n an
d un
it)20
05 (1 )
2013
2014
2015
2016
2005
2013
2014
2015
2020
*
Δ %
(2 ) (3 )va
lue
(2 ) (3 )
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(MW
h/p)
19.0
67.
306.
997.
517.
26–
61.9
– 0.
63.
9–
3.3
– 5.
06.
64
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(KW
h/m
2 )37
318
616
718
117
9–
52.0
– 3.
97.
3–
1.0
– 5.
015
8
1c) N
on re
n. e
nerg
y us
e (b
ldgs
) %46
.041
.045
.543
.9–
4.6
7.1
– 3.
542
.7
1d) W
ater
(m3 /p
)28
.44
11.6
612
.57
12.4
011
.77
– 58
.60.
9–
6.3
– 5.
10.
012
.57
1d) W
ater
(L/m
2 )55
629
730
029
929
0–
47.8
– 2.
4–
3.3
– 2.
90.
030
0
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (T
onne
s/p)
0.08
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
– 64
.2–
32.8
– 16
.0–
14.6
0.0
0.03
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (S
heet
s/p/
day)
7743
3535
29–
62.0
– 30
.9–
16.4
– 15
.00.
035
2a) C
O 2 bui
ldin
gs (T
onne
s/p)
4.77
0.74
0.64
0.71
0.65
– 86
.4–
12.1
0.9
– 8.
3–
5.0
0.61
2b) C
O 2 bui
ldin
gs (k
g/m
2 )93
1915
1716
– 82
.8–
15.0
4.2
– 6.
1–
5.0
14.5
2c) C
O 2 veh
icles
(g/k
m, m
anu.
)24
915
514
814
512
9–
48.2
– 16
.8–
12.8
– 11
.0–
5.0
141
2c) C
O 2 veh
icles
(g/k
m, a
ctua
l)21
721
321
919
4–
10.4
– 8.
7–
11.2
– 5.
020
2
3a) N
on-h
az. w
aste
(Ton
nes/
p)0.
300.
210.
240.
220.
22–
27.3
3.9
– 7.
6–
1.2
– 2.
00.
23
3b) H
azar
dous
was
te (T
onne
s/p)
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
278.
212
.429
.948
.4–
2.0
0.01
3c) S
epar
ated
was
te (%
)53
.956
.259
.255
.255
.63.
2–
1.0
– 6.
00.
85.
262
.2
Econ
omic
indi
cato
rs (E
UR/p
)En
ergy
con
sum
ptio
n (b
ldgs
)1
168
521
519
500
455
– 61
.0–
12.5
– 12
.2–
8.9
– 5.
049
3
Wat
er c
onsu
mpt
ion
42.3
46.7
46.1
43.8
3.4
– 6.
3–
5.1
0.0
46.7
Non-
haz.
was
te d
ispos
al36
.035
.6–
1.2
– 2.
037
.7
Note
: (1)
Ear
liest
repo
rted
data
; (2)
com
pare
d to
201
4; (3
) EM
AS A
nnua
l Act
ion
Plan
201
7* T
arge
t for
% im
prov
emen
t for
the
perio
d 20
14-2
020
A5
Since EMAS registration in 2005 consumption for all parameters has reduced considerably. Figures in 2016 show an overall positive trend compared to 2015, except in the case of hazardous waste. Energy consumption in build-ings measured per capita and per square metre shows a positive reduction in 2016, although at a lower rate than foreseen, a consequence of the higher number heating degree days in 2016, which have increased from the pre-vious year. Non-hazardous waste production decreased another 1.2 % comparing with the previous year. Haz-ardous waste production increased in 2016, with maintenance operations in several buildings accounting for this, although the quantity of hazardous waste remained around 3 % of total waste generated. Water consumption decreased in the last year, while office paper consumption dropped by over 14 %.
Overall progress towards the targets set for 2020 is quite positive is most areas — these having already been met for water and office paper consumption, for vehicle fleet CO2 emissions and for non-hazardous waste generation. Build-ings energy consumption and, as a consequence, associated CO2 emissions, reflect relatively harsh weather condi-tions compared to 2014, the baseline year of, which was quite mild. Hazardous waste generation in 2016 increased due to several major maintenance interventions. The evolution of the EMAS system In Brussels is as shown below:
Table A2: EMAS baseline parameters2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Population: staff in EMAS perimeter
4 033 5 238 5 702 10 393 13 014 15 527 17 586 20 663 26 336 25 667 25 698 26 361
Population: total staff
21 203 22 635 23 760 24 936 24 937 25 750 26 305 28 681 26 499 25 749 25 605 25 710
No buildings for EMAS registration
8 13 15 23 32 42 48 54 59 62 62 62
Total no operational buildings
59 62 62 64
Useful surface area in EMAS perimeter (m2)
206 166 257 557 272 324 446 562 533 285 633 228 721 038 820 028 1 033 183 1 075 372 1 067 270 1 069 482
Useful surface area for all buildings (m2)
1 051 557 1 075 372 1 069 673 1 082 033
Staff in the EMAS perimeter includes those working for Executive Agencies that are located in buildings managed by the Commission. EMAS is considered to apply to the whole of the Brussels site. From year to year however, there may be changes in the total number of buildings as infrastructure requirements involve. Two operational buildings that were not registered under EMAS in 2016 were: PALM which is undergoing disposal and T-22, which is occupied only since May 2016.
A2 Description of Brussels activities (1) and key stakeholders
A2.1 Activities and context
Most of the Commission’s activities in Brussels are classic administrative tasks. But there are also other services, including 22 cafeterias, 13 canteens, restaurants, archives, print shops, a car fleet, a medi-cal service, crèches and after school day care centres. The distribution of buildings is shown in the fol-lowing figure. Table A14 shows a summary of some of the main characteristics of the buildings. The main buildings interms of size are BERL, CHAR and MADO, together representing 23 % of the area (over 247 000m²) around 29 % of the electricity consumption and 24.4 % of the gas consumption.
Many of the buildings are located around the European Quarter on the Eastern side of Brussels. A cluster of 10 buildings are located further afield in the south east of the city at Beaulieu, the Commission having found more affordable accommodation than what was available in the more central ‘European Quarter’. A further few build-ings are located outside the centre to the north and the south of Brussels including a sports centre at Overijse, a warehouse at Houtweg and printing and central mail facilities in the Commune of Evere.
� The Commission in Brussels operates in a fully urban environment. The risks of operating buildings with office and support activities are quite limited in such context. The potential for direct action on biodiver-sity is also quite limited.
� The traffic congestion in Brussels is an important issue. Public transport could be improved.
(1) NACE codes associated with Brussels activities are: 99 — Activities of extraterratorial organisations and bodies; 84.1 Administration of the state and the economic and social policy of the community.
A6
A2.2 Interested partiesAs a major actor in Brussels, in term of employees and in terms of building surface occupied, the Commission identified some major interested parties, for example:
� Local, regional and federal authorities (legislators, environmental permits, legal compliance, etc.);
� Public and semi-public actors, such as transport companies and utilities suppliers;
� Staff;
� Brussels inhabitants/local community; and
� Contractors acting in its premises (catering, maintenance, etc.).
The Commission identified some general expectations:
� EC should demonstrate legal compliance with permits and regional as well as federal legislation;
� Transparency and responsible behaviour positioning the Commission as a good example of environmen-tal friendly organisation; and
� Technical information related with contract implementation and clear environmental requirements in public procurement.
A7
A3 Environmental impact of Brussels activitiesThe Commission fully updated its assessment of environmental aspects for the Brussels site in 2015, the results of which are summarised in the table below. The next update is due in 2018, according to the three year EMAS cycle.
Table A3 — Summary of significant environmental aspects for the Brussels site
Aspect group Environmental aspect Environmental impact
Activity, product or service Indicator/Action Plan
Electricity (Indirect) & fossil fuel consumption
Heating, cooling, ventilation, electrical equipment and transport
Indicator 1a, 1b
1) Resources Paper consumption Reduction in natural resources
For office activities, printing, training and communication requirements
Indicator 1e, 1f
Water consumption For catering, sanitary and technical installations
Indicator 1d
2) Air CO2, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC emissions
Air pollution, climate change
Buildings: HVAC and equipment maintenance
Transport: work-related travel and journeys to and from work (organisation and personal)
Indicators 2a, 2c,-2d,
HCFC gas emissions Depletion of the ozone layer
Used in refrigerators and cooling systems
Indicator 2b; action plans
2) Local aspects Dust and noise Noise and air pollution, health risks
Generated by building renovation/repairs, staff travel and Commission car fleet
Indicator 2c/ mobility plan
3) Waste (Hazardous) waste production
Air, water and/or soil pollution, biodiversity risks
Medical laboratories, sanitary installations, cleaning, maintenance, office activities, IT and catering
Indicator 3b
3) Water Wastewater discharge Risk of eutrophication, water pollution
Sanitary and technical installations Not addressed
4) Bio- diversity Choice of products and their origin
Destabilisation of ecosystems
For catering and gardening Indicator 5a, «green catering contract»
Choice of sites and type of buildings
Destruction of natural habitat, relief, visual pollution
In the context of the Commission’s buildings policy (Life cycle approach)
Indicator 4a
5) Environmental risks (legal compliance and emergency preparedness)
Load losses, malfunctions, leakages, spills of chemicals, gas, waste, etc.
Air, water and/or soil pollution, health risks
In the context of delivery, storage and use of chemicals/fuel used for maintenance of the technical installations, waste management, storage and fire prevention
Emergency planning, legal compliance: Indicator 6a
6) (Indirect) financing
Indirect environmen-tal aspects linked to pro-grammes to be financed (2)
Environmental impact caused by third parties
Taking the environment into account in project selection and evaluation*
Indicator 5a; green procurement policy
7) (Indirect) public procurement
Environmental performance of contractors. Sustainability and impact of products and services selected (3).
Environmental impact caused by third parties
Integration of environmental clauses in contracts: influence of contract through ‘sustainable’ purchases
Life cycle approach.
Indicator 5a; green procurement policy
* These indirect aspects are managed via a series of specific mechanisms, including impact analysis (see Corporate volume point 2.1), and regulatory measures.
(2) These may include damage to local biodiversity and natural resources and emissions from construction/development projects, etc.(3) For example: transport, use of natural resources, the lifecycle of the product, recycling, waste management, etc.
A8
A4 More efficient use of natural resources
A4.1 Energy consumption
Buildings energy consumption data should be considered in the context of climatic conditions. Analysis of degree data suggests that climatic conditions were harsher in 2016 than in either 2014 or 2015, and thus that more heating and cooling was necessary.
Table A4: Indicative climate conditions (4)
Indicative climate conditions (1) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Heating degree days, heating required 2 184 2 397 1 722 1 986 2 111
Cooling degree days, cooling required 325 360 345 365 409
Total degree days 2 509 2 757 2 067 2 351 2 520
kWh/person/degree day (2) 3.08 2.65 3.38 3.19 2.88
(1) www.degreedays.net; monthly data for EBBR station (15.5 °C reference temperature)(2) using buildings energy consumption data for Brussels site
(a) Buildings
The evolution of total annual energy consumption in the EMAS area is presented in Figure A1 while indicative data for individual buildings in presented in Table A14. The total has increased over time until 2013, as the EMAS area included more and more buildings. Since 2014 the registration has included almost all buildings. Electricity (5) represented 53 % of the total in 2005, peaked at 62 % in 2014 (a mild year) and was 57 % in 2016.
Figure A1 Annual buildings energy consumption (MWh) in the EMAS perimeter (6) (indicator 1a)
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
160 000
180 000
200 000
solar PV
diesel
mains supplied gas
electricity
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 76 856
2 176
33 931
40 749
87 169
2 506
44 754
39 909
82 220
1 969
39 824
40 427
109 920
2 166
47 309
60 445
122 669
2 011
56 410
64 247
139 218
2 240
61 311
75 666
135 761
1 471
52 633
81 656
159 499
43
1 737
66 264
91 498
192 269
43
1 933
86 501
109 254
179 317
43
2 570
70 881
111 392
192 935
43
1 617
80 556
110 719
191 343
43
993
81 180
109 127
Per capita and consumption per square metre are presented in Figures A2 and A3.
(4) www.degreedays.net; monthly data for EBBR station (15.5 C reference temperature).(5) Solar PV data is theoretical.(6) Which has expanded steadily since first registration in 2005.
A9
Figures A2 and A3: Evolution of total annual energy consumption for Brussels EMAS buildings
19.06
16.64
14.42
10.589.43 8.97
7.72 7.72 7.30 6.99 7.51 7.266.64
10.10
7.095.82
4.94 4.87 4.64 4.43 4.15 4.34 4.31 4.14
8.95 9.02
7.33
4.76 4.49 4.093.08 3.29 3.28 2.76 3.13 3.08
0.54 0.48 0.35 0.21 0.15 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.040
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2020
04
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
MWh/person
TotalTotal target 2020ElectricityGasFuel
373344
306
260241 234
201 206186198
155148
120 119 113 112 106 104 104 102
175186
117 115 10780 88 84
66 75 7611 10 7 5 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
kWh/m3
TotalTotal target 2020ElectricityGasFuel
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
158167 181 179
156
7.62135
Total energy consumption for EMAS buildings (indicator 1a) fell by 62 % and 52 % per capita and per square metre respectively since the first EMAS registration in 2005. It decreased most rapidly between 2005 and 2009, with smaller more gradual gains recorded since. The reduction in both indicators follows similar performance curves. Fuel consumption is insignificant in comparison to that of electricity and gas, as fuel is only used for emergency units (the building that was heated with fuel saw its boilers changed to gas in 2016). Therefore, the 2016 target of a 1 % reduction was not achieved, as the energy consumption remained stable between the pre-vious year (0.1 % increase). However, when factoring in the Heating Degree Days (number of days and degrees the temperature was below the defined threshold), the consumption of energy per person was actually 9 % lower than in 2015 (from 3.19 to 2.88 Kwh/person/degree days).
The Annual action plan includes 18 active measures prioritising the reduction of energy consumption, grouped and summarised here below:
— Energy efficiency plans, under the EPB directive as well as following recommendations from energy audits;
— Comfort and lighting hour’s optimisation;
— Upgrading of lighting systems and installation of motion detectors;
— Insulation of heating pipes;
— Closure of buildings during the End-of-Year holiday period;
— Optimisation of air flows;
— Launching of call for tender for energy meters; and
— Communicating with building owners on energy-saving measures.
(b) Vehicles
Table A5: Summary vehicle energy consumption
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total (MWh/yr) 2 535 2 468 2 292 2 313 2 519
MWh/person 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10
kWh/m2 3.09 2.39 2.13 2.17 2.36
Diesel used (m3) 219.4 215.4 201.0 203.9 197.8
Petrol used (m3) 10.63 8.16 6.46 5.33 13.40
Total annual vehicle energy consumption illustrated above shows an increase due to the higher number of kilo-metres made by the fleet (26 216 in 2016 and 21 172 in 2015).
(c) Renewable energy use in buildings and vehicles
The following table shows the evolution in non-renewable energy use for the buildings.
A10
Table A6: Renewable and non-renewable energy use in buildings (MWh and percentage of total)Contributions to renewable energy
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
i a) electricity contract 1 (% renewables)
60 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
electricity contract 1 (MWh renewable)
36 621 71 883 77 573 86 923 103 791 105 822 105 183 107 376
i b) electricity contract 2 (% renewables)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
electricity contract 2 (MWh renewable)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
viii) (PV) (% renewable) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
(MWH renewable) 0 0 0 43.4 43.4 43.4 43.4 43.4
Total renewables (MWh) 36 621 71 883 77 573 86 967 103 835 105 866 105 226 107 419
Total renewables (%) 29.9 51.6 57.1 54.5 54.0 59.0 54.5 56.1
Total non-ren. energy use (MWhr/yr)
86 048 67 335 58 188 72 532 88 434 73 451 87 709 83 924
non-ren. energy as part of total (%)
70.1 48.4 42.9 45.5 46.0 41.0 45.5 43.9
Note: Generation from PV is theoretical value.
The overall share of renewable energy represented 56.1 % of the total buildings energy consumption, and this was achieved by purchasing electricity from renewable sources (since August 2009). No additional renewable energy sources were installed on site in 2016, the ratio between energy savings and the return on investment being negative.
OIB introduced 10 electric cars in the service vehicules fleet in 2015, and another one to be added to the fleet during 2017. The Commission also organised the pilot phase of an electric car-sharing project at DM24, install-ing a double charging station in October 2015. This station can also be used by colleagues during the pilot phase to charge their own vehicules, using prepaid cards.
A4.2 Water consumption
Figures A4 and A5: Evolution of total annual water consumption for Brussels EMAS buildings
28.44 26.85
22.49
18.8315.00
14.70
12.0311.2311.6612.5712.4011.7712.57
114 702
140 616133 791
195 664195 186
227 907211 568
232 114
307 188 322 527318 692
310 234
50 000
100 000
150 000
200 000
250 000
300 000
350 000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
m3 to
tal
m3 /p
erso
n
m3/person
2020 target m3/p (maintain 2014 value)
m3 total
556 555
499464
384 384
312 299 297 300 299 290
50 000
100 000
150 000
200 000
250 000
300 000
350 000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
m3 to
tal
L/m
2
L/m2
m3 total
2020 target L/m2 (maintain 2014 value)
Figures A4 and A5 show that water consumption has also reduced considerably since initial EMAS registration in 2005, with the 2016 value representing only 41 % and 52 % of the 2005 figure when measured on a per capita and per square metre basis respectively.
Water consumption remained fairly stable since 2011. The increased water consumption observed in 2013 and 2014 was due to construction works in the Schuman area, close to the BERLAYMONT building. Consumption dropped in 2016 from its 2014 peak, due to water saving measures implemented in several buildings, such as the installation of tap aerators in most buildings.
A11
Other initiatives undertaken since 2015 include improved water management, installation of leak detection sys-tems and loss prevention mechanisms. Initiatives planned for 2017 aim for further improvements including implementation of ad hoc technical measures in specific buildings. The action (JIRA 58 — placement of water saving devices in 10 priority buildings) specifically for reducing water consumption, has been implemented across most of the remaining buildings.
A4.3 Office and offset paper
Total office and offset paper consumption at Brussels shows a long-term downward trend as shown below.
Figure A6: Evolution of total paper consumption at Brussels
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Office paper (A4 sheet equivalent) x 1 Million 346 341 160
Total paper consumption (tonnes) 2 098 1 921 998
371 218 248
1 727 1 703
337
1 933
252
1 681
312
1 825
268
1 557
283
1 660
248
1 412
276
1 661
285
1 376
255
1 545
274
1 271
243
1 436
224
1 212
238
1 400
250
1 150
191
1 166
272
894
187
1 100
225
875 750
Offset paper (tonnes)
Office paper (tonnes)
Per capita breakdown is presented below:
Figure A7: Evolution of total paper consumption at Brussels (per capita)
0.099 0.085
0.0810.073
0.067 0.064 0.0590.050 0.053
0.045 0.0430.039
0.0810.075
0.0710.062
0.057 0.0530.048
0.042 0.0430.035 0.034
0.029
0.0170.010 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.010 0.008 0.009 0.011 0.009 0.010
7771
67
5954 51
4640 43
35 3529
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Shee
ts/d
ay a
nd %
was
tage
Tonn
es p
er p
erso
n (t
otal
, offi
ce a
nd o
ffset
)
Total paper (tonnes/person)Office paper consumption (tonnes/person)Offset paper (tonnes/person)Office paper sheets/person/dayOffset paper (paper wastage %)
26
135 5 5 5
Figure A7 shows that paper consumption (7) (kg/person) reduced by more than 60 % since 2005, with a steep reduction in 2014 in office paper use measured in sheets/person/day. 2014 figures represented on its own a 26 % reduction. Further reductions through ‘technical’ measures, such as lowering paper density will become more difficult to achieve and improvements will rely increasingly on users’ behaviour.
Continuing the trend of the last couple of years, the 2016 figures show yet another steep decline in office paper consumption (14 %, or 750 tonnes instead of 875). Behind these figures are increasing circulation and saving of documents in digital format, use of scanned documents, email and e-signing transfer of documents, replacing paper signataires as well as the widespread use of double sided printing when paper is necessary.
Consumption of offset paper used in the print shop is largely unchanged since 2006. The value for ‘chutes de papier’, introduced in 2010 as an indicator of paper remained at around 1 % in 2015. As noted in the previous Environmental Statement, and as expected, offset paper consumption increased in 2016 by more than 10 % to 271.9 tonnes compared with 2015 (224.8 tonnes), but remained however below the figure for 2014.
(7) Historically reported for total Commission staff.
A12
The following actions have been pursued in order to try to lower office paper consumption:
— close monitoring of paper consumption;
— improving electronic processes;
— fostering the use of electronic signature and distribution of documents.
A5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint
A5.1 CO2 emissions from buildings
(a) Buildings (energy consumption)
The evolution of total emissions from buildings energy consumption is shown in Figure A8, followed by per cap-ita and per square metre in Figure A9. These follow broadly the same trend as energy consumption. Emissions due to electricity consumption reduced considerably in 2009, when green electricity was purchased accounting for 95 % of the total consumption.
Figure A8: CO2 emissions from buildings heating in the EMAS perimeter, (tonnes)
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
30 000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 19 238 20 514 18 897 25 531 21 618 13 364 11 702 15 036 19 399 16 457 18 141 17 061
459 510 678 427 262
6 820 8 996 8 005 9 509 11 338 12 324 10 579 13 319 17 387 14 247 16 192 16 317
11 206 10 975 11 117 16 622 7 597 1 040 1 123 1 258 1 502 1 532 1 522 482
diesel
mains gas
electricity
Figure A9: CO2 emissions from buildings heating in the EMAS perimeter, (tonnes per person and kg per square metre)
4.770
3.916
3.314
2.457
1.661
0.861
0.665 0.728 0.737 0.641 0.706 0.6470.609
93.0
81.0
70.061.0
40.5
21.1 16.2 18.3 18.8 15.3 17.0 16.014.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Kg C
O2/m
2
Tonn
es C
O2/p
erso
n
Tonnes CO2/person
2020 target Tonnes CO2/person
kg CO2/m2
2020 target kg CO2/m2
Figure A9 shows that CO2 emissions have reduced considerably since initial EMAS registration in 2005, with a large drop since purchasing around 95 % of electricity from 100 % renewable sources in August 2009 (and assuming that renewable electricity does not generate CO2 emissions). However since 2011, emissions are largely unchanged which is consistent with Figures A1 and A2 that show gas consumption have decreased very slightly over this period on a per person and square metre basis.
A13
(b) Buildings — other greenhouse gases (refrigerants)
A refrigerant is a substance, commonly a fluid, used in refrigeration cycles. In early years special attention was given to fluorocarbons, particularly R22 gas, which in compliance with the legislation on ozone depletion, had to be phased out. A large-scale operation in 2014-2015, either replaced installations containing R22 by a new ones using a different gas (operation ‘lift & drop’), or by removing R22 and recharging with a new gas (operation ‘ret-rofit’). Additional refrigerants have been monitored since 2013.
Figure A10: Losses of refrigerants in Brussels EMAS perimeter, (tCO2e)
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
1 400
1 600
1 800
2 000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total (T CO2 e) 1 777 1 822 1 370 995 771 154 268 127 914 872 821 1 435
205 320 312 548
272 251 125 43
326 93 114 582
26 207 270 262
1 777 1 822 1 370 995 771 154 268 127 85
R407C
R404A
R134A
R410A
R22A
Table A7: Emissions of equivalent CO2 emissions (tonnes) from cooling installations2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total (T CO2 e) 1 777 1 822 1 370 995 771 154 268 127 914 872 821 1 435
tonnes CO2 equiv/person
0.084 0.081 0.058 0.040 0.031 0.006 0.010 0.004 0.034 0.034 0.032 0.056
kg CO2 equiv/m2
0.009 0.007 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
OIB has monitored the total quantity of refrigerants in technical installations (excluding catering), and losses since 2005. Figure A10 shows that total losses have increased in 2016 to 1 435 tonnes (of CO2 equivalent), after having fallen to 872 kg in 2014 and 821 kg in 2015 (from over 1 000 kg in 2005). This was due to several main-tenance operations in refrigerating installations, leading to the compulsory replacement of the fluids, in particu-lar R134a, which is taken into account as a loss. Each kilogram of refrigerant lost may be equivalent to between 1 000 and 5 000 kg of CO2 e.
Actions have been in place since 2011 to phase out certain HFC and HCFC installations as follows:
Table A8: Action plan cooling installations
Action plan no
Since Description of the measures Progress in 2015 Progress in 2016
32
2014
2015
Phase out of installations with HCFC (including R22), and HFC (hydroflourocarobs; R134a, R404a, R407c, R410a, R417a)
Start analysis on the removal of all other refrigerants (other than those to be removed by end 2014) with substantial global warming potential by 2020.
R22 suppressed from all technical installations. Two splits still in buildings C158 and CHAR to be removed in 2016.
Diagnostic control implemented for cooling installations. R22 removed from 2 splits still containing that gas.
A14
A5.2 CO2 emissions from vehicles
(a) Commission vehicle fleet
Table A9: Fleet vehicle characteristics and exhaust pipe CO2 emissions
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of vehicles (avg. fleet size) 160 120 114 117 107
of which electric/hybrid engine 10 10
of which Euro 6 engine 56 74
of which Euro 5 engine 51 23
Internal fleet efficiency (litres/100km) 8.7 8.6 8.4 8.4 7.5
CO2 emissions
i) from diesel (tonnes) 0 560 523 530 514
ii) from petrol (tonnes) 0 18.8 14.8 12.2 31.0
Total vehicle exhaust pipe emissions 595 579 537 542 545
Brussels operates a vehicle fleet of 107 leased cars a number that has reduced considerably in recent years as indicated in Table A9. In 2016 the proportion of cars with Euro 6 engines increased which contributed to an improvement in the internal fleet efficiency, but larger distances were covered by petrol cars, leading to slightly increased exhaust pipe emissions of CO2.
Figure A11 shows how vehicle emissions (per km) and average vehicle use have evolved.
Figure A11: Emissions per km and distance travelled per vehicle
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
30 000
50
0
100
150
200
250
300
Aver
age
kms/
vehi
cle
Vehi
cle
emis
sion
s (gC
O2/k
m)
gCO2/km (manufacturer)
gCO2/km (actual)
kms/vehicle
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
gCO2/km (manufacturer) 249 240 213 196 184 173 169 160 155 148 145 129
gCO2/km (actual) 0 0 0 0 0 0 236 227 217 213 219 194
kms/vehicle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 494 21 694 21 547 21 172 26 216
By buying or leasing more efficient cars, OIB has reduced the Commission’s vehicle fleet’s theoretical emissions (recorded as gCO2/km using manufacturer’s technical specifications) by nearly 50 % since 2005. Actual gCO2/km
emissions, measured using fuel consumption data (procedure updated in 2015), have reduced by about 18 % between 2011 and 2016. Vehicles average 26 216 km per year, suggesting that the smaller number of vehicles is being used more intensively, as this figure was 16 494 km in 2012.
Initiatives undertaken since 2015 include systematically replacing vehicles in the Commission’s car fleet that have reached the end of their economic life-cycle with more environmentally friendly models with features such as lower engine capacity, hybrid technology or electric motors (which was the case for 10 electrically powered vehicles added to the fleet in 2015), and providing Commission drivers with ‘eco-driving’ training. Since 2015, OIB includes the ‘ecoscore’ label for cars, advised by the Brussels Capital Region, in its car fleet management. The action plan for 2017 includes purchasing an extra electric car for internal use and extend the number of hybrid vehicles in the Commission’s car fleet.
A15
(b) Missions and local work based travel (excluding Commission vehicle fleet)
There were no specific site level targets since 2014 or management approved action plans to reduce CO2 emis-sions from missions. Ongoing initiatives undertaken at corporate level in 2015 to encourage staff to consider less energy intensive alternatives for business (‘mission’) travel included:
(i) the evaluating of the use of videoconferencing within the Commission;
(ii) promoting videoconferencing in DGs and using monthly utilisation reports;
(iii) continuing to promote the use of service bicycles; and
(iv) continuing to distribute tickets for journeys on public transport within Brussels.
The number of trips undertaken using service bicycles to attend internal or external meetings or events in Brus-sels is presented in Figure A12.
Figure A12: Trips made by Commission bicycle
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
Annualtotal January February March April May June July August September October November December
20 434 1 650 1 414 2 401 1 455 1 838 1 909 1 938 1 303 2 086 1 999 1 637 804
17 139 1 026 1 087 1 206 1 485 1 266 1 787 1 729 1 099 1 885 1 935 1 422 1 212
19 636 1 424 1 384 1 974 1 598 1 684 2 056 1 539 924 2 111 1 995 1 869 1 078
19 577 1 235 1 350 1 801 1 779 1 617 2 305 1 651 1 032 1 824 1 906 1 694 1 383
20 814 1 267 1 387 1 359 1 911 1 673 2 229 1 663 1 190 2 645 2 231 1 753 1 506
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Overall each year around 20 000 trips are made using Commission bikes. In 2016 a 6.3 % increase was regis-tered, including those using the first 10 electric bikes introduced to the fleet.
(c) Commuting
Initiatives undertaken in 2016 concerning commuting included:
(i) continued financial support for public transport season tickets for staff who give up the right to perma-nent access to a parking space;
(ii) installing bicycle parking and showers in Commission buildings;
(iii) promoting the ‘Bike to Work’ and ‘Bike Experience’ schemes of external organisations;
(iv) promoting car-pooling, and assisting staff in finding car-pooling partners via a dedicated Intranet site;
(v) exploring options for joint schemes with local bike partners such as ‘Villo’; and
(vi) drafting the new multi-annual Mobility Plan.
A16
A5.3 Carbon footprint
Figure A13: Carbon footprint elements (Tonnes CO2e)
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
30 000
35 000
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commissionvehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
2013
2014
2015
2016
17 387 510 579 914 1 502 32 048 204 180 447 69 10 850 64 690
14 247 678 537 872 1 532 28 864 132 178 415 132 10 672 58 259
16 192 427 542 821 1 522 21 739 212 170 419 308 10 672 53 024
16 317 262 545 1 435 482 21 741 162 154 421 606 10 672 52 798
Figure A14: Carbon footprint elements (Tonnes CO2e/person)
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2013
2014
2015
2016
0.66 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.00 1.21 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.41 2.45
0.56 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.00 1.12 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.41 2.26
0.63 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.85 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.42 2.07
0.62 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.85 0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01 0.02 0.02 0.42 2.04
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commissionvehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
Gas consumption for buildings heating is the second largest component, slightly higher than emissions estimated from commuting, though about half estimated emissions are due to air travel. Emissions due to electricity con-sumption are very low because 95 % of the supply comes from renewable sources.
A5.4 Total air emissions of other air pollutants (SO2, NO2, PM)
Brussels is one of several European cities experiencing high levels of airborne pollution, and with more than 60 buildings each with typically two to three boilers, and a fleet of over 100 predominantly diesel vehicles, the Com-mission must ensure that it is not unduly contributing to this problem.
These pollutants are typically released into the air as products of combustion, therefore boilers and vehicle engines are a potential source. In order to develop improved reporting on these atmospheric pollutants, OIB started to collect data in 2013. Because combustion of natural gas releases less airborne pollution than that of oil; the Commission has phased out oil heating and the scheduled replacement of the only boilers using oil, in the building (L-86) was completed in 2016.
A17
A6 Improving waste management and sorting
A6.1 Non-hazardous waste
Figure A15: Evolution of total non-hazardous waste in Brussels (tonnes)
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 6 359 6 581 6 692 7 230 6 936 6 423 6 529 6 443 5 562 6 081 5 654 5 608
0.300 0.291 0.282 0.290 0.278 0.249 0.248 0.225 0.210 0.236 0.221 0.218
404.1 348.6 253.0
12 16 19 22 27 32 31 37 33 29 26 26
84 293 281 292 273 248 314 313 302 311 289 261
47 36 42 50 55 102 121 127 121 116 123 142
3 265 3 438 3 420 3 500 3 454 3 238 3 249 3 219 2 590 2 675 2 274 2349
2 951 2 799 2 929 3 366 3 127 2 804 2 813 2 747 2 516 2 545 2 594 2577
Total (tonnes/person)
(Oxfam contract non WEEE)
Glass
Organics
PMC
Paper and card
Unsorted waste
Figure A15 indicates that waste generated (8) per person has reduced by nearly one third since 2005. Unsorted waste and paper/carton make up a large percentage (over 86 %). From 2014, data include the weight of office furniture recovered by Oxfam under a contract which is also used for disposing of obsolete IT equipment. (For Oxfam IT obsolete equipment, see section A6.2).
The 2015 immediate target was to not exceed the 2014 level of non-hazardous waste generation but the results show a per capita reduction of 6 % largely due to a 15 % drop in paper and card waste and over 7 % in organic waste. In 2016, there was a slight decrease in total quantities of less than 1 %, being therefore the quantities again under the ones stated in 2014. The main contributors are the ‘unsorted waste’ and the ‘paper and card’ cat-egories, the latter showing an increase mainly to the replacement of paper archives by digital ones.
OIB began working on a new call for tender for waste management at the end of 2015, to come into force by mid-2017. The principles of circular economy will be integrated as much as possible into the new contract. Other initiatives undertaken in 2015, and still ongoing include:
(i) improving the selective sorting of waste using sorting bins in areas and buildings for public use;
(ii) exploring ways of reducing transport distances to reduce the environmental impact of vehicles used by staff engaged in waste transport;
(iii) promoting the implantation of open spaces which reduces the number of waste containers available and consequently improve waste sorting; and
(iv) reducing the number of individual bins.
A6.2 Hazardous waste
Per capita hazardous waste generation represents 3.5 % of total waste. For the first time in 2014, data supplied by DG DIGIT relating to the weight of IT material collected by Oxfam for recycling and reuse have been incor-porated in the hazardous waste data, and the data series extrapolated back to 2006. Regarding the two main
(8) Historically reported for total Commission staff.
A18
contributors, the data for 2016 show a sharp increase in the ‘buildings and lifts’ (71 %), but also a strong reduc-tion of over 37 % in the quantity of the IT material collected.
Figure A16: Evolution of total hazardous waste in Brussels (tonnes)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 42.9 69.2 105 147 93.5 106 86.5 135 180 152 132 197
0.002 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.008
26.20 41.49 47.82 35.60 45.81 33.03 57.36 73.32 76.02 72.33 45.00
1.19 0.33 3.04 1.09 0.00 0.00 4.70 0.07 0.14 0.00 0.00 2.47
0.00 2.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
13.04 12.12 14.39 11.87 12.55 17.20 12.20 17.82 10.75 1.65 1.12 44.19
25.72 21.22 19.23 16.19 15.29 15.62 14.33 12.53 11.10 7.35 10.21 10.54
1.47 2.46 2.51 1.08 0.77 1.37 1.21 1.19 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.47 1.59 1.84 1.56 1.91 1.93 2.00 1.75 2.12 2.35 3.24 6.19
0.00 3.20 1.24 2.38 2.06 1.85 2.45 0.15 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 21.60 65.00 25.30 20.57 16.59 43.95 82.60 64.23 45.07 85.86
Total (tonnes/person)
(Oxfam contract WEEE 20 01 35)
Diverse chemical waste
Mineral Oil
Oil and fat
Cartridges
Paint-toner
Chemical batteries
Chemical-fixer-developing agents
Microfiches
Maintenance of buildings/lifts
A6.3 Waste sorting
OIB seeks to maximise the sorting of waste into potentially useful streams, and minimise the amount of unsorted ‘general’ waste. Table A10 shows that the proportion of total waste that is sorted typically fluctuated between 54 and 58 %, with 2016 showing a percentage of over 55 %.
Table A10: Percentage of waste sorted at the Commission in Brussels
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Percentage of waste sorted 53.9 57.9 56.9 54.4 55.5 57.1 57.5 58.2 56.2 59.2 55.2 55.6
Percentage of waste not sorted 46.1 42.1 43.1 45.6 44.5 42.9 42.5 41.8 43.8 40.8 44.8 44.4
A7 Protecting biodiversityBrussels started collecting data for this indicator in 2013, and there was no specific 2016 target, due to the urban character of the site. However, OIB continuously strives to improve the environmental impact in the building sec-tor, including adopting several measures contributing, directly or indirectly, to protect biodiversity and including:
(i) integrating and managing several green areas in its buildings;
(ii) managing a green park at the Overijse site, with an area of 13 000 m²;
(iii) introducing infrastructure measures such as green roofs in building projects such as that at Overijse (roof 1 800 m²);
(iv) opting for green procurement of goods and services: (e.g. where possible integrating environmental con-siderations in the selection of construction materials); and
A19
(v) introducing the BREEAM assessment in recent real estate projects (MO15: BREEAM Excellent rating; MERO building: BREEAM Very Good rating).
A8 Green Public Procurement (GPP)
A8.1 Incorporating GPP into procurement contracts
OIB aims to apply ‘green’ public procurement principles into its contracts exceeding EUR 135 000 and has increased the number of contracts including such criteria in the last few years. The target was to incorporate the criteria into all relevant contracts over EUR 135 000 (while before the threshold was EUR 60 000), and whilst in 2015 this was achieved in all contracts, in 2016 the percentage decreased to 82 %.
In 2015 the global procurement project framework of OIB was under revision and in 2016 a new IT programme, PPMT, was introduced, allowing for a closer identification and follow-up of the GPP criteria indicator included in OIB procurement. Action 54 of the Commission’s Global Annual action plan has, since 2012, sought to systemat-ically integrate GPP criteria in call for tenders and technical specifications.
In 2016 the OIB has also participated as chef-de-file in call for tender regarding a new interinstitutional contract for a GPP Helpdesk, to come into force in 2017. This will provide support to both operational and horizontal units in drafting technical and contractual specifications according to GPP criteria in future calls for tender.
A9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness
A9.1 Management of the legal register
Several services at the OIB are registered users of the Regulation Monitoring contract REMO (for legislation relat-ing to EMAS, technical equipment and persons with reduced mobility, launched by the European Parliament. This monitors new regulations, and enables the OIB (through emails received by designated users) to be up to date on relevant legislation.
The Brussels environmental legal register (for the Brussels and Flemish regions) are updated every year by an external consultant, and checked by OIB, ensuring the completeness and adequacy of the registers in relation to Commission obligations. Concerned Commission services are informed of the register content and requested to ensure they are in compliance.
Internal EMAS audits that are performed by specialist external consultants and the external verification exer-cise check how the Commission is demonstrating legal compliance in relation to environmental legislation. From these audits we can conclude that, for the Brussels site, the Commission correctly manages legal compliance in its premises and engages in regular dialogue with local authorities on the subject.
A9.2 Prevention and risk management
OIB records statistics relating to the findings of buildings inspections of health, safety and environment. These audits and inspections are based on permits and legal requirements for each building and technical installation. In 2016, there were over 2 000 reports of which the number with minor and major non conformities remained about 45 % and 8 % respectively.
None of the major non conformities recorded in 2016 by integrated inspections at OIB were EMAS related. A major initiative for the 2015-2018 inspection contracts was the implementation of new technical controls from an environmental management systems perspective and which included:
(i) Testing of boiler installations more than 15 years old — in line with the annex/section/part 6D of energy performance of the building directive, and regional legislation;
(ii) Periodic control of cogeneration systems and associated air analysis (ref 6G) and beginning of the tests for air conditioning installations over 15 years old, as required by annex/section/part 6F of the energy performance of building directive, and to be totally implemented in 2018;
(iii) Periodic control of generators and associated air analysis (ref 6H). In addition a number of previous con-trols (ref. 6A, 6B, 7B, 7C) have been have been updated to better meet environmental needs.
A20
A9.3 Emergency preparedness
Beyond the procedures and services in place at the European Commission, concerning emergency preparedness and response related to health, safety and security incidents at work (24/7 helpdesk line 22222), the OIB mon-itors the application of the legislation on well-being at work, in particular the evaluation of risks and corrective measures with an impact on the environment.
With regard to technical issues, the OIB manages also the 24/7 helpdesk line 55555, which deals with technical malfunctioning in the buildings (lighting, heating, cooling, water, etc.).
A10 Communication
A10.1 Internal communication
Internal communication may involve Commission staff and contractors. A summary of the actions is included below.
Table A11: Summary of main internal communication actions in 2016
Action description Organisation Dates in 2016
Participation at Brussels site level Participants (estimated)
Annual mobility campaign
Centrally organised (Commission wide)
21/05 to 26/05
A regular annual event with information stands, bike repairing stands and advice, green mobility, guided bike tours.
500
Annual waste minimisation campaign
Centrally organised (Commission wide)
13/10 to 20/10
Participation in the set-up of the campaigns, production and distribution of posters
Flatscreen communications EMAS results
Centrally organised (Commission wide)
Every two months
Dissemination of Brussels mobility survey results
Brussels survey takes place every three years
Nov-ember
Mobility Survey to be launched June 2017 (happens every 3 years)
Dissemination of Brussels environmental awareness survey
Brussels survey takes place every two years
May Participation in the set-up
EMAS articles Prepared by OIB distributed across the Commission
All year 13 articles on EMAS, in 6 regular and 1 special issue throughout the year.
A10.2 External communication and stakeholder management
The main external actions conducted by Brussels in relation to environmental matters are mentioned in the table below.
A21
Table A12: Action plan external communication
Action description Organisation and external stakeholders
Dates in 2016
Participation at Brussels site level Partici pants (estimated)
Annual Earth hour lights out campaign
Commission wide and with other EU institutions including. ECB
21/05 to 26/05
Automatic switch-off of the lights in the EC buildings in Brussels.
500
EMAS federal meeting (Belgium)
Belgian federal authorities and stakeholders
01/01 and 02/05
HR
Communication with Regional authorities
OIB and IBGE, SIAMU and property owners and managers
Through- out the year
Planning, organisation, participation, follow-up and reporting on audits performed by the IBGE or the Fire Department; training and seminars taken at IBGE facilities; participation on meetings, held at IBGE, concerning the future legislation on energy savings; frequent contacts with building owners and property managers.
Commission open dayCommission wide organisation for all sites
09/05 25 000
A11 Training
A11.1 Internal training
Table A13: Action plan training
Description Organisation Dates in 2016
Participation at Brussels site level Participants (estimated)
Economic driving for Commission fleet chauffeurs
OIB 21/0515 Chauffeurs participated in a three hour session. They will monitor fuel consumption in the following 6 months.
15
Commission newcomers training
DG.HR in BrusselsEvery 2 months
Participative session of 2 hours replacing the traditional 10 min presentation on newcomer’s induction day.
1173
EMAS awareness session for building managers
OIB4 sessions in Sept/ Oct
Building managers participated in 4 sessions of one hour, aimed at raising the awareness of this group in EMAS matters.
40
A11.2 External training
Several training sessions were followed by the EMAS coordination team at OIB during 2016:
— Energy management and maintenance of buildings (CSTB);
— Energy management (IBGE);
— Facility management (MCS Solutions); and
— Green Public Procurement (IBGE).
A22
A12
EMAS
Cos
ts a
nd s
avin
gFo
r sev
eral
yea
rs w
e ha
ve m
onito
red
the
cost
s as
socia
ted
with
runn
ing
EMAS
in
term
s of
sta
ff ti
me,
and
the
cost
of s
uppo
rting
con
tract
s an
d sa
ving
s. W
e ha
ve a
lso
estim
ated
cos
ts
asso
ciate
d w
ith p
aram
eter
s su
ch a
s en
ergy
and
wat
er c
onsu
mpt
ion
and
was
te g
ener
atio
n an
d di
spos
al. C
osts
and
ene
rgy
savi
ngs
are
pres
ente
d be
low.
Tabl
e A1
4: E
MAS
adm
inis
trat
ion
and
ener
gy c
osts
for b
uild
ings
in th
e EM
AS a
rea
Para
met
er20
05 (1 )
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Tota
l Sta
ff (E
MAS
Of
fice
Build
ings
)4
033
5 23
85
702
10 3
9313
014
15 5
2717
586
20 6
6326
336
25 6
6725
698
26 3
61
Tota
l Sta
ff
(Com
miss
ion)
21 2
0322
635
23 7
6024
936
24 9
3725
750
26 3
0528
681
26 4
9925
749
25 6
0525
710
EMAS
ad
min
istr
ativ
e co
st (E
UR)/s
taff
4.60
4.98
5.13
5.23
5.21
Tota
l ene
rgy
cost
fo
r EM
AS o
ffice
bu
ildin
gs (E
UR)
4 71
0 82
65
033
171
4 64
7 20
99
600
109
7 95
4 04
49
313
740
9 79
2 16
110
943
694
13 7
14 5
9013
313
897
12 8
46 4
0512
005
120
Tota
l ene
rgy
cost
fo
r all
Com
miss
ion
build
ings
(3 ) (E
UR)
24 7
66 5
8721
749
389
19 3
64 3
2323
033
610
15 2
41 2
7815
445
921
14 6
47 0
3815
190
248
13 7
99 4
7313
356
431
12 8
00 1
6311
708
647
Tota
l per
cap
ita
ener
gy c
ost f
or
EMAS
off
ice
build
ings
(EUR
/pe
rson
)
1 16
896
181
592
461
160
055
753
052
151
950
045
5
Elec
tricit
y (E
UR/
pers
on)
845
637
547
701
433
442
430
394
381
399
369
346
Gas
(EUR
/per
son)
307
309
251
214
171
150
122
130
135
113
129
108
Fuel
(EUR
/per
son)
1614
179
88
55
57
31
Note
s1)
Uni
t cos
ts: A
ssum
e 20
05 s
ame
as 2
006,
200
8 st
ill u
nder
revi
ew.
2) In
cludi
ng, i
n 20
16 E
xecu
tive
Agen
cies
in C
omm
issio
n-m
anag
ed b
uild
ings
.3)
Ass
umin
g no
n-EM
AS a
rea
have
sim
ilar c
osts
for e
nerg
y as
EM
AS a
rea.
Ener
gy is
by
far t
he la
rges
t sin
gle
reso
urce
cost
. We
can
see
that
in 2
016
the
Com
miss
ion
spen
ds a
roun
d ha
lf of
wha
t it s
pent
on
ener
gy co
nsum
ptio
n in
200
5. In
deed
sav
ings
in re
cent
ye
ars
com
pare
d w
ith 2
005
have
bee
n in
the
orde
r of E
UR 1
0 m
illio
n pe
r yea
r, an
d en
ergy
cos
ts in
201
6 re
pres
ente
d 47
% o
f the
am
ount
in 2
005.
A23
A13
Conv
ersio
n fa
ctor
sTa
ble
A15:
Con
vers
ion
fact
ors
used
in p
rodu
cing
dat
a fo
r the
Bru
ssel
s si
te
Para
met
er a
nd u
nits
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Assu
med
out
put (
% o
f kW
h/p)
5050
5050
kWh
from
one
litre
di
esel
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
12.1
kWh
from
one
litre
pe
trol
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
Pape
r Den
sity
(g/m
2 )80
8080
8080
8080
8078
7575
75
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
1 k
Wh
of
elec
tricit
y 0.
275
0.27
50.
275
0.27
50.
275
0.27
50.
275
0.27
50.
275
0.27
50.
275
0.27
5
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
1 k
Wh
natu
ral g
as0.
201
0.20
10.
201
0.20
10.
201
0.20
10.
201
0.20
10.
201
0.20
10.
201
0.20
1
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
1 k
Wh
tank
ed g
as0.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
204
0.20
4
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
1 k
Wh
dies
el0.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.26
40.
264
0.26
40.
264
0.26
4
GWP
of R
221
810
1 81
01
810
1 81
01
810
1 81
01
810
1 81
01
810
1 81
01
810
1 81
0
GWP
of R
410A
2 09
02
090
2 09
02
090
GWP
of R
134A
1 43
01
430
1 43
01
430
GWP
of R
404A
3 92
03
920
3 92
03
920
GWP
of R
407C
1 77
01
770
1 77
01
770
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
one
litre
of
die
sel
33
33
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
one
litre
of
pet
rol
22
22
Annu
al c
ost o
f one
FTE
13
2 00
013
2 00
013
2 00
013
4 00
013
4 00
0
Note
: See
Cor
pora
te v
olum
e fo
r con
vers
ion
fact
or re
fere
nces
A24
A14
Site
bre
akdo
wn:
cha
ract
erist
ics o
f bui
ldin
gs a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce o
f sel
ecte
d pa
ram
eter
s (in
dica
tive
data
)Building
Address
Occupant
EMAS registration
Useful surface area (PEB in m2)
Staff
OfficeCaféSelf restCreche/child carePrinting and mail sortingMedical serviceDepot, large storageWorkshopSports/recreation centre
Electricity
Mains gas
Water (m3)
Non-hazardous waste (tonnes)
Comment
1) B
uild
ing
esse
ntia
l det
ails
201
6:2)
Bui
ldin
g us
e 20
163)
Ene
rgy
sour
ces
and
amou
nt (M
Wh
for 2
016)
4) W
ater
and
was
te
cons
umpt
ion
AN88
Ru
e d’
Arlo
n 88
PMO
BXL
2011
/032
7 81
521
3X
631
136
851
882
2 07
728
.67
B100
Rue
Belli
ard
100
SCIC
BXL
2010
/026
5 95
213
3X
512
844
446
105
1 10
751
.97
B100
ele
ctric
ity in
clude
s HT
and
LT.
B232
Ru
e Br
eyde
l 4
SANT
EBX
L 20
09/0
1611
584
434
X1
217
873
749
822
3 48
914
.38
B-28
Rue
Belli
ard
28DI
GIT
BXL
2007
/009
14 9
8769
2X
X1
836
916
551
870
3 68
449
.60
BERL
Rue
de la
Loi
200
Collè
ge,
SG, S
J, CO
MM
, OI
B, E
PSC,
HR
BXL
2005
/001
151
410
2 15
6X
XX
20 7
76 7
1212
455
738
31 9
2343
0.21
BRE2
Aven
ue
d’Au
derg
hem
19
HR, B
UDG
BXL
2005
/002
18 7
4754
6X
XX
3 36
5 86
588
1 76
54
842
78.7
3
BREY
Av
enue
d’
Aude
rghe
m 4
5
BUDG
, GR
OW, H
RBX
L 20
09/0
1535
198
827
XX
X1
740
663
2 82
3 12
115
054
162.
11
BU-1
Aven
ue B
eaul
ieu
1-3
REGI
OBX
L 20
08/0
1313
911
420
XX
1 25
8 13
01
500
304
5 16
527
8.09
Inclu
des
figur
es fo
r was
te
for b
uild
ings
BU-
5 an
d BU
-9.
BU24
Av
enue
de
Beau
lieu
24CL
IMA,
EE
ASBX
L 20
12/0
436
425
213
X49
0 51
766
0 64
81
498
25.1
6
BU25
Aven
ue d
e Be
aulie
u 25
CNEC
TBX
L 20
12/0
4418
130
564
X1
717
496
1 01
8 59
03
824
131.
2
A25
Building
Address
Occupant
EMAS registration
Useful surface area (PEB in m2)
Staff
OfficeCaféSelf restCreche/child carePrinting and mail sortingMedical serviceDepot, large storageWorkshopSports/recreation centre
Electricity
Mains gas
Water (m3)
Non-hazardous waste (tonnes)
Comment
1) B
uild
ing
esse
ntia
l det
ails
201
6:2)
Bui
ldin
g us
e 20
163)
Ene
rgy
sour
ces
and
amou
nt (M
Wh
for 2
016)
4) W
ater
and
was
te
cons
umpt
ion
BU29
Av
enue
de
Beau
lieu
29RE
GIO
BXL
2011
/033
6 13
124
9X
X69
1 54
937
8 81
82
046
54.1
4
BU31
Aven
ue d
e Be
aulie
u 31
CNEC
TBX
L 20
11/0
346
185
87X
471
307
387
174
765
43.4
3In
clude
s fig
ures
for w
aste
fo
r BU-
33.
BU33
Av
enue
de
Beau
lieu
33CN
ECT
BXL
2011
/035
6 84
324
2X
931
937
363
582
2 14
3
BU-5
Aven
ue d
e Be
aulie
u 5-
7EN
V, R
EGIO
BXL
2005
/003
11 8
4325
6X
XX
1 65
2 47
61
126
499
5 78
5Fi
gure
s fo
r was
te in
clude
d in
BU-
1.
BU-9
Aven
ue d
e Be
aulie
u 9-
11EN
V, O
IBBX
L 20
05/0
0413
040
458
XX
1 12
6 72
11
262
821
5 82
5Fi
gure
s fo
r was
te in
clude
d in
BU-
1.
C-25
Av
enue
de
Corte
nber
gh 2
5EP
SO,
DIGI
T8
574
153
X1
686
800
487
187
1 79
021
9.70
CCAB
Ru
e Fr
oiss
art 3
6SC
ICBX
L 20
13/0
4918
634
561
XX
X2
787
277
2 42
2 76
18
455
94.3
0
CDM
A Ru
e du
Cha
mp
de
Mar
s 21
RTD,
JRC
BXL
2009
/017
19 0
9659
3X
X1
834
947
1 88
0 48
85
310
74.7
9
CHAR
Rue
de la
Loi
170
ECFI
N,
COM
M,
TRAD
E, IA
S
BXL
2013
/050
55 3
421
401
XX
X5
899
289
3 72
3 10
715
563
262.
23
COVE
-CO
V2
Plac
er R
ogie
r 16
DIGI
T, R
TD
+ Ag
encie
sBX
L 20
14/0
5571
430
1 82
2X
XX
7 14
7 09
45
530
062
24 3
1825
7.83
CSM
1Ru
e Pè
re d
e De
ken
23OI
BBX
L 20
11/0
2612
276
391
XX
945
199
1 20
3 01
73
735
53.8
7
A26
Building
Address
Occupant
EMAS registration
Useful surface area (PEB in m2)
Staff
OfficeCaféSelf restCreche/child carePrinting and mail sortingMedical serviceDepot, large storageWorkshopSports/recreation centre
Electricity
Mains gas
Water (m3)
Non-hazardous waste (tonnes)
Comment
1) B
uild
ing
esse
ntia
l det
ails
201
6:2)
Bui
ldin
g us
e 20
163)
Ene
rgy
sour
ces
and
amou
nt (M
Wh
for 2
016)
4) W
ater
and
was
te
cons
umpt
ion
DM24
Ru
e De
mot
24
MOV
E,
ENER
, EAS
, SA
NTE,
EP
SO
BXL
2014
/055
15 8
2749
3X
X1
428
270
1 04
5 77
55
417
83.0
3
DM28
Rue
Dem
ot 2
8M
OVE
BXL
2013
/051
11 2
7740
1X
892
461
955
285
3 73
454
.47
F101
Ru
e Fr
oiss
art 1
01SA
NTE,
JU
STBX
L 20
10/0
318
351
219
XX
684
099
721
168
2 14
176
.18
G--1
Av
enue
de
Genè
ve 1
DGT,
OIB
, AG
RI, D
IGIT
BXL
2011
/037
12 5
8014
3X
X1
203
731
540
390
1 74
085
.19
G-12
Av
enue
de
Genè
ve 1
2DG
TBX
L 20
11/0
3816
946
542
XX
1 27
5 04
91
566
383
3 14
293
.19
G--6
Av
enue
de
Genè
ve 6
DGT
BXL
2011
/039
17 2
4049
8X
XX
1 21
0 19
41
084
816
5 35
612
1.48
J-27
Ru
e Jo
seph
II 2
7EM
PLBX
L 20
09/0
1913
265
399
XX
1 21
0 02
161
2 02
63
880
70.5
0
J-30
Ru
e Jo
seph
II 3
0OL
AFBX
L 20
09/0
2018
157
461
XX
3 07
5 79
01
107
096
7 14
467
.075
J-54
Rue
Jose
ph II
54
DIGI
T,
DEVC
O,
EMPL
, NE
AR
BXL
2007
/012
19 7
3958
8X
X1
511
729
1 29
9 83
04
280
111.
21
J-59
Ru
e Jo
seph
II 5
9DE
VCO
BXL
2010
/030
9 39
621
2X
742
894
613
924
3 08
947
.24
J-70
Ru
e Jo
seph
II 7
0EA
C, O
SPBX
L 20
10/0
2920
082
633
XX
1 60
4 96
11
848
741
4 72
311
8.75
Elec
tricit
y in
J-7
0 is
exclu
-siv
ely
LT.
A27
Building
Address
Occupant
EMAS registration
Useful surface area (PEB in m2)
Staff
OfficeCaféSelf restCreche/child carePrinting and mail sortingMedical serviceDepot, large storageWorkshopSports/recreation centre
Electricity
Mains gas
Water (m3)
Non-hazardous waste (tonnes)
Comment
1) B
uild
ing
esse
ntia
l det
ails
201
6:2)
Bui
ldin
g us
e 20
163)
Ene
rgy
sour
ces
and
amou
nt (M
Wh
for 2
016)
4) W
ater
and
was
te
cons
umpt
ion
J-79
Ru
e Jo
seph
II 7
9CD
P-OS
P,
MAR
E,
TAXU
D
BXL
2009
/021
16 1
3434
6X
X1
588
218
827
941
4 59
757
.48
J-99
Ru
e Jo
seph
II 9
9M
ARE
BXL
2014
/056
8 28
128
7X
648
707
446
374
3 93
558
.196
L102
Rue
de la
Loi
102
AGRI
BXL
2013
/052
4 93
513
7X
305
386
416
284
1 08
187
.02
L130
ru
e de
la L
oi, 1
30AG
RIBX
L 20
14/0
5737
043
953
XX
X3
711
211
3 93
1 14
810
929
207.
97
L-15
(3)
Rue
de la
Loi
15
NEAR
BXL
2013
/053
17 4
8263
1X
X1
602
644
799
572
4 48
612
8.39
L-41
Ru
e de
la L
oi 4
1DE
VCO
BXL
2009
/022
27 8
6470
3X
XX
2 74
7 37
81
559
757
8 54
721
9.82
L-56
Ru
e de
la L
oi 5
6CO
MM
, Ga
lileo
BXL
2012
/046
9 66
630
5X
925
905
598
634
2 51
536
.41
L-86
/ L-
84Ru
e de
la L
oi 8
6EC
HOBX
L 20
11/0
3213
355
422
XX
1 46
2 01
847
2 62
43
542
L-84
/86
was
te fi
gure
s in
clude
d in
L10
2 fig
ures
.
LX40
Ru
e de
Lu
xem
bour
g 40
TAXU
D,
JUST
BXL
2013
/054
7 80
323
7X
568
705
420
652
1 29
957
.36
LX46
Ru
e de
Lu
xem
bour
g 46
HOM
E,
JUST
BXL
2010
/023
17 4
7853
2X
1 77
2 62
81
809
155
5 40
513
8.52
Inclu
des
cons
umpt
ion
MO5
9
MAD
O Pl
ace
Mad
ou, 1
DIGT
, CO
MP,
AG
RI
BXL
2014
/058
40 7
161
059
XX
X4
601
039
3 65
6 85
517
529
209.
20
MO3
4Ru
e M
onto
yer 3
4DI
GIT,
HR
BXL
2005
/007
12 8
2034
9X
X1
579
416
934
020
4 31
888
.39
Inclu
de w
aste
figu
res
ofr
SC11
.
A28
Building
Address
Occupant
EMAS registration
Useful surface area (PEB in m2)
Staff
OfficeCaféSelf restCreche/child carePrinting and mail sortingMedical serviceDepot, large storageWorkshopSports/recreation centre
Electricity
Mains gas
Water (m3)
Non-hazardous waste (tonnes)
Comment
1) B
uild
ing
esse
ntia
l det
ails
201
6:2)
Bui
ldin
g us
e 20
163)
Ene
rgy
sour
ces
and
amou
nt (M
Wh
for 2
016)
4) W
ater
and
was
te
cons
umpt
ion
MO5
9 Ru
e M
onto
yer 5
9JU
STBX
L 20
10/0
248
671
287
XX
0Co
nsum
ptio
n in
clude
d in
LX
46.
N105
Av
enue
des
Ne
rvie
ns 1
05GR
OWBX
L 20
10/0
259
546
306
X83
1 65
61
108
128
3 27
244
.95
ORBN
squa
re F
rère
Or
ban,
8RT
DBX
L 20
14/0
5925
141
759
XX
X2
255
416
904
348
3 75
781
.25
PLB3
Phili
ppe
Le B
on 3
EMPL
, HR
et
Form
atio
nBX
L 20
15/0
6016
584
152
XX
X1
681
887
1 46
4 40
64
974
99.4
0
SC11
Rue
de la
Scie
nce
11HR
BXL
2005
/008
9 00
219
9X
X75
5 61
363
0 48
22
604
Figu
res
for w
aste
inclu
ded
in M
O34.
SC27
/29
Rue
de la
Scie
nce
27-2
9PM
O, D
IGIT
BXL
2011
/040
an
d 04
19
533
215
XX
X 82
2 59
691
1 45
33
935
48.9
1
SPA2
Rue
de S
PA 2
FISM
ABX
L 20
12/0
4719
567
451
XX
1 17
8 02
91
059
515
5 51
211
9.12
SPA3
Rue
de S
pa 3
TAXU
D,
EMPL
BXL
2012
/048
12 2
8841
5X
791
356
729
194
3 66
239
.815
VM18
Rue
Van
Mae
rlant
18
EAC,
SCI
CBX
L 20
10/0
289
330
124
XX
X99
7 45
488
0 67
22
234
83.7
3Fi
gure
s fo
r was
te in
clude
fig
ures
for V
M-2
.
HTW
G (2
)Ho
utw
eg, 2
3DI
GIT
BXL
2005
/006
4 14
54
X12
7 74
821
0 98
8 8
250
.39
CLOV
(2)
Boul
evar
d Cl
ovis
75OI
BBX
L 20
07/0
106
274
19X
XX
X53
3 85
056
1 53
36
113
64.5
5
DAV1
(2)
Aven
ue d
e Bo
urge
t 1-3
OIB
BXL
2007
/011
12 6
0010
0X
X1
127
926
866
021
910
81.4
3
A29
Building
Address
Occupant
EMAS registration
Useful surface area (PEB in m2)
Staff
OfficeCaféSelf restCreche/child carePrinting and mail sortingMedical serviceDepot, large storageWorkshopSports/recreation centre
Electricity
Mains gas
Water (m3)
Non-hazardous waste (tonnes)
Comment
1) B
uild
ing
esse
ntia
l det
ails
201
6:2)
Bui
ldin
g us
e 20
163)
Ene
rgy
sour
ces
and
amou
nt (M
Wh
for 2
016)
4) W
ater
and
was
te
cons
umpt
ion
WIL
S (2
)Ru
e W
ilson
16,
OIB
BXL
2007
/010
2 54
422
X 0
0 0
24.1
2El
ectri
city
and
gas
for
WIL
SON
are
inclu
ded
in
CLOV
IS fi
gure
s (o
ne s
in-
gle
EAN)
VM-2
(2)
Rue
Van
Mae
rlant
2Ce
rcle
s de
Loi
sirs,
le F
oyer
, Br
asse
rie
BXL
2010
/027
15 9
601
XX
1 16
4 38
51
595
962
3 98
8W
aste
figu
res
inclu
ded
in
VM18
.
COLE
(2)
Rue
G.Le
man
60
OIB
BXL
2011
/026
8 85
020
4X
XX
664
690
1 14
1 02
33
955
75.4
3
KORT
Indu
strie
park
Gu
llend
elle
,
Vink
stra
at
3 30
70
KORT
ENBE
RG
OIB.
Arch
ives
Hi
stor
ique
s
VL 2
015/
002
1 07
04
X68
6 47
448
0 40
61
240
33.6
2Th
e m
² cor
rect
ed to
1
070
m²
WAL
IBo
ulev
ard
Clov
is 53
OIB
BXL
2015
/061
5 67
913
2X
XX
X29
4 36
143
1 75
81
710
37.3
3
OVER
De
nnen
bosl
aan,
54
- 30
90
OVER
IJSE
OIB
2015
2 70
86
X13
7 79
822
9 81
0 9
4734
.38
The
surf
ace
indi
cate
d of
2
708m
² is
the
cont
ract
ual
surf
ace
and
not t
he E
PB
one,
sin
ce it
’s no
t ava
il-ab
le, a
nd th
e EP
B us
es
diff
eren
t crit
eria
(Fle
mish
Re
gion
)
BRUS
SELS
TOT
ALS
1 06
9 48
226
361
109
126
441
81 1
79 5
0931
0 12
45
446
Environmental Statement2016 resultsAnnex B: LuxembourgFinal
Prepared by the EMAS Site Coordination Team for Luxembourg: Kadri SIILANARUSK - Project/Process Manager, EMAS Coordinator Jean HAAS - Administrative Assistant, back up of K. Siilanarusk Adriana MARINO - Administrative Assistant Caroline JUBERT - Administrative Assistant
Supervision: Kadri SIILANARUSK - Project/Process Manager, EMAS Coordinator
European Commission-Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg - OIL.01 Buildings projects - EMAS - Transport - Printshop
Contact: [email protected]
Cover illustration: Photo provided by the EMAS Site Coordination Team for Luxembourg
All other illustrations: © European Union unless otherwise stated.
Environmental Statement
2016 resultsAnnex B: Luxembourg
Final
B2
B1 Overview of core indicators at Luxembourg since 2011..........................................................................................B4B2 Description of Luxembourg activities and key stakeholders ..................................................................................B6B3 Environmental impact of Luxembourg activities ..........................................................................................................B9B4 More efficient use of natural resources ..........................................................................................................................B10B5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint...............................................................................................................B16B6 Improving waste management and sorting ..................................................................................................................B19B7 Protecting biodiversity ..............................................................................................................................................................B20B8 Green public procurement (GPP) .........................................................................................................................................B20B9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness ......................................................................B21B10 Communication .............................................................................................................................................................................B22B11 Training ..............................................................................................................................................................................................B24B12 EMAS Costs and saving ............................................................................................................................................................B24B13 Conversion factors ......................................................................................................................................................................B25
Contents
B3
ANNEX B: Luxembourg — Administrative activities
Luxembourg is the second most important site of the European Commission in Europe hosting 4 653 staff mem-bers and 19 Commission directorates-general (DG) in 18 buildings (1). The vast majority of buildings are located in Luxembourg City, with some exceptions. The activities are mainly administrative office, some support and logistics services (like catering, offices supplies, childcare facilities, etc.), data centres and there is also a radio-toxicological laboratory.
The Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg (OIL) manages the Commission’s buildings and logis-tics in Luxembourg. Based in the city, it plays a key role in the collection and management of the majority of data relevant to reporting under the Environmental Management System (EMAS) and on the Commission’s build-ings in Luxembourg.
(1) Including Publications Office, OIL, PMO, Chafea and EAS/EPSO.
B4
B1
Over
view
of c
ore
indi
cato
rs a
t Lux
embo
urg
since
201
1Ta
ble
B1: H
isto
rical
dat
a, p
erfo
rman
ce a
nd ta
rget
s fo
r cor
e in
dica
tors
for C
omm
issi
on le
vel r
epor
ting
Phys
ical i
ndica
tors
:Hi
stor
ic da
ta v
alue
s, al
l bui
ldin
gs si
nce
2015
Pe
rfor
man
ce tr
end
(%) t
o 20
16 (t
otal
) sin
ce:
Targ
et
(Num
ber,
desc
iption
and
unit
)20
11 (1 )
2013
2014
2015
2016
2011
2013
2014
2015
2014
to 2
020
EMAS
EMAS
EMAS
Tota
lTo
tal
Δ %
(2 )va
lue
(2 )
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs (
MW
h/p)
8.35
10.7
117
.42
17.7
018
.43
120.
872
.15.
84.
1– 5
.016
.55
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs (
KWh/
m2 )
229
235
395
359
355
55.4
50.9
– 10.
1– 1
.1– 5
.037
5
1c) N
on-re
n. en
ergy
use
(bld
gs) %
42.8
27.8
53.7
53.2
24.1
91.1
– 1.0
0.0
27.8
1d) W
ater
(m
3 /p)
12.2
615
.24
14.4
810
.50
18.6
151
.822
.128
.577
.20.
014
.48
1d) W
ater
(L/m
2 )35
233
532
921
335
91.
97.
19.
268
.40.
032
9
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (T
onne
s/p)
0.03
40.
028
0.02
40.
018
0.01
7– 5
1.0
– 41.
3– 3
0.3
– 9.9
0.0
0.02
4
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (S
heet
s/p/d
ay)
3227
2419
17– 4
7.7
– 37.
4– 3
0.3
– 9.9
0.0
24.1
2a) C
O 2 buil
dings
(Ton
nes/p
)1.
151.
101.
801.
972.
2495
.210
2.8
24.1
13.4
–5.0
1.7
2a) C
O 2 buil
dings
(kg/
m2 )
3124
4140
4337
.377
.85.
47.
7– 5
.038
.8
2c) C
O 2 veh
icles
(g/km
, man
u.)19
117
917
116
716
1– 1
5.5
– 9.9
– 5.7
– 3.4
– 5.0
162
2c) C
O 2 veh
icles
(g/km
, act
ual)
240
217
220
218
202
– 15.
9– 7
.0– 8
.3– 7
.4– 5
.020
9
3a) N
on-h
az. w
aste
(Ton
nes/p
)0.
245
0.12
40.
103
0.19
40.
227
– 7.3
82.8
121.
717
.40.
00.
103
3b) H
azar
dous
was
te (T
onne
s/p)
0.00
170.
0010
0.00
150.
0013
0.00
3387
.821
5.0
124.
815
6.7
0.0
0.00
1
3c) S
epar
ated
was
te (%
)38
.240
.144
.749
.962
.764
.356
.540
.325
.75.
247
.0
Econ
omic
indi
cato
rs (E
UR/p
)
Ener
gy co
nsum
ption
(bld
gs)
1 35
41
108
557
– 18.
2– 4
9.7
0.0
1 35
4
Wat
er co
nsum
ption
28
.96
21.0
179
.09
– 27.
527
6.5
0.0
28.9
6
Non-
haz.
wast
e dis
posa
l 35
.07
66.2
377
.75
88.8
17.4
0.0
35.0
7
Note
: (1)
Ear
liest
repo
rted
data
; (2)
com
pare
d to
201
4, b
ased
on
per
cent
ages
iden
tifie
d in
the
EMAS
ann
ual a
ctio
n pl
an 2
017
B5
Table B1 (continued): Historic data for EMAS buildings only:
2011 2013 2014 2015 2016
EMAS EMAS EMAS EMAS EMAS
1a) Energy bldgs (MWh/p) 8.35 10.71 17.42 14.40 11.25
1a) Energy bldgs (KWh/m²) 229 235 395 342 313
1c) Non-ren. energy use (bldgs) % 0.00 42.8 27.8 64.6 51.0
1d) Water (m³/p) 12.26 15.24 14.48 11.32 13.71
1d) Water (L/m²) 352 335 329 269 381
2a) CO2 buildings (Tonnes/p) 1.15 1.10 1.80 1.91 1.28
2a) CO2 buildings (kg/m²) 31 24 41 45 36
3a) Non-haz. waste (Tonnes/p) 0.25 0.12 0.10 0.197 0.104
3b) Hazardous waste (Tonnes/p) 0 0 0 0.001 0.002
3c) Separated waste (%) 38.2 40.1 44.7 73.8 53.0
In 2015, it was decided that, in order to report representatively for the Luxembourg site as a whole, EMAS indi-cators would be evaluated to include all Commission buildings, not just those that were audited and included in the EMAS registration (2). Analysis of performance trends involving years prior to 2014 should therefore take into account that the earlier data represents a smaller proportion of the Commission buildings and staff, and while this may not have too great an impact on parameters measured per capita or square metre, comparing totals will be misleading. The evolution of indicators (all buildings) since 2011 is shown in Table B1. In 2014, the year used to establish baseline for 2020 targets, reporting did however include data centres, which explains the large rise in energy consumption from 2013.
In 2016, the Commission continued to move out of the Jean Monnet building (JMO). All staff remaining after the first group was re-accommodated at the end of 2015 were moved out by August 2016. However, the JMO remained operational until 1 June 2017 owing to the large amount of equipment and material that had to be removed and is therefore included in the data reporting. Built in 1975, JMO was the Commission’s principle seat and consequently staff relocation and decommissioning generated very significant amounts of cleaning and other waste. Several indicators are ‘in the red’ for 2016 owing to the move.
In the middle of 2016, Commission started moving the JMO data centre into a new purpose-built data centre in Betzdorf which brought about a slight increase in per capita energy consumption. Also contributing were the three additional office buildings occupied by the Commission while JMO was being decommissioned.
In 2016, the BECH building (34 060 m²) was registered and in 2017 three new buildings are proposed for inclu-sion in the EMAS registration. Ariane and Laccolith are both rented and located in the Cloche d’Or area while the Luxembourg authorities constructed the temporary building JMO T (T2) for the Commission on the Kirchberg plateau.
The evolution of the key parameters of the EMAS system in Luxembourg is shown below.
Table B2: EMAS baseline parameters
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Population: staff in EMAS perimeter 759 1 315 1 422 1 492 2 378 3 912
Population: total staff 3 999 3 997 4 048 4 043 4 667 4 653
No buildings for EMAS registration 2 3 4 6 7 10
Total no operational buildings 13 14 14 14 17 18
Useful surface area in EMAS perimeter (m2) 27 710 49 938 64 703 65 759 100 221 140 697
Useful surface area for all buildings (m2) 180 818 191 713 191 713 198 205 230 124 241 464
(2) Reporting yearly only for buildings in the EMAS scope can make it difficult to analyse performance trends as the building(s) added in a given year can be very different from those already within the scope (for example data centres). Therefore from 2015 reporting encompasses all buildings, although figures are also produced for the EMAS area for core parameters for verification purposes.
B6
The inclusion of a further three buildings in 2016 under the EMAS registration will result in registered buildings accounting for 58 % of the surface area and 84 % of staff in Luxembourg. The remaining buildings are either buildings with special purpose, for example childcare facilities (CPEs), or will be replaced shortly (Publications Office (OP) buildings in the central station area).
B2 Description of Luxembourg activities and key stakeholders:Most of the Commission’s activities in Luxembourg are administrative and are supported by canteens, restau-rants, cafeterias, archives, a print shop, a vehicle fleet, medical services, a day nursery and study centre. DG ENER also manages a radiation protection laboratory.
In addition to administration, the radiation protection laboratory and child care facilities, a fourth major Commis-sion activity are the Windhof and Hitec data centres which were registered under EMAS. Figure B1 and Table B3 show the location and addresses of Commission buildings in Luxembourg.
Figure B1: Location of EMAS and other buildings in Luxembourg
Most buildings are located in the Kirchberg area in the centre of the City of Luxembourg or to the south of the city centre at Cloche d’Or. But CPE 5 is 15 km west of Luxembourg in Bertrange-Mamer while Windhof is close to the Belgian border and is run by European Business Reliance Centre (eBRC). The HITEC data centre is located in the Cloche d’Or area and is situated in the basement of the HITEC office building. Betzdorf data centre (R11-70) is located north of Luxembourg City.
Commission services in the Cloche d’Or and Kirchberg area serve typical administrative functions. The Euroforum (EUFO) building accommodates administrative services, and the radiation protection laboratory (DG ENER). CPE 5 however caters entirely to children of staff with an interinstitutional crèche, after school and study centres. ARI-ANE and T2 both have self service restaurants and a cafeteria, Laccolith just a cafeteria.
B7
Table B3: Addresses of Commission buildings in Luxembourg
Name Code Address
Ariane ARIA 400, route d’Esch, L-1471
Joseph Bech BECH 5, rue Alphonse Weicker, L-2721
Centre Polyvalent de L’enfance Interinsitutionnel I & II CPE I and II 1, rue Albert Borschette, L-1246
Centre Polyvalent de L’enfance Interinsitutionnel III CPE III 5, rue Albert Borschette, L-1246
Centre Polyvalent de L’enfance Interinsitutionnel V CPE V 6, rue Gaston Thorn, L-8268 Bertrange
Drosbach DRB 12, rue Guillaume Kroll, L-1882
Euroforum EUFO 10, rue Robert Stumper, L-2557
Foyer Européen HEI 10-12, rue Heinrich Heine, L-1720
Hitec HTC 11, rue Eugène Ruppert, L-2557
Jean Monnet JMO rue Alcide de Gasperi, L-2920
Laccolith LACC 20, rue Eugène Ruppert, L-2453
Maison de l’Europe MAEU 7, rue du Marché-aux-Herbes, L-1728
Office des publications de l’Union Européenne MER 2, rue Mercier, L-2985
OP Fischer FISR 135, rue Adolphe Fischer
Data centre Hitec eBRC HTC
Data centre Windhof eBRC WIND
Data centre R11-70 eBRC R11-70
JMO2 Temporaire T2 1-7, Pierre Frieden, L-1543
Other than the ‘Foyer Européen’, which is owned by the European institutions, and the EUFO, CPE3 and CPE5 buildings, for which the Commission has long-term leases with purchase options, all Commission buildings are leased. The buildings and the year when they were, or are scheduled, to be EMAS registered are listed in the table below.
B8
Tabl
e B4
: Eur
opea
n Co
mm
issi
on’s
bui
ldin
gs in
EM
AS in
Lux
embo
urg
2017
Num
ber
Build
ing
EMAS
yea
rSu
rfac
e (on
the
grou
nd, m
2 )*%
of E
MAS
surf
ace o
f to
tal s
urfa
ceSt
aff
2016
**Ye
ar o
f co
nstr
uctio
nYe
ar o
f acq
uisit
ion
or
leas
ing
Occu
patio
n ty
pe
1DR
B20
1223
.516
9.74
824
-B:
2006
; A: 2
009;
D: 2
010
Rent
al2
HITE
C (o
ffice
)20
124.1
941.7
410
2-
2005
Rent
al3
EUFO
2013
26.09
810
.8153
719
95 a
nd 2
003
1995
, 200
3Em
phyt
eusis
with
pur
chas
e op
tion
4CP
E520
1410
.895
4.51
5420
1120
11Re
ntal
with
opt
ion o
f pur
chas
e5
eBRC
HIT
EC (d
ata
cent
re)**
*20
1525
20.1
08
-20
06Re
ntal
6eB
RC W
IN (d
ata
cent
re)**
*20
151.2
060.5
06
-20
07, 2
009
Rent
al
7BE
CH20
1634
.060
14.11
897
-19
98, 2
005
Rent
al8
ARIA
NE20
1713
.624
5.64
539
-20
15Re
ntal
9LA
CCOL
ITH
2017
11.29
24.6
843
6-
2015
Rent
al10
T220
1715
.560
6.44
509
2016
2016
Rent
al11
CPE1
& 2
Not r
elev
ant a
s th
e bu
ildin
g w
ill b
e re
plac
ed4.3
701.8
141
-19
84Re
ntal
12CP
E320
185.2
182.1
643
-19
96, 2
009
Rent
al wi
th o
ption
of p
urch
ase
13FO
YER
TBC
1.192
0.49
119
2020
09Ow
ner
14FI
SCHE
RTB
C3.5
261.4
612
5-
2005
Rent
al15
MER
CIER
TBC
19.95
38.2
651
719
70, 1
984
I: 197
3, 19
98; II
: 198
5-
16Te
leco
m C
entre
TBC
274
0.11
1TB
CTB
CTB
C17
MAE
UTB
C92
90.3
811
--
-18
JMO2
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
19JM
ONo
t rel
evan
t sta
rting
fr
om 2
016
63.72
5NR
119
75-1
978
1975
Rent
al
20RC
Bet
zdor
fTB
C1.5
800.6
51
TOTA
L24
1.46
458
.27
4653
* Sou
rce:
con
tract
s an
d OI
L 03
dat
a**
Sou
rce:
COM
REF
17.
01.2
016
*** C
alcu
late
d su
rfac
e: o
n th
e gr
ound
and
und
ergr
ound
B9
The major interested parties of the Commission at Luxembourg are:
� Contractors;
� European Commission staff;
� General public;
� Local authorities;
� Other European institutions; and
� Others occupants in shared buildings and landlords
Following the adaptation of EMAS regulation, the Commission will carry out an analysis of the expectations of major stakeholders.
B3 Environmental impact of Luxembourg activitiesOIL reviews the site’s environmental aspect analysis annually and updates its action plan as new buildings enter into the EMAS scope. Below is a summary of the main aspects and measures that were undertaken or ongoing in 2016.
Table B5: Summary of significant environmental aspects and mitigating measures in 2016 identified by OIL for the Luxembourg site
Aspect group
Environmental aspects
Environmental impact
Related action in action plan Measures and actions
Resource consumption
(Energy)
Building heating, lighting, wood chip heating generator, steam generators, data centres
Pollution, climate change, exploitation/ depletion of natural resources
� 92 � 33 � 72 � 272
� In-depth analysis of energy consumption in certain buildings
� EUFO: Replacement of last 2 cooling towers + replacement of the last cooling installation (groupe de froid)
� EUFO: change incandescent bulbs with LED light bulbs in EUFO
� All buildings: Diminishing the temperature during the closing week of the offices at the end of the year
� DG ENER: DG ENER has upgraded the control methods, under ISO scope, to stop using one piece of equipment that was electricity and gas consuming. The impact on electricity consumption is low, but it helps us to save around 20 % on our counting gas consumption (Ar-CO2)
Resource consumption (water)
Water for sanitation and installations, water consumption
Reduced potable water sources potable impact on aquatic diversity
� 73 � 74
� DRB: negotiate with the owner of DRB building to install cascade of pumps and variators
� HITEC: modification of cooling tower (part of the used water can be reused)
AirEmissions of CO2, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC,
Air Pollution Risks for biodiversity and climate change- Destruction of the ozone layer
� 119 � 120 � 121 � 122
� OIL will analyse in cooperation with Luxembourg City the possibility of using the ‘Vel’oh’ system in the Commission.
� OIL will analyse the possibility of enlarging the scope of Jobkaart
� OIL will continue to participate in inter-institutional discussions on how to increase the scope of M-Pass
� Check how contractors apply EP’s and Council’s regulation 517/2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases
B10
Aspect group
Environmental aspects
Environmental impact
Related action in action plan Measures and actions
Air
Air emissions from the nuclear laboratories
Radioactivity
� DG ENER has upgraded their software that monitors the emissions
� DG ENER’s radiation protection laboratory got the ISO 17025 accreditation in September 2016
Waste
Generation of various household waste (for example packaging, paper, cardboards, metals)
Odours, greenhouse gases, pollution of the air, water and/or soil Impacts on biodiversity
� 147 � 148 � 149 � 154
� Maintenance contractors of OIL 03 will take care of their waste (see ongoing call for tender)
� Inform cleaning contractor on the needs for better waste sorting
� Check how OIL 03’s maintenance contractors manage their waste
� Continue drafting yearly reports on waste for all buildings according to Lux legislation (reports verified and sent to the ministry of environment)
WasteGeneration of controlled waste
Odours, greenhouse gases, pollution of the air, water and/or soil Impacts on biodiversity
No specific measures to report.
Waste (waste Water discharge)
Water discharged nuclear laboratories
Water pollution, risks of eutrophication
reduced potable water sources potable-Impact on aquatic biodiversity
No specific measures to report.
B4 More efficient use of natural resources
B4.1 Energy consumption
Buildings energy consumption data should be considered in the context of climatic conditions. Analysis of degree data (3) presented below suggests that climatic conditions may have been harsher in 2016 than in either 2014 or 2015 and that more heating is likely to have been required than in previous years.
(3) Monthly data for ELLX station (15.5 C reference temperature), www.degreedays.net; using buildings energy consumption data for Luxembourg.
B11
Figure B2: Total annual degree days in Luxembourg, 2012-2016
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
Total degree days
2012
2 841
365
2 476
3.78
2013
3 108
390
2 718
3.45
2014
2 395
357
2 038
7.27
2015
2 745
457
2 288
6.45
2016
2 891
410
2 481
6.38
Cooling degree days
Heating degree days
kWh/person/degree day (2)
Note (2) using building energy consumption data for Luxembourg site.
(a) Buildings
The evolution of total annual energy consumption is presented in Figure B3 which represents a steadily growing EMAS perimeter up until 2015 as data centres were incorporated in 2014. Per capita and consumption per square metre are presented in Figures B4 and B5.
Figure B3: Annual buildings energy consumption (MWh) (EMAS registered buildings to 2014, all buildings from 2015)
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
80 000
90 000
100 000
vii) renewables - biomass
v) district heating (and cooling for BECH)
ii) mains supplied gas
i) total supplied electricity
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total energy buildings 6 335 14 124 15 230 25 988 82 609 85 350
539 404 317 469
2 292 1 815 2 375 1 603 10 244 12 521
618 4 020 4 149 3 361 27 161 32 930
3 425 8 289 8 167 20 620 38 958 39 430
Significant increases in energy consumption in 2014, particularly with respect to electricity reflect the inclusion of the data centres within the registered buildings. In 2015 reporting was extended to encompass all buildings.
B12
Figures B4 and B5: Evolution of total annual energy consumption (per capita and per sq. metre)
8.3
10.7 10.7
17.4 17.7 18.4
16.5
3.01.4 1.7 1.1
2.2 2.7
0.00 0.000.38 0.27 0.07
0.10
4
8
12
16
20
24
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MWh/person
Total
Gas District heating
Biomass
229
283
235
395
359 355
375
124
166
126
314
169 164
22
80 64
51
118 137
83
36 37 24 45 52
0.00 0.00 8.33 6.151.38 1.940
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
kWh/m2
Total Total target 2020 ElectricityGas District heating Biomass
0.8
3.1 2.9 2.3
5.87.1
Total target 2020
In 2016, European Commission occupied three more office buildings while JMO was still operational, which might explain the increasing energy consumption per person. The large peak in 2014 in both graphs is due to the inclu-sion of data centres in the scope. However, the overall trend for both indicators is in the right direction.
There are seven actions prioritising the reduction of energy consumption (indicator 1a) in the Annual action plan (please see the table below). The majority of actions focus on technical improvements for the heating system (changing thermostatic valves for example) where possible. There are also measures regarding to the lightning.
B13
Tabl
e B6
Act
ions
targ
etin
g bu
ildin
gs e
nerg
y co
nsum
ptio
n)
JIRA
#Se
rvic
e re
sp
Perim
eter
of
actio
nM
ain
obje
ctive
Spec
ific
obje
ctive
/ind
icat
or
Sig
aspe
ct(S
econ
d sp
ecifi
c ob
jecti
ve/i
ndic
ator
)Ac
tion
desc
riptio
nAc
tion
type
Dat
e in
tro'
A
AP
Desc
riptio
n of
late
st p
rogr
ess
Date
Las
t pr
ogre
ss
upda
te
Initi
al ta
rget
da
teRe
vise
d ta
rget
dat
eSt
atus
33O
ILO
IL -
EUFO
I Mor
e effi
cien
t res
ourc
e us
e1a
Red
ucin
g bu
ildin
g en
ergy
con
sum
ptio
nY
es1d
Red
ucin
g w
ater
co
nsum
ptio
n
WA
TER
and
ENER
GY
: Rep
lace
men
t of l
ast 2
coo
ling
tow
ers
+ re
plac
emen
t of t
he la
st c
oolin
g in
stal
latio
n (g
roup
e de
froi
d)
sing
le20
1520
17 m
id-r
evie
w -
final
sta
ge; A
AP
2017
- co
ntra
ct s
igne
d, n
ext
mee
ting
20/1
to d
eter
min
e th
e lo
catio
n; 2
016
- on
goin
g; 2
015
- on
goin
g;
16/1
2/20
1631
.12.
2015
2017
In p
rogr
ess
34O
ILO
IL -
all b
uild
ings
I Mor
e effi
cien
t res
ourc
e us
e1a
Red
ucin
g bu
ildin
g en
ergy
con
sum
ptio
nY
es2a
Red
ucin
g CO
2 em
issi
ons
from
bui
ldin
g en
ergy
con
sum
ptio
n
ENER
GY
: det
aile
d an
alys
is o
f bui
ldin
gs e
nerg
y co
nsum
ptio
n in
mon
thly
mee
tings
co
ntin
uous
2015
AA
P 20
17 -
ongo
ing;
201
6 -
syst
em in
pla
ce ;
201
5 -
ongo
ing;
16
/12/
2016
NANA
In p
rogr
ess
72O
ILO
IL -
EUFO
I M
ore
effici
ent r
esou
rce
use
1a R
educ
ing
build
ing
ener
gy c
onsu
mpt
ion
Yes
ENER
GY
: cha
nge
inca
ndes
cent
bul
bs w
ith L
ED lig
ht
bulb
s in
EUF
Om
ulti-
stag
e20
16A
AP
2017
- of
fer r
ecei
ved;
201
6 - e
mer
genc
y lig
htin
g, e
xter
nal
park
ing,
hal
l ligh
ting
; 2
015
- ;
2014
-
16/1
2/20
1631
.12.
2016
31/1
2/20
17In
pro
gres
s
272
OIL
OIL
- al
l bui
ldin
gsI M
ore
effici
ent r
esou
rce
use
1a R
educ
ing
build
ing
ener
gy c
onsu
mpt
ion
Yes
Dim
inis
hing
the
tem
pera
ture
dur
ing
the
clos
ing
wee
k of
th
e of
fices
at t
he e
nd o
f the
yea
rco
ntin
uous
2016
AA
P 20
17 -
first
act
ion
done
in 2
016;
con
tinue
s pr
ojec
t.NA
NAIn
pro
gres
s
276
OIL
EUFO
I Mor
e effi
cien
t res
ourc
e us
e1a
Red
ucin
g bu
ildin
g en
ergy
con
sum
ptio
nY
esR e
plac
ing
ther
mos
tatic
val
ves
in c
orrid
ors
and
stai
rcas
es
pilo
t20
17A
AP
2017
- st
udy
of fe
asib
ility
and
cost
/ben
efit
ratio
31.1
2.20
17In
pro
gres
s
277
OIL
BECH
I Mor
e effi
cien
t res
ourc
e us
e1a
Red
ucin
g bu
ildin
g en
ergy
con
sum
ptio
nY
esRe
plac
ing
ther
mos
tatic
val
ves
in c
orrid
ors
and
stai
rcas
es
pilo
t20
1720
17 m
id-r
evie
w -
offe
r ong
oing
; AA
P 20
17 -
stud
y of
feas
ibilit
y an
d co
st/b
enef
it ra
tio31
.12.
2017
In p
rogr
ess
279
OIL
OIL
- al
l bui
ldin
gsI M
ore
effici
ent r
esou
rce
use
1a R
educ
ing
build
ing
ener
gy c
onsu
mpt
ion
Yes
Chan
ging
des
k la
mps
to L
EDsi
ngle
2017
AA
P 20
17 -
stud
y of
feas
ibilit
y an
d co
st/b
enef
it ra
tio, o
ffer
re
ceiv
ed.
31.1
2.20
17In
pro
gres
s
B14
(b) Vehicles
OIL has a fleet of 30 vehicles (including DG ENER vehicles), of which eight are owned and the remainder leased. These include:
� 13 sedans (3 allocated to director-generals, and 10 for missions, mostly to Brussels and Strasbourg);
� 8 people carriers;
� 7 small vans; and
� 2 refrigerated lorries.
The vehicles are used to transport people and goods within Luxembourg City, for longer missions mainly between Luxembourg and Brussels or Strasbourg, but also to other countries. The majority of OIL’s missions cover longer distances and relatively few kilometres are accumulated in Luxembourg. In 2016, Commission service vehicles consumed 0.15 MWh per person which is more than in 2015 (0.127 MWh per person).
Table B7: Summary vehicle energy consumption2013 2014 2015 2016
Total (MWh/yr) 535 560 592 698
MWh/person 0.38 0.38 0.13 0.15
kWh/m² 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.9
Diesel used (m3) 48.5 50.5 53.3 62.8
Petrol used (m3) 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.5
In 2016, the Luxembourg vehicle fleet travelled further (769 874 km) than in 2015 (665 992 km). This increase is partly also due to the inclusion of DG energy vehicles into the reporting starting from 2016 that are used for long distance missions all over Europe.
OIL is actively exploring the possibility to cooperate with European Parliament in using the shuttle between Lux-embourg and Brussels in order to further reduce the number of missions.
(c) Renewable and non renewable energy use in buildings and vehicles
Renewable electricity accounted for 100 % of total supplied electricity in 2016. The Commission has had a con-tract for electricity derived from 100 % renewable sources since 2013. The electricity supply for the Windhof, Hitec and eBRC R11-70 data centres is also from 100 % renewable sources.
Taking into account that sources other than the electricity supply contract, and the wood fuelled boiler at CPE5 are non renewable, then energy from renewable sources accounts for just under half of the total as shown in the following table.
Table B8: Renewable and non-renewable energy use in the buildingsSource of renewable and non-renewable energy 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Electricity from renewables (%) 100 100 100 89 97 100
Electricity from renewables (MWh) 3 425 8 289 8 167 18 352 37 945 39 698
Site biomass (% renewable) 100 100 100 100
Site biomass (MWh) 539 404 317 469
Renewables (MWh) 3 425 8 289 8 706 18 756 38 262 40 167Renewables (% of total energy) 54 59 57 72 46 47Electricity from non-renewables (%) 11 3
Electricity from non-renewables (MWh) 2 268 1 013
Mains supplied gas (% non renewable) 100 100 100 100 100 100
Mains supplied gas (MWh) 618 4 020 4 149 3 361 27 161 33 021
District heating and cooling (% non renewable) 100 100 100 100 100 100
District heating and cooling (MWh) 2 292 1 815 2 375 1 603 10 244 12 579
Non renewables (MWh) 5 835 6 524 7 232 44 347 45 600Non renewables (% of total energy) 41 43 28 54 53
B15
B4.2 Water consumption
Figures B6 and B7: Evolution of total annual water consumption for Luxembourg buildings
28.44 26.85
22.49
18.8315.00
14.70
12.0311.2311.6612.5712.4011.7712.57114 702
140 616133 791
195 664195 186
227 907211 568
232 114
307 188 322 527
318 692
310 234
50 000
100 000
150 000
200 000
250 000
300 000
350 000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
3520
04
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
m3 to
tal
m3 /p
erso
n
m3/person
2020 target m3/p (maintain 2014 value)
m3 total
556 555
499464
384 384
312 299 297 300 299 290
50 000
100 000
150 000
200 000
250 000
300 000
350 000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
m3 to
tal
L/m
2
L/m2
2020 target L/m2 (maintain 2014 value)
m3 total
Figure B7 shows the water consumption since 2011. Data for 2015 is for all Commission buildings, but in previ-ous years only those registered under EMAS. Total water consumption per m2 and per person increased drastically between 2015 and 2016. Again, this is partly due to the addition of three new buildings but it was also noted that water consumption in JMO was abnormally high in 2016. Water consumption data is received relatively late, therefore it is planned to change the system and receive data earlier in order to react quicker to anomalies.
B4.3 Office and offset paper
The evolution of office and offset paper in Luxembourg and per capita breakdown is presented below.
Figures B8 and B9: Evolution of paper consumption at Luxembourg (totals, and per person)
0.042
0.035
0.028
0.024
0.018
0.034
0.0290.028
0.0180.017
0.010.01
0.00 0.00 0.00
32
27 27
24
1917
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Shee
ts/p
erso
n /d
ay
Tonn
es/p
erso
n (t
otal
.offi
ce a
nd o
ffset
)
Offset paper (tonnes)Office paper (tonnes)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Brussels
Total paper
Offset paper Office paper (sheets/day)
0.024
2013 2014 2015 20162011 2012
Total paper consumption (tonnes)
27.1
167
32
135
23.1
138
23
115
22.9
114
114
20.5
96
96
18.3
86
86
16.4
77
77
Office (A4 sheet equivalent) × 1 000 000
Office paper
Figure B8 and B9 show how office paper use has reduced over time. In 2016, the office paper consumption was around 16.4 million A4 pages. The number of pages per person per day decreased from 18 to 16. The statistics includes A3 but excludes ‘special’ paper ordered for printshop services.
(b) Offset paper
OIL stopped using offset machines in its print shop in 2013.
B16
B5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint
B5.1 CO2 emissions from buildings
(a) Buildings (energy consumption)
Figures B10: CO2 emissions from buildings’ energy consumption (tonnes)
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
9 000
10 000
district heating/cooling
mains gas
electricity
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 869 1 359 1 567 2 686 9 200 10 400
752 595 779 526 3 360 4 126
117 764 788 639 5 161 6 274
0 0 0 1.522 680 0
The large increase in emissions in 2015 results from the total for Luxembourg being calculated for all buildings, not just those to be registered under EMAS and this included the data centres.
Figures B11 and B12: CO2 emissions from buildings’ energy consumption (tonnes/person, and kg/m2)
1.15 1.03 1.10
1.80 1.97
2.24
- - -
1.02
0.15 -
0.15
0.58 0.55 0.43
1.11
1.35
0.99
0.45 0.55
0.35
0.72 0.89
1.71
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
tonnes CO2/person Total electricity
gas district heating
Target 2014-20
31.37
27.22 24.22
40.85 39.98 43.07
- - -
23.14
2.95 -
4.24
15.29 12.18
9.71
22.43 25.98
27.13
11.92 12.04 8.00
14.60 17.09
39
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Kg CO2 /m2 Total electricity
gas district heating
Target 2014-20
Figures B11 and B12 show that CO2 emissions increased by 13.7 % on a per capita basis and by 7.6 % per square metre in 2016. The spike in electricity consumption in 2014 was due to the addition of the data centres, which consume large quantities of electricity relative to the other buildings but have virtually no staff. In 2016, the Commission occupied three new office buildings while JMO building was still in use. The new buildings are heated by gas, therefore the increase in gas consumption, but also in CO2 emissions.
Figures B11 and B12 also show that performance was above the 2014-2020 target. There was no target for 2016 and no specific action in the EMAS annual action plan to reduce CO2 emissions from buildings, because CO2 emissions reductions are generally considered to be a consequence of actions targeting a reduction in energy consumption. However, measures taken to reduce energy consumption will inevitably also reduce emissions.
(b) Buildings — other greenhouse gases (refrigerants)
Commission does not have refrigerant data for buildings in Luxembourg prior to 2013. The HVAC installations containing HFCs are managed by the building owners, who at the Commission’s request provide inspection results relating to refrigerants. Data are being updated to include refrigerants from buildings newly introduced to EMAS.
B17
B5.2 CO2 emissions from vehicles (indicator 2c)
(a) Commission vehicle fleet
Emissions from the Luxembourg vehicle fleet are shown in Table B9.
Table B9: CO2 emissions from the Luxembourg vehicle fleet
2013 2014 2015 2016
Site vehicle CO2 emissions (tonnes) 131 137 145 171
tonnes CO2/person 0.032 0.034 0.031 0.037
i) from diesel (tonnes) 129 135 142 168
ii) from petrol (tonnes) 1.6 2.4 2.9 3.3
These are largely from diesel powered vehicles, and the 18 % increase in 2016 is comparable to the 16 % rise in total distance travelled described in section B4.1 (b).
Figure B13: Emissions per km and distance travelled per vehicle
20 000
21 000
22 000
23 000
24 000
25 000
26 000
27 000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Aver
age
kms/
vehi
cle
Vehi
cle
emiss
ions
(gCO
2/km
)
gCO2/km (manufacturer)
gCO2/km (actual)
kms/vehicle
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
191 182
240 228
179
217
22 331
171
220
24 956
167
218
26 640
161
202
25 727
Average actual CO2 emissions were 202 g/km in 2016. There has been a relatively steady downward trend in manufacturer and actual emissions (with one deviation in 2014), reflecting the improved performance of the vehicle fleet resulting from newer vehicles (with the best performance in their class) replacing old ones, and also the impact of driver training.
To further decrease the impact, OIL is considering replacing some service cars with electric vehicles.
(b) Missions and local work based travel (excluding Commission vehicle fleet)
There were no specific Luxembourg actions targeting mobility for missions. However corporate activities related to missions include promoting videoconferencing in order to reduce the number of missions.
(c) Commuting
Measures taken in 2016 to promote more environmentally friendly transport means for staff included:
� Free distribution of the Jobkaart in Luxembourg City public transport networks and the subsidised M-Pass card for the transport network within the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. OIL has continuously worked with other institutions to enlarge the coverage of M-Pass;
� Providing buildings with bicycle parking and showers to encourage staff to cycle to work; and
� Organisation of mobility days on 20 April and 19 October to promote public transport use and soft mobility (for more details, please see below).
There were no specific objectives in 2016 or approved action plans to reduce CO2 emissions resulting from staff mobility. However, Commission continues to promote the use of biking and the use of public transport by staff. There were 762 bicycle journeys in 2016, 22 % more than in 2015 (627). In 2016, the Commission continued
B18
providing interested staff with Jobkaart. In addition it responded to 230 requests from staff of the Publications Office, the Translation Centre and the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency, for the annual ticket for the transport network within the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (M Pass), up from 164 in 2015.
In 2017 the Commission, in relation to commuting in/to Luxembourg, continued its excellent cooperation with public authorities and other European institutions in promoting the use of public transport.
B5.3 Carbon footprint
Figure B14: Carbon footprint contributors for Luxembourg (Tonnes CO2)
2 000
4 000
6 000
8 000
10 000
12 000
14 000
2013
2014
2015
2016
0 0 131 419 101 00 0
0 0 137 390 106 00 0
0 0 145 427 577 00 0
788
639
5.161
6.274 0 0 171
0
0
427
84
1.522
0
680
0
779
526
3 360
4 126
1 381
1 322
1 048
952
204
132
212
6 517 132 00 0
3 804
4 773
12 036
12 262
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commissionvehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
(+cooling)
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
Figure B15: Carbon footprint contributors for Luxembourg (Tonnes CO2/person)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
0
0
0.55
0.43
1.11
1.35
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.02
0.00
1.02
0.15
0.00
0.55
0.35
0.72
0.89
0.34
0.33
0.22
0.20
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.12
0.03
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000 0
1.65
2.32
2.58
2.64
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commissionvehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
(+cooling)
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
2013
2014
2015
2016
There are several components contributing to the measured carbon footprint, as shown in the figures above, of which energy for buildings consumption and business (air travel) are the most important. Reporting has become more complete in 2015 and 2016 with the inclusion of all buildings in Luxembourg in the reporting. However, the change in per capita footprint has been relatively small since 2014 when the Hitec and Windhof data cen-tres were included within the reporting.
B5.4 Total air emissions of other air pollutants (SO2, NO2, PM)
These are not currently evaluated.
B19
B6 Improving waste management and sortingIn 2015, the Commission moved 1 000 people from the JMO to new office accommodation. The remaining 600 followed by mid-2016. As shown below in Figures B16 and B17 the move was responsible for considerably more waste being generated in 2015 and 2016 than previous years, partly due to more limited availability of space in the new buildings.
B6.1 Non-hazardous waste
Figure B16: Evolution of total non-hazardous waste in Luxembourg (tonnes)
Kitchen waste
Valorlux
Metal drinks cans
Wood
Storage tins
Glass
Metals
Plastic
Paper and card
Unsorted waste
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
177 153 904 1058Total
Total (tonnes/person) 0.124 0.103 0.194 0.227
1.2 9.5 92 138
2.0 2.5 7.1 6.7
0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.4 0.8 13.8 68
0.6 0.4 0.1 1.5
3.4 3.2 10.8 27.3
0.5 0.4 19.8 109
3.0 1.7 4.2 8.9
57.6 48.6 301 298
186
0.245
0.0
1.2
0.1
3.1
1.1
4.1
0.7
3.9
56.2
116
145
0.110
0.0
1.0
0.2
1.5
0.8
3.6
0.4
3.1
48.5
86.0 107 85.8 456 400
The quantity of non-hazardous waste measured on a per capita basis increased from 194 kg in 2015 to 227 kg in 2016. The increase in metals, wood and glass was due to moving out of the JMO building.
B20
B6.2 Hazardous Waste
Figure B17: Evolution of total hazardous waste in Luxembourg (tonnes)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 1.32 1.66 1.48 2.17 5.95 15.22
Total (tonnes/person) 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003
0.65 1.07 0.71 1.25 3.67 10.7
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.69 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 1.69
0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.34 1.78
0.28 0.29 0.35 0.36 0.02 0.48
0.35 0.26 0.27 0.38 0.70 0.62
Oil and fat
Electric cables
Cartridges
Data support
Used containers
Used batteries
Medical waste
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Hazardous waste generation more than doubled in 2016 for reasons described above.
B6.3 Waste sorting
Table B10: Percentage of waste sorted at the Commission in Luxembourg
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Percentage of waste sorted 38.2 41.4 40.1 44.7 49.9 62.7
Percentage of waste not sorted 61.8 58.6 59.9 55.3 50.1 37.3
The waste recycling rate increased significantly from 50 % to 63 % owing to strict controls on waste sorting in place during cleaning and decommissioning of the JMO building.
B7 Protecting biodiversityNo specific activities are reported for 2016, nor actions in place for 2017.
B8 Green public procurement (GPP)
B8.1 Incorporating GPP into procurement contracts
OIL aims to integrate environmental criteria into its contracts, increasing the number of contracts with such crite-ria in recent years. In 2016, OIL signed 15 contracts each worth more than EUR 60 000 and all but one (4) includ-ing the following clause:
The Commission is particularly attentive to environmental considerations and applies EMAS Regulation No 1221/2009. It requires its contractors to comply with the institution’s environmental policy and the environmental legislation in force in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
The contractor must implement environmentally sound procedures and practices and help to improve the Commis-sion’s environmental performance. It must provide any documentation that is necessary without delay in order that the Commission can meet its EMAS obligations.
(4) The contract not including this clause related to intellectual property rights (value EUR 130 700).
B21
B8.2 Office supplies
Office supplies are provided by a single provider. Approximately 26 % of products in the catalogue carried a ‘green’ designation. The value of green products purchased however increased slightly from EUR 68 944 to EUR 71 916 out of EUR 137 671 in total, which is 52.2 %.
B9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparednessThe EMAS regulation requires EMAS-Organisations to provide evidence of legal compliance with environmental legislation, including permits. Such compliance is necessary for the release of the environmental permits from the Luxembourgish authorities for each building of the European Commission in Luxembourg.
In 2016, OIL conducted actions in the following fields:
Continuity:
� worked on the extension of the modules to be implemented in the GEPI software (software to manage the buildings — different modules on Operating permit/Energy/ waste/Green building EMAS) — and put in place a working group on the best improvements/customisation to be implemented in the GEPI.
Environmental Legislation/Conference:
� continued to develop a network of contact persons within the various accredited bodies and control offices in Luxembourg;
� attended the first annual Conference on Environmental Legislation, organised by the Luxembourg Insti-tute of Science and Technology (LIST) which took place in Luxembourg on 1 December 2016 to explain the future modifications of the environmental legislation in Luxembourg (Classified Establishments, Industrial Emissions, Waste, and Permit) and the presentation of the future national legislation;
� participated at the PAED ‘Plan d’action pour l’énergie durable’ of the City of Aubange (Belgium) in the focus of the implementation of the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (www.conventiondes-maires.eu). Heralded as the ‘world’s biggest urban climate and energy initiative’ by Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, the Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy brings together thousands of local and regional authorities voluntarily committed to implementing EU climate and energy objectives on their territory. New signatories now pledge to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 40 % by 2030 and to adopt an integrated approach to tackling mitigation and adaptation to climate change; and
� attended a training entitled: ‘Understand the Law on Classified Establishments’.
Internal Audit/Environmental Verification:
� conducted an in-depth analysis and follow-up of the documents to be requested from the landlord under the lease agreements for the three new buildings — Ariane, Laccolith and JMO T (T2) and carried out an analysis and research in relation to the Technical Building Manual (MIT).
Internal HR decisions:
� A new administrator of the Maintenance Sector has been appointed to assist the permits manager with the management of the operating permits. Moreover, thanks to his technical background, the for-mer contributes significantly to the preparation of internal audits and environmental verification for the technical aspects HVAC and electricity and on the implementation and follow-up of the actions to be taken, the corrections to be made or the procedures to be implemented.
B9.1 Management of the legal register and checking/establishing legal compliance
OIL has put in place a legal compliance system via an external contractor. All changes in current legislation are communicated to relevant parties and followed up. The permit management is described more in detail in point B9.5.
B9.2 Prevention, risk management and emergency preparedness
OIL has several measures in place to prevent and manage risks, the most important being:
� Regular evacuation exercises: of which 14 were organised in 2016; and
B22
� Trainings on fire prevention: of which there were 62 (half-day) sessions for 386 participants in 2016.
B9.3 Integrating more buildings in the EMAS registration
Figures B18 and B19 below represent respectively the evolution in the number of buildings in Luxembourg that will be included in the next update of the EMAS and the number of staff they accommodate.
Figures B18, B19: Evolution of buildings and staff in the EMAS area
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
4 000
4 500
5 000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Staff in EMAS registered buildings Total staff
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
No buildings for EMAS registration Total no of buildings
The number of buildings and staff in the EMAS perimeter has increased since 2011, now accounting for more than 50 % of both (58.2 % for surface and 84 % for population). In 2016, three new buildings were added (cf table B4).
B9.4 Conformity with the EMAS system
OIL monitors the EMAS internal audit and verification audit findings in collaboration with DG HR. OIL is responsi-ble for addressing audit findings related to non-conformities (as well as scopes for improvement). In 2016, con-tinued efforts were made in closing non-conformities. During 2016, 32 non-conformities were closed.
B9.5 Compliance with environmental and other permits
The Luxembourg authorities issue environmental permits for each Commission building. In 2016, continuous improvements were made in the following topics:
� OIL continued improvements to further review and track permits and legal requirements while manag-ing the new legislation for a good legal monitoring and improvements of the technical and legal con-trols. Launch of the file concerning the updating of the operating permit for the Euroforum building. Under an emphyteotic lease contract the OIL is studying solutions to improve the energy efficiency of the facilities;
� Implementation of a new procedure for the systematic dispatch of all certificates for the disposal of hydrocarbons, greases, fluids, by the contractors in charge of the refrigeration installations through their annual operating report; and
� Compliance was ensured by the owners of the leased buildings, for example by setting up and validating a building permit management procedure.
B10 Communication
B10.1 Internal communication
The main communication events during 2016 were the following:
(a) Mobility Day in EUFO (20 April)
The EMAS coordination team organised a mobility day in the EUFO building which is situated at Cloche d’Or to inform staff about new ways to commute following their move from JMO.
The event included stands manned by Verkéiersverbond (Service Mobilité), the national railway company (la Société nationale des chemins de fer luxembourgeois), Luxembourg City (le Service des autobus de la Ville de Luxembourg) and Luxtram.
B23
In addition to asking questions about their commute between home, school, and work, staff was also able to learn about Jobkaart, M-Pass, the status of the tramway development, cycling routes and all other aspects of mobility in Luxembourg and in surrounding areas.
(b) Interinstitutional Green Day (1 June)
The Commission cooperated with other European Institutions to organise an interinstitutional Green Day in the BECH building whose theme was ‘Investing in a greener future’. Several actors and organisations were invited to present their innovations in the field of the environment including:
— ENOVOS (main energy supplier in Luxembourg);
— City of Luxembourg;
— Emweltberodung (an NGO on environment that offers continuous exchange platform for environmental ques-tions, especially for local municipalities);
— Center for Ecological Learning (CELL);
— Ettelbruck Agricultural Technical School; and
— ECONET (interinstitutional network for European institutions in Luxembourg).
The Emweltberodung also provided an exhibition entitled ‘Anti pesticides — promoting alternative techniques and methods for the management of green spaces’.
(c) Mobility Day in T2 (19 October)
The EMAS coordination team organised a ‘Mobility Day’ at the T2 building, located in Kirchberg so that the staff who had relocated from the JMO building to the T2 could benefit from up-to-date information. The event was supported by the Verkéiersverbond (Service Mobilité), the Luxembourg National Railway Company, the Luxem-bourg City Bus Service and Luxtram with information stands.
In addition to finding out about school-to-home journeys, Jobkaart or M-Pass, the status of the tram project, staff was also updated on the development of bicycle paths in Luxembourg and on other mobility related subjects in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Greater Region. Experts from the different organisations were able to propose several public transport alternatives.
(d) Waste campaign (November)
During the European waste reduction week ‘Give your waste a second life!’ in November 2016, Luxembourg launched an information campaign on food waste and packaging. OIL collects food waste from Commission can-teens as required by the Luxembourg government’s legal obligation to separate bio-waste for biomethanisation.
A video was produced showing how kitchen waste from Commission canteens are treated and provide heating energy for households. A second short video explained why plastic bottles should be recycled.
(e) Emails (all year)
OIL continues to manage the OIL EMAS functional mailbox to respond to staff enquiries on environment topics.
B10.2 External communication and stakeholder management
The Commission has regular contacts with the Luxembourg authorities, particularly the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure and Luxembourg City. In addition there have been regular contacts with associ-ations playing an important role in the field of waste management, energy efficiency and mobility. These include the following organisations:
� Verkéiersverbond — the body founded by Luxembourgish Ministry of Transport and who is responsible for the bargaining strategy, development of alternative kinds of mobility, coordinated activities of the responsible actors in the public transport sector as well as promotion and development of alternative transport technologies;
� ECOTREL — a non-profit association, which was created by 43 Luxembourg producers and importers to cover their legal obligations derived from the European Directive 2012/19/EU;
B24
� ECObatterien — non-profit organisation with the aim to help producers and importers of batteries and accumulators to fulfil their obligations;
� SuperDrecksKëscht — a body that operates for the Luxembourgish Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructures in fields of information and awareness, regarding issues related to waste manage-ment and prevention, and disposal of dangerous substances;
� MyEnergy — a national structure for promoting the transition to sustainable energy use; and
� and Luxtram, have participated at Commission’s events.
B11 Training
B11.1 Internal training
Training is an important element of the EMAS system. Training sessions for newcomers at the Commission are held by DG HR in full cooperation with OIL.
In addition, various awareness-raising activities including videos, communication, newsletters, and meetings were organised.
B11.2 External training
There were no training sessions organised for external stakeholders in 2016, and none were planned for 2017.
B12 EMAS Costs and savingTable B11: EMAS administration and energy costs for buildings in the EMAS area
Parameter 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Direct EMAS Cost (EUR) 396 000 462 000 462 000 469 000 469 000
Total Direct Cost per employee 99 114 114 100 101
Total buildings energy cost (EUR) 983 481 2 020 653 5 170 438 2 590 576
Total buildings energy cost (EUR/person) 692 1 354 1 108 557
Total fuel costs (vehicles) (EUR) 64 083 67 215 71 138 -
Total energy costs (EUR/person) 16 17 15 -
Total water costs (EUR) 43 348 43 208 98 032 368 001
Water (EUR/person) 30 29 21 79
Total paper cost (EUR) 82 102 69 120 61 690 59 521
Total paper cost (EUR/person) 20 17 13 13
Waste disposal (general) — unit cost/tonne 335 342 342 342
Waste disposal (general) — EUR/person 42 35 66 78
B25
The change from 2015 to 2016 in EMAS-related annual costs is summarised below:
1. Total direct EMAS coordination costs remained almost the same (EUR 100.8 in 2016);
2. Total energy costs (excluding those for district heating) decreased nearly 50 % to EUR 557 per person. This is due to the decrease in electricity price;
3. Price calculation for fuel will be updated during 2018;
4. Water costs increased drastically. This is partly due to abnormal increase in water consumption but also the change in price — in 2016, the price of sewage was added to the water price;
5. Total paper costs remained the same (EUR 13 per person); and
6. Both non-hazardous waste costs and hazardous waste cost increased due to the enormous quantity of waste resulting from JMO emptying exercises.
B13 Conversion factors:Parameter and units 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
kWh of energy provided by one litre diesel 0 0 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89
kWh of energy provided by one litre petrol 0 0 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42
Paper Density (g/m2) 80.0 80.0 77.5 75.0 75.0 75.0
Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh of electricity (if grid average.) 0.000 0.671 0.671 0.671
Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh natural gas 0.190 0.190 0.190 0.190 0.190 0.190
Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh tanked gas 0.000 0.000 0.204 0.204
Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh diesel 0.264 0.264 0.264 0.264 0.264 0.264
Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh 0.328 0.328 0.328 0.328 0.328 0.328
GWP of R22 1 810 1 810 1 810 1 810
GWP of R410A 2 090 2 090 2 090 2 090
GWP of R134A 1 430 1 430 1 430 1 430
GWP of R404A 3 260 3 260 3 260 3 260
GWP of R407C 1 526 1 526 1 526 1 526
GWP of 417A 22 800 2 346
GWP of R600A 22 800 3
Kgs CO2 from one litre of diesel 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67
Kgs CO2 from one litre of petrol 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28
Note: See Corporate volume for conversion factor references.
Environmental Statement2016 resultsAnnex C: JRC PettenFinal
Prepared by the EMAS Site Coordination Team in JRC Petten:Eriksen, BrianWagenaar, Cornelis
Supervision: Brian Erikson (JRC-PETTEN)
Contact: [email protected]
Cover illustration: Photo provided by the EMAS Site Coordination Team in JRC Petten.
All other illustrations: © European Union unless otherwise stated.
Environmental Statement
2016 resultsAnnex C: JRC Petten
Final
C2
C1 Overview of core indicators at Petten since 2010 .......................................................................................................C4C2 Description of Petten activities and key stakeholders ...............................................................................................C6C3 Environmental impact of Petten activities .......................................................................................................................C8C4 More efficient use of natural resources .............................................................................................................................C9C5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint...............................................................................................................C12C6 Improving waste management and sorting ..................................................................................................................C16C7 Protecting biodiversity ..............................................................................................................................................................C17C8 Green public procurement .......................................................................................................................................................C18C9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness ......................................................................C18C10 Communication .............................................................................................................................................................................C19C11 Training ..............................................................................................................................................................................................C20C12 EMAS costs and saving .............................................................................................................................................................C21C13 Conversion factors ......................................................................................................................................................................C21C14 Site breakdown performance of selected parameters ............................................................................................C22
Contents
C3
ANNEX C: JRC-PETTEN — Administrative and research activities
The mission of the Joint Research Centre (JRC)-Petten is to serve as the point of reference for the Commis-sion, Member States and research organisations providing scientific and technical support to Energy, Transport and Climate policies. This is supported by studies, installations for conducting long term tests and experimental research. The EMAS scope at JRC Petten includes the entire site within the JRC boundary. This excludes the HFR (High Flux Reactor) this is not in the EMAS scope.
C4
C1
Over
view
of c
ore
indi
cato
rs a
t Pet
ten
since
201
0JR
C-Pe
tten
have
bee
n co
llect
ing
data
on
core
indi
cato
rs fo
r the
Pet
ten
site
since
201
0. T
heir
valu
es in
201
0 an
d fr
om 2
013
to 2
016
are
show
n in
Tab
le A
1, a
long
with
per
form
ance
tre
nd, a
nd ta
rget
s w
here
app
licab
le fo
r 202
0.
Tabl
e C1
: His
toric
al d
ata,
per
form
ance
and
targ
ets
for c
ore
indi
cato
rs fo
r Com
mis
sion
-leve
l rep
ortin
g
Phys
ical
indi
cato
rs:
Hist
oric
dat
a va
lues
Perf
orm
ance
tren
d (%
) sin
ce:
Targ
et
(Num
ber,
desc
iptio
n an
d un
it)20
10 (1 )
2013
2014
2015
2016
2010
2013
2014
2015
2020
* Δ
% (2 ),
(3 )va
lue
(2 ),
(3 )
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(MW
h/p)
37.4
631
.84
23.9
924
.87
24.0
0– 3
5.9
– 24.
60.
0– 3
.5– 5
.022
.791
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(KW
h/m
2 )47
243
734
832
332
3– 3
1.6
– 26.
1– 7
.10.
0– 5
.033
0
1c) N
on re
n. e
nerg
y us
e (b
ldgs
) %97
.397
.897
.897
.0– 0
.3– 0
.8– 0
.8– 5
.092
.9
1d) W
ater
(m3 /p
)11
.50
19.2
611
.14
11.6
914
.07
22.3
– 26.
926
.320
.3– 5
.010
.581
1d) W
ater
(L/m
2 )14
526
416
115
218
930
.6– 2
8.4
17.3
24.7
– 5.0
153
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (T
onne
s/p)
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
– 79.
3– 5
8.3
– 47.
7– 5
7.9
– 5.0
0.01
6
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (S
heet
s/p/
day)
4020
1621
9– 7
7.9
– 55.
5– 4
4.2
– 57.
9– 5
.015
.1
2a) C
O 2 bui
ldin
gs (T
onne
s/p)
14.4
911
.79
9.79
9.81
8.66
– 40.
2– 2
6.5
– 11.
5– 1
1.7
– 5.0
9.29
9
2b) C
O 2 bui
ldin
gs (k
g/m
2 )18
316
214
212
711
7– 3
6.2
– 28.
0– 1
7.8
– 8.5
– 5.0
134.
8
2c) C
O 2 veh
icles
(g/k
m, m
anu.
)18
016
814
814
8– 1
7.8
– 11.
70.
0– 5
.015
9.2
2c) C
O 2 veh
icles
(g/k
m, a
ctua
l)24
729
223
622
9– 7
.1– 2
1.5
– 2.7
– 5.0
277.
7
3a) N
on h
az. w
aste
(Ton
nes/
p)0.
078
0.15
50.
105
0.10
00.
117
50.5
– 24.
911
.316
.7– 5
.00.
100
3b) H
azar
dous
was
te (T
onne
s/p)
0.00
320.
0074
0.00
340.
0104
0.00
00– 1
00.0
– 100
.0– 1
00.0
– 100
.0– 6
.30.
003
3c) S
epar
ated
was
te (%
)72
.976
.161
.068
.356
.5– 2
2.4
– 25.
8– 7
.4– 1
7.3
4.8
64.2
Econ
omic
indi
cato
rs (E
ur/p
)En
ergy
con
sum
ptio
n (b
ldgs
)1
858
1 52
01
225
1 23
71
199
– 35.
5– 2
1.1
– 2.1
– 3.1
– 5.0
1 16
3
Wat
er c
onsu
mpt
ion
23.0
38.5
22.3
23.4
28.1
22.3
– 26.
926
.320
.3– 5
.021
.2
Non
haz.
was
te d
ispos
al7.
014
.09.
49.
010
.550
.5– 2
4.9
11.3
16.7
– 5.0
9.0
Note
: (1)
Ear
liest
repo
rted
data
; (2)
com
pare
d to
201
4; (3
) EM
AS A
nnua
l Act
ion
Plan
201
7 * T
arge
t for
% im
prov
emen
t for
the
perio
d 20
14-2
020
C5
The core indicators show that since 2010 there has been substantial progress in reducing the environmental impact of building energy usage, with energy consumption and CO2 emissions by 30 % or more. This reflects efforts to improve energy efficiency including installing insulation, more efficient heating and improved building management. Purchased non-renewable energy accounts for a majority of site CO2 emissions, and the option of contracting mains electricity from more renewable sources is under investigation.
Water consumption is monitored by building and has decreased since 2010 but in 2016 increased due to more research activities in building 310.
Paper consumption decreased significantly in 2016 compared with previous years, but it should be noted that paper consumption is based on purchase paper and only and small amounts were purchased in 2016 due to available stock.
The CO2 emission from site service vehicles performance remains stable because there were no changes to the vehicle fleet.
Non-hazardous waste generation increased due to a unique action in 2016 where intensive cleaning activities where performed in several buildings and cupboards. In 2016 there was no transport of hazardous waste from the Petten site.
The evolution of the EMAS system baseline parameters in JRC Petten is as shown below.
Table C2: EMAS baseline parameters
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Population: total staff 232 229 266 263 282 278 276
Total no operational buildings 14 14 14 14 14 17 16
Useful surface area for all buildings (m2) 18 400 18 400 19 150 19 150 19 458 21 397 20 502
Due to the demolition of building (330) and disuse of the old reception building (315), and the new Smart Grid laboratory building (311) the useful surface area decreased slightly. The population also reduced by 2 in 2016.
C6
C2 Description of Petten activities and key stakeholdersOn the JRC-Petten site, the European Commission conducts scientific research and delivers technical support and administrative activities for partners in relation to energy, transport and climate policies. Increasingly research is based on modelling studies, which generates a more administrative workload. The research is based on the results of laboratory work in facilities for hydrogen fuel cell testing, hydrogen storage tank testing and optimisa-tion, battery testing and at several locations advanced material testing for nuclear and other high tech industries.
The site is located in an extensive area of coastal dunes in Noord-Holland, the Netherlands, 50 kilometres North West of Amsterdam. It contains 16 buildings of which three are administrative, the others contain laboratories, workshops, storage and utility installations for research and the support of research. The site is located on the Petten Research Centre Campus together with the Energy Research Foundation of the Netherlands (ECN) and the Nuclear Research and consultancy Group (NRG) which is operator and license holder of the High Flux Reactor, which is not in the EMAS scope. Curium (formerly Mallinckrodt Medical B.V.) is the fourth occupant of the campus and mainly produces medical isotopes.
The research activities on-site, test installations and laboratories make JRC-Petten a type C premises under Dutch legislation ‘activiteitenbesluit’, requiring that activities and emissions be permitted. The site environmental per-mit was renewed in 2016 in close cooperation with the authorities. The new permit requirements are incorpo-rated in the license compliance register.
On 18 October 2016 the ‘Omgevingsdienst Noordzeekanaal gebied’of the Province of North-Holland con-ducted an inspection of the site’s geothermal well. This uses groundwater for the storage and discharge of energy for an experimental installation. The inspection verified reported data including performance and maintenance records did not result in any findings or corrective actions.
In March 2016 the Commission cooperated with Petten research campus’s flora and fauna committee and the ‘Staatsbosbeheer’ (national forestry authority) to organise a nature work afternoon during which JRC col-leagues removed invasive plant species. The focus was on the grey willow tree which is spreading through the dunes and changing the landscape. Under the NATURA-2000 designation of this part of the site there is an obli-gation to maintain the existing flora and fauna.
The regional safety authority, safety region (Veiligheidsregio Noord-Holland-Noord) ‘disaster Management Plan’ was renewed in 2016 (and the same parts approved in early 2017). The Internal Emergency Organization (INO) for the Petten Research Campus was also changed in 2016. The main change in the new INO is the removal of a central campus coordinator during emergencies. Each company is responsible for its own emergency prepar-edness but when there are large incidents response will be coordinated by the safety region. JRC Petten is also currently updating its company emergency and business continuity plans.
C7
JRC-Petten site plan
The general description of buildings is provided below; Table C15 presents detailed description of the buildings and their usage.
Building General description of building use
308, 309, 315T, 320 Offices
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 319, 325 Experimental hall, laboratories, offices
316, 318, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 327, 328, 340, 350, 351, 352 Storage, distribution, infrastructure
C8
C3 Environmental impact of Petten activitiesJRC Petten undertook a full update of the environmental aspects in 2015, the results of which are summarised in the table below. In 2016 there was no significant change.
Table C3: Summary of significant environmental aspects for the Petten site
Aspect group Environmental aspect
Environmental impact
Activity, product or service Indicator/ Action Plan
1) Resources Electricity (Indirect) & fossil fuel consumption
Reduction in natural resources
heating, cooling, ventilation, electrical equipment and transport
Indicator 1a, 1b
Paper consumption For office activities, printing, training and communication requirements
Indicator 1e, 1f
Water consumption For catering, sanitary and technical installations
Indicator 1d
2) Air CO2, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC emissions
Air pollution, climate change
Buildings: HVAC and equipment maintenance
Indicators 2a, 2c,-2d,
Transport: work-related travel and journeys to and from work (organisation and personal)
HCFC gas emissions Depletion of the ozone layer
Used in cooling systems Indicator 2b; action plans
2) Local aspects Dust and noise Noise and air pollution, health risks
Noise produced by machines and installations in general and specific the generator; staff travel and Commission car fleet
Indicator 2c/ mobility plan
3) Waste (Hazardous) waste production
Air, water and/or soil pollution, biodiversity risks
Research laboratories, sanitary installations, cleaning, maintenance, office activities, IT and catering
Indicator 3b
3) Water Wastewater discharge Risk of eutrophication, water pollution
Sanitary, technical installations and research laboratories
monitoring plan
4) Bio- diversity Choice of products and their origin
Destabilisation of ecosystems
For catering and gardening Indicator 5a
Choice of sites and type of buildings
Destruction of natural habitat, relief, visual pollution
In the context of the Commission’s buildings policy (Life cycle approach)
Indicator 4a
5) (Indirect) financing
Indirect environmental aspects linked to programmes to be financed
Environmental impact caused by third parties
Taking the environment into account in project selection and evaluation*
Indicator 5a; green procurement policy
5) (Indirect) public procurement
Environmental performance of contractors. Sustainability and impact of products and services selected.
Environmental impact caused by third parties
Integration of environmental clauses in contracts: influence of contract through ‘sustainable’ purchases
Indicator 5a; green procurement policyLife cycle approach.
6) Environmental risks (legal compliance and emergency preparedness)
Load losses, malfunctions, leakages, spills of chemicals, gas, waste, etc.
Air, water and/or soil pollution, health risks
In the context of delivery, storage and use of chemicals/fuel used for maintenance of the technical installations, waste management, storage and fire prevention
Emergency planning, legal compliance: Indicator 6a
* These indirect aspects are managed via a series of specific mechanisms, including impact analysis (see point 2.1), and regulatory measures.
C9
C4 More efficient use of natural resources
C4.1 Energy consumption
Buildings energy consumption data should be considered in the context of climatic conditions. Analysis of degree data (1) presented below suggests that climatic conditions may have been more extreme in 2016 than in either 2014 or 2015 and that therefore more heating and cooling may have been necessary.
Figure C1: Total annual degree days at Petten, 2012-2016
Cold degree days, cooling required
Hot degree days, heating required
kWh/person/degree day (1)
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total degree days 2 389
272
2 117
10.62
2 591
290
2 301
12.29
1 983
354
1 629
12.10
2 102
250
1 852
11.83
2 351
386
1 965
10.21
(a) Buildings
The evolution of total annual energy consumption is presented in Figure C2, the activities in the buildings are pre-sented in section C14. Per capita and consumption per square metre are presented in Figures C3 and C4.
Figure C2: Annual buildings energy consumption (MWh) in the EMAS perimeter (indicator 1a)
diesel
solar PV
mains supplied gas
electricity
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
9 000
10 000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 8 690 6 665 6 746 8 373 6 766 6 913 6 623
0 0 39 230 148 208 230
5 290 3 675 4 281 5 061 3 598 3 795 3 543
3 400 2 990 2 426 3 082 3 020 2 910 2 850
In 2016 we started a project to implement emergency power generator for critical installations on-site. In build-ing 310 the new emergency generator is placed, diesel is provided for this installation in 2017.
(1) Monthly data for INHALKMA1 station (15,5C reference temperature), www.degreedays.net; using buildings energy consumption data for JRC Petten.
C10
Figures C3 and C4: Evolution of total annual energy consumption for Petten EMAS buildings
37.5
29.1
25.4
31.8
24.0 24.9 24.0
22.8
14.713.1
9.111.7 10.7 10.5 10.3
22.8
16.0 16.119.2
12.8 13.7 12.8
0 0 0 00 0 0 00.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MWh/person
Total Total target 2020
Gas Fuel Photovoltaic
472
362350
437
348
323323330.3
185163
127161 155
136 139
288200
224264
185 177 173
0 0 2 12 8 10 11
0
100
300
200
400
500
600
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
kWh/m
Total Total target 2020Electricity GasFuel Photovoltaic
Electricity
There is a decrease in overall energy consumption for buildings. The EMAS targets for 2020 are within reach. The Commission expect the decrease to continue and the target to be reached. The reason for their being no reduc-tion in consumption measured per square metre in 2016 was the decrease of floor space owing to the removal of the temporary office building 330.
The most significant actions prioritising the reduction of energy consumption (indicator 1a) in the Annual action plan are summarised below.
Table C4: Most important actions targeting indicator 1a (buildings energy consumption)
Action Building(s) Description of latest progress
For the reception and smart grid laboratory to be built, include in the technical specifications as designed and as measured values at the end of the construction, (EPC rating better than legal obligation).
Action: Formulate a verification protocol for the energy consumption during the contract following the completion of building works.
311, new 315
The protocol is put in the technical specifications and applied.
Action: Install wall cavity insulation. 313 Complete.
Action: Make a plan for (LED) lightning in transport routes of buildings inside buildings.
310, corridor Test with lighting is success. In the transport routes of the other building this type of lighting is going to be placed the coming years.
(b) Site Vehicles
Table C5: Vehicle energy consumption
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total (MWh/yr) 6.24 6.12 5.42 29.49 50.05
MWh/person 0.023 0.023 0.019 0.106 0.181
Diesel used (m3) 0.400 0.010 0.097 1.499 2.702
Petrol used (m3) 0.200 0.638 0.463 1.398 2.189
Total annual vehicle energy consumption illustrated above is less than 1 % of that for buildings. There are four site service vehicles which are used for missions, taxi support to Schiphol and Petten. The distance travelled increased significantly in 2016 due to greater use of the vehicle fleet for mission support. Vehicle efficiency has not changed as there were no changes to the vehicle fleet.
C11
(c) Renewable energy use in buildings and vehicles
Table C6: Non-renewable energy use in the buildings
Source of energy 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total electricity (MWh) 3 400 2 990 2 426 3 082 3 020 2 910 2 850
from non renewables (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Mains supplied gas (MWh) 5 290 3 675 4 281 5 061 3 598 3 795 3 543
from non renewables (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Site generated PV (MWh) 39 230 148 208 230
from renewables (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Total renewables (MWh) 39 230 148 208 230
Total renewables (%) 0.6 2.7 2.2 3.0 3.5
Total non-ren. energy use, (MWhr/yr) 6 707 8 143 6 618 6 705 6 393
Non-ren. energy as part of total, (%) 99.4 97.3 97.8 97.0 96.5
The proportion of non-renewable energy use on site currently depends on the amount of electricity generated by our solar panels (8 % of the consumed electricity on-site). This is significant, and on sunny days buildings receive all of their electricity from the solar panels. The Commission is investigating purchasing electricity from the mains with a greater portion generated from renewable sources.
C4.2 Water consumption
As shown below in figures C5 and C6, on-site water consumption increased by almost 20 % in 2016 due to long duration tests full cell durability experiments which monitoring by site management indicated to be an additional 500 m3 at the laboratory in building 310. In building 309 an increase of water consumption of around 50 m3 was detected and an investigation revealed a leak in one of the toilets.
Figures C5 and C6: Evolution of total annual water consumption for JRC Petten (indicator 1d)
11.50
28.47
28.67
19.26
11.14
11.6914.05
10.58
2 669
6 520
7 625
5 065
3 1413 250
3 877
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
9 000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
m3 to
tal
m3 /p
erso
n
m3/person2020 target m3/p (AAP2016)m3 total
145
354
398
264
161
152
189153
2 669
6 520
7 625
5 065
3 141 3 250 3 877
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
9 000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
m3 to
tal
L/m
2
L/m2
2020 target L/m2 (AAP2016)m3 total
C12
C4.3 Office and offset paper
The evolution of office paper consumption at Petten and per capita breakdown presented below.
Figures C7 and C8: Evolution of paper consumption at Petten (totals, and per person)
Offset paper (tonnes)
Office paper (tonnes)
0
2
4
6
8
10
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Office (A4 sheet equivalent) x 1 000 000
Total paper consumption (tonnes)
1.96
9.77
0
9.77
0.97
4.83
0
4.832
1.62
8.07
0
8.07
1.10
5.50
0
5.503
0.94
4.71
0
4.707
1.23
5.76
0
5.762
0.52
2.42
0
2.42
Paper use at Petten site has a long-term down-ward trend. In 2016 there was no purchase of A3 paper, there was sufficient on stock. The numbers reported are the numbers from the purchase of paper. In 2015 analysis was conducted to identify how to better measure paper consumption. How-ever it was established that relying on data from the multifunctional printers and print servers was not feasible as data could not be retrieved from some server systems and copiers do not require user identification.
C5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint
C5.1 CO2 emissions from buildings
(a) Buildings (energy consumption)
Figures C9 and C10: CO2 emissions from buildings energy consumption tonnes
diesel
mains gas
electricity
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
4 000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 3 361 2 756 2 501 3 100 2 760 2 727 2 390
1 079 750 873 1 032 734 774 719
2 281 2 006 1 628 2 068 2 026 1 953 1 671
0.042
0.021
0.030
0.021
0.017
0.021
0.009
40
20
29
20
16
21
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Shee
ts/d
ay
Tonn
es/p
erso
n
Office paper (tonnes/person)Office paper (sheets/day)
14.5
12.0
9.4
11.8
9.8 9.88.7
9.3
183
150
131
162
142127
117135
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Kg C
O2/m
2
Tonn
es C
O2/p
erso
n
Tonnes CO2/person
2020 target Tonnes CO2/person
kgCO2/m2
2020 target kg CO2/m2
C13
C4.3 Office and offset paper
The evolution of office paper consumption at Petten and per capita breakdown presented below.
Figures C7 and C8: Evolution of paper consumption at Petten (totals, and per person)
Offset paper (tonnes)
Office paper (tonnes)
0
2
4
6
8
10
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Office (A4 sheet equivalent) x 1 000 000
Total paper consumption (tonnes)
1.96
9.77
0
9.77
0.97
4.83
0
4.832
1.62
8.07
0
8.07
1.10
5.50
0
5.503
0.94
4.71
0
4.707
1.23
5.76
0
5.762
0.52
2.42
0
2.42
Paper use at Petten site has a long-term down-ward trend. In 2016 there was no purchase of A3 paper, there was sufficient on stock. The numbers reported are the numbers from the purchase of paper. In 2015 analysis was conducted to identify how to better measure paper consumption. How-ever it was established that relying on data from the multifunctional printers and print servers was not feasible as data could not be retrieved from some server systems and copiers do not require user identification.
C5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint
C5.1 CO2 emissions from buildings
(a) Buildings (energy consumption)
Figures C9 and C10: CO2 emissions from buildings energy consumption tonnes
diesel
mains gas
electricity
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
4 000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 3 361 2 756 2 501 3 100 2 760 2 727 2 390
1 079 750 873 1 032 734 774 719
2 281 2 006 1 628 2 068 2 026 1 953 1 671
0.042
0.021
0.030
0.021
0.017
0.021
0.009
40
20
29
20
16
21
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Shee
ts/d
ay
Tonn
es/p
erso
n
Office paper (tonnes/person)Office paper (sheets/day)
14.5
12.0
9.4
11.8
9.8 9.88.7
9.3
183
150
131
162
142127
117135
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Kg C
O2/m
2
Tonn
es C
O2/p
erso
n
Tonnes CO2/person
2020 target Tonnes CO2/person
kgCO2/m2
2020 target kg CO2/m2
Petten CO2 emissions are on target to meet the 5 % reduction for the period 2014-2020. The largest contribu-tion to Petten CO2 emissions was the purchase of mains electricity. CO2 emissions shall be reduced from the site if renewables are part of a future electricity supply contract.
(b) Buildings -other greenhouse gases (refrigerants)
Table C7: Emissions of equivalent CO2 emissions (tonnes) from cooling installations
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
R410a (t CO2 e) 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.56
R407C (t CO2 e) 0.00 5.33 11.98 0.00 5.25
R507A (t CO2 e) 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.50 0.00
Total (t CO2 e) 2.00 5.33 11.98 16.50 87.81
Total Tonnes CO2 e /person 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.32
Total Tonnes CO2 e/m2 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.004
In 2016 there were a greater number of coolant leaks detected during regular maintenance. The largest contri-bution (more than 50 % of the R410a) leaked from a large installation due to corrosion of piping. In addition, the phasing out of some installations required the extraction of coolant during which further missing quantities were identified. An inventory of coolants used on site with Greenhouse Warming Potential (GWP) greater than 2 500 (and to be phased out before 2030) was created in 2016. It identified one installation containing 5 kg of cool-ant R507 with a GWP 3 985.
C5.2 CO2 emissions from vehicles (indicator 2c)
(a) Commission vehicle fleet
Figure C11: Fleet CO2 emissions and fleet usage
2 000
4 000
6 000
8 000
10 000
12 000
14 000
16 000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ave
rage
km
s/ve
hicl
e
Veh
icle
em
issi
ons
(gCO
2/km
)
gCO2/km (manufacturer) gCO2/km (actual) kms/vehicle
The use of the site vehicle fleet increased 82 % in 2016 to an average of 14 000 km per vehicle, largely because of an increase in their use for missions. The service is more flexible and cost savings have been realised due to a greater focus on logistics. This resulted in more combined taxi fares, improved scheduling and fewer external orders for transport. Vehicle emissions per km were stable as there were no changes to the four vehicles.
C14
(b) Missions and local work based travel (excluding Commission vehicle fleet)
The site implemented a new taxi contract in 2016. This provides further support for missions, visitors and local work-based travelling. The new contract partner is EMAS registered and all their vehicles are fully electric.
(c) Commuting
Figure C12: Petten bus service weekly usage 2016
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
A bus service is available for staff traveling to and from site, which is in a sparsely populated area with limited public transport, situated 25 km and 50 km respectively from Alkmaar and Amsterdam. Figure C12 shows the number of staff using the bus each week in 2016. A campaign to promote the service is planned in the second part of 2017.
C5.3 Carbon footprint
Figure C14: Carbon footprint elements (Tonnes CO2)
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
2013
2014
2015
2016
1 032
734
774
719
1
1
7
12
5
12
17
88
2 068
2 026
1 953
1 671
217
241
174
174
1
1
3
3
2
4
4
1
1
29
49
0
0
0
0
3 326
3 018
2 960
2 720
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for
bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commissionvehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
(+cooling)
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
C15
Figure C15: Carbon footprint elements (Tonnes CO2/person)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2013
2014
2015
2016
3.926 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.020 7.863 0.000 0.000
2.603 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.042 7.186 0.000 0.000
2.785 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.059 7.024 0.000 0.000
2.606 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.318 6.055 0.000
0.823
0.853
0.63
0.63
0.003
0.004
0.01
0.01
0.000
0.007
0.01
0.01
0.004
0.004
0.10
0.18 0.000
0
0
0
0
12.646
10.704
10.647
9.854
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for
bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commissionvehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
(+cooling)
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
Table C8: Contributions to carbon footprint (tonnes of CO2/person and % of total) exceeding 1 %
Tonnes CO2/p % of total
2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total measured carbon footprint 12.65 10.70 10.56 9.06 100 100 100 100
of which external electricity supply 7.86 7.19 7.02 6.06 62.2 67.1 66.5 66.8
of which mains gas for buildings 3.93 2.60 2.78 2.61 31.0 24.3 26.4 28.8
of which business travel by air 0.82 0.85 0.63 0.43 6.5 8.0 5.9 4.7
Sum of these components 12.61 10.64 10.44 9.09 99.7 99.4 98.8 100.3
Note: Excludes commuting
Sixty one percent of calculated CO2 emissions from the site are from mains electricity generation.
C5.4 Total air emissions of NOx
Table C9: NOx emissions (tonnes)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total NOx emission 0.805 0.540 0.685 0.800 0.614 0.748 0.624
Change % – 33 27 17 – 23 22 – 17
Total NOx emissions are linked to gas used for heating the buildings and the technical specifications of the heat-ing installations. There were some minor changes in heating installations which resulted in reduced gas consump-tion and improved NOx emission (decrease of 16 % in 2016).
C16
C6 Improving waste management and sorting
C6.1 Non-hazardous waste
Figure C16: Evolution of total non-hazardous waste in Petten (tonnes)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
0.0
18.0
0.08
1.3
0.2
6.5
4.9
5.1
30.3
0.13
6.0
3.6
11.6
9.1
32.0
0.12
4.8
0.6
2.1
13.9
10.6
40.8
0.16
10.1
0.5
2.9
17.1
10.2
29.6
0.10
3.7
0.0
1.1
12.9
11.9
27.8
0.10
6.0
0.3
3.1
8.7
9.7
32.2
0.12
5.4
0.9
1.2
10.7
14.0
Total (tonnes/person)
Metal
Glass
Wood
Paper and cardboard
Household waste
The site experienced an increase of non-hazardous waste generation due to a unique clean-up action in 2016 that had its focus on cupboards with unknown content. Progress was made towards improving plastic separa-tion. A plan is made to provide more collection points and the waste collection contract will be renewed to include reporting on plastic collection.
C17
C6.2 Controlled waste
Figure C17: Evolution of total hazardous waste in Petten (tonnes)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 0.73 1.35 0.72 1.93 0.96 2.89 0.00
Total (tonnes/person) 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.007 0.003 0.010 0.000
0.00 0.67 0.00 0.77 0.20 0.74 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
0.02 0.00 0.03 0.48 0.13 0.90 0.00
0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00
0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00
0.06 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.00
0.06 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00
0.01 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.16 0.23 0.00
0.24 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.00
0.00 0.22 0.08 0.37 0.10 0.41 0.00
0.00 0.22 0.08 0.37 0.10 0.41 0.00
0.28 0.25 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.14 0.00
Developer
Asbestos material
Mercury containing objects
Lead acid battery
Fire extinguisher
Flourescent lamps
Medical waste
Spray cans
Solvent
Paint
Filters
Waste oil
Electrical equipment (WEEE)
Laboratory mixed waste
Batteries
No hazardous waste was transported from site in 2016. A small amount of chemicals was brought to the store, and the electronic waste was taken off site in late 2015.
C6.3 Waste sorting
Table C10: Percentage of waste sorted at JRC Petten
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Percentage of waste sorted 72.9 71.2 67.5 76.1 61.0 68.3 56.5
Percentage of waste not sorted 27.1 28.8 32.5 23.9 39.0 31.7 43.5
The target of separating more than 62 % of the waste on site in 2016 was not met mainly because no hazard-ous waste was transported from site. The separation was performed as the last years.
C7 Protecting biodiversityTable C11: Built-up area in relation to total site area
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Built-up area (square metres) 13 365 13 365 13 365 13 248 14 545 13 526
Total site area (square metres) 305 554 305 554 305 554 305 554 305 554 305 554
Built-up area (%) 4.37 4.37 4.37 4.34 4.76 4.43
C18
Figure C18: Nature work afternoon Petten March 2016.
In March 2016 a nature work afternoon was organised in cooperation with the Flora & Fauna Committee of the Research Campus Petten. It was supervised by a national forester who trained participating staff on bio diver-sity in the Natura-2000 area on the premises of the Petten site. The aim was to remove invasive species such as grey willow trees. It alters the dune landscape and if not combated, will turn it into a forest. The Petten site has an obligation to maintain the area by ensuring that the NATURA-2000 management plan is implemented to pre-serve the existing flora and fauna.
C8 Green public procurement
C8.1 Incorporating GPP into procurement contracts
No specific actions have been undertaken in 2016 but environmental criteria have systematically been consid-ered when defining selection and award criteria in procurement. The 2017 target is to apply GPP measures for all JRC-Petten procurements as identified in the 2016 EMAS annual action plan.
C9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness
C9.1 Management of the legal register
JRC Petten maintains a register of legal requirements for environmental aspects which is updated at least every three months. Any significant change is communicated to the relevant staff. An example of communication to staff was the implementation of new rules and pictogram for transport of batteries. This was of particular inter-est to the site because of its research programmes on lithium battery safety.
C19
C9.2 Prevention and risk management
The Petten site applies risk based management for safety and environmental aspects using work place assess-ments, general risk inventories risk assessments for specific tasks.
C9.3 Emergency preparedness
The organisation’s emergency plans are currently being revised based on 44 identified emergency scenarios. They are based on risk management methodologies and also cover environmental risks.
C9.4 Wastewater discharge
JRC Petten undertakes mandatory testing of waste water discharged from its technical facilities. The results for 2016 shown below indicate that no discharge limits have been exceeded.
Table C12: Wastewater quality tested at JRC Petten
Emissions to wastewater 2013 2014 2015 2016
Substance Limit mg/m3
Chloride (Cl-) - 210 200 240 120
Release of heavy metals to the sewer system
Mercury (Hg) — Limit 10 mg/m3 10 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
Cadmium (Cd) — Limit 20 mg/m3 20 < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.4
Zinc (Zn) The sum of 5
metals; 5 000
300 120 120 140
Copper (Cu) 160 180 170 160
Nickel (Ni) 5 5 5 8,2
Chromium (Cr) 5 5.8 6.3 < 5
Lead (Pb) 5 5 0 < 5
Arsenic (As) 1.5 1.5 0 < 1.5
Metals: the sum of the 5 highest values — 5 000 mg/m3 475 316 301 308
EOX (plug monsters) organohalogen compounds 1 000 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
Silver and organic solvents
Silver 1 000 330 330 300 310
Organic solvents (sum Aromats + sum Chloranilifates) 1 000 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Wastewater discharge (m3)
Wastewater from chemical laboratories in 312 (m3)** - not emptied
4 4 4
The total discharge of waste water to the sewers (m3)***
- 5 567 3 060 3 060 3 150
* Exceeding the legal limit as a result of building 113. Corrective actions have been taken.** Collected in separate tanks and emptied by an external certified company, in m3.*** Equals the consumption of water plus the water FCTEST facility (489 m), minus water collected from chemical laboratories in 312.
C10 Communication
C10.1 Internal communication
The Petten site is a small site with a limited number of units. This makes it possible to address environmental issues during unit meetings. In 2016 there were three unit presentations during unit meetings. The topic was the new environmental license and possible changes for the units.
Several internal communication actions were implemented in 2016 including the EMAS newsletter to all staff, presentation of the EMAS system and results during Unit and Management meetings and EMAS poster cam-paigns in accordance with the corporate communication campaigns. During safety and environmental tours spe-cific environmental issues are discussed with heads of unit.
C20
C10.2 External communication and stakeholder management
Table C13: External stakeholder communication
Stakeholder Purpose
Municipality Schagen In the context of the environmental permit (Omgevingsvergunning)
Province Noord-Holland In the context of geothermal well, inspection of reported values
Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier
In the context of wastewater pollution measurements
AMART Wastewater pollution measurements ‘afvalwaterputten’
GEA Grenco Maintenance contractor for cooling equipment
ECN, NRG, Mallinckrodt Renewal emergency agreement INO2.0, company emergency plan
Flora & Fauna committee Foster and stimulate bio diversity
Safety region Development, update Petten campus disaster plan
EuroJust Ambition to register for EMAS
Province Noord-Holland Natura-2000 management plan
Municipality Schagen (RUD) Check on granted building permit
C11 Training
C11.1 Internal training
Figure C19: Evolution of site-based training
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
No. of different trainings on offer No. of beneficiaries of training Beneficiaries as % of staff
In 2016 The Commission organised six newcomer trainings with a total of 50 persons participating. Specific attention was paid to topics such as the explanation of the environmental management on-site, answering ques-tions such as:
� What the JRC-Petten site does to certify and register for ISO14001 and EMAS; and
� What the role of staff members is in relation to environmental management.
Practical information was provided on storage location for different waste categories. Besides newcomer train-ings, the environmental officer gave a presentation of the implementation of the new environmental permit at three three unit-meetings where the license compliance register was also explained and discussed.
C11.2 External training
The JRC Petten Environmental officer participated at the EMAS site coordinators workshop in Brussels, 26-28 April 2016.
C21
C12 EMAS costs and savingTable C14: EMAS administration and energy costs for buildings in the Petten EMAS area
Item Costs Change in last year
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Total Direct EMAS Cost (EUR) 0 0 66 000 66 000 66 000 67 000 67 000 0
Total Direct Cost per employee 0 0 248 251 234 241 243 2
Total buildings energy cost (EUR) 430 950 345 762 324 714 399 680 345 359 343 937 330 934 – 13 003
Total buildings energy cost (EUR/person)
1 858 1 510 1 221 1 520 1 225 1 237 1 199 – 38
Total fuel costs (vehicles) (EUR) 0 0 820 970 821 4 046 6 796 2 750
Total energy costs (EUR/person) 0 0 3 4 3 15 25 10
Total water costs (EUR) 5 338 13 040 15 250 10 130 6 282 6 500 7 754 1 254
Water (EUR/person) 23 57 57 39 22 23 28 5
Total paper cost (EUR) 15 632 7 731 12 912 8 805 7 531 9 219 3 872 – 5 347
Total paper cost (EUR/person) 67 34 49 33 27 33 14 – 19
Waste disposal (general) — unit cost/tonne
90 90 90 90 90 90 90 0
Waste disposal (general) — EUR/person
6.98 11.90 10.82 13.98 9.43 9.00 10.50 1.50
Waste disposal (hazardous) — unit cost/tonne
750 750 750 750 750 750 750 0
Waste disposal (hazardous) — EUR/person
2.36 4.41 4.41 2.04 2.55 4.12 4.12 0.00
C13 Conversion factorsTable C15: Conversion factors for JRC Petten
Parameter and units 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Assumed output, (% of kWh/p) 18 18 18 18 18
kWh of energy provided by one litre diesel 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89
kWh of energy provided by one litre petrol 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42
Paper Density (g/m2) 80.0 80.0 80.0 75.0 75.0
Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh of electricity (if grid average) 0.671 0.671 0.671 0.671 0.586
Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh natural gas 0.204 0.204 0.204 0.204 0.203
Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh diesel fuel 0.264 0.264 0.264 0.264 0.264
Kgs CO2 from one litre of diesel 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67
Kgs CO2 from one litre of petrol 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28
Annual cost of one FTE (EUR) 132 000 132 000 132 000 134 000 134 000
Note: See Corporate volume for conversion factor references
C22
C14 Site breakdown performance of selected parameters:Table C16: Site breakdown in building usage
Build
ing
Addr
ess
Occu
pant
EMAS
regi
stra
tion
Usef
ul s
urfa
ce a
rea
(m2 )
Staf
f
Offic
eCa
féSe
lf re
stau
rant
Crec
he/c
hild
car
ePr
intin
g an
d m
ail s
ortin
gM
edic
al s
ervi
ceDe
pot,
larg
e st
orag
eW
orks
hop
Spor
ts/r
ecre
atio
n ce
ntre
IT S
erve
r cen
tre
Pow
er g
ener
atio
nW
ater
trea
tmen
t pla
ntLa
b/ex
perim
enta
l (no
n-nu
clea
r)Nu
clea
r lab
/exp
erim
enta
l
1) Site essential details 2016: 2) Building use 2016:
113 Laboratory JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 309 0 x
308Office building
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 2 227 75 x
309Office building
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 1 994 75 x
310Large experimental hall
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 4 929 0 x x
311Smart grid laboratory
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 240 0 x
312
Office building with some smaller laboratories
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 4 536 50 x x
313
Offices, central store, mechanical workshop, storage, library, gym
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 2 668 40 x x x x x x
314Office, laboratory,
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 1 408 15 x x
315TTemporarily reception building (new)
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 82 2 x
316 Gas storage JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 60 0 x
317 Boiler room JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 32 0 x
318Gasses distribution
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 31 0 x
319laboratory ‘Bunker’
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 90 0 x
320 Offices JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 240 5 x
321,322, 323
Small storage JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 78 0 x
324Chemical waste storage
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 13 0 x
C23
Build
ing
Addr
ess
Occu
pant
EMAS
regi
stra
tion
Usef
ul s
urfa
ce a
rea
(m2 )
Staf
f
Offic
eCa
féSe
lf re
stau
rant
Crec
he/c
hild
car
ePr
intin
g an
d m
ail s
ortin
gM
edic
al s
ervi
ceDe
pot,
larg
e st
orag
eW
orks
hop
Spor
ts/r
ecre
atio
n ce
ntre
IT S
erve
r cen
tre
Pow
er g
ener
atio
nW
ater
trea
tmen
t pla
ntLa
b/ex
perim
enta
l (no
n-nu
clea
r)Nu
clea
r lab
/exp
erim
enta
l
1) Site essential details 2016: 2) Building use 2016:
325
Office building with some smaller laboratories
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 1 601 15 x x
326Gasses distribution
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 40 0 x
327, 328 Small storage JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 36 0 x
329Bicycle and motor garage
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 68 0 x
333Control room Bunker
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 65 0 x x
340
Storage (maintenance, cars, workshop)
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 752 0 x x
351, 352Small infra buildings
JRC-Petten NL 2013/01 30 0 x
Environmental Statement2016 resultsAnnex D: JRC GeelFinal
Prepared by the EMAS Site Coordination Team in JRC Geel : Luc PEETERS Elisa DALLE MOLLE
Supervision: Luc PEETERS (JRC-GEEL)
Contact: Elisa DALLE MOLLE – [email protected]
Cover illustration: Photo provided by the EMAS Site Coordination Team in JRC Geel All other illustrations: © European Union unless otherwise stated.
Environmental Statement
2016 resultsAnnex D: JRC Geel
Final
D2
D1 Overview of core indicators at JRC-Geel since 2011 ................................................................................................ D3D2 Description of JRC-Geel activities and key stakeholders ......................................................................................... D5D3 Environmental impact of JRC Geel activities and stakeholders .......................................................................... D9D4 More efficient use of natural resources ..........................................................................................................................D11D5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint...............................................................................................................D16D6 Improving waste management and sorting ..................................................................................................................D20D7 Protecting biodiversity ..............................................................................................................................................................D23D8 Green public procurement (GPP) .........................................................................................................................................D24D9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness ......................................................................D24D10 Communication .............................................................................................................................................................................D26D11 Training ..............................................................................................................................................................................................D28D12 EMAS Costs and saving ............................................................................................................................................................D29D13 Conversion factors used for JRC-Geel ..............................................................................................................................D30D14 Site breakdown performance of selected parameters ............................................................................................D31
Contents
D3
ANNEX D: JRC GEEL — Scientific Activities
The JRC-Geel (until 30/06/2016 named IRMM) was founded in 1957 under the Treaty of Rome (The treaty estab-lishing the European Atomic Energy Community, Article 8) and started operation in 1960 under the name of the ‘Central Bureau for Nuclear Measurements (CBNM)’. In 1993 it was renamed the ‘Institute for Reference Mate-rials and Measurements (IRMM)’ to reflect the new mission of the Institute, covering a wider range of scientific domains including food safety and environmental protection. On 1 July 2016, as part of a major reorganisation of the JRC, the centre was renamed ‘JRC-Geel’.
Over the more than 55 years of its existence, the number of facilities on the JRC-Geel site has expanded to host new non-nuclear and nuclear activities. Older facilities and the infrastructure have been gradually renewed.
D1 Overview of core indicators at JRC-Geel since 2011JRC-Geel has been collecting data on its site core indicators since 2011. The values in 2011 and from 2013 to 2016 are shown in Table D1, along with performance trend and targets where applicable for 2020.
D4
Tabl
e D1
: His
toric
al d
ata,
per
form
ance
and
targ
ets
for c
ore
indi
cato
rs p
ropo
sed
for C
omm
issi
on le
vel r
epor
ting
Phys
ical
indi
cato
rs:
Hist
oric
dat
a va
lues
Perf
orm
ance
tren
d (%
) sin
ce:
Targ
et
(Num
ber,
desc
riptio
n an
d un
it)20
11 (1 )
2013
2014
2015
2016
2011
2013
2014
2015
2020
*
Δ %
(2 )(3 )
valu
e (2 )
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(MW
h/p)
60.5
254
.90
51.1
949
.52
53.1
6–
12.2
– 3.
23.
87.
4–
5.0
48.6
34
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(KW
h/m
2 )42
640
436
332
131
1–
27.0
– 22
.8–
14.2
– 3.
1–
5.0
344.
7
1c) N
on-r
en. e
nerg
y us
e (b
ldgs
) %0
100.
099
.599
.599
.5–
0.5
0.0
0.0
– 5.
094
.6
1d) W
ater
(m
3 /p)
79.5
751
.43
34.7
530
.06
26.8
6–
66.2
– 47
.8–
22.7
– 10
.7–
5.0
33.0
11
1d) W
ater
(L/m
2 )56
037
824
619
515
7–
71.9
– 58
.4–
36.1
– 19
.4–
5.0
234
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (T
onne
s/p)
0.
000.
020.
010.
02–
6.8
84.3
– 5.
00.
020
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (S
heet
s/p/
day)
0
2010
19–
6.8
84.3
– 5.
019
.4
2a) C
O 2 bui
ldin
gs (T
onne
s/p)
16.4
814
.81
13.9
013
.34
14.3
7–
12.8
– 2.
93.
47.
7–
5.0
13.2
05
2b) C
O 2 bui
ldin
gs (k
g/m
2 )11
610
999
8784
– 27
.5–
22.7
– 14
.6–
2.8
– 5.
093
.6
3a) N
on-h
az. w
aste
(T
onne
s/p)
0.26
70.
180
0.47
90.
351
0.36
436
.310
1.7
– 24
.13.
7–
5.0
0.45
5
3b) H
azar
dous
was
te
(Ton
nes/
p)0.
075
0.02
40.
079
0.09
30.
081
8.3
240.
02.
1–
12.6
– 5.
00.
075
3c) S
epar
ated
was
te (%
)83
.684
.671
.067
.867
.7–
18.9
– 20
.0–
4.5
0.0
5.2
74.7
Econ
omic
indi
cato
rs (E
UR/p
)
Ener
gy c
onsu
mpt
ion
(bld
gs)
5 11
43
922
3 85
63
656
4 02
7–
21.3
2.7
4.4
10.1
– 5.
03
663
Wat
er c
onsu
mpt
ion
84.0
55.7
39.0
35.7
33.5
– 60
.2–
40.0
– 14
.2–
6.2
– 5.
037
.0
Note
: (1)
Ear
liest
repo
rted
data
; (2)
com
pare
d to
201
4; (3
) EM
AS A
nnua
l Act
ion
Plan
201
7 (%
val
ues)
.* T
arge
t for
% im
prov
emen
t for
the
perio
d 20
14-2
020
(5) t
otal
ele
ctric
ity (–
1 %
), to
tal g
as (0
%),
tota
l hot
wat
er (0
%),
tota
l fue
l (0
%) -
> to
tal e
nerg
y (–
0.5
%).
D5
The evolution of the EMAS system in Geel is as shown below. The site was incorporated as a whole into the Com-mission’s EMAS registration.
Table D2: EMAS baseline parameters
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Population: total staff 331 322 341 346 328 296
Total no. operational buildings 14 14 14 15 16 16
Used surface area for all buildings, (m2) 46 996 46 996 46 390 48 815 50 538 50 538
Table D2 shows an increase of buildings and subsequent used area. This is the consequence of a major effort to modernise the site. New energy-efficient buildings have been constructed and another one is planned. Once the exercise is complete, older energy consuming buildings will be either dismantled or significantly refurbished in order to meet modern standards.
D2 Description of JRC-Geel activities (1) and key stakeholdersThe JRC, a directorate–general of the European Commission, is under the responsibility of Tibor Navracsics, Com-missioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport. The JRC employs over 3 000 staff, comprising scientists and researchers as well as administrative and support staff, coming from all over the EU. Its offices and sites are located in Brussels (BE), Geel (BE), Ispra (IT), Karlsruhe (DE), Petten (NL) and Seville (ES). The JRC is a key player in supporting successful investment in knowledge and information foreseen by the Horizon 2020 Work Programme; the EU’s programme for research and innovation.
Since the reorganisation, the JRC-Geel site hosts EC staff from six different directorates (Directorates A, E, F, G, H and R of the JRC and a small group of staff of DG HR) in 14 different buildings.
Notwithstanding the fact that JRC-Geel staff reports to different Directors, the site operates under the responsi-bility of a site Director, Elke Anklam, Director of the F Directorate for Health, Consumers and Reference Materials.
The Scientific activities fall under the responsibility of:
� Directorate E, Unit E.5 Transport and Border Security, whose mission is to contribute to improving trans-port safety levels in the EU in a growing, and increasingly intermodal transport system; provide stand-ards, tools and services which can be deployed throughout the transport sector and used for harmonised reporting for maritime, air and rail traffic as well as border security aspects; evaluate the impact of new technologies on the security of the shipping container supply chain and technological support to the EU’s Maritime project on the Common Information Sharing Environment for maritime surveillance.
� Directorate F, Unit F.4 Fraud Detection and Prevention, whose mission is to produce, collect and validate the evidence base necessary for detecting and preventing fraud in the food chain and contribute to the fight against illicit consumer products.
� Directorate F, Unit F.5 Food and Feed Compliance, whose mission is to support the harmonisation of the implementation of food and feed legislation through the provision of reliable measurement solutions and standards for evidence based decision-making related to the safety of the food chain; to support EU policymakers in tackling related upcoming policy initiatives in the field of food and feed safety con-trol, such as food allergens, natural and process contaminants, as well as residues. The JRC-Geel hosts six European Union Reference Laboratories (EURLs) working on food and feed related issues; four in the area of food safety control (heavy metals, mycotoxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and food con-tact materials) and two in the area of control as well as the pre-marketing authorisation of certain products (feed additives and genetically modified organisms).
� Directorate F, Unit F.6 Reference Materials, whose mission is to perform pre-normative research, to provide science-based policy advice and to develop, disseminate and promote measurement stand-ards in support of EU policies for biotechnology, health, environment, energy and engineering including advanced materials and nanotechnology.
(1) NACE codes associated with Geel activities are: 99 — Activities of extraterratorial organisations and bodies; 71.2 testing and technical analysis; 72.1 Research and experimental development in natural sciences and engineering.
D6
� Directorate G, Unit G.2 Standards for Nuclear Safety, Security and Safeguards, whose mission is to pro-vide high-quality reference nuclear data, measurement standards, science-based policy advice and training in support of the EU policies related to nuclear safety, security and safeguards. The Geel Linear Nuclear Accelerator (Gelina) and the MONNET accelerator are operated under the responsibility of G.2. The energy consumption of both accelerators varies according to the work programme and activities programmed throughout the year. During periods when neither accelerator is used, the site consumes less energy. However, when both are active, significantly more energy is needed in order to perform the nuclear data measurements; essential for environmental monitoring activities, safety, security and healthcare.
Figure D1: Location of JRC Geel (North of the city of Geel)
The site is located in Belgium, 80 km to the north-east of Brussels as shown in Figure D1.
The facility has grown over the years to suit the changing requirements of the research world and the JRC’s role. In general site development was organ-ised around the existing infrastructure. Buildings were expanded to meet immediate needs. Parts of the research units were relocated to existing build-ings subject to available space at that time. This led to the accumulation of a ‘historical deficit’ in infra-structure which is now a major hindrance in achieving the vision and objectives for the 2020 strategy. The facilities are spread throughout the site as shown in Figures D2 and D3.
Figure D2: IRMM site, main access street and surroundings
D7
Figu
re D
3: J
RC G
eel s
ite la
yout
D8
D2.1 Analytical laboratories
JRC-Geel has many analytical laboratories carrying out state-of-the-art chemical, biochemical, microbiological, biotechnological, and physical analytical work on fields such as food safety and quality, environment, clinical measurements, aviation and nuclear safety and security. For biotechnological research, JRC-Geel has laborato-ries operating at biosafety level 2 (BSL 2) allowing work with hazardous materials. A new biosafety level 3 (BSL 3) laboratory was commissioned in 2015.
Instruments cover the full range of spectrometric techniques including isotopic mass spectrometry, chromatogra-phy and hyphenated techniques in addition to state-of-the-art sample preparation techniques.
The JRC-Geel also has mass metrology instrumentation enabling ultra-precise weighing.
D2.2 Reference materials processing and storage facility
There is an increasing worldwide demand for new reference materials for a broadening range of applications. The JRC-Geel is a major certified reference material (CRM) producer, recognised worldwide and is the market leader in provision of GMO reference materials, among others. The range of materials produced at JRC-Geel varies from pure chemicals (including nuclear materials) to agricultural, food and environmental samples, so called matrix reference materials. In 2010, JRC-Geel renewed its reference materials processing facilities and created a scien-tific and technical facility bridging the gap between laboratory and industrial scale with specialised laboratories and a versatile pilot plant for material processing. Four different reference materials can be processed simula-taneously without any risk of cross-contamination. This facility is unique among the major producers of certified reference materials.
JRC-Geel has state-of-the-art storage facilities for reference materials with rooms catering for temperatures ranging from 18 °C to liquid nitrogen temperatures. Storage conditions in the JRC-Geel and at its five authorised distributors are monitored constantly. The JRC-Geel has currently over half a million reference material samples in stock of more than 800 different material types.
D2.3 Nuclear laboratories
Measurements of neutron-induced reactions, cross-section standards and absolute measurements of radiation i.e. radionuclide metrology, have been key activities at Geel since it started operations in 1960. It focuses on neu-tron data for standards, safety of operating reactors, handling of nuclear waste and waste transmutation and investigating alternative reactor systems and fuel cycles. The work includes the preparation of certified nuclear reference materials which are produced in dedicated laboratories.
Gelina, the linear electron accelerator facility, has the best time resolution of its type combining (i) a high-power pulsed linear electron accelerator, (ii) a post-accelerating beam compression magnet system, (iii) a mer-cury-cooled uranium target, (iv) and very long flight paths. It is a multi-user facility serving up to 12 different experiments simultaneously. JRC-Geel hosts a vertical 3.5 MV Pelletron Tandem accelerator. Furthermore, it oper-ates a laboratory for ultra-sensitive radioactivity measurements inside the 225 m deep underground laboratory HADES, located close by at the premises of the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (www.sckcen.be). This shared facility is outside the EMAS scope.
Two nuclear areas are dedicated to the production of nuclear targets and certified nuclear reference materials. The controlled areas contain multiple gloveboxes and dedicated equipment for the safe handling and preparation of the sample materials and targets.
D2.4 Explosives detection and transport security
JRC Geel hosts the Commission’s in-house experimental facilities for research on security screening equipment, comprising state-of-the art detection equipment typically found at airport security check-points, such as X-ray screening equipment, security scanners and explosive-trace detection. Activities include the development of test materials and test methods for verifying the performance of equipment and performing technical assessments of detection equipment and test methodologies for priority applications, e.g. aviation security, first responders, border control and law enforcement.
D9
D3 Environmental impact of JRC Geel activities and stakeholders
D3.1 Environmental aspects
An analysis of environmental aspects has been made and, based on this analysis, significant environmental aspects have been identified (Table D3). JRC-Geel is taking measures to prevent pollution (emissions, waste pro-duction) and to achieve more efficient use of natural resources (mainly energy, water and paper).
Regular reporting and monitoring of parameters takes place according to the requirements of the EMAS regula-tion. Actions are identified and updated where appropriate on an annual basis in the Commission’s EMAS Annual Action Plan to help address and mitigate the impacts.
The Commission undertook a full update of the environmental aspects in 2015, the results of which are summa-rised in the table below.
Table D3: Summary of significant environmental aspects for the JRC-Geel site
Aspect group Environmental aspect
Environmental impact
Activity, product or service Indicator/Action Plan
1) Resources Electricity (Indirect) and fossil fuel consumption
Reduction in natural resources
Heating, cooling, ventilation, electrical equipment and transport
Indicator 1a, 1b
Paper consumption For office activities, printing, training and communication requirements
Indicator 1e, 1f
Water consumption For catering, sanitary and technical installations
Indicator 1d
2) Air CO2, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC emissions
Air pollution, climate change
Buildings: HVAC and equipment maintenance
Transport: work-related travel and journeys to and from work (organisation and personal)
Indicators 2a, 2c,-2d,
HCFC gas emissions Depletion of the ozone layer
Used in refrigerators and cooling systems
Indicator 2b; action plans
2) Local aspects Dust and noise Noise and air pollution, health risks
Generated by building renovation/repairs, staff travel and Commission car fleet
Indicator 2c/ mobility plan
3) Waste (Hazardous) waste production
Air, water and/or soil pollution, biodiversity risks
Medical laboratories, sanitary installations, cleaning, maintenance, office activities, IT and catering
Indicator 3b
3) Water Wastewater discharge
Risk of eutrophication, water pollution
Sanitary and technical installations Not addressed
4) Bio-diversity Choice of products and their origin
Destabilisation of ecosystems
For catering and gardening Indicator 5a, ‘green catering contract’
Choice of sites and type of buildings
Destruction of natural habitat, relief, visual pollution
In the context of the Commission’s buildings policy (Life cycle approach)
Indicator 4a
6) Environmental risks (legal compliance and emergency preparedness)
Load losses, malfunctions, leakages, spills of chemicals, gas, waste, etc.
Air, water and/or soil pollution, health risks
In the context of delivery, storage and use of chemicals/fuel used for maintenance of the technical installations, waste management, storage and fire prevention
Emergency planning, legal compliance: Indicator 6a
D10
Aspect group Environmental aspect
Environmental impact
Activity, product or service Indicator/Action Plan
5) (Indirect) financing
Indirect environmental aspects linked to programmes to be financed (2)
Environmental impact caused by third parties
Taking the environment into account in project selection and evaluation*
Indicator 5a; green procurement policy
5) (Indirect) public procurement
Environmental performance of contractors. Sustainability and impact of products and services selected (3).
Environmental impact caused by third parties
Integration of environmental clauses in contracts: influence of contract through ‘sustainable’ purchases
Life cycle approach.
Indicator 5a; green procurement policy
* These indirect aspects are managed via a series of specific mechanisms, including impact analysis (see point 2.1), and regulatory measures.
Due to its specific activities the most important aspects for JRC-Geel are Radioactive waste, use of energy and other hazardous waste.
D3.2 Stakeholders
JRC-Geel identified its main stakeholders and categorised them into ‘external’ and ‘internal’ as follows:
External stakeholders
Our main external stakeholders are national authorities in the nuclear field, such as the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC) and its technical subsidiary BEL-V, and local non-nuclear authorities (e.g. environmental), such as LNE (Departement Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie), VMM (Vlaams Milieu Maatschappij) and OVAM (Open-bare Afvalstoffen Maatschappij). These authorities expect full compliance with all applicable legislation, regu-lations and requirements, as well as a complete, transparent communication and full collaboration. They have a major impact on our activities.
Other important external stakeholders are the insurance companies, providing us with coverage for risks originat-ing from fire, activities, accidents, transport, etc., contractors (intra muros and extra muros) and customers (such as companies and entities buying our reference materials). These stakeholders expect clear and transparent com-munication and good collaboration in respect of bilateral rights and obligations as described in their contracts.
Equally important are other DGs, EU institutions and bodies, who also expect good communication and collaboration.
Last but not least, important external stakeholders, both local and further afield, are our neighbours (private indi-viduals and companies) and EU citizens who expect us to lead by example and to improve their quality of life by adopting a sustainable approach towards our activities and existence.
Internal Stakeholders
Main internal stakeholders are our staff members, represented for some issues by the Local Staff Committee. Firstly, as private individuals in the work place they expect a motivating, stimulating, supportive and safe work-ing environment; an example for other employers concerning the wellbeing and sustainability in our approach towards the environment and future generations. Secondly, in the context of their professional activities and relationships, our staff expect transparency, clear communication, commitment, willingness to exchange of best practice and leading by example.
(2) These may include damage to local biodiversity and natural resources and emissions relating to construction/development projects, etc.(3) For example: transport, use of natural resources, the lifecycle of the product, recycling, waste management, etc.
D11
D4 More efficient use of natural resources
D4.1 Energy consumption
Buildings energy consumption data should be considered in the context of climatic conditions. Analysis of degree data (4) presented below suggests that climatic conditions may have been harsher in 2016 than in 2014 or 2015 and that more heating and cooling may have been necessary. Staff reduction (including reduction of Intra Muros staff) also had an impact on per capita consumption; nevertheless, the use of resources is more efficient in 2016 compared to reference year 2014 as shown in Figure D4.
Figure D4: Total annual degree days at JRC-Geel, 2012-2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total degree days
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
Cold degree days. cooling required
Hot degree days. heating required
2 713
395
2 318
22.78
2 873
412
2 461
19.11
2 209
407
1 802
23.17
2 473
414
2 059
20.02
2 659
452
2 207
19.99kWh/person/degree day (2)
(a) Buildings
The evolution of total annual energy consumption is presented in Figure D5. Per capita and consumption per square metre are presented in Figures D7 and D8.
Figure D5: Annual buildings energy consumption (MWh) at JRC-Geel (indicator 1a)
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 20 034 19 901 18 720 17 713 16 241 15 735
5 700 5 799 5 747 4 153 3 837 2 937
416 455 455 73 24 25
1 759 1 902 2 108 1 673 1 963 1 860
12 158 11 745 10 411 11 730 10 343 10 833
hot water
diesel
mains supplied gas
electricity
Six buildings accounted for over 80 % of total energy consumption in 2016, the Linac building — B050 (hosting the linear accelerator) accounting for nearly 30 % as shown below in Figure D6. The top 6 consumers are listed in Table D.4.
(4) Monthly data for Kleine Brogel station (15.5 °C reference temperature), www.degreedays.net; using buildings energy consumption data for JRC-Geel.
D12
Table D4: JRC Geel top six buildings energy consumption
Building B 050 Linac B 040 MS B 130 BCR B 200 RMPB B 10 Main B 110 Chemistry
% total energy consumed
25.2 15.1 11.1 10.8 9.9 9.8
Figure D6: Energy consumption distribution per building in 2016 (MWh)
1 529913
2 338
3 904
290122116
178
1 48489
1 719
7191 671
126311 Main building
Van De Graaff building
Mass spectrometry building
Linac building
Technical Services
Dangerous products, chemical products and chemical waste storage building & pumping station
Cafetaria
Generators and high voltage building
Conference building
Chemistry building
Garages
BCR building
Reference Materials Storage building
Reference Material Processing building
Administration building
Entrance building
Figures D7 and D8: Evolution of total annual energy consumption for JRC-Geel buildings
60.5 61.8
54.951.2 49.5
53.2
48.63 48.63
36.7 36.530.5
33.9 31.536.6
5.3 5.9 6.2 4.8 6.06.3
1.3 1.4 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.1
17.2 18.0 16.912.0 11.7 9.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MWh/personTotal Total target 2020Electricity GasFuel Hot water
426.3 423.5 403.5362.9
321.4 311.3
345
259 250224 240
205 214
37.4 40.5 45.4 34.3 38.8 36.8
8.9 9.7 9.8 1.50.5 0.5
121.3 123.4 123.985.1 75.9 58.1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
kWh/mTotal Total target 2020
Electricity Gas
Fuel Hot water
The overall decrease in energy consumption is largely linked with the decrease in hot water consumption (dis-trict heating). Building 060 was insulated in 2016 and the control of hot water supply (pumps, valves, etc.) by the Building Management System (BMS) has improved. Although successful, these actions do not fully explain the trend.
Electricity consumption increased in 2016. Main consumers being:
� The accelerators;
� The cooling of the accelerators; and
� Other cooling installations.
The electricity consumption represents a large part of the overall energy consumption of the buildings on the Geel site. The JRC-Geel is in the process of improving its monitoring capacity which should enable us to further address this aspect.
There are seven actions prioritising the reduction of energy consumption (indicator 1a) in the Annual action plan and the ten most significant that are in progress are summarised in Tables D5 and D8.
Finally, one could notice that, although the energy consumption per square metre has decreased, the consump-tion per capita did not. This is due to major staff reduction (including ‘intra muros’ staff).
D13
Table D5: 10 most important actions targeting indicator 1a (buildings energy consumption)
JIRA #(1) Service Perimeter of action
Date in AAP
Action description Action type
Description of latest progress
37 R.5All buildings-JRC Geel
2015Install energy monitoring at building level (electricity).
Single
2016 — Completion — Power meters connected to the building management system (Honeywell). Since 01/06/2015 all buildings are connected to a building management system.
39 R.51 building-JRC Geel
2015 Insulation building 060. Single2016 — Completion. Insulation of walls and roof of Building 060 completed 11/2016.
77 R.5All buildings-JRC Geel
2016
Identification/inventory of electric boards relevant to HVAC for the analysis of electricity consumed by cooling installation and connection of power meters to BMS.
Continu-ous
2017 — Connection of B050 meters + inventory of buildings 010, 020, 081, 100, 110, 130, 190, 200 to be done.
2016 — B060 & B210 & B222 HVAC power meters + B010 & B040 & B110 cooling power meters connected; B050 inventory completed.
78 R.5All buildings-JRC Geel
2016
Install hot water (heating) consumption monitoring on each building; connection to Honeywell BMS and generation of monthly reports.
Single
2016 — Completion — All heating circuits monitored via heat meters connected to the JRC Geel Building Management System.
79 R.51 building-JRC Geel
2016
Optimisation of energy consumption (prototype), using the existing building management system/energy manager to implement various solutions for the optimisation of the running conditions of B060 technical equipment.
multi-stage
2017 — Completion of the 20 % of remaining actions (boilers and compressors to be managed by BMS) and extension to more JRC Geel buildings;
2016 — On the 20 planned actions resulting from a detailed analysis of the technical installations, 16 (80 %) are implemented/completed.
286 R.5All site-JRC Geel
2017
Street lighting renewal: replacement of existing street lighting with led lighting.
single2017 — Technical specifications and procurement to be completed end 2017; execution planned 2018.
287 R.52 Buildings-JRC Geel
2017
Optimisation of building technical equipment running conditions using the existing building management system (BMS)/energy manager (EM) in Buildings 010 and 100.
multi-stage
2017 — Analysis to be performed (first half 2017); execution (to be completed end 2017).
(1): JIRA is a workflow implemented by the EMAS Coordination team to record and track response to internal and verification audit findings at EMAS sites.
D14
(b) Vehicles
There are seven fleet vehicles of which three are conventional vehicles, one each of Euro 2, Euro 3 and Euro 6 engines. The remainder are; two fork lifts, a fire engine and a tractor. Fuel used and energy consumption is pre-sented in Table D6.
Table D6: Summary vehicle energy consumption (indicator 1b)
2014 2015 2016
Total (MWh/yr) 30.42 29.67 27.71
Diesel used (m3) 0.851 0.714 0.860
Petrol used (m3) 2.032 2.111 1.734
Propane used (kg) 157.5 157.5 157.5
The car belonging to the security services and which the guards use for their inspection rounds and escorting deliveries consumes petrol. Unit G2’s fire engine and R.5’s forklift and tractor use diesel. Unit G2’s forklift runs on propane (5).
Total annual vehicle energy consumption illustrated above is about 0.2 % of that for the buildings.
(c) Renewable energy use in buildings and vehicles
Table D7: Renewable (and non-renewable) energy use in the buildings (indicator 1c)
Energy source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Electricity (MWh non-renewable) 12 158 11 745 10 411 11 730 10 343 10 833
(% electricity from non-renewables) 100 100 100 100 100 100
mains supplied gas (MWh non-renewable) 1 759 1 902 2 108 1 673 1 963 1 860
(% mains gas from non-renewables) 100 100 100 100 100 100
supplied diesel (MWh non-renewable) 416 455 455 73 24 25
(% diesel from non renewables) 100 100 100 100 100 100
district heating/cooling (MWh non-renewable) 5 700 5 799 5 747 4 153 3 837 2 937
(% from non renewables) 100 100 100 100 100 100
Site geothermal (MWh renewable) 83.84 74.95 79.4
(% from renewables) 100 100 100
Total renewables (MWh) 83.84 74.95 79.4
(% from renewables) 0.47 0.46 0.50
Total non-ren. energy use (MWhr/yr) 19 901 18 720 17 629 16 166 15 655
(% from non renewables) 100 100 99.5 99.5 99.5
At present only a very small fraction of the energy comes from renewable sources. This is the heating and cool-ing of building 210 which is done by a geo-thermal heat pump. According to the supplier the origin of the elec-tricity is as follows:
� Nuclear: 78.39 %;
� Fossil fuel: 18.23 %;
� Co-generation:1.20 %; and
� Unknown: 2.17 %.
D4.2 Water consumption
Figures D9 and D10 show the evolution of total annual water consumption for JRC-Geel (indicator 1d).
(5) Propane figures are based on the average number of gas bottles ordered per year.
D15
Figure D9: Evolution per capita Figure D10: Evolution per m2
79.5774.97
51.43
34.7530.06
26.8633.01 33.01
26 339
24 139
17 537
12 0239 861
7 950 5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
30 000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
m3 to
tal
m3 /p
erso
n
2020 target m3/p (AAP2016)
560
514
378
246
195157
234 234
26 339
24 139
17 537
12 0239 861 7 950
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
30 000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
m3 to
tal
L/m
2
m3 total
m3/person
m3 total
L/m2
2020 target L/m2 (AAP2016)
Two actions included in the EMAS annual action plan and completed in 2016 aimed at reducing water consump-tion. A complementary action to increase water consumption reduction is under study in 2017 (see table below).
Table D8: Actions to reduce water consumption in JRC-Geel
JIRA # Unit Perimeter of action
Date in AAP
Action description Description of latest progress
40 R.5 All buildings-JRC Geel
2015 Better monitoring of water consumption to reconcile differences between measurements at individual building level and at site level through installation of a new monitoring system at building level.
2016 — Completion. All buildings independently equipped with water meters connected to the Building Management System as well as rain water collectors and cooling towers water circuits.
124 R.5 4 buildings-JRC Geel
2015 Remove cooling towers. 2016 — Completion — Removal of 8 wet cooling towers of buildings 010 (x2), 040 (x3), 100 (x2), and 110 (x2).
288 R.5 Building 040
2017 Replacement of B040 cooling towers.
2017: Technical analysis to be performed.
The main reason for the decrease in water consumption is the replacement of (chillers cooled by) old wet cool-ing towers by dry coolers. This was done gradually over the past years together with the replacement of the chill-ers containing R22 refrigerant.
Regular monitoring of water consumption allows the detection of abnormal increases to be detected, (caused for example due to defective valves) and immediate intervention when necessary.
D4.3 Office and offset paper
Offset paper is not used at JRC Geel. The evolution of total and per capita office paper consumption is shown in figures D11 and D12. The figures are based on purchasing data. As a consequence it is possible that figures show an increase, even if real consumption did not increase, but paper was purchased at the end of the year. Figures should be compared over longer periods.
D16
Figure D11: Evolution of total paper consumption at JRC-Geel (tonnes, sheets)
Figure D12: Per capita consumption of office paper (tonnes, sheets per day)
2
4
6
8
10
0.022
0.011
0.020
20.4
10.3
19.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
2014 2015 2016
Shee
ts/d
ay
Tonn
es/p
erso
n
Office paper (tonnes/person)
Office paper (sheets/day)
2014 2015 2016Total paper consumption (tonnes) 7.44 3.57 5.93
Offset paper (tonnes) 0.00 0.00 0.00
7.44 3.57 5.93Office (A4 sheet equivalent) x 1 000 000 1.49 0.72 1.19
Office paper (tonnes)
The status of actions to reduce paper consumption is presented below:
Table D9: Summary of actions for reducing paper consumption in buildings
JIRA # Service Perimeter of action
Date in AAP
Action description Action type
Description of latest progress
22 HPS All buildings-JRC Geel
≤ 2014 Monitoring paper consumption of different units.
Single 2016 — Completion. The monitoring system is in place and continued. Paper packs delivered are monitored.
41 R.5 Administration-JRC Geel
2015 Promotion of paperless financial circuits in the financial administration and recruitment procedures.
Single 2016: Completion — In the competitive (contractual income) sector, work instructions have been set up to replace traditional paper signature by electronic signature; In the field of procurement efforts have been undertaken to move towards e-procurement; In contracts running for several years with multiple payments, JRC Geel contractually oblige the contractor to submit e-invoices.
158 HPS All staff-JRC Geel
2015 Raise awareness of paper consumption through communication.
Continuous 2016 — Completed — The figures of the distributed paper per building hence the paper consumption were communicated to staff in order to achieve a behaviour change resulting in decreased in paper use.
There are no new actions planned for 2017.
D5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint
D5.1 CO2 emissions from buildings
(a) Buildings (energy consumption)
The annual CO2 emissions generated by buildings’ energy consumption and the respective contributions of energy sources are presented in Figure D13.
D17
Figure D13: CO2 emissions generated by buildings energy consumption (indicator 2a)
district heating/cooling
diesel
mains gas
electricity
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total (tonnes) 5 453 5 401 5 049
1 522 1 548 1 534
111 121 121
355 384 426
3 465 3 347 2 967
4 809
1 109
19
338
3 343
4 375
1 024
6
397
2 948
4 254
784
7
376
3 087
Electricity consumption is responsible for the bulk of emissions which has reduced slightly over the last few years. The grid electricity doesn’t contain energy from renewable source. Emissions from district heating/cooling have reduced by over 50 %. Further follow-up is needed as in the past JRCGeel did not have the tools to monitor the consumption in detail. However insulation works done over the past years have certainly had an impact on this reduction.
Figures D14 and D15 show emissions from buildings energy consumption per capita and per m².
16.5
16.8 14.813.9 13.3
14.4
10.5 10.4
8.79.7
9.010.4
0.3 0.4 0.4 0.060.02 0.02
4.6 4.8 4.53.2 3.1 2.6
13.2
1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
tonnes CO2/person
2020 targetTonnesCO2/person 74
7164
6858 61
8 8 9 7 8 7
32 33 3323 20
16
116 115109
99
87 84
94
2 3 30.4 0.1 0.10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Kg CO2/m2 electricity
2020 target kgCO2/m2
2012 2013 2014 2015 20162011
Total
electricity
fuels
district heating
gas
gas
district heating
Total
fuels
As mentioned earlier the increase per capita in 2016 is due to staff reductions. The target of reduction of CO2 emissions per square metre seems to have been reached. Further follow-up is needed to confirm this.
Actions specifically targeting reduction in CO2 emissions are included in table D10. Many other actions to reduce energy consumption will also result in lower CO2 emissions. These are detailed in Section D4.1.
Table D10: Main actions planned to further reduce the CO2 emissions
JIRA # Service Perimeter of action
Date in AAP
Action description Action type
Description of latest progress
190 R.5 All site-JRC Geel
2016 New electricity contract.
Single 2017 — Finalisation of electricity contract and procurement to be launched;
2016 — Preparation of the specifications of the new contract for electricity supply, at least 50 % should be green electricity (GPP requirement).
301 R.5 All buildings JRC Geel
2017 Heating from geothermal origin: new contract to be signed.
Single To be signed first trimester 2017.
D18
(b) Buildings — other greenhouse gases (refrigerants)
Figures D16 and D17 give an overview of the evolution of the recorded gas losses from refrigerating Units (HFC’s and in 2013 also R22).
Figure D16: Losses of refrigerants at JRC-Geel (kg) (indicator 2b)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Refr
iger
ant l
osse
s (kg
)
2013
2014
2015
2016
Total losses R22 R410A R134A R404A R407C R507A
27.50 9.80 7.50 34.60 0.00 5.60
0.00 2.60 8.00 45.80 0.00 0.00
0.00 1.43 0.00 15.21 13.55 0.00
85
56.40
30.19
23.99 0.00 2.02 13.66 8.31 0.00 0.00
Figure D17: Losses of refrigerants at JRC-Geel (tonnes CO2 e) (indicator 2b)
50
100
150
200
250
300
Refr
iger
ant l
osse
s t C
O2 e
2013
2014
2015
2016
Total losses R22 R410A R134A R404A R407C R507ATotal losses tCO2 e/person
239.0
196.5
86.7
56.3
49.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.5
5.4
3.0
4.2
10.7
11.4
0.0
19.5
135.7
179.6
59.7
32.6
0.0
0.0
24.0
0.0
22.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.70
0.57
0.26
0.19
Refrigerant losses represent about 2 % of greenhouse gas emissions related to energy consumption. Upgrading installations (linked with the decommissioning of old ones containing R22), improved maintenance and close fol-low-up is responsible for the gradual reduction in losses from refrigerants.
In the coming years, replacement of HFCs with High GWP will have to be envisaged. This is, in particular, the case for a cold cell of – 40 °C where the charge exceeds 40 tonnes CO2 equivalent.
The reduction of cooling gas leaks was achieved with an improvement of the JRC-Geel maintenance plan as described in action JIRA#125 from 2015 Annual Action Plan 2015 ‘Implement a monitoring system for cooling units located within the Institute’; this system was fully implemented in 2016 as a systematic control of the cool-ing system according to legislation.
D19
D5.2 CO2 emissions from vehicles
(a) Commission vehicle fleet
Table D11: Fleet vehicle characteristics and tailpipe CO2 emissions
2014 2015 2016
Total (MWh/yr) 30.42 29.67 27.71
MWh/person 0.085 0.087 0.094
CO2 emissions (tonnes)
From Diesel 2.21 1.86 2.30
From Petrol 4.67 4.85 3.95
From Propane 0.47 0.47 0.47
Tailpipe emissions (CO2) 7.36 7.18 6.72
Tailpipe emissions (CO2/person) 0.021 0.022 0.023
The emissions related to the Commission fleet represent less than 1 % of the emissions due to energy consumption.
(b) Local work-based travel (excluding Commission vehicle fleet)
JRC-Geel encourages the use of bicycles for transfers from one building to another. In this context, 90 bicycles from JRC-Geel are available, 29 of which are white. The white ones are not allocated to a particular person but can be used by anyone needing to commute on site.
(c) Commuting
In 2015 a pilot study was launched to assess the feasibility of a shuttle connection from Mol/Geel stations to JRC-Geel. Unfortunately it was unsuccessful.
This is due to the remoteness of the JRC-Geel site. People living in the immediate area around the site, are more inclined to come by bike or walk to work. Those living in the centres of Geel or Mol have the option to take a bus operated by De Lijn which comes within proximity of the site towards the European School. However, people liv-ing further away would need to change the public transport means twice or more thus making public transport inconvenient for JRC-Geel staff in terms of time efficiency. In addition, people with children of school age gener-ally drop off their children their respective schools on their way to and from work. This is particularly the case for children attending the European School of Mol, which is located in the same area as the JRC-Geel site and thus carpooling the children to school makes the car an evident and convenient option. No financial incentive is offered to staff coming to work by public transport.
In 2016 a survey was conducted to estimate the carbon footprint of staff commuting. 132 staff members replied to this survey, and altogether they commuted an average daily distance of 5 366 km. The distribution of journey length is presented in Figure D18 below.
Figure D18: Distribution of daily commuting distance
Excluding journeys by bicycle, on foot or as a car passen-ger (including car-pooling) this represents 4 469 km/day or 33.86 km per person per day mostly representing individual car journeys.
Taking average emissions of 133 kgCO2/km (6), the number of staff members of 296 and the number of working days of 211, the annual CO2 emissions due to commuting is 281 tonnes. This represents approximatively 5 % of the site’s measured carbon footprint.
(6) https://www.statista.com/statistics/260028/average-co2-car-emission-levels-in-eu-27/, or average over 10 years https://www.smmt.co.uk/reports/co2-report/
0 - 5 km1%
>100 km42 %
50 - 100 km27 %
30 - 50 km10 %
20 - 30 km8 %
10 - 20 km10 %
5 - 10 km2 %
D20
D5.3 Carbon footprint
The emissions due to different sources are present below:
Figure D19: Carbon footprint elements (Tonnes CO2)
2013
2014
2015
2016
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commission
vehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
426 0 0 2 967 1 534 330 2 1 0 0,0
338 0 7 3 343 1 109 345 2 0 0 0,0
397 0 7 2 948 1 024 213 1 6 5 0,0
376 0
121
19
6
7 5
239
196
87
56 3 087 784 267 2 4 4 0,0
0
0
0
281
5 620
5 359
4 694
4 873
Figure D20: Carbon footprint elements (Tonnes CO2/person)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2013
2014
2015
2016
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commission
vehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
1.25
0.98
1.21
1.27
0
0
0
0
0.36
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.70
0.57
0.26
0.19
8.70
9.66
8.99
10.43
4.50
3.20
3.12
2.65
0.91
0.96
0.65
0.90
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0.95
16.42
15.47
14.31
16.46
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
As a consequence of the 2016 reorganisation, some units were spread over several sites. Further follow-up is needed to assess if this reorganisation has had a major impact on the carbon footprint due to missions.
D5.4 Total air emissions of other air pollutants (SO2, NO2, PM)
Emissions from other air pollutants is limited as, on one hand buildings are heated by Natural gas and, on the other hand the diesel is used only for the emergency generators which run less than 100 days per year.
D6 Improving waste management and sorting
D6.1 Non-hazardous waste
The evolution of non-hazardous waste disposed of from JRC-Geel is represented in Figure D21.
D21
Figure D21: Evolution of non-hazardous waste disposed
Plastics (200139)
Glass (200102, 150107)
Wood (170201, 200138)
Metal (191202, 200140)
Paper and cardboard (200101)
Building, brick and stone (170102, 170301)
Residual; mixed (070299, 080318, 191210, 191212, 200301, 200307)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
Total (tonnes/person)
88
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.20
38
2.72
25
19
89
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
12
35
2.62
23
16
62
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.54
27
1.62
14
11
166
0.48
0.00
1.16
0.04
16
38
33
22
56
115
0.35
0.00
0.54
7.83
12
33
15
0.00
47
108
0.36
0.05
4.45
0.76
0.69
2.14
15
22
15
4.50
42
Wine samples (020304)
Swill (200108)
Packaging waste: PMD (150106)
D6.2 Hazardous waste
The evolution of hazardous waste disposed of from JRC-Geel is represented in Figure D22.
D22
Figure D22: Evolution of hazardous waste disposed
Fluorescent lamps and mercury containing objects (200121)
Waste from mechanical processes (191211)Waste from production of water for industrial use (190905)
Batteries and acumulators (160601, 200133)
Pressurised gasses and lab chemicals (160504, 160506, 200119)
Antifreeze, PCB (160114, 160209)
Packaging waste, absorbens, cleaning cloth, filters (150110, 150202)
Cooling gasses (140601)
Waste oil (130205, 130301, 130802)
Waste from thermal processes (100804)
Paint, ink, glue, resin containing hazardous substances (080111, 080317, 200127)Waste from organic chemical processes (070101, 070103, 070104, 070701, 070704)Waste from inorganic chemical processes (060106, 060205, 060399)
Asbestos (170605)
Electric & electronic (160213,160214, 200136)
Biological waste (180103)
Radioactive waste
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 8.12 27.44 30.39 23.97
Total (tonnes/person) 0.024 0.079 0.093 0.081
0.06 0.00 0.08 0.11
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.04 0.07
0.01 0.06 0.96 0.01
0.00 1.41 1.03 5.57
0.00 0.00 7.36 1.93
1.09 1.31 1.12 3.43
0.00 0.03 0.07 0.00
0.08 1.27 1.29 0.03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.08 0.09 1.36 0.03
1.19 3.86 1.46 0.41
1.15 1.14 1.32 0.26
0.15 0.02 0.00 0.25
0.00 7.34 9.34 5.92
4.30 6.36 3.60 4.46
2011
24.74
0.075
0.18
0.07
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.43
1.03
0.92
14.60
0.87
0.05
1.23
3.29
1.04
2012
17.34
0.054
0.00
0.87
0.00
0.52
0.34
0.00
0.92
0.00
1.87
0.00
0.00
8.50
1.58
0.08
0.00
2.68
0.00 0.00 4.48 1.37 1.50
D6.3 Waste sorting
Table D12: Percentage of waste sorted at JRC-Geel
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Percentage of waste sorted 83.6 84.8 84.6 71.0 67.8 65.2
Percentage of waste not sorted 16.4 15.2 15.4 29.0 32.2 34.8
Data suggest that despite efforts made the fraction of non-sorted waste is increasing. This is due to cleaning up campaigns at site level. During the last years several initiatives were launched (also for safety and health issues) to clean out cellars, old storages and stock. However, a close monitoring of this issue is highly recommended.
At present JRC-Geel is waiting for approval of its clearance procedure from the nuclear authorities. Once this is obtained some old equipment coming from the controlled areas will be measured and — most probably — dis-posed of. This will have an impact on the figures for 2017.
Table D13 gives an overview of the actions seeking to improve waste sorting.
D23
Table D13: Actions relevant to waste
JIRA # Service Perimeter of action
Date in
AAP
Action description Action type
Description of latest progress
166 HPS All site-JRC Geel
2016 Removal old cooling containers.
Single 2016 — Completion — 12 large cooling containers were sold via highest bid procedure.
305 HPS 5 buildings-JRC Geel
2017 To set-up and implement a new clearance procedure for waste generated in the controlled areas (B10; 20; 40; 50 &51).
Single 2017 — Procedure set-up and first implementation.
D7 Protecting biodiversityThe built surface area did not change in 2016 (71 286 m², representing 18.7 % of the total surface). As a con-sequence of staff reduction the built surface per person increased by 10.8 %. JRC-Geel has a Forest Manage-ment Plan which has been approved by the authorities. The overall aim is to gradually replace the pine trees by endemic species.
Figure D23: Location of the forest lots (forest management plan) (scale 1:7 500)
In 2017, the JRC Geel forest management (2017 AAP action JIRA #309) focussed on regaining natural tree veg-etation by planting 100 new trees from which Quercus robur (20 %), Sorbus aucuparia (20 %), Frangula alnus (20 %) and Ilex aquifolium (10 %)
Figure D24: Example of forest management plan study around B210
D24
D8 Green public procurement (GPP)
D8.1 Incorporating GPP into procurement contracts
The JRC procurement tool includes an automatic control step embedded in the PPMT (Public Procurement Man-agement Tool), based on the CPV codes (7) (Common Procurement Vocabulary), flagging the request as soon as GPP criteria are involved. Two out of nine high value contracts included GPP criteria in 2016.
In 2017 the same system will be used to add GPP criteria whenever applicable. Table D14 gives an overview of the main actions related to this topic.
Table D14: Actions relevant to procurement
JIRA # Service Perimeter of action
Date in AAP
Action description Action type
Description of latest progress
178 R.5 Administration-JRC Geel
< 2014 To monitor via PPMT that procurement above 60 000 Euro include GPP criteria.
Single 2016 — Completion — It is monitored if GPP principles are implemented in 20 % of the contracts > EUR 60 k. System is in place.
180 R.5 Administration-JRC Geel
< 2014 Start to monitor GPP criteria in tenders.
Single 2016 — Completion — The monitoring system is actively implemented in the procurement process since 2016.
190 R.5 All site-JRC Geel
2016 New electricity contract.
Single 2017 — Finalisation of electricity contract and procurement to be launched;
2016 — Preparation of the specifications of the new contract for electricity supply, at least 50 % should be green electricity (GPP requirement).
D9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparednessThe follow-up of the legal compliance can be split into nuclear and non-nuclear areas.
(7) CPV codes are internationally recognised They establish a single classification system for public procurement aimed at standardising the references used by contracting authorities and entities to describe procurement contracts.
D25
� The nuclear environmental protection issues are regulated by the Federal Authorities and Monitored by the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC) and its technical subsidiary BelV; and
� The non-nuclear environmental protection is the competence of the Flanders Region. Main agencies are LNE (Departement Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie), OVAM (Openbare Afvalstoffen Maatschappij) and VMM (Vlaamse Milieu Maatschappij). In order to follow-up the appropriate legislation an Environmental Co-ordinator must be retained. At JRC-Geel this is outsourced.
During the year 2016 regular follow-up of legal compliance issues was mainly ensured by the regular input from the external environmental co-ordinator or nuclear external control organisms.
In 2017 the follow-up of the legal compliance at JRC-Geel was distributed as follows:
� Nuclear legislation by the Health Physics Service (HPS), administratively belonging to Unit G2; and
� Non-Nuclear Environmental Legislation by Unit R.5.
In addition, in the framework of the contained use of GMOs and pathogens a staff member of Unit F.6 was appointed Biosafety Co-ordinator. Changes in the organisation of JRC-Geel, the planning of a new building and changes in the legislation impose a large number of actions which need to be performed in 2017.
Table D15 gives an overview of the main actions related to this topic.
Table D15: Major actions relevant to legal compliance
JIRA # Service Perimeter of action
Date in AAP
Action description Action type
Description of latest progress
259 R.5 All buildings-JRC Geel
2016 Energy audit heating and cooling installations
Cont. 2017 — To audit new cooling installations according to 2016 new regulation; 2016 — All mandatory audits completed (in B10, 20, 40, 50, 60, 100, 110, 130, 190, 200, 210 and 222).
322 R.5 All buildings-JRC Geel
2017 Inventory of cooling equipment not managed by technical services and subject to the F gas regulation 517/2014
Single 2017 — Inventory in progress, advice to scientific units to be provided by R.5.
323 & 324
G.2 / F 6 buildings-JRC Geel
2017 Set up and execution of a maintenance plan for cooling equipment subject to the F gas regulation 517/2014 G2=(B10; 20; 40; 50; 51; 222); F=(B10; 40; 110; 130; 190; 200)
Cont 2017 — Selection of a certified maintenance service provider; execution of the activities.
325 R.5 All buildings-JRC Geel
2017 Update of environmental licence
Single 2017 — The construction of Building 230 requires licence update. R.5 is preparing the request in cooperation with HPS and the Environmental Co-ordinator. The update will include all other modifications since the last licence request.
A new licensing system will be applicable in 2017. In this system the construction permit (bouwvergunning) and environmental license (milieuvergunning) are merged into one license: ‘Omgevingsvergunning’.
D26
JIRA # Service Perimeter of action
Date in AAP
Action description Action type
Description of latest progress
326 R.5 All buildings-JRC Geel
2017 Implementation of legislation concerning cooling equipment
Single 2017 — As from 05/09/2016 the requirements related to energy audits are stricter. R5 will have the installations further audited in 2017 in line with the new requirements.
328 R.5 All site-JRC Geel
2017 Improvement of legal compliance follow-up
Multi-stage
2017 — Planning to set up procedure for follow-up of environmental legal compliance; Update asbestos inventory; Update environmental legal register; Update significant environmental register.
329 R.5 All buildings-JRC Geel
2017 Make an inventory of ‘fixed’ gas tanks
Single 2017 — Final check of the documents/reports for the fixed gas tanks still to be performed and completed.
330 HPS All site-JRC Geel
2017 Develop a record for compliance with nuclear legislation
Single 2017 — To develop a document to include legal requirements relating to nuclear legislation. Planning for 3-year audit cycle shall be provided as well as the follow-up during those 3 years.
331 F Biotech labs-JRC Geel
2017 Develop a record for compliance with biosafety legislation
Single 2017 — To develop a document to include the legal requirements concerning biosafety legislation. Planning for 3-year audit cycle shall be provided as well as the follow-up during those 3 years.
D10 Communication
D10.1 Internal communication
JRC-Geel mostly uses the flat screens in the different buildings as well as the JRC intranet (Connected) to pro-mote the different actions and inform staff. The following actions were undertaken in 2016:
� Earth hour 2016 promoted through Connected;
Figure D25: Earth hour communication on Connected
� e-learning EMAS is available to all staff;
D27
Figure D26: E-learning EMAS course communication on Connected
� During EMAS workshop (14 and 15/04/2016): presentation of the method to count contracts with GPP at JRC-Geel and the proposal for capturing GPP in PPMT (Public Procurement Management Tool) (procure-ment officer by VC);
� Inter Institutional Green Week (23-27/05/2016): contribution to the debate on GPP and presentation of the new cafeteria contract as good example of GPP (procurement officers);
� Green week (30/05-03/06/2016): daughter of staff member is a winner of the children’s drawing competition;
Figure D27: Green week drawing competition winner
� Publishing the Environmental Statement with data 2015 plus update of graphs showing environmental performance;
� Mobility survey 2016 JRC-Geel: request to all staff to submit survey;
� Mobility survey 2016 JRC-Geel: results;
� Separate collection of swill as new project in waste reduction at JRC-Geel mentioned on Connected;
� Article about swill waste collection at the JRC-Geel site as a contribution to the EMAS article in Commis-sion en Direct;
� Infographics on the evolution of JRC Geel site’s environmental performance in Connected;
D28
Figure D28: Environmental performance communication on Connected
� Update of page on CO2 reduced by carpooling
Following the reorganisation of JRC-Geel, new EMAS Site Co-ordinators and Correspondents were nominated. Therefore the communication process must be reviewed.
D10.2 External communication and stakeholder management
The mandatory annual reports to LNE (Department Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie) and VMM (Vlaamse Milieu Maatschappij) were prepared and despatched before the deadline (15/03/2016). When appropriate, informal dis-cussions with LNE take place. In particular the preparation of the update of the environmental license was dis-cussed together with the JRC-Geel environmental co-ordinator.
Communication with FANC (Federaal Agentschap voor Nucleaire Controle) and BelV (subsidiary of the FANC tak-ing care of the regulatory controls in nuclear installations) are more regular. In this respect FANC and BelV are some of the most important stakeholders (see previous chapter on Stakeholders).
Topics addressed related to environmental impacts of modifications at JRC-Geel. In particular the following points were addressed:
� The reorganisation of JRC-Geel; and
� The new Monnet accelerator.
D11 Training
D11.1 Internal training
The following training sessions related to environmental protection took place:
� Induction course for newcomers
� Biosafety
The Biosafety and Radiation Protection courses are available for both Commission Staff and for staff members from external companies (mandatory and annually repeated). The induction course was specifically prepared for Commission Staff and 11 people attended. The Biosafety course was attended by 27 (5 of whom Commission Staff).
For the sake of this report, training courses on radiation protection are considered to relate to Health and Safety and are not included.
D29
D11.2 External training
Twelve people attended an ISO-14001: 2015 course in February 2016. Figure D29 gives an overview of the train-ing on JRC-Geel Site:
Figure D29: Evolution in site-based training
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
No of different trainings on offer
No of beneficiaries of training
Beneficiaries as % of staff
D12 EMAS Costs and savingTable D16: EMAS administration and energy costs for buildings in the EMAS area
Costs Change in last year2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Direct EMAS Cost (EUR) 0 0 66 000 66 000 67 000 67 000 0
Total Direct Cost per employee 0 0 194 191 204 226 22
Total buildings energy cost (EUR) 1 692 845 1 662 250 1 337 322 1 334 107 1 199 105 1 191 927 – 7 178
Total buildings energy cost (EUR/person)
5 114 5 162 3 922 3 856 3 656 4 027 371
Total water costs (EUR) 27 807 25 607 19 005 13 491 11 706 9 905 – 1 801
Water (EUR/person) 84 80 56 39 36 33 – 2
Total paper cost (EUR) 7 419 3 793 6 462 2 669
Total paper cost (EUR/person) 21 11 19 8
Waste disposal (general) — unit cost/tonne
210 290 80
Waste disposal (general) — EUR/person
70 103 32
D30
D13
Conv
ersio
n fa
ctor
s us
ed fo
r JRC
-Gee
lTa
ble
D17:
Con
vers
ion
fact
ors
Para
met
er a
nd u
nits
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
kWh
of e
nerg
y pr
ovid
ed b
y on
e lit
re d
iese
l10
.89
10.8
910
.89
10.8
910
.89
10.8
9
kWh
of e
nerg
y pr
ovid
ed b
y on
e lit
re p
etro
l9.
429.
429.
429.
429.
429.
42
kWh
of e
nerg
y pr
ovid
ed b
y on
e kg
pro
pane
12.7
812
.78
12.7
812
.78
12.7
812
.78
Pape
r Den
sity
(g/m
2 )80
8080
8080
80
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
1 k
Wh
of e
lect
ricity
(if g
rid a
vera
ge)
0.28
50.
285
0.28
50.
285
0.28
50.
285
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
1 k
Wh
natu
ral g
as0.
202
0.20
20.
202
0.20
20.
202
0.20
2
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
1 k
Wh
dies
el0.
267
0.26
70.
267
0.26
70.
267
0.26
7
GWP
of R
221
810
1 81
01
810
1 81
01
810
1 81
01
810
GWP
of R
410A
2 08
82
088
2 08
82
088
2 08
82
088
2 08
8
GWP
of R
134A
1 43
01
430
1 43
01
430
1 43
01
430
1 43
0
GWP
of R
404A
3 92
23
922
3 92
23
922
3 92
23
922
3 92
2
GWP
of R
407C
1 77
41
774
1 77
41
774
1 77
41
774
1 77
4
GWP
of R
5O7A
3 98
53
985
3 98
53
985
3 98
5
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
one
litre
of d
iese
l2.
672.
672.
672.
672.
672.
672.
67
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
one
litre
of p
etro
l2.
282.
282.
282.
282.
282.
282.
28
Annu
al c
ost o
f one
FTE
13
2 00
013
2 00
013
4 00
013
4 00
0
Note
: See
Cor
pora
te v
olum
e fo
r con
vers
ion
fact
or re
fere
nces
.
D31
D14
Site
bre
akdo
wn
perfo
rman
ce o
f sel
ecte
d pa
ram
eter
sTa
ble
D18:
Site
bre
akdo
wn
Building
Address
Occupant
Useful surface area (m2)
StaffOfficeCaféSelf service restaurantCreche/child carePrinting and mail sortingMedical serviceDepot, large storageWorkshopSports/recreation centreIT Server centrePower generationWater treatment plantLab/experimental (non nuclear)Nuclear lab/experimental
Electricity
Mains gas
Other gas
Diesel
District heating
District coolingSite renewable solarSite renewable biomass
Total energy
Water (m3)
Non-hazardous waste (tonnes)Hazardous waste (tonnes)Wastewater discharge (industrial)
1) B
uild
ing
esse
ntia
l det
ails
201
6:2)
Bui
ldin
g us
e 20
163)
Ene
rgy
sour
ces
and
amou
nt (M
Wh
for
2016
)4)
Wat
er a
nd w
aste
co
nsum
ptio
n
10M
ain
build
ing
F.4,
G.2
8 32
7X
XX
817
712
1 52
947
5
20Va
n De
Gra
aff b
uild
ing
G.2
3 35
1X
X 6
6624
7 9
1381
40M
ass
spec
trom
etry
bui
ldin
gG.
26
791
XX
X1
633
705
2 33
817
12
50
(and
FP
51)
Lina
c bu
ildin
gG.
28
276
XX
XX
3 49
341
13
904
1659
60Te
chni
cal S
ervi
ces
R.5
2 76
4X
XX
X 1
5713
3 2
9025
3
70-
71-
72&
17
0
Dang
erou
s pr
oduc
ts, c
hem
ical p
rodu
cts
and
chem
ical w
aste
sto
rage
bui
ldin
g &
pu
mpi
ng s
tatio
n 1
81
X
81Ca
feta
ria 6
65X
X 1
22 1
2245
4
90-
91Ge
nera
tors
and
hig
h vo
ltage
bui
ldin
g 9
12X
89
252
116
100
Conf
eren
ce b
uild
ing
779
70
108
178
49
110
Chem
istry
bui
ldin
gF.5
1 94
0X
X 6
3684
81
484
329
120
Gara
ges
R.5
XX
89 8
9
D32
Building
Address
Occupant
Useful surface area (m2)
StaffOfficeCaféSelf service restaurantCreche/child carePrinting and mail sortingMedical serviceDepot, large storageWorkshopSports/recreation centreIT Server centrePower generationWater treatment plantLab/experimental (non nuclear)Nuclear lab/experimental
Electricity
Mains gas
Other gas
Diesel
District heating
District coolingSite renewable solarSite renewable biomass
Total energy
Water (m3)
Non-hazardous waste (tonnes)Hazardous waste (tonnes)Wastewater discharge (industrial)
1) B
uild
ing
esse
ntia
l det
ails
201
6:2)
Bui
ldin
g us
e 20
163)
Ene
rgy
sour
ces
and
amou
nt (M
Wh
for
2016
)4)
Wat
er a
nd w
aste
co
nsum
ptio
n
130
BCR
build
ing
E.5;
F.4
, F.5
2 59
9X
X 8
9282
71
719
1339
190
Refe
renc
e M
ater
ials
Sto
rage
bui
ldin
gF.6
3 27
6X
X 7
19 7
1949
2
200
Refe
renc
e M
ater
ial P
roce
ssin
g bu
ildin
gF.6
5 88
0X
XX
1 07
060
11
671
680
210
Adm
inist
ratio
n bu
ildin
gF,
R.
5,
R.10
3 07
4X
126
126
297
222
Entra
nce
build
ing
G.2
1 72
3X
XX
199
112
311
276
Environmental Statement2016 resultsAnnex E: JRC SevillaFinal
Prepared by the EMAS Site Coordination Team in JRC Sevilla
Contact: [email protected] [email protected]
EMAS Site Coordination Team in JRC Sevilla: Juan José Pardo Écija EMAS Site Coordinator Noelia Liboreiro Health& Safety and Environmental Officer Javier Alba Head of the Site Management Sector
Head of Resource Management Sevilla Unit Vincenzo Cardarelli
Cover illustration: Photo provided by the EMAS Site Coordination Team in JRC Sevilla All other illustrations: © European Union unless otherwise stated.
Environmental Statement
2016 resultsAnnex E: JRC Sevilla
Final
E2
E1 Overview of core indicators at Sevilla since 2010 ......................................................................................................E4E2 Description of Seville activities and key stakeholders ...............................................................................................E6E3 Environmental impact of Seville activities .......................................................................................................................E8E4 More efficient use of natural resources .............................................................................................................................E9E5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint...............................................................................................................E16E6 Improving waste management and sorting ..................................................................................................................E19E7 Protecting biodiversity ..............................................................................................................................................................E21E8 Green public procurement (GPP) .........................................................................................................................................E21E9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness ......................................................................E22E10 Communication .............................................................................................................................................................................E23E11 Training ..............................................................................................................................................................................................E24E12 EMAS Costs and saving ............................................................................................................................................................E25E13 Conversion factors ......................................................................................................................................................................E26
Contents
E3
ANNEX E: Seville — Administrative activities
The European Commission’s site of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Seville is one of the JRC’s seven scien-tific institutes across Europe. It was created in 1994 under the name Institute for Prospective and Technological studies, and after the reorganisation at JRC level was fully implemented in 2016 it became JRC Directorate B & Seville Site (hereafter referred to as Sevilla).
The mission is to provide scientific and technical support for community policymaking by the European Commis-sion (EC) involving a socioeconomic and scientific/technological dimension. Its main activity involves carrying out studies in the above context, and it therefore assumes an administrative nature. It does not have special labora-tories or facilities other than the offices of the researchers with well-equipped computers and data processing resources suitable for performing the simulations and analyses required.
E4
E1
Over
view
of c
ore
indi
cato
rs a
t Sev
illa
since
201
0Ta
ble
E1 b
elow
illu
stra
tes
the
evol
utio
n sin
ce 2
010
of S
evill
a’s
mai
n en
viro
nmen
tal i
ndica
tors
, alo
ng w
ith p
erfo
rman
ce tr
end,
and
targ
ets
whe
re a
pplic
able
for 2
020.
Tabl
e E1
: His
toric
al d
ata,
per
form
ance
and
targ
ets
for c
ore
indi
cato
rs p
ropo
sed
for C
omm
issi
on-le
vel r
epor
ting
Phys
ical
indi
cato
rs:
Hist
oric
dat
a va
lues
Perf
orm
ance
tren
d (%
) sin
ce:
Targ
et(N
umbe
r, de
scrip
tion
and
unit)
2010
(1 )20
1320
1420
1520
1620
1020
1320
1420
1520
20Δ
% (2 )(
3 )va
lue
(2 )(3 )
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(MW
h/p)
11.1
79.
559.
138.
988.
05–
28.0
– 15.
7–
11.9
– 10
.4–
5.0
8.67
61a
) Ene
rgy
bldg
s (K
Wh/
m2)
425
414
376
355
337
– 20.
7– 1
8.7
– 10.
4– 5
.0–
5.0
357
1c) N
on-r
en. e
nerg
y us
e (b
ldgs
) %10
087
.877
.483
.284
.2– 1
5.8
– 4.
18.
81.
2Q
Q
1d) W
ater
(m3 /p
)42
.81
27.3
421
.73
21.0
717
.85
– 58.
3–
34.7
– 17.
9– 1
5.3
– 3.0
21.0
81d
) Wat
er (L
/m2 )
1 62
71
187
895
832
748
– 54.
1– 3
7.0
– 16.
5– 1
0.2
– 3.0
868
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (T
onne
s/p)
0.03
0.00
90.
012
0.01
30.
011
– 66.
016
.3– 1
1.5
– 17.
6– 3
.00.
012
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (S
heet
s/p/
day)
319.
012
.613
.511
.1– 6
3.7
24.0
– 11.
5– 1
7.6
– 3.0
12.2
2a) C
O 2 bui
ldin
gs (T
onne
s/p)
4.18
3.46
2.84
3.18
2.63
– 37.
1– 2
3.9
– 7.4
– 17.
3– 5
.02.
702a
) CO 2 b
uild
ings
(kg/
m2)
159
150
117
126
110
– 30.
7– 2
6.6
– 5.9
– 12.
3– 5
.011
12c
) CO 2 v
ehicl
es (g
/km
, man
u.)
136
136
136
136
136
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
– 5.0
141
2c) C
O 2 veh
icles
(g/k
m, a
ctua
l)16
715
820
319
119
617
.324
.7– 3
.42.
8– 5
.019
33a
) Non
-haz
. was
te (T
onne
s/p)
0.02
20.
019
0.06
017
2.7
212.
5– 5
.00.
021
3b) H
azar
dous
was
te
(Ton
nes/
p)0.
012
0.00
90.
007
– 35.
4– 2
0.2
– 3.0
0.01
1
3c) S
epar
ated
was
te (7 )
(%)
NMNM
7791
9219
.01.
4– 5
.074
Econ
omic
indi
cato
rs
(EUR
/p)
Ener
gy c
onsu
mpt
ion
(bld
gs)
1 17
71
142
1 06
295
0– 1
9.3
– 16.
8– 1
0.6
– 5.0
1 08
5W
ater
con
sum
ptio
n 47
.638
.339
.222
.3– 5
3.1
– 41.
7– 4
3.1
– 5.0
44.0
Non-
haz.
was
te d
ispos
al
Note
: (1)
Ear
liest
repo
rted
data
; (2)
com
pare
d to
201
4; (3
) Bas
ed o
n %
in E
MAS
Ann
ual A
ctio
n Pl
an 2
017
(6) T
arge
t val
ue; Q
Qua
litat
ive
targ
et, (
7) m
inim
um v
alue
s
E5
Table E1 shows a downwards trend for most indicators except non-hazardous waste (see section E.6.1) despite increases since 2010, both in staff numbers (up to 42 %) and useful surface area (up to 28 %, see Figure E1).
Core indicators are estimated based on surface area occupied by Sevilla. Total energy consumption shows a pos-itive evolution since 2010, with an average yearly reduction rate of 4.7 % per capita and 3.5 % related to the occupied surface. Since 2010, Sevilla has constantly invested in technology to support high performance com-puting for economic modelling, which allows centralised monitoring and management of energy consumption from its data centre.
CO2 emissions have reduced since 2010 by over 37 % per capita and by 31 % per sq. m, with an average yearly reduction rate of 6.6 % per capita and 5.4 % per sq. m respectively.
Water consumption has dropped by 58 % per capita and 54 % per square metre since 2010. More efficient drink-ing water dispensers were placed across the facilities in 2015, helping to save water and electricity (a green pub-lic procurement action).
Office paper consumption has reduced since 2010 by 66 % per capita and 64 % in sheets per person and day. The measurement methodology was improved in 2016 through individual monitoring of printers. The Program Office at Sevilla applies a restrictive policy for the printing of publications that reduces paper consumption and, however core business activities generate an unpredictable number of publications and may produce different levels of printed paper for internal use.
The economic indicators show also a descending trend since 2013.
The evolution of the EMAS system in Sevilla is as shown below:
Figure E1: Sevilla EMAS Basic parameters
The staff in Seville has significantly increased since 2010, going up to a 41.50 % increase in 2016, rep-resenting an 6.92 % average annual increase rate for the period 2010-2016.
The EMAS perimeter useful surface area in Sevilla has progressively increased over the last few years to reach an overall increase rate of 28.47 % as of 2011, representing a 7.1 % average increase rate for the period 2011-2015.
201220112010 2013 2014 2015 2016
200
0
250
300
350
50
100
150
5 000
0
6 000
7 000
8 000
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
Staff evolution p +41,51 % 2010-2016
Occupation evolution m2 +28,47 % 2010-2016
5 577
212240 244
282 289 283300
5 5775 899
6 4977 017 7 165 7 165
E6
Figure E2: Site location and layout
SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR GROUND FLOOR
E2 Description of Seville activities (1) and key stakeholders:Sevilla is located in the building known as the ‘Expo building’ since 1994. The building is located on the Science and Technology Park (Isla de la Cartuja), to the west of the city of Seville. The ‘Expo building’ is managed by EPGASA, a company held by the regional government of Andalusia.
The Expo Building is a three storey multi-tenant office building with a total office space of 12 584 m2 of which Sevilla occupies 7 165 m2, equivalent to 57 % of the total and distributed across the ground, first and second floors. The building has two basements used mainly as car parks but including bicycle parking, and the building plant room. The total site area is 11 669 m2. The building itself occupies 8 168 m2 at ground level.
E2.1 Sevilla organisational structure
The site accommodates JRC Directorate B, Growth and Innovation, and is led by the Director who reports to the Director-General of the JRC. S/he is responsible for the Seville site and for Directorate B under Programme Office and seven Scientific Units located in Seville (Spain), Ispra (Italy) and Brussels (Belgium).
Each Scientific Unit is led by a Head of Unit who is responsible for the execution of the research work programme in their policy and scientific fields of competence. The work of the scientific units is structured by projects under specific work-packages. Scientific coordination, internal communication, publications services, audit and quality management are handled by the Programme Office.
(1) NACE codes associated with Brussels activities are: 99 — Activities of extraterratorial organisations and bodies; 84.1 Administration of the state and the economic and social policy of the community.
E7
Figure E3: Sevilla Process Map
Environmental Mgnt
Library
Site Mgnt
Business Continuity
QMS/EMSStrategy, Planning,Monitoring, Evaluation
Management
DIR. B PROCESS MAP
Control of procedures,forms and templates Records Control Audits NCAPA
Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4
Research Activity
Corporate Services Processes
The JRC Directorate B Management System consists of the main processes shown in the Process Map below. Dir. B processes are divided into five groups: Management, Research, Infrastructure, Stakeholders & Customers, and System Control & Improvement. This process map is based on the IMS process map, which currently is being mapped to the corresponding processes.
E2.2 Interested parties
Sevilla’s main customers are the policy Directorates-General (DG) of the EC. Major JRC Directorate B stakehold-ers are the Director-General of the JRC, the EU Commissioner for Research, the European Parliament, the Council, EU Member States and ultimately EU citizens. In some cases the European Parliament or Member State authori-ties may commission studies to the JRC and thus be considered as customers.
Sevilla adopts several measures for strategic and operational management of relations with customers, stake-holders and partnerships. The Programme Office is responsible for co-ordinating Sevilla’s involvement in JRC internal coordination in connection with these processes.
The key stakeholder in relation to infrastructure management is EPGASA who owns the Expo Building, who is responsible for the general building management, maintenance and most accessory services. Sevilla’s infrastruc-ture-related processes seek to guarantee that staff enjoy a properly functioning and clean working environment while taking into account environmental issues and ensuring the premises’ security and business continuity. The rental contract and the associated Environmental Commitment letter signed by EGPASA constitute the reference framework for environmental and occupational health and safety related issues.
The regional government of Andalusia and the city council of Seville are the competent bodies regulating the applicable local environmental legislative framework.
Other important stakeholders for infrastructure management are the authorised waste management companies and the cleaning services company.
The table below shows the main core business activities carried out in Sevilla.
E8
Table E2: Description of main activities in Sevilla
JRC B Growth & Innovation JRC Directorate B — Growth & Innovation conducts research that provides science-based, customer-driven socioeconomic and techno-economic support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies.
JRC B1 Finance & Economy To provide scientific support to improve European economic and financial governance and to contribute to the reform of the European financial system.
JRC B.3 for Territorial Development
To perform research and analysis and to provide policy support at the crossroads of EU regional, cohesion, R & I and industrial policies, including the assessment of economic and territorial impacts, in order to enhance the formulation and implementation of policy and more effective and efficient use of EU funds.
JRC B.4 Human Capital & Employment
To provide scientific support related to Human Capital and Employment so as to contribute to Innovation, Growth and Social Cohesion in the EU.
JRC B.5 Circular Economy & Industrial Leadership
To provide the techno-economic support in the fields of industrial emissions, product policy, waste and environmental management.
JRC C.6, Economics of Climate Change, Energy & Transport
Supports the European Commission by performing economics based research in support of energy, transport and climate-related policies.
JRC D.4 Economics of agriculture
To provide scientific support to the EU policymakers in assessing through macro and micro socioeconomic analyses the development of the Agro Food sector and related sectors including rural development, food security, trade and technological innovation in the EU and globally but also with special emphasis on Africa.
Sevilla, according to the EMAS EC Environmental Policy, commits to minimise the environmental impact of its everyday work and continuously improve its environmental performance by:
� Complying with the EMAS Regulation;
� Fulfilling the applicable legal and other requirements related to the environmental aspects;
� Taking measures to prevent pollution and to achieve more efficient use of natural resources (mainly energy, water and paper);
� Taking measures to reduce overall CO2 emissions;
� Encouraging waste prevention, maximising waste recycling and reuse, and optimising waste disposal;
� Integrating environmental criteria into public procurement procedures and into the rules regarding the organisation of events;
� Stimulating the sustainable behaviour of all staff and subcontractors through training, information and awareness-raising actions.
The Resource Management Unit in Sevilla provides technical support for the scientific programmes of the site and is responsible for the implementation of EMAS.
E3 Environmental impact of Seville activitiesSevilla undertook a full update of the environmental aspects in 2015 (2). The Aspects Register is reviewed annu-ally and updated when necessary. Significant impacts associated with four main aspect groups were identified, as described in Table E4. The other aspects described in the Environmental Aspects Register can be considered of minor significance or insignificant.
(2) Environmental Aspects Register (S.6.1-R003 Environmental Aspects JRC Seville).
E9
Table E3: Summary of significant environmental aspects for Sevilla
Aspect Group Environmental Aspect
Environmental Impact Activity product or service
Indicator/ action plan
Resources Electricity & fossil fuel consumption
Resources depletion, air emissions, global warming
Heating, cooling, ventilation, Indicator I a
Resources Gas consumption
(Heating)
Resources depletion, air emissions, global warming
Heating, cooling, ventilation, Indicator I a
Emissions to Air CO2 emissions Air pollution, global warming
HVAC and equipment maintenance
Transport: work-related travel (Commuting)
Indicators 2 a,
Waste Hazardous waste production
Air, water and/or soil pollution, biodiversity risks
Office activity Indicators 3 a
E4 More efficient use of natural resources
E4.1 Energy consumption
Buildings energy consumption data should be considered in the context of climatic conditions. Analysis of degree data3 presented in Figure E4 suggests that the climatic conditions have been quite stable since 2013, reflecting the typical climatology in Sevilla, with remarkably hot summers and warm winters.
Figure E4: Total annual degree days at Sevilla, 2012-2016
Cold degree days (CDD), cooling required
Hot degree days (HDD), heating required
kWh/person/degree day
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total degree days 3 446 2 436 2 283 2 524
1 840 1 723 1 717 1 910
1 606 713 566 614
3.04 3.92 4.00 3.56
2 420
1 866
554
3.33
(a) Buildings
The evolution of total annual energy consumption is presented in Table E4. While data per capita and per square metre are presented in Figures E5 and E6. Due to the fact that there is one meter for the whole building, the val-ues obtained are the theoretical consumption based on the building occupation rate (2016: 56.95 % share ot the total building consumption). In 2016, the landlord reported a refill in the building power generator with 1 000 litres of diesel equating to 3 MWh.
(3) Monthly data for San Pablo airport (Seville) station reference temperature 15.5 °C, using buildings energy (http://www.degreedays.net) consumption data for Sevilla.
E10
Table E4: Annual buildings energy consumption (MWh) (indicator 1a)
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total energy consumption 2 369 2 191 2 559 2 692 2 639 2 542 2 414
11
309 269 486 519 387 373 344
2 060 1 922 2 073 2 173 2 252 2 169 2 059
diesel
mains supplied gas
electricity
Figures E5 and E6: Evolution of total annual energy consumption for Sevilla building11.2
9.1
10.5
9.59.1 9.0
8.09.7
8.08.5
7.7 7.8 7.7
6.9
1.5 1.1
2.0 1.81.3 1.3 1.1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
Electricity
Gas
425
393
434414
376355 337357
369345 351
335 321303
287
55 4882 80
55 52 480
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total target 2020
Gas
Total
Electricity
MWh/p kWh/m2
Figures E5 and E6 show that since 2012 there has been continual reduction in energy consumption whether measured per capita or relative to surface area: 24 % (from 10.5 MWh/p in 2012 to 8.01 MWh/p in 2016) and 23 % (from 434 kWh/m2 in 2012 to 337 kWh/m2 in 2016) respectively. This is particularly impressive considering there has been a 23 % increase in staff and 21 % increase in occupied office space since 2012.
At 2 414 MWh, Sevilla’s total energy consumption in 2016 was 5.5 % lower than in 2015 (2 542 MWh) despite a 6 % increase in staff. Both electricity and gas consumption reduced by 5 % and 7 % respectively.
Building upgrades undertaken by the building’s landlord have contributed the upgrading works in 2015 and 2016 have contributed to the improved performance. These included replacing two chillers and two boilers by better performing equipment devices, and refurbishing all the toilets areas by incorporating energy and water saving measures.
Relating energy consumption to heating and cooling degree days further suggests more efficient use of energy per capita since 2014.
In 2016 Sevilla’s the strategy was to continue to encourage the landlord to adopt more efficient environmental site management measures and to better control related significant environmental aspects, therefore ensuring more stringent compliance with environmental legislation.
Sevilla signed a new rental contract with the landlord including specific environmental clauses for the first time and attached an environmental commitment letter as an addendum that clearly set out the environmental regu-latory framework that the landlord had to comply with. Sevilla also encouraged the landlord to implement differ-ent energy and water saving measures aimed to improve the building’s energy and water efficiency.
Sevilla will start focusing on monitoring the energy consumption of its own infrastructure including central data processing centers, PCs, lighting, videoconference equipment, vending machine, etc.).
E11
Sevilla seeks in 2017 to:
1. Continue ensuring effective and structured communication with the landlord to properly monitor envi-ronmental issues, focusing on all the evidences that certify full environmental legal compliance;
2. Continue encouraging employee involvement and raising awareness through environmental initiatives, and promoting EMAS training for all staff;
3. Reinforcing a Green Public Procurement culture within the organisation and involve relevant actors. Careful monitoring of contracts with (GPP) criteria; and
4. Management of JRC Seville’s Direct environmental aspects and careful monitoring of related indicators.
Sevilla has committed to a reduction of 5 % in building’s energy consumption over the period 2014 to 2020; equivalent to annually reducing consumption by 0.85 %. Because Sevilla does not have direct control over the environmental aspects relating to the building’s infrastructure, the actions included in the Commission’s 2017 EMAS Annual action plan, shown below, focus mainly on green public procurement, staff behaviour and improve the effectiveness of the operational control.
Table E5: Further actions to reduce buildings energy consumption (indicator 1a)
Action plan no
Planned Description Progress Status / Date
82 2014 Regularly inform and encourage the landlord to carry out concrete actions related to energy efficiency saving measures aimed at optimising the environ- mental performance, and long term consolidate the established communication framework with the landlord ensuring a timely response on relevant environmental issues.
A new rental contract with the landlord signed in 2016, including specific environmental clauses for the first time and attached as an amendment to the contract an environmental commitment letter thoroughly encompassing the environmental regulatory framework to be complied by the landlord.
Regular coordination meetings with the landlord to tackle environmental related issues.
146 2015 Keep promoting GPP culture through relevant actors.
The Public Procurement Man-agement Tool (PPMT) fully implemented in 2015. Env-ironmental Coordinator included within the Procurement workflow. Green contracts monitoring & reporting must be improved both at corporate and local level. New GPP contact person appointed in Sevilla.
Sevilla has been encouraging the staff since 2015, to take into consideration GPP criteria in all the contracts to be launched, including those low value contracts.
Green contracts monitoring & reporting must be improved. It is expected to obtain reliable GPP reporting from the Sevilla procurement sector in close coordination with corporate services.31.12.17.
165 2015 Enhance staff involvement in EMAS related issues across the organisation, and long term increase the awareness of environmental issues.
The Commission collaborative platform (Connected) was fully implemented in 2015, enhancing the communication with the staff and its participation in all environmental related issues (campaigns, events, news and suggestions).
Main communication tool for environmental related commun-ication purposes.
E12
Action plan no
Planned Description Progress Status / Date
168 2015 Ensure an effective part-icipation of those actors involved in the operational control established in the EMS, and long term ensure an effective implementation of EMAS.
Ensure an effective participation of those actors involved in the operational control established in the EMS, and long term ensure an effective implementation of EMAS.
Fully implemented.
169 2015 Promote actual staff involvement in environmental related issues.
Promote active involvement of the staff in the environmental related initiatives and actions (call for EMAS ambassadors, groups of volunteers). Regular assessment of the participation of the staff on environmental initiatives and messages published via the Commission collaborative platform (Connected
EMAS introductory sessions provided by the EMAS site coordinator to Secretaries network).
Additional EMAS introductory sessions planned in 2017 for key actors of the organisation.
238 2016 Promoting ‘green’ procurement.
GPP criteria info sessions to be provided to relevant actors.
Sevilla keeps encouraging the organisation, mainly the Resource Management Unit, to take into consideration Green Public Procurement criteria in all the contracts no matter the value.
Accurate reporting on GPP from the procurement sector expected by 31.12.17.
262 2016 Ensure staff perception of environmentally friendly works and initiatives at JRC Sevilla.
Implemented in 2016. The Site Management Ticketing monitoring tool provides reliable data on staff’s feedback. Further development of the tool will allow to obtain more detailed staff feedback on environmental issues.
271 2016 Improve the methodology to manage the environ-mental performance to make it more efficient, thus allowing identifying those indicators requiring specific actions to minimise the environmental impact.
Fully operational. A dedicated work instruction was developed aimed to automatizing the data collection and analysis process and obtaining reliable evidence based results.
Fully implemented.
273 2017 Consolidate the participation of actors other than the site coordinator in the implementation of the Environmental Manage-ment System.
EMAS training: introductory sessions for key sectors of the organisation. Analysis and pub-lication of impact of training sessions.
Target completion date 31.12.2017.
E13
(b) Site vehicle fleet
Figure E7: Summary of vehicle energy consumption
The Sevilla site vehicle fleet consists of just one (die-sel) vehicle, and its impact can be considered insig-nificant, as it represents just over 0.1 % of building’s energy consumption.
Distances travelled are usually short as the vehicle is used mostly for airport transfers. In 2016 target was to reduce the vehicle’s diesel consumption by 5 %, and the reduction accomplished was approximately 32 %.
The vehicle’s fuel consumption figures are 136 g/km (manufacturer) and 196 g/km (actual.)
A guide for efficient driving was delivered to the chauffeur in 2015. Sevilla also committed to reducing energy consumption by 5 % in 2020 (compared with 2014), for which the 2016 ‘on track’ target was a 0.85 % reduction.
(c) Renewable energy use in buildings and vehicles
The Expo building does not have installations for producing renewable energy. The only renewable energy con-sumed is the share of renewable sources in the electricity supplier’s grid mix which is published annually by the Spanish competent body Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia.
Table E6: Non-renewable energy use in the buildings (indicator 1c)2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Electricty from renewables (MWh) 0 267 296 328 597 427 381(Electricity from renewables (%)) 0 13.9 14.3 15.1 26.5 19.7 18.5Electricty from non-renewables (MWh) 2 060 1 655 1 777 1 845 1 656 1 742 1 678(electricity from non-renewables (%)) 100 86.1 85.7 84.9 73.5 80.3 81.5mains supplied gas (MWh non-renewable) 309 269 486 519 387 373 344(mains supplied gas (from non-renewables (%)) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Total renewables (MWh) 267.2 296.4 328.2 596.9 427.3 381.0Total renewables (%) 12.2 11.6 12.2 22.6 16.8 15.8Total non-renewables (MWhr/yr) 2 369 1 924 2 263 2 364 2 042 2 114 2 033Total non-renewables (%) 100 87.8 88.4 87.8 77.4 83.2 84.2
Figure E8: Non-renewable energy use in the buildings (indicator 1c)
As shown above the percentage share of electricity in the grid generated from renewables has increased by over the years, reaching an overall 33 % increase since 2011. In 2016, the total amount of electricity pro-duced from renewable sources represented a share of 15.9 % of the total building energy consumption.
In 2016 the target was to continue to raise the land-lord’s awareness of alternatives that could increase the share of renewable energy coming from the mains electricity supply, such as ‘green’ supply con-tracts. The 2017 performance target is to keep
informing the landlord of opportunities to improve the EXPO building’s energy efficiency and will suggest dif-ferent energy saving measures that could be feasible to implement, as well as potential renewable sources of energy that could be considered.
0.61
0.28 0.28
0.380.37
0.34
0.23
0.031
0.013 0.012
0.015
0.0140.013
0.008
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Diesel used (m3)MWh/person
12.2 11.6 12.2
22.6
16.815.8
267.2 296.4
328.2596.9
427.3381.0
2 369
2 191
2 5592 692
2 6392 542
2 414
0
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
0
5
10
15
20
25
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total renewables (%)
Total energy consumption
Total renewables (MWh)
E14
E4.2 Water consumption
Figures E9, E10: Evolution of total annual water consumption for Seville building (indicator 1d)
42.81
34.60
27.69 27.34
21.73 21.07
17.85
21.08
9 075
8 304
6 757
7 710
6 2815 963
5 356
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
9 000
10 000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
m3 to
tal
m3 /p
erso
n
m3/person
2020 target m3/p (AAP2016)
m3 total
1 6271 489
1 145 1 187
895832
748
868
9 075
8 304
6 757
7 710
6 281
5 9635 356
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
9 000
10 000
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
1 400
1 600
1 800
2 000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
m3 to
tal
L/m
2
L/m2
2020 target L/m2 (AAP2016)
m3 total
Figures E9 and E10 show that annual water consumption has reduced by 41 % since 2010, resulting in an over-all saving of 25 m3 per capita.
In 2016, despite an increase of 6 % in staff numbers, the overall consumption reduced by 15 % and 10 % when measured per capita and per sq. m respectively, compared to 2015. Water consumption in 2016, measured both in m3/p and l/m2, is already 14 % below the 2020 target of a 3 % reduction compared to 2014.
In 2016, new more environmentally friendly drinking water dispensers were installed which were equipped with high performance filters that significantly improved water quality while reducing water consumption.
The 2016 target was to continue raising staff awareness on water saving while improving facilities. However gauging the campaign’s real effectiveness is difficult because the site’s consumption is based on its share (according to occupied area) of the EXPO building consumption.
Sevilla will start focussing on the staff awareness and behaviour patterns aimed to further reducing water consumption.
The 2017 target actions include:
1. Continuing to strengthen influence over the landlord to ensure environmental legal compliance and more thorourgh operational control;
2. Striving for a closer cooperation with the landord to better monitoring aspects he controls;
3. Continuing to inform the landlord of opportunities to improve the EXPO building’s water efficiency, and regularly suggesting different water saving measures;
4. Continuing to raise environmental awareness of staff, and;
5. Consolidating the participation of actors other than the site coordinator in the implementation of the Environmental Management System.
Sevilla’s actions included in the Commission’s 2017 EMAS Annual action plan focussed on fostering employee involvement and raising awareness. The corresponding action in the 2017 EMAS Annual Action plan is as follows:
Table E7: Further actions to reduce buildings water consumption (indicator 1d)
Action plan no
Planned Description Progress Status / Date
83 2014 Regularly inform and encourage the landlord to carry out concrete actions related to water consumption saving measures aimed at optimising the environmental performance, and long term consolidate the established communication framework with the landlord ensuring a timely response on relevant environmental issues.
On permanent basis.
E15
E4.3 Office and offset paper
The evolution of office and offset paper at Sevilla and per capita breakdown presented below:
Figure E11: Evolution of paper consumption at Sevilla (totals)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Offset paper (tonnes)
Office paper (tonnes)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Office (A4 sheet equivalent) x 1 000 000 1.37 1.16 0.82 0.53 0.77 0.80 0.70
Total paper consumption (tonnes) 9.12 7.71 5.79 4.82 4.82 5.00 4.96
2.28 1.91 1.69 2.16 1.24 1.24 1.67
6.84 5.80 4.10 2.66 3.58 3.76 3.29
Figure E12: Evolution of paper consumption at Sevilla (per person and sheets per day)
Paper consumption is controlled directly by the Sevilla site. Figure E11 and E12 show that total office paper consumption has decreased significantly in 2016 rel-ative to 2015.
While offset paper consumption remained relatively stable in 2014-2016 recent years, increased slightly in 2016 to 1.67 tonnes, more publications are pro-duced but with smaller print runs indicating the effec-tiveness of the policies in place for control of printed paper.
The 2016 target was to thoroughly monitor printing, identifying the most critical devices, on which to focus spe-cific actions such as awareness campaigns to help reducing consumption more effectively.
The actions included in the Commission’s 2017 EMAS Annual action plan were focused on (a) fostering employee involvement and raise awareness, and (b) involving the relevant sectors and actors in the implementation of GPP criteria. The new counting method, fully implemented in 2016, uses printed copy totals to provide reliable data enabling the identification of the heaviest consumers by location, thus facilitating the targetting for specific ‘print less’ campaigns.
The target for 2017 was the launch of targeted campaigns to raise staff awareness on the need to reduce printed paper consumption. Analysis of data by individual printer and publication of results.The status of actions related to reducing paper consumption is presented below.
0.043
0.032
0.024
0.017 0.017 0.0180.017
0.032
0.024
0.017
0.009 0.012 0.0130.0110.011
0.008 0.007 0.0080.004 0.004 0.006
31
23
16
913 13
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
0.050
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Shee
ts/p
erso
n/da
y
Tonn
es/p
erso
n
Total paper (tonnes/person)
Offset Paper (tonnes/person)
Office paper (sheets/day)
Office paper (tonnes/person)
E16
Table E8: Further actions to reduce paper consumption (indicator 1e)
Action plan no
Planned Description Progress Status/Date
271 2016 Improve the methodology to manage the environmental performance to make it more efficient and effective, ensuring the active involvement of related actors as well as an accurate tracking of the data.
Fully operational. A dedicated work instruction was developed aimed to automatizing the data collection and analysis process and obtaining reliable evidence based results.
Fully implemented.
272 2017 Launch of targeted campaigns to raise staff awareness on the need to further reduce printed paper consumption. Analysis of data by individual printer and publication of results.
Printed copy data enables in-depth analysis of consumption patterns and trends, including the location of heaviest consumers. Regular and specific campaigns will be established.
Target completion date 31.12.17.
E5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint
E5.1 CO2 emissions from buildings
(a) Buildings (energy consumption)
Figure E13: CO2 emissions from buildings’ energy consumption, tonnes (indicator 2a)
The main sources of CO2 emissions considered under EMAS are from energy used for the buildings, (includ-ing equivalent emissions from release of refriger-ants), vehicle fleet, missions and commuting. Sevilla has evaluated CO2 emissions for buildings in 2016 at 2.63 Tonnes/person.
Figure E15 shows an overall CO2 emissions decrease of 13 %, despite a 14 % increase in emissions from combustion of gas. This was due to the publication of a new gas conversion factor in 2016 (0.252 KgCO2/Kwh) which was 25 % greater than the value in 2015 (0.204 KgCO2/Kwh). The emissions generated by elec-tricity consumption decreased by 15 %.
The 2017 target is to:
�keep encouraging the landlord to behave in an environmentally responsible manner, focusing on full
environmental legal compliance;
� keep fostering the employee involvement in environmental initiatives;
� management of JRC Seville’s direct environmental aspects and careful monitoring of related indicators.
diesel
mains gas
electricity
769 829
869743 824
700
55
99106
78
76
87
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1 000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 824 928 975 821 900 789
3
55 99 106 78 76 87
769 829 869 743 824 700
E17
Figures E14 and E15: CO2 emissions from buildings heating (t/p & kg/m2) (indicator 2a)4.18
3.43
3.80
3.46
2.84
3.18
2.632.7
3.89
3.203.40
3.08
2.572.91
2.33
0.300.23
0.41 0.38 0.27 0.27 0.29
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total tonnes CO2/person2020 target tonnes CO2/personelectricity t CO2/pgas t CO2/p
159148
157150
117126
110111.2
148138 141
134
106115
98
11.39.8
16.8 16.3 11.1 10.6 12.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total kg CO2/m2
2020 target kg CO2/m2
electricity kg CO2/m2
gas kg CO2/m2
Tonnes/person Kg/m2
(b) Buildings — other greenhouse gases (refrigerants)
The landlord manages maintenance of the cooling system and is therefore responsible for the refrigerant life cycle. The 2015 objective was to better monitor the maintenance interventions required by the applicable legisla-tion. A comprehensive detailed register was developed grouping all the air conditioning devices installed at Sevil-la’s premises, thoroughly describing the preventive maintenance activities and their periodicity.
In 2015, the landlord reported a leakage of R-134 refrigerant gas amounting to 36 kg, equivalent to 51.5 tonnes equivalent of CO2. No leakage was reported by the landlord in 2016. The target in 2017 is to continue to monitor the preventive and corrective maintenance activities to be carried out by the landlord.
E5.2 CO2 emissions from vehicles
(a) Commission vehicle fleet
Sevilla directly manages one service car. In 2016 it consumed only 234 litres of diesel (about 31 % less than in 2015) producing 196 gCO2/km against the manufacturer’s technical specification of 136 gCO2/km. Car use has been constantly diminishing since 2012, when it peaked at 9 889 Km/year, to 3 192 Km travelled in 2016. Addi-tionally, the average length of trips is shorter: 31.5 Km/trip in 2014, 28.3 Km in 2015 and 27.8 km in 2016).
The overall CO2 emissions have decreased by 24 % in 2016 in relation to 2015.
(b) Missions and local work based travel (excluding Commission vehicle fleet)
Sevilla based staff undertook 1 297 missions in 2016. Sevilla promotes the use of the available videoconferenc-ing infrastructure as an alternative to go on business (‘mission’). The videoconference equipment and dedicated videoconference room have been upgraded over the last couple of years.
Figure E16: Evolution of videoconferences organised in Sevilla
Figure E16 shows the steady increase in the use of videoconferencing. In 2016, 1 179 videoconferences were organised, representing a net 12 % increase compared to 2015 (1 051).
The available data does not make it possible to deter-mine the share of missions that were replaced by videoconferences.
However, it is evident that the Seville staff’s high par-ticipation rate in numerous Commission internal meet-ings by video-conference is reducing the number of missions and therefore that the infrastructure is a key factor in reducing environmental impact.
(c) Commuting
Sevilla estimated from a survey conducted in 2016 that staff generated on average 0.254 t CO2/p in emissions due to commuting. Results are shown in the figure below.
681
802
914
1 051
1 179
244
282
289
283
300
2.79 2.843.16
3.71 3.93
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
1 400
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Vide
o co
nfer
ence
s per
per
son
Num
ber o
f sta
ff
Number of staff Total of videoconferences
Videoconference/p
E18
Figure E17: Carbon footprint elements (Kg CO2) Commute to work CO2 Emissions 2016
Figure E18: Means of transport used by the staff in 2016
Tota
l (kg
/yea
r)
Aver
age
(kg/
km)
Average CO2 (kg/km)Total CO2 (kg/year)
0
10 000
20 000
Car (Diesel)
Car (Petrol)
Motorbike Bus Car (Electric)
Bycicle orwalking
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000 55 044
16 378.56
3 858.36842.16 211.2 0
0
0.04
0.029
0.111
0.198
0.15
0.05
0
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
CO2 emissions by transport type
Bicycle orwalking; 39.9
Car (diesel); 34.8
Car(petrol);12.0
Motorbike; 7.0
Public transport(bus); 5.7
Car (electric); 0.6
The 2017 target is:
� Keep fostering the employee involvement in environmental initiatives;
� Foster Green commuting among the staff; and
� Through commuting, monitoring the carbon footprint.
The status of actions related to reducing paper consumption is presented below.
Table E9: Further actions to reduce commuting carbon footprint (indicator 1e)
Action plan no
Planned Description Progress Status/Date
275 2017 Carbon footprint commuting monitoring
AAP 2016 — A survey on commuting to work called ‘How many trees do you need to eat your commuting CO2’ was launched obtaining a very high response rate. Sevilla will continue monitoring the carbon footprint and evaluating the potential implementation of relevant actions to minimising the environmental impact.
Initiatives aimed to fostering Green commuting among the staff to be completed by 31.12.17.
E5.3 Carbon footprint
Figure E19: Elements of the annual carbon footprint, (tonnes CO2 /person)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0.375 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 3.083 0.000 0.949 0.005 0.000 0.003 0.000 4.42
0.270 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 2.572 0.000 1.025 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.000 3.88
0.269 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 2.912 0.000 1.322 0.009 0.003 0.012 0.000 4.53
0.289 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 2.334 0.000 1.259 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.000
0
0
0
0.254 4.15
2013
2014
2015
2016
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for
bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commissionvehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
Figure E19 summarises the relative contributions of different components to the sites measured CO2 emissions. Emissions generated by the mains electricity supply is the most important single contributor.
E19
E5.4 Total air emissions of other air pollutants (SO2, NO2, PM)
The landlord does not report these parameters.
E6 Improving waste management and sorting
E6.1 Non-hazardous waste
Figure E20: Evolution of total non-hazardous waste in Sevilla (tonnes)
Plastic
Metal (scrap)
Glass
Wood
Paper and cardboard
Household waste
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2014 2015 2016
Total 6.4 5.5 18.1
Total (tonnes/person) 0.02 0.02 0.06
0.0 0.3 0.4
1.7 2.6 6.4
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.8 0.8 2.8
1.5 0.9 6.8
2.2 0.7 1.6
In 2016, Sevilla disposed of a total of 18.1 t of household waste, paper and cardboard, wood, glass and metal which represents an increase of 231 % compared to 2015. Several one-off waste disposal events occurred in 2016 considerably increasing figures reported in 2015, including for confidential paper (5.28 tonnes), metal fur-niture (6.42 tonnes) and wooden furniture (2.78 tonnes).
Figure E21 Breakdown of non-hazardous waste in 2015 (tonnes; % of total)
Figure E22 Breakdown of non-hazardous waste in 2016 (tonnes; % of total)
Household waste;0.74; 14 %
Paper andcardboard; 0.89; 16 %
Wood; 0.76; 14 %
Glass; 0.14; 3 %
Metal (scrap);2.60; 47 %
Plastic; 0.3; 6 %
Household waste;1.61; 9 %
Paper andcardboard; 6.81;38 %
Wood; 2.78; 15 %
Glass; 0.08; 0.44 %
Metal (scrap);6.42; 35 %
Plastic; 0.37; 2 %
Nespressocapsules; 0.08;0.42 %
In 2016, Sevilla implemented the following improvement actions to better manage urban waste:
� Waste collection and disposal by authorised waste managers, thus improving monitoring of legal compliance;
� Improved monitoring of whole waste life cycle ensuring evidence-based effective quantification;
� Reorganisation of waste collection areas and improved signage, for full waste segregation;
� Provision of a dedicated temporary waste store area for the cleaning company with high precision weighing scales; and,
E20
� Streamlining of cooperation and coordination with the cleaning company and other authorised waste managers.
Sevilla has significantly improved waste measurement compared to previous years’ data for which some waste types were estimated. This explains why there has been a significant increase for different waste types such as organic (+ 116 %).
Nespresso capsules are collected and disposed separately in accordance with the applicable legislation. They have been quantified and disposed for recycling by the service provider since 2016. In 2017 the target is to improve waste segregation and enhance staff awareness, and a comprehensive waste management procedure will be released.
The status of actions related to optimising and reducing waste is presented below:
Table E10: Further actions to better manage and to reduce non-hazardous waste (indicator 3a)
Action plan no
Planned Description Progress Status / Date
86 2014 Distribution all over the premises of recycling waste bins for ensuring correct segregation of organic waste, paper, packages, glass.
Completed. Pending waste bins colour harmonisation.
90 2014 Ensure an efficient and quantifiable management of urban waste.
Done. The Cleaning company started measuring each type o sorted waste (organic, plastic, vitreous, paper) hence facilitating more accurate data. A Waste Management Instruction under development.
Evidence-based effective quantification achieved.
139 2015 Ensure efficient and quantifiable management of urban waste.
In progress. The Cleaning company started measuring each type of sorted waste (organic, plastic, vitreous, paper) hence facilitating more accurate data.
A Comprehensive waste management procedure to be published, 31.12.2017.
E6.2 Hazardous waste
Figure E23: Evolution of total hazardous waste at Sevilla (tonnes)
Figure E23 illustrates that the hazardous waste at Sevilla has fluctuated over the last few years. WEEE has been largest component of waste since 2012, having achieved a 50 % reduction during that time.
Ink and toner waste is the second greatest contrib-utor, growing substantially in 2016. The remainder of waste generated by Sevilla comprises batteries, inks and toners and medical waste, quantities rang-ing from 0.05 and 0.18 t.
Electronic equipment waste (WEEE)
Inks and toner
Flourescent lamps
Medical waste (syringes)
Batteries
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
Total (tonnes/person)
0.06
0.000
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.10
0.000
0.00
0.03
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
4.00
0.02
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.07
0.000
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.03
3.33
0.012
3.16
0.04
0.11
0.00
0.06
2.64
0.009
2.52
0.04
0.07
0.00
0.05
2.23
0.007
2.05
0.18
0.06
0.00
0.05
E21
Figure E24: Breakdown of hazardous waste in 2015 (tonnes; % of total)
Figure E25 Breakdown of hazardous waste in 2016 (tonnes; % of total)
Batteries; 0.05; 1.68 %
Medical waste (syringes);0.003; 0.11 %
Flourescent lamps; 0.07;2.61 %
Electronic equipmentwaste (WEEE); 2.52; 94%
Inks and toner; 0.039;1.46 %
Batteries; 0.050; 2.07 % Medical waste(syringes); 0.003; 0.12 %
Flourescent lamps;0.064; 2.65 %
Lead acid battery;0.060; 2.49 %
Mercury containingobjects; 0.005; 0.21 %
Electronic equipmentwaste (WEEE); 2.05; 85 %
Inks and toner; 0.18;7.46 %
The 2016 target was to further develop the waste management procedure, and this was achieved. The actions that Sevilla implemented in 2016 described in E6.1 also apply to controlled waste. Additionally the 2017 tar-get is to consolidate a comprehensive efficient management of waste, ensuring legal compliance and obtaining accurate and reliable data. And action 274 of the EMAS annual action plan for 2017 foresees the independent review of the implementation of legal requirements for full compliance check to be completed by end of 2017.
E6.3 Waste sorting
Table E11: Percentage of waste sorted at JRC Sevilla
2014 2015 2016
Percentage of waste sorted 77.4 90.8 92.1
Precentage of waste not sorted 22.6 9.2 7.9
Sevilla has been effectively separating waste since 2014. To facilitate this, bins for each type of waste disposal were distributed throughout the site. The cleaning company collects waste daily, providing the monthly measure-ment of quantities disposed.
However, full separation of waste streams is not possible as the municipal waste collection company includes under the Organic waste category, the rejected fraction of non-recovered organic matter which comprises cellu-lose type waste from toilet paper, wipes, napkins, compresses, which are then segregated in the waste treatment plant and finally disposed in the landfill.
E7 Protecting biodiversityThe total area of the site occupied by the Expo building, including the surrounding garden strips and the pave-ment, is 11 669 m2, equivalent to 38.9 m² per capita. The air emissions at Sevilla are those coming from the building services mainly from the HVAC systems and the boilers.
At the centre of the site, there is a central courtyard with different trees species providing a cooling effect by shading. It occupies 2 227 m2, representing 19 % of the total site area. The total built surface area in 2016 remained 8 168 m2 representing 70 % of the site area.
There are no a specific targets for 2017 regarding biodiversity.
E8 Green public procurement (GPP)
E8.1 Incorporating GPP into procurement contracts
Sevilla aims to incorporate GPP into its contracts where appropriate, irrespective of the their value. A new GPP contact person was appointed in 2016.
A 2016 target was to include GPP criteria in all contracts, except for those related to scientific and other studies. Accordingly further involvement of key actors was sought and training provided by the EMAS Site Coordinator.
E22
The status of GPP-related actions included in the EMAS annual plan is presented below. In 2017 Sevilla seeks to reinforce the organisation’s GPP culture and involve relevant actors.
Table E12: Further actions to enhance GPP culture (indicators 5a & 5b)
Action plan no
Planned Description Progress Status / Date
146 2015 Keep promoting GPP culture through relevant actors.
The PPMT fully implemented in 2015. Environmental Coordinator included within the Procurement workflow. Green contracts monitoring & reporting must be improved both at corporate and local level. New GPP contact person appointed in Sevilla.
Sevilla has been encouraging the staff since 2015 to take into consideration GPP criteria in all the contracts to be launched, including those low value contracts.
Green contracts monitoring & reporting must be improved. It is expected to obtain reliable GPP reporting from the Sevilla procurement sector in close coordination with Procurement corporate services.31.12.17
238 2016 Promoting ‘green’ procurement.
GPP criteria training sessions provided to relevant actors.
Sevilla keeps encouraging the organisation, mainly the Resource Management Unit, to take into consideration GPP criteria in all the contracts no matter the value.
Green contracts monitoring & reporting must be improved. It is expected to obtain reliable GPP reporting from the Sevilla procurement sector in close coordination with corporate services. 31.12.17
E8.2 Office supply contracts
Most office supplies are provided through framework contracts arising from the Commission’s call for tenders managed by the Office for Infrastructure (Brussels). The Commission applies ‘green’ criteria to select suitable contractors and products. Examples of the Commission’s current framework contracts used by JRC Sevilla are those for office supplies and furniture or the supply of PCs and peripherals (through DG-DIGIT’s contracts). There is no specific management approved action to support further improvement.
In Sevilla, operational staff are always encouraged to consider and include environmental criteria in the techni-cal specifications for contracts, respecting the provisions of the Financial Regulations.
E9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness
E9.1 Management of the legal register
Sevilla annually conducts a legal compliance evaluation by thoroughly monitoring legal requirements to be ful-filled by landlord in all related to the building and parts thereof. The legal register (4) was fully reviewed and updated in 2016 to include new legal requirements.
A specialised environmental consultant provides quarterly updating of the legal register integrating new relevant applicable legislation. In 2017, it is expected that an assessment exercise to assess the environmental legal com-pliance achieved by Sevilla will be undertaken.
E9.2 Prevention and risk management
Since 2010 Sevilla has recorded statistics relating to incidents on health, safety and environment and in this time there have been no recorded accidents. Every year a third party audit is conducted of the management sys-tem, during which all aspects of emergency preparedness and response are checked and updated if necessary.
(4) (S.6.2.a — Legal and other environmental requirements compliance register).
E23
Particular attention is paid to identifying potential accidents and reacting quickly to emergencies and therefore minimising negative impacts.
The Joint Research Centre annually conducts a risk assessment exercise at corporate level, covering those risks associated with the process Environmental Management.
Furthermore, those potential environmental aspects that can eventually cause emergency situations are identi-fied, collected and evaluated every year in the Aspects Register
E9.3 Emergency preparedness
Sevilla has a dedicated Health and Safety procedure describing the methodology used at local level to identify and react to potential accidents and emergency situations minimising the negative impacts that can be produced on staff, facilities as well as on the environment. Environmental emergency situations are managed in accord-ance with the Emergency preparedness and response procedure within the Environmental Management System. Sevilla has in place a dedicated emergency Initial Response Team and conducts annually a fire drill in close coor-dination with the landlord. The safety and security equipment and installations are regularly checked in accord-ance with the applicable legislation.
Sevilla has set the following Health and safety objectives for 2017:
Table E13: Health & Safety Objectives 2017
Domain Risk mitigation action Objective
Ensure the safeguarding of the site against incidents involving infrastructures and staff
Ensure the physical safety of all members of staff Ensure functioning of OH&S equipment and installations (preventive maintenance)
Ensure legal compliance Implement work plan associated to legal requirements review 2016 to maintain the OHS management system (96 actions)
Reinforce the corporate OHS system at local level Ensure effective participation in corporate networks
Ensure effective participation in corporate networks
Planning, Processes and Systems
People and organisation Promote H&S culture (management and staff)
Ensure effective cooperation with the landlord
E10 Communication
E10.1 Internal communication
Internal communication may typically involve Commission staff and contractors. A summary of the actions is included below:
E24
Table E14: Internal communication actions promoted at Sevilla in 2016
Action description Organisation Dates in 2016 Dissemination at Sevilla site level
Participants (estimated)
Earth hour 2016 Centrally organised (Commission wide)
19 March Published on Connected
30
EU Inter-institutional EMAS Week 23-27 May
Centrally organised (Commission wide)
23-27 May Published on Connected
20
Environmental Performance results 2015 released to staff
EMAS Site Coordinator 16 June Published on Connected
115
Mobility week EMAS Site Coordinator 16-22
September
Published on Connected
50
Commute to work carbon footprint (Scope 3) Survey
Resource Management Sevilla/EMAS Site Coordinator
26 September Published on Connected
153
Print less tips Head of Site Management Sector
8 November Published on Connected
23
In 2017, more EMAS info sessions will be provided for target audiences within the organisation, in order to raise awareness on EMAS and how staff may contribute to minimise the environmental impact of their day to day activities.
E10.2 External communication and stakeholder management
Sevilla constantly seeks to influence its external suppliers in order to obtain environmental commitments and encourage them to contribute to sustainable development. Since 2014 Sevilla has encouraged the external ser-vices providers to sign an environmental commitment letter.
In 2016, a new lease contract with the landlord was signed, integrating specific environmental clauses and amending the previous environmental commitment letter which was signed in 2015.
E11 Training
E11.1 Internal training
Environmental related internal training is scheduled annually for staff working at Sevilla’s premises as high-lighted in Table E 15 below.
Table E15: Internal training provided at Sevilla in 2016
Description Organisation Dates in 2016 Participation at Sevilla site level
Participants (estimated)
First things you need to know about Security, Environment, Health and Safety and use of the infrastructure
Sevilla Fortnightly 20 min/session for newcomers
95
EMAS introductory session Sevilla 1 hour/session, 3 sessions
Secretary network staff & newcomers
39
E11.2 External training
No training for external staff or entities was provided in 2016.
E25
E12 EMAS Costs and savingTable E16: EMAS administration and energy costs (Euros) for buildings in the EMAS area
Parameter 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Change in last year
Total Direct EMAS Cost (EUR) 132 000 151 840 132 000 134 000 134 000
Total Direct Cost per employee 541 538 457 473 447 – 27
Total buildings energy cost (EUR)
295 470 331 838 329 966 300 602 284 907 – 15 695
Total buildings energy cost (EUR/person)
1 211 1 177 1 142 1 062 950 – 113
Total fuel costs (vehicles) (EUR)
356 384 530 502 412 260 – 152
Total energy costs (EUR/person)
1 2 2 2 1 1 – 1
Total water costs (EUR) 11 892 13 415 11 068 11 091 6 695 – 4 396
Water (EUR/person) 49 48 38 39 22 – 17
Total paper cost (EUR) 9 457 8 481 6 601 5 495 4 338 3 337 31 839 28 501
Total paper cost (EUR/person) 45 35 27 19 15 12 106 94
Waste disposal (general) — unit cost/tonne
226
Waste disposal (general) — EUR/person
14
Total direct costs per employee reduced in 2016 by 6 % in relation to 2015, from EUR 473 to EUR 447.
Significant savings have been achieved over the years: per capita energy costs were reduced by 21 % from EUR 1 211 in 2012 to EUR 950 in 2016. Per capita water consumption costs reduced 54 % from EUR 49 to EUR 22 in the same period.
Sevilla’s previously described efforts since 2014 to encourage the landlord to behave in a more environmentally responsible manner which have been successful in reducing operational costs.
Because the building is managed by the owner, Sevilla has direct control over relatively few parameters, but these include paper consumption, waste disposal and fuel costs (vehicles).
As far as paper consumption is concerned, in 2016 it has been considered the costs incurred both in paper pur-chase for office paper and those related to the printing service provider for offset paper (publications). Thus, the significant increase obtained with regard to 2015 and the previous years despite lower consumption as described in Section in E4.3. In 2016, the per capita waste disposal amounted to EUR 14.
E26
E13 Conversion factors:Table E17: Conversion factors considered in Sevilla
nb INDICATOR UNITValue 2015
Value 2016
METHODOLOGY Variation
2016_2015SOURCE
COMPETENT BODY
EVIDENCE RECORD
1
Renewables in electricity mix
% 19.7 18.50
This value corresponds to theproportion of renewable electricityused by the company in thegeneration of power. JRC Sevilleassumes the values annualy releasyby the Spanish Competent BodyComisión nacional de los mercadosy la competencia.
-6.09%
Comisión nacional de los mercados y la competencia./
Factura
Comisión Nacional
Mercados de la Competencia
Annual publication rom
Comisión Nacional
Mercados de la Competencia
Mix renewables ENDESA CNMC Electricidad.pdf
2
Electricty conversión factor
Kg CO2/kwh
0.38 0.34
JRC Seville takes into considerationthe emissions factors annuallypublished by the Spanish agencyComisión nacional de los mercadosy la competencia. This figure will bemonitored by the EMAS siteCoordinator
-10.53%
Comisión nacional de los mercados y la competencia.
Comisión nacional de los mercados y la competencia.
Etiquetado de la electricidad
CNMC
Factor conversión ENDESA CNMC Electricidad 2016.pdf
3
Gas conversion factor
Kg CO2/kwh
0.204 0.25
JRC Seville JRC Seville takes intoconsideration the emissions factorsannually published by the MinisterioIndustria y turismo. This figure willbe monitored by the EMAS SiteCoordinator
23.53%
Invoice gas/ official
applicable conversion
factor
Ministerio de Indstrua Energía y Turismo
Conversion factors released
by the competent body
Gas IDAE_RITE Factores emision CO2 Ministerio de
Industria Energía.pdf
4
Building Dieselenergy conversion factor kwh/litre
kwh/litre 10.85 10.70
This value is obtained from the website of the International Energy Agency (https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/statistics_manual.pdf) 1 GJ/t = 277.78 Kwh. GCV =45.66 Gj/t
-1.38%
International Energy Agency Ministerio de
Medio Ambiente-Factores de
Emisión
Ayuntamiento de Sevilla
Ministerio de Indstrua Energía y Turismo/
Conversion factors released
by the competent body
Indicadores GEI Ayuntamiento de Sevilla/guide efficient driving/
wikipedia
5
Building Diesel conversión factor kg CO2/Kwh
KgCO2/Kwh NA 0.234This value is obtained considering10.7 kwh/litre and 2 508kgCO2/Litre
-
International Energy Agency Ministerio de
Medio Ambiente-Factores de
Emisión
Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente-
Conversion factors released
by the competent body
factoresdeemision_tcm7-359395 Julio 2016
MAGRAMA
7
Diesel conversion factor kg
kg diesel/Litre NA 0.844 1 Litre gasoil = 0.844 kg/litre International
Energy Agency
8
Diesel conversion factor kg CO2/ Litre
NA 2.63
To obtain the value Kwh/litre, the following values are considered: 1 Litre diesel = 0.844 kg/litre 1kg diesel = 1.20 litres 1Kg diesel = 3.16 kg CO2 1 litre = 3.16 Kg CO2/1.20 Litres = 2.63 Kg CO2/Litre
-
(Agencial local de la energía
de Sevilla_Tabla de emisisones
GEI) Ministerio de
Medio Ambiente-Factores de
Emisión
Ayuntamiento de Sevilla Ministerio
medioambiente
Conversion factors released
by the competent body
Indicadores GEI Ayuntamiento de Sevilla.xlsx factoresdeemision_tcm7-
359395 Julio 2016 MAGRAMA
9
Diesel conversión factor kg CO2/Kg
Kg CO2/Kg NA 3.16 Agencial local de la energía de Sevilla_Tabla de emisisones GEI)
-
( Agencial local de la energía
de Sevilla_Tabla de emisisones
GEI)
Ayuntamiento de Sevilla
Conversion factors released
by the competent body
Indicadores GEI Ayuntamiento de Sevilla.xlsx
10
Building Diesel conversión factor kg CO2/Kwh
Kg CO2/Kwh NA 0.25This value is obtained considering11.55 kwh/litre and 2 828 kgCO2/Litre -
International Energy Agency Ministerio de
Medio Ambiente-Factores de
Emisión
International Energy Agency Ministerio de
Medio Ambiente-
Conversion factors released
by the competent body
factoresdeemision_tcm7-359395 Julio 2016
MAGRAMA
11
Service car emissions (manufacturer)
g CO2 /km
136 136This value is indicated in thetechnical specifications of theservice car.
0.00% BMW -
Registro de huella de carbono,
compensación y proyectos de absorción de
dióxido de carbono
Technical data sheet BMW.pdf
12
Service car emissions (actual)
g CO2 /km
193 196This value is calculated dividing theoverall car CO2 emissions (0.63 t)by the number of Km (3 192)
1.55% REPSOL card -Gestion coche de
Servicio.xlsx - Shortcut
kg CO2/Litre
Environmental Statement2016 resultsAnnex F: JRC KarlsruheFinal
Prepared by the EMAS Site Coordination Team in JRC KarlsruheSupervision: Andreas BITTERHOF – EMAS Karlsruhe Site CoordinatorContact: [email protected]
Cover illustration: Photo provided by the EMAS Site Coordination Team in JRC Karlsruhe
All other illustrations: © European Union unless otherwise stated.
Environmental Statement
2016 resultsAnnex F: JRC Karlsruhe
Final
F2
F1 Overview of core indicators at JRC Karlsruhe since 2010 ...................................................................................... F4F2 Description of JRC Karlsruhe activities () and key stakeholders .......................................................................... F5F3 Environmental impact of JRC Karlsruhe activities ....................................................................................................... F8F4 More efficient use of natural resources ............................................................................................................................. F9F5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint............................................................................................................... F14F6 Improving waste management and sorting .................................................................................................................. F19F7 Protecting biodiversity .............................................................................................................................................................. F20F8 Green public procurement ....................................................................................................................................................... F21F9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness ...................................................................... F21F10 Communication ............................................................................................................................................................................. F22F11 Training .............................................................................................................................................................................................. F25F12 EMAS Costs and saving ............................................................................................................................................................ F26F13 Conversion factors ...................................................................................................................................................................... F27
Contents
F3
ANNEX F: JRC Karlsruhe
JRC Karlsruhe (hereafter referred to as Karlsruhe) is one of seven Institutes of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. It provides the scientific foundation for the protection of European citizens against risks associ-ated with the handling and storage of highly radioactive material.
Karlsruhe’s prime objectives are to serve as a reference centre for basic actinide research, to contribute to an effective safety, safeguards and security system for the nuclear fuel cycle, and to study technological and med-ical applications of radionuclides/actinides.
F4
F1
Over
view
of c
ore
indi
cato
rs a
t JRC
Kar
lsru
he s
ince
201
0Ka
rlsru
he h
as b
een
colle
ctin
g da
ta o
n so
me
core
indi
cato
rs s
ince
200
2 al
thou
gh n
ot s
yste
mat
ically
. Mor
e re
cent
dat
a (fr
om 2
008)
are
pre
sent
ed in
this
repo
rt. D
ata
and
perfo
rman
ce
trend
s sin
ce 2
012
and
2014
are
sho
wn
in T
able
F1,
alo
ng w
ith p
erfo
rman
ce tr
end,
and
targ
ets
whe
re a
pplic
able
for 2
020.
Tabl
e F1
: His
toric
al d
ata,
per
form
ance
and
targ
ets
for c
ore
indi
cato
rs fo
r Com
mis
sion
-leve
l rep
ortin
g
Phys
ical
indi
cato
rs:
Hist
oric
dat
a va
lues
Perf
orm
ance
tren
d (%
) sin
ce:
Targ
et
(Num
ber,
desc
riptio
n an
d un
it)20
08 (1 )
2013
2014
2015
2016
2008
2013
2014
2015
2020
* Δ %
(2 )(
3 )va
lue
(2 )(3 )
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(MW
h/p)
78.6
475
.024
64.0
2870
.77
67.5
6– 1
4.1
– 9.9
5.5
– 4.5
– 5.0
60.8
25
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(KW
h/m
2 )61
054
849
154
650
7– 1
6.9
– 7.5
3.3
– 7.1
– 5.0
466.
4
1c) N
on-r
en. e
nerg
y us
e (b
ldgs
) %0
90.2
82.0
82.0
78.8
– 12.
7– 4
.0– 4
.0– 5
.077
.9
1d) W
ater
(m3 /p
)16
.51
18.2
421
.03
20.8
619
.24
16.6
5.5
– 8.5
– 7.7
– 5.0
19.9
79
1d) W
ater
(L/m
2 )12
813
316
116
114
412
.88.
4– 1
0.4
– 10.
3– 5
.015
3.2
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (T
onne
s/p)
0.
015
0.01
80.
016
0.02
455
.730
.751
.50.
00.
018
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (S
heet
s/p/
day)
14
.917
.515
.022
.852
.930
.751
.50.
017
.5
2a) C
O 2 bui
ldin
gs (T
onne
s/p)
18.4
820
.56
17.3
617
.96
16.8
9– 8
.6– 1
7.8
– 2.7
– 6.0
– 5.0
16.4
92
2a) C
O 2 bui
ldin
gs (k
g/m
2 )14
3.3
150.
213
3.1
138.
612
6.8
– 11.
6– 1
5.6
– 4.8
– 8.5
30.1
173.
2
2c) C
O 2 veh
icles
(g/
km, m
anu.
)0
202
172
165
– 18.
3– 4
.1– 5
.019
1.9
2c) C
O 2 veh
icles
(g/
km, a
ctua
l)0.
022
8.6
NRNR
– 5.0
217.
2
3a) N
on-h
az. w
aste
(Ton
nes/
p)0.
000.
340.
330.
320.
25– 2
5.6
– 24.
0– 2
0.2
– 5.0
0.31
6
3b) H
azar
dous
was
te (T
onne
s/p)
0.00
00.
045
0.03
30.
032
0.02
5– 4
2.9
– 22.
6– 2
0.3
– 5.0
0.03
1
3c) S
epar
ated
was
te (%
)0.
077
.269
.273
.271
.2– 7
.83.
0– 2
.74.
872
.4
Econ
omic
indi
cato
rs (E
UR/p
)
Ener
gy c
onsu
mpt
ion
(bld
gs)
5 98
15
210
5 71
15
461
– 8.7
4.8
– 4.4
– 5.0
4 95
0
Wat
er c
onsu
mpt
ion
40.1
346
.27
45.8
942
.34
5.5
– 8.5
– 7.7
– 3.0
44.0
Non-
haz.
was
te d
ispos
al
NANA
NANA
Note
: (1)
Ear
liest
repo
rted
data
; (2)
com
pare
d to
201
4; (3
) EM
AS A
nnua
l Act
ion
Plan
201
7.* T
arge
t for
% im
prov
emen
t for
the
perio
d 20
14-2
020.
NA T
wo
maj
or b
uild
ing
sites
sta
rting
ope
ratio
n du
ring
2015
, res
ourc
e co
nsum
ptio
n-re
late
d ta
rget
s di
fficu
lt to
def
ine,
NR
not r
epor
ted.
F5
As a nuclear facility subject to German nuclear legislation, Karlsruhe must comply with extensive legal require-ments which can limit the scope for some environmental improvements (cf. F9.1). More specifically, Karlsruhe must at all times respect strict legal requirements governing site safety and security, which gives little flexibility regarding choices in consumption. Extensive active ventilation systems, for example, must run virtually continu-ously. Additionally, as a research institution, Karlsruhe’s consumption of energy, water and other resources may vary significantly from year to year depending on its programme of activities and experiments.
Table F1 shows positive performance trends in all core parameters except paper consumption. Per capita energy consumption has reduced slightly since 2008 and consumption per square metre has reduced more considera-bly (along with CO2 emissions) although both indicators recorded an increase in 2015. The decrease of the latter parameter is partially also due to an increase of the surface of approximately 50 % since 2012. Water consump-tion has reduced in recent years. Waste generation remains fairly steady since 2012 and is rather unpredictable as it depends to a large extent on the research as well as renovation and construction activities. Nevertheless, there was a significant decrease in 2016.
The evolution of the EMAS system in Karlsruhe is as shown below.
Table F2: EMAS baseline parameters
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Population: staff in EMAS perimeter
276 273 294 305 299 305 320 322 324
Population: total staff 276 273 294 305 299 305 320 322 324
No buildings for EMAS registration
0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 4
Total no operational buildings
2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 4
Useful surface area in EMAS perimeter, (m2)
35 592 35 592 35 592 35 592 35 592 41 735 41 735 41 735 43 170
Useful surface area for all buildings, (m2)
35 592 35 592 35 592 35 592 35 592 41 735 41 735 43 170 43 170
Karlsruhe did not set quantitative EMAS targets in 2015 for 2016 as it focussed on achieving the qualitative objectives and actions identified in its Environmental Programme and this was difficult due to the fact that two new buildings were constructed and inaugurated. A target was set for most parameters to not exceed the 2014 values. Moreover, since 2014 an environmental plan has been prepared yearly to better manage environmen-tal aspects.
F2 Description of JRC Karlsruhe activities (1) and key stakeholders:As shown in Figure F1a, the site is located in the north of Karlsruhe (Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen), Germany at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) Nord Campus. Karlsruhe has averaged about 300 staff over the last few years with a further 100 permanent contract workers on site.
(1) NACE codes associated with Karlsruhe activities are: 99 — Activities of extraterratorial organisations and bodies; 71.2 — Testing and technical anaysis, and 72.1 — Research and experimental development on social science and humanities.
F6
Figure F1a: Site location
As shown below in Figure F1b, other than the guard’s house, the site is dominated by one building with nine inter-connected wings.
When the new offices wing became operational in January 2013 total floor space increased from 35 592 m² to 41 735 m². At the end of 2015 two new buildings (guardhouse and goods transfer facilities) started opera-tion (guard’s house mid of October and good transfer building end of December). Hence, the total floor space increased to 43 170 m². The total site area is about 93 000 m².
In contrast to most other Commission premises which are dedicated mainly to administration, Karlsruhe is a nuclear facility conducting scientific and technical research. It requires large laboratories and other technical and experimental facilities resulting in a wide range of activities with varying environmental impacts.
Figure F1b: Site layout
JRC Karlsruhe
F7
Karlsruhe’s scientific activities are conducted in the nuclear area, within the frame of the Euratom Treaty, and are summarised in Table F2:
Table F2: Description of main activities in JRC Karlsruhe’s nuclear area
Activity Description
Fundamental properties & applications
� Basic understanding of actinides, nuclear materials and fuel processes � Medical applications of alpha-emitter therapy of cancer and infectious diseases
Safety of nuclear fuels and fuel cycle
� Nuclear fuel behaviour in normal, transient and accidental conditions, codes and modelling � Safety assessment of conventional and advanced nuclear fuel cycle and advanced technologies
Nuclear waste management & decommissioning
� Assessment and modelling of key alteration processes, long-term behaviour of spent fuels under disposal and storage conditions
� Development of innovative technologies and techniques for radiation surveillance, mapping and reconstruction technologies
Monitoring of radioactivity in the environment
� Procedures for data collection, evaluation and harmonisation, dispersion models � Radioactivity environmental monitoring with management of information systems
Nuclear safeguards � Nuclear material measurements, containment & surveillance, process monitoring, analytical methodologies and measurements
� Support to Euratom safeguards regime and IAEA, operation of DG ENER onsite Laboratories
Nuclear non-proliferation
� Techniques and methodologies for the verification of absence of undeclared activities, trace and particle analysis, reference materials
� Export control, trade analysis, non-proliferation studies
Nuclear security � Prevention, detection, response, national response plan, CBRN � Combating illicit trafficking & nuclear forensics
Training and education
� European Nuclear Safety and Security School (EN3S), user facilities, higher education � Vocational training, European Nuclear Security Training Centre (EUSECTRA) � Knowledge management and dissemination
Important stakeholders for JRC Karlsruhe include, in addition to the German nuclear regulatory authorities are peer nuclear scientists, journalists and influence makers, several Commission DGs (ENER, etc.), Euratom, co-oper-ators on nuclear safety, young academics, local and regional politicians or the local Chamber of Commerce.
Since 2008 Karlsruhe has operated an Integrated Management System (IMS) and is certified according to ISO 9 001 and 14 001 as well as BS OHSAS 18 001. Since 2015 the local IMS has been replaced by a JRC wide system.
The JRC IMS consists of five ‘Management Processes’, two ‘Core Processes’ (e.g. the Scientific knowledge produc-tion and management) and a number of ‘Support Processes’ (e.g. Occupational health and safety, Environmental management). The process map is shown below in Figure F1d.
F8
Figure F1d: JRC Process Map
ManagementProcesses
CoreProcesses
SupportProcesses
Finance & Procurement
S2.1 Budget Implementation & MonitoringS2.2 AccountingS3.1 Public ProcurementS3.2 Procurement Contract Management
Human Resources *
S4.1 Selection & RecruitmentS4.2 Learning & DevelopmentS4.3 Careeer & Statutory Rights * Managed by DG HR (Pilot project as of
16/02/2017)
Information and CommunicationTechnology
S5.1 ICT Infrastructure ProvisioningS5.2 Information Systems Implementation
Nuclear Decomissiong
S7.1 Nuclear Decomissiong & Waste Management
Site ManagementS6.1 SecurityS6.2 Infrastructure MaintenanceS6.3 LogisticsS6.4 Infrastructure Developments
S6.5 Occupational Health & Safety (including radioprotection)S6.6 Environmental Management
Monitoring, Evaluation & Improvement
M3.1 Monitoring, Evaluation & Reporting M4.1 Control & Improvement
Scientific and Technical Support to EU Policies
C1.1 Scientific Knowledge Production & Management C1.2 IPR Supporting Activities *
* IPR - Intellectual Property Rights
M1.1 Strategic PlanningM1.2 Work Programme PlanningM1.3 Resources Planning
Strategy & Planning
F3 Environmental impact of JRC Karlsruhe activitiesKarlsruhe undertook a first full update of the environmental aspects in 2007. These are described in the Environ-mental Aspects Register (IMS-KRU-S6.6-RGS-0001-V8). It is reviewed annually and updated when necessary, the latest version is dated 3 February 2017. Significant impacts associated with four main aspect groups were iden-tified, as described in Table F3. The other aspects described in the Environmental Aspects Register can be con-sidered of minor significance or insignificant. In addition, the impact of Karlsruhe on the local environment can be considered as rather insignificant (cf. F7) because there are no significant direct emissions to the environment except the exhaust of the ventilation system which is extensively filtered and strictly controlled. The premises were constructed to prevent any release of radioactivity. As a consequence, also any release of other materi-als (e.g. hazardous substances) inside the building will not reach the outside, e.g. endangering the groundwater.
Table F3: Summary of significant environmental aspects at JRC Karlsruhe
Aspect group Environmental Aspect
Environmental Impact Location/Activity Related Indicator
Use of natural resources, including energy
Electricity consumption
Resource depletion Ventilation system 1a
Heating consumption Resource depletion and air emissions
District heating 1a
Emissions to air Electricity and heating emissions
Global warming Ventilation system, Lights, Heating system
2a
Nuclear air emissions Possible contamination of air Nuclear research Dose values
Waste generation Radioactive waste Potential contamination due to the existence of radioactive waste
Nuclear research Chemie-III-Abwasser, nuclear waste volume and, activity
F9
F4 More efficient use of natural resources
F4.1 Energy consumption
Buildings energy consumption data should be considered in the context of climatic conditions. Analysis of degree data (2), a very rudimentary approach to considering climatic context but presented below suggests that climatic conditions may have been harsher in 2016 than in either 2014 or 2015 and that consequently more heating and cooling may have been necessary. In fact, the measured values do not support this as the 2016 value for energy consumption for district heating decreased compared to 2015. Likewise, this can be seen in the water consump-tion which decreased in 2016 as well also indicating warmer temperatures which require less moistening of the incoming air in the laboratory wings.
Figure F2: Total annual degree days (3) at Karlsruhe, 2012-2016
Cooling degree days (CDD)
Heating degree days (HDD)
kWh/person/degree day
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total degree days 2 785
543
2 242
24.67
2 924
527
2 397
25.66
2 325
524
1 801
27.54
2 662
648
2 014
26.58
2 798
576
2 222
24.15
(a) Buildings
Buildings’ energy consumption is one of the significants aspects. Figures F3 and F4 below show that most energy consumption parameters have been fairly steady during the last few years, although energy consumption, par-ticularly district heating, fell considerably in 2014. This was due to the installation of a new more efficient heat-ing control system in one of the laboratory wings.
The site must comply with legal requirements, which is the dominant influence on energy consumption. For exam-ple, Karlsruhe is obliged to maintain an air flow of around 300 000 m3 per hour, 24 hours per day throughout the year. The reduction of the total energy consumption per square metre in 2013 was due to the opening of the new administration building and an increase of the surface area by about 6 000 m². The reduction in 2014 was due to the modification in the heating control as mentioned above.
Total energy consumption decreased slightly from 2015 to 2016 despite of two new buildings, one of which became operational in the fourth quarter of 2015. Hence, the surface area increased by 4 %. As a consequence the consumption per m² decreased in 2016. Accordingly, the 2016 target to not exceed 2014 values could be reached. Nonetheless, the 2016 per capita figure is still within the range of values recorded since 2008.
(2) Monthly data for EDSB station (15.5 °C reference temperature), www.degreedays.net(3) One degree day is equivalent to a variation of 1 degree from the reference temperature for 24 hours.
F10
Figure F3: Annual buildings energy consumption (MWh) in the EMAS perimeter (indicator 1a)
diesel
district heating and cooling
electricity
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 21 705 21 393 23 059 21 046 20 544 22 882 20 489 22 786 21 889
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 330 10 293 11 649 9 692 8 932 11 710 8 839 10 540 9 982
11 375 11 100 11 400 11 344 11 602 11 162 11 650 12 236 11 897
Figures F4 and F5: Evolution of total annual energy consumption for JRC Karlsruhe
78.6 78.4 78.4
69.0 68.775.0
64.070.8 67.6
60.860.8
41.2 40.7 38.8 37.2 38.8 36.6 36.4 38.0 36.7
37.4 37.7 39.6
31.8 29.9
38.4
27.632.7 30.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MWh/person
Total Total target 2020
Electricity District Heating
610601
648
591 577548
491
546507
466 466
320 312 320 319 326
267 279 293 276
290 289327
272251
281
212253
231 200
100
0
300
400
500
600
700
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
kWh/m2
Total Total target 2020Electricity District Heating
Electricity consumption has remained fairly constant in the last few years despite an increase in floor area of 50 % since 2013. The ventilation system is responsible for over 80 % of Karlsruhe’s electricity consumption (cf. graph below). Any changes to the system are subject to strict regulatory control as it represents the site’s main component of nuclear safety and as such is heavily integrated into the nuclear licensing that is supervised by the authorities.
Figure F5a: Distribution of the electricity consumption (2016)
Wing A Wing B Wing E Wing F+OZ Wing G Wing D Wings NCO Wings R&S AC & extension wing F, constr.
site supply,other
0
500 000
1 000 000
1 500 000
2 000 000
2 500 000
3 000 000kwh
Karlsruhe does not use a municipal gas supply. It receives heating energy from the KIT district heating system. Until 2012, and as expected, heating energy consumption was mostly influenced by climate fluctuations because there have been neither major changes to the heating system nor to buildings insulation. In 2013 a new ‘state-of-art’ office build-ing became operational and hence consumption per m² decreased by 2 % compared with 2012. From 2013 to 2014
F11
there was a further decrease of 24 % whereas there is an increase in 2015 mostly due to the weather. The decrease in 2016 can be attributed to warmer weather conditions. This is shown below by the trend in water consumption which also decreased in 2016 due to warmer weather requiring less moistening of the incoming air in the laboratory wings. Nev-ertheless, the target for 2016 not to exceed the 2014 water consumption values could be reached for the value per m².
The 2017 target for energy consumption is to maintain 2014 levels. In addition Karlsruhe also subscribes to the com-mission wide approach of a 5 % reduction of this parameter from 2014 to 2020. Karlsruhe opened two new buildings, a guardhouse and goods transfer facilities at the end of 2015. These buildings will require additional energy therefore reducing total energy consumption will be difficult at least when measured per capita. A decrease when measured per m² could be recorded due to the increase of the surface area and also due to the weather conditions. Initiatives for continued improvement identified in the Commission’s EMAS annual action plan are summarised below.
Performance measured per m2 has clearly improved since 2010 with this trend continuing in 2016. Despite increasing the useful surface area of the buildings by 50 % since 2013, the total consumption decreased since 2013 with a slight re-increase in 2015 and a subsequent drop in 2016.
Karlsruhe creates an Environmental Programme for each year describing the various actions dealing with environmen-tal aspects. The significant ones prioritising the reduction of energy consumption (indicator 1a) are summarised below.
Table F4: Important actions targeting indicator 1a (buildings energy consumption)
Action Action type Status of target achievement Date
Replace blowers in the ventilation system by more effective ones.
Multi-stage Replacement of most of the more than 10-year old motors of the blowers by current IE4 ones during the maintenance periods.
End of 2016, 9 machines replaced; further 5-6 ones planned till end of 2017.
Aug-September 2017
Installation of heat exchanger in the exhaust system in active areas.
Multi-stage Decision about wing with continuing operation taken (wing A) but remains on hold as there are no financial means available, continuation earliest in 2020 (or after completion of wing M), only wing A will be considered as the other ones (F&G) will go into decommissioning.
Started in 2014
Thermal insulation of the ‘old’ wings of JRC Karlsruhe.
Multi-stage Decision about wing with continuing operation taken but remains on hold as there are no financial means available, continuation earliest in 2020 (or after completion of wing M), only wing A will be considered as the other ones (F&G) will go into decommissioning.
Started in 2014
Installation of a more effective heating control system in wing E (comparable to wing A).
Single 10 %; put on hold as there are no financial means available, continuation earliest in 2020 (or after completion of wing M).
Started in 2016
Replacement of fluorescent tubes by LEDs — basement wing D and wing E.
Single On hold due to clarification of cost effectiveness. Started in 2016
Replacement of illuminated safety signs by LEDs; complete wings D, E, F, G
Multi-stage 20 % (Jan. 2016); 100 % (Dec 2016). Started in 2016
Replacement of current perimeter lights by LEDs (depending on the availability of financial means)
Single Feasibility study completed (result: feasible) but no further actions due to lack of financial means for the time being.
Started in 2017
Substitution of fluorescent tubes by LEDs during maintenance when replacement is necessary in all the old wings wing A: lab 221, etc., wing E: Werkstatt.
Regularly repeated
Ongoing. Started in 2016
F12
Action Action type Status of target achievement Date
Renewal (and upgrading) of the control system of the air conditioning system in wing B. Renewal of the heat recovery system of the air conditioning system in wing B.
Single To be finished April 2017. Started Dec 2016
(b) Vehicles
Table F5: Summary vehicle energy consumption (indicator 1b)
2014 2015 2016
Total (MWh/yr) 172.44 140.13 150.68
MWh/person 0.539 0.435 0.465
kWh/m2 4.13 3.36 3.49
Diesel used (m3) 5.71 7.79 12.47
Petrol used (m3) 11.71 5.87 1.58
JRC-Karlsruhe operates a very small fleet of 11 vehicles of which three are only used on the premises. They had a combined CO2 output of 36.9 t in 2016. This is a slight increase of 7.9 % compared to 2015. At the end of 2015 JRC-Karlsruhe purchased one new more efficient service car for the directorate with lower CO2 emissions (based on manufacturer data) than the previous one. This reduces the theoretical CO2 emissions of all service cars per km by 4.1 %. In any case, it should be pointed out that the CO2 emissions of all cars can be considered as negli-gible compared to the total measured CO2 emissions (e.g. 0.6 % in 2016 or 0.5 % in 2015).
The Environmental Programme 2016 describes the following action regarding vehicle consumption:
Table F6: Important actions targeting vehicles energy consumption (indicator 1b)
Action Action type Status of target achievement Date
When replacing service cars, take environmental aspects into consideration (i.e. low consumption, low emission, etc.)
Multi-stage Purchase criteria: 50 % CO2 for new service cars; manufacturer values for CO2-emissions reduced by 4 % in 2016.
Started in 2015
(c) Renewable energy use in buildings
Table F7: Non-renewable energy use in the buildings (indicator 1c)2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Electricity from renewables (MWh)
2 220 2 280 2 269 2 320 2 232 3 681 4 833 4 640
Renewables (%) 20 20 20 20 20 31.6 39.5 39Electricity from non renewables (MWh)
8 880 9 120 9 075 9 282 8 930 7 969 7 403 7 257
Non renewables (%) 80 80 80 80 80 68.4 60.5 61Supplied diesel (MWh non renewable)
0 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5
Non renewables (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Dist. heating/cooling (MWh non-ren)
10 293 11 649 9 692 8 932 11 710 8 839 10 540 9 982
Non renewables (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Total renewables (MWh) 2 220 2 280 2 269 2 320 2 232 3 681 4 833 4 640Total renewables (%) 10.4 9.9 10.8 11.3 9.8 18.0 21.2 21.2Total non.-ren energy use (MWhr/yr)
0 20 779 18 778 18 224 20 650 16 808 17 953 17 250
Total non renewables (%) 0 90.1 89.2 88.7 90.2 82.0 78.8 78.8
F13
According to the supplier, approximately 39 % of the electricity mix is supplied by renewable sources. There are no renewable energy sources on site. District heating is generated from natural gas. There were no specific tar-gets in 2016 because Karlsruhe does not directly influence the electricity mix. There is also no specific 2017 tar-get for renewable energy use, but JRC Karlsruhe is committed to a 5 % decrease in non-renewable energy use from 2014-2020 and is on track to meet this target at least when regarding the values per m².
(d) Emergency generators
JRC-Karlsruhe operates two diesel emergency generators for the production of electricity for the operation of essential systems in case of an electrical power outage. These are tested monthly. Each test run consumes about 40 l diesel per generator adding up to a total diesel consumption of 960 l per year. This generates approximately 2.56 t CO2 which is even more negligible than the CO2 emissions of the service cars representing 0.04 % of the total CO2 emissions).
F4.2 Water consumption
Figures F6 and F7: Evolution of total annual water consumption for Karlsruhe (indicator 1d)
1719
25
17 18 1821 21
19
20 20
4 5575 117
7 474
5 216 5 2755 563
6 730 6 717
6 235
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
m3 to
tal
m3 /p
erso
n
m3/person
2020 target m3/p
m3 total
128 144
210
147 148133
161 161144
153 153
4 557
5 117
7 474
5 216
5 275
5 563
6 730
6 717
6 235
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
m3 to
tal
L/m
2
L/m2
2020 target L/m2
m3 total
These figures indicate that water consumption per m² remained essentially steady in recent years with the higher value recorded in 2010 due to a malfunction in the hydrogen generating plant.
Water consumption rose significantly in 2014 partially due to the opening of the new office building in 2013. The large increase in 2014 was also due to higher water consumption needed for humidifying the incoming air in the laboratory wings, because of a cold winter. This trend continued in 2015. In 2016, the water consumption decreased due to warmer temperatures during the winter months which require less moistening of air pumped into the laboratory wings.
The 2016 target not to exceed the 2014 levels was met for both total consumption as well as consumption per m², even with two new buildings starting operation in the fourth quarter of 2016. The target for 2017 is once again not to exceed the 2014 values. The target for 2014-2020 is a 5 % reduction in water consumption on a per square metre basis, one that is currently being met.
F4.3 Office and offset paper
The evolution of office paper at Karlsruhe and per capita breakdown presented below. There is no offset paper.
F14
Figures F8 and F9: Evolution of paper consumption at Karlsruhe (totals, and per person)
0.019 0.020
0.015
0.018
0.016
0.024
19 19
15
17
15
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Tonn
es/p
erso
n pe
r yea
r
Office paper (tonnes/person)
Office paper (sheets/day)
0
2
4
6
8
10
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Office (A4 sheet equivalent) x 1 000 000 1.20 1.20 0.96 1.20 1.02 1.55
Total paper consumption (tonnes) 5.88 5.88 4.70 5.88 5.10 7.78
Offset paper (tonnes) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.88 5.88 4.70 5.88 5.10 7.78Office paper (tonnes)
Figure F9 shows that office paper consumption follows no consistent trend. The significant rise in 2016 was due to the site hosting several events with an unusually large number of participants for whom many confer-ence documents had to be printed. Since 2013 office paper has the Nordic Swan and EU Ecolabel (EU Flower) designations.
The calculation method was changed in 2015 from being invoice based to being based on counters in the print-ers and copiers. This gives a more accurate picture of usage during the year, removing the distortions in data that could be caused using the former method when there were relatively infrequent but large deliveries.
F5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint
F5.1 CO2 emissions from buildings
(a) Buildings (energy consumption)
Buildings emissions currently account for a large majority of CO2 emissions recorded at Karlsruhe and is there-fore one of the significant environmental aspects.
Figure F10: CO2 emissions from buildings energy consumption, tonnes/year (indicator 2a)
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total (tonnes) 5 101 5 056
2 200 2 192
2 901 2 864
5 277
2 481
3
2 793
4 733
2 064
3
2 666
5 583
1 903
3
3 678
6 270
2 494
3
3 773
5 555
1 883
3
3 670
5 784
2 245
3
3 536
5 472
2 126
3
3 343
district heating/cooling
electricity
diesel
F15
Figure F11: CO2 emissions from buildings energy consumption, per capita and sq. metre (indicator 2a)
18 19 18
16
1921
17 18 1716,5
143 142 148 133157 150 133 139 127
173
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0
5
10
15
20
25
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Kg C
O2/m
2
Tonn
es C
O2/p
erso
n
tonnes CO2/person 2020 target Tonnes CO2/person
kg CO2/m2 2020 target kg CO2/m2
Figure F10 shows that the evolution of CO2 emissions from buildings is, as expected; strongly linked to energy consumption and with the same trends described in section F4.1. For operational buildings, the 2016 target was not to exceed 2014 emissions which was met despite of the opening of two new buildings (Section F4.1). In com-mon with energy consumption the 2014-2020 target is a 5 % reduction. CO2 emissions remained rather steady over the years. Fluctuations are mostly influenced by the weather.
The rise in per capita emissions since 2011 can be explained mostly by changes in the grid electricity mix. Due to the Fukushima incident the mix of the electricity generation changed significantly (less nuclear energy and instead increased use of fossil fuels). The following drop since 2013 is due to a higher percentage of renewable energies and a reduction of fossil fuels in the generation of the supplied electricity. The decrease per m² since 2012 is also due to an increase of the surface area of about 23 % due to a new administration wing and two new buildings (new entrance and good’s transfer) which were built due to requests of the authorities.
Because the vast majority of the CO2 emissions are due to energy in buildings, no additional specific CO2 emis-sions actions were planned. However, measures introduced to reduce energy consumption described in section F4.1 will inevitably also reduce emissions.
(b) Buildings — other greenhouse gases (refrigerants)
At Karlsruhe emissions of refrigerants can only occur through leakage from the air conditioning systems which, owing to a rigorous maintenance programme, has so far been prevented. Up until 2016 there were no losses dur-ing normal operations, and there were no ‘abnormal’ operations. The same applies to four electric cabinets which are filled with small amounts of SF6 as insulating agent. These cabinets are completely closed systems with an internal system pressure of 0.5 bar; thus, there is no possible loss during normal operation. Hence, global warm-ing due to emissions of refrigerants or comparable substances represents an insignificant impact. As a conse-quence, there were no specific targets in 2016. The 2017 objective is to repeat 2016’s performance of no leakage during normal operation.
F5.2: CO2 emissions from vehicles
(a) Commission vehicle fleet
Karlsruhe operates a vehicle fleet of 11 vehicles. As noted in section F4.1 the impact of their emissions is con-sidered as insignificant.
(b) Missions and local work based travel (excluding Commission vehicle fleet)
Missions’ emissions were not among the significant aspects identified in Table F3, and there were no specific targets in 2015 or 2016 associated with them. Nonetheless, due to an increase of the video conferencing facil-ities from two to six since 2013 it can be assumed that there was some reduction of travel in favour of video conferences.
(c) Commuting
The CO2 footprint of staff commuting was estimated from survey data using a simple approach considering the main and potentially second modes of transport along with the distance to the workplace with a breakdown
F16
according to transport mode (4) (car, bike, train, etc.) and for cars a differentiation between petrol and diesel for the cars. The participation rate was 47 %. The results were then extrapolated to 100 %. The CO2 footprint for commuting resulted in approx. 1.24 t per day or approx. 273 t per year respectively (cf. also F5.3).
The Environmental Programme 2016 describes the following action regarding the vehicles consumption:
Table F8: Important actions promoting more sustainable commuting behaviour
Action Action type Status of target achievement Date
Free tickets for public transport Continuous Implemented Started before 2008
Car pooling: intranet site for staff
Continuous Car-sharing interinstitutional portal Published on connected 02/15
Encourage staff to get to work by public transport or bicycle
Single Mobility day — EMW, 3rd edition, preceded by the Commuting Survey
September 2016
Equip, maintain and manage service bicycles
Continuous Regular service (includes also monthly servicing) Started in December 2014
F5.3 Carbon footprint
Figure F12: Carbon footprint elements (Tonnes CO2)
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
0 0 3 0 3 773 2 494 131 7 44 0.0 6 453
0 0 3 0 3 670 1 883 140 2 40 0.0 5 812
0 0 3 0 3 536 2 245 146 3 45 0.0 6 149
0 0 3
0
42
34
37 0 3 343 2 126 127 3 62
0
32
136
147 0.0
0
0
0
273 6 120
2013
2014
2015
2016
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commission
vehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
(4) Source of CO2 conversion factors: www.carbonfootprint.com. Only the direct impact of the energy used was considered, therefore for biking the CO2 emissions were zero.
F17
Figure F13: Carbon footprint elements (Tonnes CO2/person)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.00 0 0.01 0.00 0.00 12.37 8.18 0.44 0.02 0.15 0.00 0 21.17
0.00 0 0.01 0.13 0.00 11.47 5.88 0.46 0.01 0.13 0.11 0 18.19
0.00 0 0.01 0.11 0.00 10.98 6.97 0.46 0.01 0.14 0.42 0 19.10
0.00 0 0.01 0.11 0.00 10.32 6.56 0.39 0.01 0.19 0.45 0
0
0
0
0.84 18.88
2013
2014
2015
2016
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commission
vehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
Figures F12 and F13 show that buildings energy consumption either through electricity or district heating are the most important components of the carbon footprint. Commuting and business air travel are the next significant components but these are far below the buildings energy consumption (cf. also Table F4).
Table F9: Contributions to carbon footprint (Tonnes CO2/person and % of total) for components exceeding 1 %
Tonnes CO2/p % of total measured2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total measured carbon footprint 21.17 18.19 19.10 18.88 100 100 100 100— of which electricity for buildings 12.37 11.47 10.98 10.32 58.4 63.0 57.5 54.6
— of which district heating 8.18 5.88 6.97 6.56 38.6 32.3 36.5 34.8
— of which business travel (air) 0.44 0.46 0.46 0.39 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.1
— of which commuting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5
Sum of these components 20.99 17.81 18.41 18.11 99.1 97.9 96.4 95.9
F5.4 Total air emissions of other air pollutants (S0x, NOx, PM)
Karlsruhe’s non CO2 emissions to air are an insignificant environmental aspect. It does not operate heating instal-lations, hence, there are no processes generating either NOx or SOx. VOC emissions are not measured as air flow from the chemical laboratories passes through activated-carbon filters and thus can also be considered negligi-ble. Consequently, there were no relevant specific targets for 2016 or 2017 targets. The emergency generator is tested monthly for a very short period and would be responsible for a very small quantity of particulate mat-ter emissions.
F18
F5.5 Nuclear emissions
Figure F15: Exhaust air: declaration to authority on aerosol emissions
105 000 98 000 91 000 110 000 43 300 130 000 297 000619 000
15 100
13 00014 000
11 000
8 000
500 2 000
4 000
6 000
8 000
10 000
12 000
14 000
16 000
18 000
20 000
1 000 000
2 000 000
3 000 000
4 000 000
5 000 000
6 000 000
7 000 000
8 000 000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Beta AE (Bq/y) Alpha AE (Bq/y)
Note: maximum values on the y axes are only 20 % of the permitted maxima or beta and alpha emissions (40 000 000 Bq/y, and 100 000 Bq/y respectively)
JRC Karlsruhe does not make its own measurements relating to potential radioactive emissions to the surround-ing environment but participates in KIT Campus Nord’s surveillance programme.
KIT has an extensive surveillance programme measuring air, soil, water and vegetation for radioactivity and is obliged to give regular reports about these measurements to the Umweltministerium Baden-Württemberg, the supervising authority for nuclear installations in Baden-Württemberg.
Due to extensive filtering systems, emissions of radioactive substances are far below the legal limits as shown in Figure F15. In 2016 Karlsruhe recorded no Alpha-Aerosols and Beta-emissions were less than 0.1 % of author-ised limits. Although nuclear emissions are far below the permitted values they are considered a significant aspect. The decrease in 2016 as well as the slight increase in 2015 can be attributed to the measuring method.
Owing to the already low values, a further reduction in nuclear emission is practically unachievable. Karlsruhe’s 2017 target is, nonetheless, to maintain this very good level of performance, given that site policy is to keep emissions as low as reasonably possible, regardless of the authorised limits.
In 2011, as a consequence of the mediation process regarding the construction of the new laboratory wing, Karlsruhe management declared a voluntary reduction of the authorised limit of ‘nuclear’ emissions by 10 %.
F19
F6 Improving waste management and sorting
F6.1 Non-hazardous waste
Figure F16: Evolution of total non-hazardous waste in Karlsruhe (tonnes)
20
40
60
80
100
120
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 107 78 106 104 107 102 82
Total (tonnes/person) 0.37 0.26 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.25
2.4 2.4 4.9 3.0 4.1 3.3 1.6
47.0 26.6 32.7 40.8 32.9 32.8 29.9
0.2 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.8
6.7 7.1 16.6 6.9 15.4 14.4 5.6
18.0 18.0 20.8 25.7 18.0 20.6 18.0
33.2 23.8 30.3 26.7 36.1 30.1 26.0
Plastic
Metal (scrap)
Glass
Wood
Paper and cardboard
Municipal waste
Figure F16 shows no overall trend in per capita waste generation. Most waste data are provided by the waste contractor. Some household and paper waste is disposed by a different company (due to specialties of the Ger-man waste legislation) and quantities were calculated using the average number of containers counted over 4 weeks and bulk density values for the waste types given in the literature (5). The site has developed a policy of waste partitioning and recycling through which it constantly seeks to reduce overall waste production.
The 2014-2020 target of 5 % waste reduction will be achieved through strengthening awareness of the estab-lished procedures and through staff awareness campaigns. Non-hazardous waste is an insignificant environmen-tal aspect, and depends to a large extent on the research as well as renovation and construction activities which are not predictable. Nonetheless the data show that in 2016 per capita waste generation was already well ahead of the 2020 target.
(5) Görner, Hübner — Abfallwirtschaft und Bodenschutz; Springer; 2002.
F20
F6.2 Controlled waste
Figure F17: Evolution of total hazardous waste in Karlsruhe (tonnes)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Electrical equipment (WEEE)
Lead acid battery
Flourescent lamps
Mixed chemical waste
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 4.65 10.32 13.58 10.51 10.26 8.23
Total (tonnes/person) 0.015 0.035 0.045
1.18 5.20 4.27
0.00 0.00 3.86
3.00 2.82 3.38
0.00 1.19 1.02
0.00 0.13 0.13
0.47 0.98 0.92
0.033
5.20
0.18
3.32
0.90
0.21
0.70
0.032
7.25
0.30
1.84
0.70
0.17
0.00
0.025
2.32
4.88
0.00
0.91
0.12
0.00
Insulating glass fibre
Asbestos from dismantling works
Figure F17 shows the evolution in the generation of total controlled waste. Some categories of hazardous waste are disposed according to specific laboratory waste procedures and therefore accounted together as ‘mixed chemical waste’. This approach has delivered the highest safety standards while reducing the administrative burden.
Except in 2016, WEEE has been the largest component of hazardous waste since 2011 but under German law it has to be 100 % recycled. The next largest component of hazardous waste for several years was asbestos gen-erated through renovation works. This is a historic liability as large parts of Karlsruhe were built in the 1960s; in 2016 there was no asbestos disposed as most of the renovation works removing asbestos elements are com-pleted. Established procedures are working well and awareness campaigns will be continued. Therefore there are no specific management approved actions for continued improvement. Hazardous waste is an insignificant envi-ronmental aspect. As with non-hazardous waste, the site in 2016 reported hazardous waste generation demon-strating reductions well below the 2020 target.
F6.3 Waste sorting
Table F10: Percentage of waste sorted at the JRC Karlsruhe
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Percentage of waste sorted 69.8 71.2 73.9 77.2 69.2 73.2 71.2
Percentage of waste not sorted 30.2 28.8 26.1 22.8 30.8 26.8 28.8
The percentage of waste sorted has been varying for several years around 70 %. As the waste generation is depending to a large extent on the research as well as renovation and construction activities which are not pre-dictable there is no specific target set for the percentage of waste sorted. The aim is to remain in this range. In addition Karlsruhe also subscribes to the commission wide approach of a 4.8 % increase in this parameter from 2014 to 2020.
F7 Protecting biodiversityThe total area of the site occupied by impermeable surfaces including buildings, parking lots, paved roads and paths, etc. is approximately 72 000 m2; equivalent to 221 m² for each staff member. The built surface area from 2012 to 2015 was about 68 000 m². The c. 3 500 m² increase in 2015 was due to the new buildings described earlier as well as new walkways, driveways, parking lots and container positions in the vicinity of these buildings. The ‘natural’ proportion of the site has decreased accordingly and now covers approximately 21 000 m2 or 23 %
F21
of the total. There is no related target for 2016 because Karlsruhe, owing to regulatory requirements, will start constructing a new laboratory wing which will therefore reduce the unbuilt surface area significantly.
Imminent effects of the site on the local environment can be considered as mostly insignificant restricted to the effect of impermeable surfaces represented by the buildings and paved areas. Karlsruhe has no signifi-cant air emissions except the air from the ventilation systems which is constantly monitored for radioactive contamination.
Although the site is situated close to an aquifer there is also no significant influence because the installation is a completely closed system with no possible discharge to groundwater (other than rainwater draining from the roofs). The impact on the surrounding biota is also negligible as the site occupies a small area in comparison to the surrounding landscape (comprising mostly forests) and there are virtually no impacts on the neighbourhood (neither air, water or noise). JRC Karlsruhe ensures that during site developments, environmental considerations are taken into account. Consequently there were no specific targets in 2016 and there are also no specific targets for 2017.
F8 Green public procurement
F8.1 Incorporating GPP into procurement contracts
Karlsruhe aims to incorporate GPP into contracts exceeding EUR 60 000 and has increased the number of con-tracts incorporating ‘green’ criteria in the last few years. A staff training campaign was conducted in 2015 on this subject and again in 2016 when 20 % of contracts exceeding EUR 60 000 EUR included such criteria. Hence, the 2016 target of incorporating GPP criteria in more than 3 % of contracts was reached. The 2017 target is to again exceed 3 %.
Moreover, there is a new tool integrated into the procurement management software (PPMT), which makes the units preparing contracts aware of the potential (and obligation) of applying GPP standards, including links to DG Environment and EU Green Public Procurement criteria.
F8.2 Office supply contracts
Most office supplies are provided through framework contracts arising from the Commission’s (OIB) call for ten-ders. The Commission applies ‘green’ criteria to select suitable contractors and products. Examples of the Com-mission’s current framework contracts used by ITU are those for office supplies, office furniture or the supply of PCs and peripherals (through DG-DIGIT’s contracts). There is no specific management approved action to support further improvement.
F9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness
F9.1 Management of the legal register
Karlsruhe is a nuclear installation under German legislation and as such is bound in a tight regulatory framework under the Atomic Energy Act (Atomgesetz, last updated in November 2015) and its Ordinances (Rechtsverord-nungen) such as those for Radiation Protection (Strahlenschutzverordnung) and for X-Ray Devices (Röntgenver-ordnung) both of which were last updated in December 2014). The nuclear licences and amendments governing Karlsruhe’s operation include:
1. Genehmigung/licence Nr. K/30/65 [07/65]
2. Genehmigung/licence K/46/66 - LU/101/66 [10/66]
3. Nachtrag 1 zur Genehmigung/amendment 1 to licence Nr. K/30/65 [09/66]
4. Nachtrag 1 zur Genehmigung/amendment 1 to licence Nr. K/46/66 - LU/101/66 [10/66]
5. Nachtrag 2 zur Genehmigung/amendment 2 to licence Nr. K/30/65 - LU/95/66 [10/67]
6. Nachtrag 3 zur Genehmigung//amendment 3 to licence Nr. K/30/65 - LU/95/66 [11/71]
7. Nachtrag 4 zur Genehmigung/amendment 4 to licence Nr. K/30/65 - LU/95/66 [07/74]
8. Nachtrag 5 zur Genehmigung/amendment 5 to licence Nr. K/30/65 - LU/95/66 [08/77]
9. Nachtrag 6 zur Genehmigung/amendment 6 to licence Nr. K/30/65 - LU/95/66 [06/81]
F22
10. Nachtrag 7 zur Genehmigung//amendment 7 to licence Nr. K/30/65 - LU/95/66 [04/82]
11. Nachtrag 8 zur Genehmigung/amendment 8 to licence Nr. K/30/65 - LU/95/66 [07/82]
12. Änderungsgenehmigung zum Nachtrag 8/licence for modification to amendment 8 [09/84]
13. Genehmigung/licence S1/97 [10/97]
14. Änderungsgenehmigung nach § 9 AtG (Flügel M)/ licence for modification acc. to § 9 AtG (wing M) Nr. K/132/2012 [03/12]
Another aspect of Karlsruhe’s status as nuclear installation according to German legislation is the fact, that for safety or security relevant technical installation only reliable and time-tested components may be used ((§9, para 3, nr. 3 AtG). More detailed subordinated regulations even require a time period of ten years for ‘new’ equipment.
Other applicable regulations are listed and assessed in the Legal Register RGS0002/M4/R10 which was created in cooperation with an external company who also provide an update twice yearly, most recently in November 2016.
Karlsruhe operates under the close scrutiny and constant surveillance of the Competent Supervisory Authority which is the Ministry of Environment of Baden-Württemberg (cf. also F9.2). There have been no legal proceed-ings against Karlsruhe and consequently neither penalties nor fines since operations started. In order to assess legal compliance, Karlsruhe commissioned an external company to undertake legal compliance audits annually. The latest took place in November 2016.
F9.2 Prevention, risk management and emergency preparedness
As an installation subject to German nuclear legislation the whole site and its activities are conceived and operated with a focus on prevention, risk management and emergency preparedness. The applicable legisla-tion requires these topics explicitly. Procedures are based on and tailored to this legislation. Significant proce-dures have to be approved by the supervising authority (Ministry of Environment of Baden-Württemberg) before becoming effective. The supervisor undertakes inspection visits regularly at a minimum frequency of at least once per month.
Some practical examples demonstrating the rigour with which legal compliance and emergency preparedness are addressed include:
� All safety and security relevant equipment and installations are subject to stringent recurring check pro-grams which are also under the supervision of the commissioned experts of the supervising authority;
� The site operates its own semi-professional firefighting team and cooperates with the professional fire brigade of surrounding research site (KIT);
� There are regular firefighting and evacuation exercises partially in cooperation with the fire brigade of the KIT;
� Most technical works are subject to a working permit procedure;
� The admission to the site is strictly limited.
F10 Communication
F10.1 Internal communication
Internal communication may involve Commission staff and contractors. Details of the site level actions are described in the individual (action) Fact Sheets.
A summary of the actions is included below:
Table F11: Internal communication actions at the JRC Karlsruhe
Action description Organisation Dates in 2016
Participation at Karlsruhe site level Participants (numbers when applicable)
A) Corporate actions performed at site level, (AAP-22/01/2016)
F23
Action description Organisation Dates in 2016
Participation at Karlsruhe site level Participants (numbers when applicable)
Earth Hour 2016 Centrally organised (Commission wide)
19/03 Awareness Internal and external staff
First interinstitutional EMAS Week
Centrally organised (Commission wide)
23/05 to 27/05
— Children’s drawing competition ‘Draw the Future’,
— Photo competition ‘Take a Selfie for EMAS’,
Each competition had a winner from KA site
Internal staff
EMAS — Green Commission Awards (second edition)
Centrally organised (Commission wide)
30/05 to 28/11
Application sent from KA site Internal staffOne application(the Technical Services groups: Installations and Electricity)
EU Week for Waste Reduction
Centrally organised (Commission wide)
19/11 to 27/11
Awareness (info-screens and intranet) Internal staff
Communication towards all staff (Point 3 of the AAP)
Centrally organised (Commission wide)
2016 Awareness (info-screens and intranet) Internal and external staff
B) Local actions at Karlsruhe site:
Commuting Survey Karlsruhe site 15/09 to 30/09
First Commuting Survey at the site Internal staff(263 invited,Answers: 123 = 47 %)
Mobility Day Karlsruhe site 16/09 4th edition Internal staff(more than 70,18 awarded)
Renew the ‘Print less’ stickers on MFD (multi-functional-device) printers (int. comm. fact sheet JRC_KA_1)
Karlsruhe site Semester 2, 2016
Awareness Internal and external staff
Continuous awareness via slides on info-screens on the EMAS (int. comm. fact sheet JRC_KA_2)
Karlsruhe site 2016 Awareness Internal and external staff
Continuous monitoring & sending feedback ref paper printed materials received by staff (int. comm. fact sheet JRC_KA_3)
Karlsruhe site 2016 Awareness Internal staff
Dialogue with internal stakeholders
Karlsruhe site 2016 Questions received and answered via the JRC KRU EMAS mailbox
Internal staff (4)
Dialogue with internal stakeholders
Karlsruhe site 2016 Questions received and answered via the JRC KRU EMAS mailbox(incl. the feedback sent to EC, DG HR, JRC ref various print-outs to be sent in e-version:JRC calendars, leaflets, CEND, Fit@work, etc)
Internal staff (10)
F24
F10.2 External communication and stakeholder management
Karlsruhe holds licences under German Atomic Law and the Radiation Protection Ordinance as described in Sec-tion F9.1. These cover all operations and plant components and therefore all modifications must be approved by the competent supervisory authority, the Ministry of Environment of Baden-Württemberg.
Karlsruhe and the supervisory authority are responsible for compliance with the licences and the latter there-fore regularly monitors Karlsruhe’s nuclear area. Karlsruhe and the Ministry of Environment share objectives for the safety and security of Karlsruhe’s nuclear area. In this context Karlsruhe and the competent authority enjoy a close collaboration based on regular meetings, solving problems and verification exercises.
External dialogue also involves, in addition to local communities and stakeholders, international stakeholders through activities such as site visits and information campaigns. In this context, the following are some of the persons and interest groups who visited Karlsruhe in 2016 along with some of the activities undertaken:
Visits by Peers and Conferences
1. Visit of Hotlab (Annual meeting on ‘hot’ laboratories and remote handling) participants
2. Visit of Plutonium Futures participants
3. Visit of K. Kvaal and C. Furtsaether (Norwegian University of Life Sciences)
Visit of multiplicators/journalists
4. Visit of Anja Gross from local press/‘Badisches Tagblatt’
5. Visit of Mr Essig (SWR u.a. Baden Aktuell) for an radio interview with K. Mayer (Head of Nuclear Foren-sics at JRC Karlsruhe)
6. Info session in Linkenheim
JRC/EU Internal
7. Euratom Interim Evaluation Panel
8. Visit of Colleagues from Ispra for a joint training
9. Visit of the Slovak ambassador
10. Visit of JRC Deputy Director General Charlina Vitcheva
11. Visit of DG TAXUD (Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union) Director KASTRISSIANAKIS
12. Visit of Director I — MARUSZEWSKI
13. Slovak Delegation Council’s Research Working Party (RWP)
Young academics
14. Visit of students from the University of Pisa
15. Visit of students from the University Heidelberg
16. Second visit of students from the University Heidelberg — Radioisotope Course
17. Visit of teachers from the European School Karlsruhe
On Cooperation
18. APEX (Additional Protocol EXercise) Europe Exercise
19. CNS — Counter Nuclear Smuggling
20. Smart Energy Region Event
21. Visit of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Traineeship
With local/regional political stakeholders
22. Visit of Mayors of the surrounding communities
F25
In line with the policy of transparency and in the context of the information activities addressing the local communities and stakeholders, as well as in compliance with the relevant German legislation in nuclear field, the JRC-Karlsruhe presents on a regular basis (twice per year) the nuclear activities and the new development of the facilities at the Karlsruhe site to the surrounding communities. The JRC is strongly committed both to the protection of the environment, ensuring its sustainability, and to the protection of the health and safety of its co-workers and the population. The preservation of the environment, the protection of people, both now and in the future, are a long-term commitment to ensuring that sites and waste are properly managed, and open and transparent interactions with stakeholders are the basic principles of these important activities.
23. Wing M Ground breaking ceremony with local, German and European politicians
24. Visit of IHK (Chamber of Commerce) Karlsruhe representatives
Moreover, there were 18 training courses in the context of The European Nuclear Security Training Centre (EUSEC-TRA) which were described as ‘The positive impact in the environment and safety of the direct and indirect activities made by the JRC Karlsruhe taking care about the possible impacts of radioactivity in population and the environ-ment’ (taken from the AENOR 2016 audit report). Participants were (partially already mentioned above):
1. BfS (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz/Federal Office for Radiation Protection) Training
2. Radiological Crime Scene Management for the partner countries Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Mol-dova (GUAM)
3. TAXUD Detection Training (EU Member States)
4. Training on Advanced Gamma Spectrometry — GUAM
5. CNS (Counter Nuclear Smuggling)Workshop
6. SLD (Second Line of Defense) Detection Training for Bangladesh
7. Nuclear Forensics Methodologies Training Course DRY RUN
8. SLD Detection Training for Cambodia
9. SLD 4-day Peer to Peer Science Exchange Workshop
10. SLD Detection Training for Belarus
11. SLD 4-day Familiarisation Workshop
12. MEST (Mobile Expert Support Team) Training for Israel
13. NDA (Non Destructive Analyses) Refresher course
14. BfS Training
15. APEX Exercise
16. IAEA Nuclear Forensic Methodologies Training Course
17. AWCC (Active Well Coincidence Counter) Training Course
18. APEX Europa High level event
In 2017 already 21 new courses scheduled.
F11 Training
F11.1 Internal training
Internal training partially includes also includes external staff working on the premises.
Table F12: Internal trainings at the JRC Karlsruhe
Description Organisation Dates in 2016
Participation at Karlsruhe site level
Participants (estimated)
A) Corporate Actions performed at site level, (AAP - 22/01/2016)
ECORs training DG HR 12/04 ECORs training on EMS
F26
Description Organisation Dates in 2016
Participation at Karlsruhe site level
Participants (estimated)
B) Local Actions at Karlsruhe site
Raise awareness on EMAS providing specific training for the Head of Units
Karlsruhe site 31/05 Raise awareness on EMAS providing specific training for the Head of Units
7
Newcomers introduction to EMAS (training fact sheet JRC KA_1)
Karlsruhe site 09/03
14/09
06/12
Part of the QM introduction to Newcomers
7 (internal staff)
Workshop: ‘2016 updates - Legal Arbeitssicherheit und Umweltschutz’ (training fact sheet JRC KA_2)
Karlsruhe site 24/11 Limited to staff in relevant functions 13 (internal staff)
Laboratory responsibles training
Karlsruhe site 22/11 Raise awareness on environmental aspects
Laboratory responsibles
26 (internal staff)
Promote the e-learning module EMAS awareness
Karlsruhe site 2016 Newcomers 7 (internal staff)
Since 2014 the EMAS e-learning figures at JRC Karlsruhe are outstanding: more than 90 % of the total staff. The module is advertised on the JRC Karlsruhe’s site — Training page.
Introduction to EMAS is part of the Newcomers training to Quality management systems in JRC Karlsruhe. Ses-sions are organised on almost quarterly basis.
In May 2016 a compulsory training for the JRC Karlsruhe Head of Units: ‘Responsibilities and liabilities according to the German Health & Safety legislation’.
In November 2016 a workshop ‘Current developments in legislation regarding Arbeitssicherheit und Umwelts-chutz’ was organised for the colleagues in the EMAS relevant functions.
The specialised trainings: Laboratory Responsibles, etc, are organised on a 2-year basis.
F11.2 External training
Not applicable.
F12 EMAS Costs and savingTable F13: EMAS administration and energy costs for buildings in the EMAS area
Costs:
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Change in last year2010
Total Direct EMAS Cost (EUR)
0 0 0 81 000 71 000 72 000 72 000
Total Direct Cost per employee
0 0 0 266 222 322 324 2
Total buildings energy cost (EUR)
1 841 430 1 699 400 1 669 420 1 824 280 1 667 240 1 839 040 1 769 470 – 69 570
Total buildings energy cost (EUR/person)
6 263 5 572 5 583 5 981 5 210 5 711 5 461 – 250
Total water costs (EUR) 14 201 10 432 10 550 12 239 14 806 14 777 13 717 – 1 060Water (EUR/person) 48 34 35 40 46 46 42 – 4Total paper cost (EUR) NR NR 6 938 5 551 6 938 6 020 9 180 3 160Total paper cost (EUR/person)
NR NR 23 18 22 19 28 10
F27
The direct EMAS costs were calculated using the average costs for an official as determined by DG BUDG in rela-tion to the estimated time used for EMAS (full time equivalent — FTE) in combination with external costs (e.g. consultants). The consumption costs were calculated using the consumption values and the prices for the rele-vant units (e.g. MWh for energy).
F13 Conversion factors:Parameter and unit
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
kWh of energy provided by one litre diesel
10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89
kWh of energy provided by one litre petrol
9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42
Paper Density (g/m2)
80 80 80 80 80 80 80
Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh of electricity (if grid average)
0.245 0.235 0.317 0.338 0.315 0.289 0.281
Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh natural gas
0.213 0.213 0.213 0.213 0.213 0.213 0.213
Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh diesel
0.264 0.264 0.264 0.264 0.264 0.264 0.264
Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh
0.213 0.213 0.213 0.213 0.213 0.213 0.213
Kgs CO2 from one litre of diesel
2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67
Kgs CO2 from one litre of petrol
2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28
Annual cost of one FTE (EUR)
132 000 132 000 132 000 132 000 132 000 134 000 134 000
Note: See Corporate volume for conversion factor reference.
Environmental Statement2016 resultsAnnex G: JRC ISPRAFinal
Prepared by the EMAS Site Coordination Team in JRC Ispra: Philip Costeloe - JRC Ispra EMAS Coordinator Norbert Brinkhoff-Button - JRC EMAS CoordinatorJanet Avraamides - Environmental Communication OfficerMaurizio Bavetta - Energy OfficerFabio Bocci - Water OfficerPaolo Di Ianni - Infrastructure Development OfficerHenrique Fattori - Transport and Waste OfficerAthanasios Katsogiannis - Wastewater OfficerAnne-Marie Morrissey - Green Areas OfficerGiuliana Talamona - Environmental Procurement OfficerMassimiliano Voinich - Nuclear Environmental Management OfficerValeria Borraccia - External environmental consultantDonatella Dalla Benetta - External environmental consultantAlberto Redeghieri - External environmental consultantMauro Mondo - External environmental consultant Department: JRC.R.I.Supervision: Philip CosteloeContact: [email protected]
Cover illustration: Original artwork of the amphibian Rana Latastei (present at JRC Ispra and protected species under Bern Convention and Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC) © Stefano Scali 2018.
All other illustrations: © European Union unless otherwise stated.
Environmental Statement
2016 resultsAnnex G: JRC ISPRA
Final
G2
G1 Overview of core indicators at Ispra ....................................................................................................................................G4G2 Description of JRC Ispra activities and key external stakeholders ......................................................................G5G3 Environmental impact of JRC Ispra activities ..............................................................................................................G10G5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint...............................................................................................................G20G6 Improving waste management and sorting ..................................................................................................................G27G7 Protecting biodiversity ..............................................................................................................................................................G34G8 Green public procurement .......................................................................................................................................................G36G9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness ......................................................................G36G10 Communication .............................................................................................................................................................................G38G11 Training ..............................................................................................................................................................................................G41G12 EMAS costs and saving .............................................................................................................................................................G41G13 Conversion factors ......................................................................................................................................................................G42
Contents
G3
ANNEX G: JRC Ispra
In 1957 the Euratom Treaty, signed in Rome by six European founding Members (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands), created the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). Since its crea-tion Euratom has supported the establishment and growth of safe nuclear power related industries to contribute the peace, health and prosperity of European citizens. To support this mission, Article 8 of the Treaty established a Joint Research Centre (JRC) with sites located (initially) in four Member States to perform top level research and disseminate findings for policymaking and to set uniform safe standards. Ispra was selected as the Italian site.
The activities of what has become the JRC Ispra site began in 1958 with the construction of the Ispra 1 nuclear reactor by the Italian ‘Comitato Nazionale per l’Energia Atomica’ (CNEN). Subsequently, under the agreement between the Italian government and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), the Ispra site came under the jurisdiction of the European Community, with an act ratified on 1 August 1960 (Italian Law 906). Ini-tially the site was dedicated to nuclear research. At the beginning of 1990s, however, it was decided to focus on new areas of research, mainly related to environment and sustainability, health and consumer protection and protection and security of the citizen. Currently the nuclear plants and most of installations located within the site are in the process of decommissioning.
To date, following the reorganisation of the JRC in July 2016, the Ispra site hosts a large variety of scientific, technical and support services, with all of the directorates of the JRC being represented physically on the site, this either in full including the Director’s office, or headquartered on another JRC site with at least one or several Units, or parts thereof, located in Ispra. Please consult the JRC’s organigram for more details, at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/about/organisation.
The site’s portfolio of activities breaks down as follows:
� Focal points of non-nuclear research: Sustainable Resources and Transport, Space, Security, Migration, Health and Consumer Protection, Energy Efficiency and Climate Change, as well as selected aspects of Growth & Innovation.
� Nuclear activities including Nuclear Security and the Decommissioning of the existing historical nuclear infrastructure.
� Horizontal research activities in support of Knowledge Management and Competence Building.
� Site Management support services covering Site Development, Maintenance, Logistics as well as Safety at Work, Security and Environmental Protection.
� Resources Management including finance, procurement, HR, IT, etc.
Non-JRC Commission services such as the Medical Service (DG HR), the Paymaster’s Office (PMO) and the man-agement of the Social Infrastructure through the Office for infrastructure Brussels.
The average daily presence on the JRC Ispra site is about 2 760 people, of whom about 1 800 are JRC staff and 960 external staff. The site hosts about 35 000 visitors on a yearly basis.
G4
G1
Over
view
of c
ore
indi
cato
rs a
t Isp
raJR
C Is
pra
has
been
repo
rting
on
EMAS
par
amet
ers
since
201
4 w
ith d
ata
mos
tly s
tretc
hing
bac
k at
leas
t to
2011
. The
var
iatio
n of
the
core
indi
cato
rs, i
nclu
ding
per
form
ance
tren
ds a
nd
targ
ets,
whe
re a
pplic
able
, is
show
n be
low.
Tabl
e G.
1: H
isto
rical
dat
a, p
erfo
rman
ce a
nd ta
rget
s fo
r cor
e in
dica
tors
for C
omm
issi
on le
vel r
epor
ting
Phys
ical
indi
cato
rs:
Hist
oric
dat
a va
lues
Perf
orm
ance
tren
d (%
) sin
ce:
Targ
et(N
umbe
r, de
scip
tion
and
unit)
2011
(1 )20
1320
1420
1520
1620
1120
1320
1420
1520
20*
Δ %
(2 )(3 )
valu
e (2 )
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(MW
h/p)
44.0
939
.80
37.4
338
.74
35.5
1– 1
9.5
– 10.
8– 5
.1– 8
.3– 5
.635
.33
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(KW
h/m
2 )50
248
940
440
738
4– 2
3.3
– 21.
3– 4
.9– 5
.5– 5
.638
1.7
1c) N
on-r
en. e
nerg
y us
e (b
ldgs
) %93
.194
.295
.594
.094
.91.
90.
7– 0
.70.
9– 5
.090
.71d
) Wat
er (m
3 /p)
1 25
776
162
182
768
1– 4
5.8
– 10.
59.
7– 1
7.7
– 5.0
590
1d) W
ater
(L/m
2 )14
297
9 33
96
705
8 68
67
372
– 48.
4– 2
1.1
9.9
– 15.
1– 5
.06
370
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (T
onne
s/p)
0.02
0.01
60.
017
0.01
50.
013
– 34.
3– 2
1.3
– 23.
8– 1
6.2
– 9.0
0.01
51e
) Off
ice p
aper
(She
ets/
p/da
y)19
15.5
16.0
14.5
12.2
– 34.
3– 2
1.3
– 23.
8– 1
6.2
– 9.0
14.5
2a) C
O 2 bui
ldin
gs (T
onne
s/p)
8.66
7.83
7.38
7.56
7.02
– 18.
9– 1
0.4
– 5.0
– 7.2
– 5.6
6.97
02a
) CO 2 b
uild
ings
(kg/
m2 )
9896
.179
.879
.476
.0– 2
2.9
– 20.
9– 4
.8– 4
.3– 5
.675
.32c
) CO 2 v
ehicl
es (
g/km
, man
u.)
191.
019
1.0
189.
6– 0
.7– 0
.7– 5
.118
1.3
2c) C
O 2 veh
icles
(g/
km, a
ctua
l)27
926
9.7
276.
824
5.2
260.
6– 7
– 3.4
– 5.8
6.3
– 5.1
262.
73a
) Non
-haz
. was
te (T
onne
s/p)
0.39
30.
470
0.41
50.
464
0.31
9– 1
8.9
– 32.
1– 2
3.2
– 31.
3NA
NA3b
) Haz
ardo
us w
aste
(Ton
nes/p
)0.
047
0.02
70.
018
0.02
10.
022
– 53.
3– 1
8.3
22.0
2.9
NANA
3c) S
epar
ated
was
te (%
)71
.382
.181
.583
.479
.111
.0– 3
.6– 2
.9– 5
.19.
389
.1Ec
onom
ic in
dica
tors
(EUR
/p)
Ener
gy c
onsu
mpt
ion
(bld
gs)
1 69
91
499
1 26
1 8
82– 4
8– 4
1.2
– 30.
0– 5
.01
424
Wat
er c
onsu
mpt
ion
137
137
182
150
99.
7– 1
7.7
– 5.0
130
Non-
haz.
was
te d
ispos
al
100
82.6
86.2
102
96.9
– 317
12.4
– 5.3
– 5.0
81.9
Note
: (1)
Ear
liest
repo
rted
data
; (2)
com
pare
d to
201
4; (3
) EM
AS A
nnua
l Act
ion
Plan
201
7 (%
val
ues)
.* T
arge
t for
% im
prov
emen
t for
the
perio
d 20
14-2
020.
NA: N
ot a
pplic
able
.
G5
It is evident that there are significant positive trends since 2011 in all parameters except for CO2 emissions from vehicles, hazardous waste production and percentage of separated waste. To be noted that indicator 1c) Non-renewable energy use from buildings is heavily influenced by the 2016 Italian electricity energy mix supplied by the grid (this dropped in terms of the share of renewable energy from 39.4 % in 2015 to 23.0 % in 2016).
A more detailed analysis of the relative causes of these indicators is described in the dedicated chapters. Some indicators are being analysed in order to attempt setting realisable objectives, where these are actually under control of the organisation. The evolution of the EMAS system in JRC Ispra is as shown below.
Table G.2: EMAS baseline parameters
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Population: total staff (internal and external) 2 520 2 574 2 738 2 767 2 662 2 754
Total no operational buildings 422 423 421 419 409 410
Useful surface area for all buildings (m2) 221 444 222 148 223 077 256 077 253 428 254 356
The JRC Ispra EMAS baseline parameters vary on a yearly basis and may therefore indirectly affect some EMAS indicators. For instance, the JRC Ispra population has a fluctuating trend which is not predictable. It accounts for the average of the daily presences of the internal staff and the counted presence on-site of external staff. Vis-itors are therefore not included in this calculation. The total number of buildings accounts for all the site’s con-structions, which also includes minor structures, such as cylinders and electric cabins.
G2 Description of JRC Ispra activities (1) and key external stakeholders:
G2.1 Site setting
Figure G.1: Geographical overview of JRC Ispra site (source Google Maps)
The Ispra site occupies about 167 hectares, and is located about 70 km North West of Milan, in Italy, as shown in Figure G1.
The site is in a hilly area between Lakes Maggiore and Varese, at an altitude of approximately 230 m above sea level. The site contains several ponds and many hectares of groves comprising mainly pines, birches, oaks, acacias and chestnut trees).
Figure G.2: Location of Rio Novellino and Acquanegra Stream
The main surface water courses that flow in the vicin-ity of the site are the Rio Novellino, a stream which has its source within the site and flows mainly NW bound, and the Acquanegra, Stream which flows alongside the north-eastern boundary. Both streams discharge into ‘Lake Maggiore’.
The meteorological conditions of the site are extremely variable and the weather can change rap-idly. The coldest months are typically December and January, while during summer average tempera-tures exceed 20 °C. The average rainfall in the area is about 1 500 mm, August and September are the wettest months when rainfall can exceed 150 mm in just a few days. The relative humidity registered in the JRC site is generally high due to the presence of
(1) Corporate NACE codes associated with the JRC Ispra site activities are: 99.00 — Activities of extraterratorial organisations and bodies; 71.2 — Activities de contrôle et analyses techniques; 72.1 — Research and experimental development in natural sciences and engineering; 35.11 — Production of electricity; 35.30 — Steam and air conditioning supply; 36.00 — Water collection, treatment and supply; 37.00 — Sewerage.
Ispra
N
G6
two large lakes nearby. The site is generally well protected from the winds; analysis of the multi-year wind rose indicates that the dominant wind direction is South bound, and it is in this direction that the higher speeds can be registered.
G2.2 Description of JRC Ispra activities
Core based activities and plants of Ispra site are located inside the fence, as shown in Figure G3. Some facilities are outside the fence, such as the water pumping station located on the Lake Maggiore shore, about 3 km from the Ispra site, and the Social Areas (the JRC apartments and guest quarters; about 60 flats and 20 lodgings; the Club House; childcare and sports facilities; building 51 that hosts some environmental laboratory activities. All these premises are within the EMAS scope.
The following activities, even if hosted on the Ispra site, are excluded from the EMAS scope:
� the Italian Fire Brigade station;
� the Carabinieri offices;
� the Italian Post office;
� the travel agency;
� the bank office;
� ENEA building (a subsidiary site of the Italian National agency for new technologies, Energy and sustain-able economic development).
Within the boundaries of the site there are about 300 buildings out of which approximately 140 are technical outbuildings (such as gas cylinder cabinets, transformer cabinets, etc.). There are some new buildings, but most of the structures are more than 20-years old. About 60 % of the buildings are from the 1960s, 15 % from the 1980s and about 20 % from the 1990s. Only a few buildings have been built more recently in order to design to create a high density zone, in which the scientific activities are concentrated. In particular, two new energy effi-cient buildings (buildings 100 and 101) hosting 250 staff each and the related heat recovery pumps have nota-bly improved the overall energy efficiency of Ispra infrastructure.
G7
(a) JRC Ispra utility plants and infrastructure
The Safety, Security & Site Management Ispra Department (R.I) is responsible to provide an appropriate site ser-vice level by means of the following utility plants:
Table G.3: JRC Ispra utility plants
Utility plant Function Operation period
Trigeneration plant supplied with methane
Electricity, hot water and cold water production. From 2004
Wastewater treatment plant Wastewater treatment before discharge in the Lake Maggiore. From 1978
Pumping station Water supply from the Lake Maggiore. From 1960s
Filtering station Water disinfection and distribution through the site network. From 1960s
Sewage network Collection of wastewater from buildings to wastewater treatment plant.
From 1960s
Electrical energy transformer station (Bld. 14)
Reduction of the electric voltage and distribution through the site network.
From 1960s
Electrical energy transformer cabins
Reduction of the electric voltage and distribution through the buildings
From 1960s
Petrol station Supply of fuel for internal fleet and other utilities From 1960s and totally refurbished in 2012
G8
Utility plant Function Operation period
Technical tunnels Distribution of all utilities needed for the ordinary operation of the JRC Ispra site (e.g. electric cables, hot and cold water pipes, drinking and cooling water pipeline, optical cables).
From 1960s
Heat recovery pump station To produce heat and cold energy for the new buildings (100-101). From 2015
(b) Nuclear installations
Activities for the development of a nuclear research centre at Ispra started in 1958. In 1959 the first reac-tor (Ispra-1) became operational. Over the years further research installations, including ESSOR (‘ESSais ORgel’, where ORGEL stands for ‘ORGanique-Eau Lourde’), the second nuclear reactor, and labs were constructed.
The facilities still operating are:
� ADECO — ‘Atelier Démantèlement Eléments Combustibles ORGEL’, Laboratory for the dismantling of nuclear fuel elements ORGEL.
� Dry wells — old nuclear material and waste store.
� PERLA — Performance Laboratory.
� Punita — Pulsed Neutron Interrogation Test Assembly.
� SGRR — ‘Stazione di Gestione dei Rifiuti Radioattivi’, Radioactive waste treatment facility.
Currently the long term shutdown (2) nuclear installations are:
� Ispra 1, ESSOR and ECO nuclear research reactors.
� Cyclotron: a type of particle accelerator in which charged particles are accelerated by an alternating electric field between two large electrodes in a constant magnetic field created by two large magnets. Shutdown in 2014.
� LCSR — ‘Laboratorio Caldo Studi e Ricerche’, Hot cells facility: a laboratory progressively shutdown in the 90s.
� STRRL — ‘Stazione di Trattamento dei Rifiuti Radioattivi Liquidi’, Radioactive liquid effluent treatment facility: shut down after 40 years of operation and replaced by the new ‘Stazione di Trattamento degli Effluenti Liquidi’, Liquid effluent treatment plant facility (STEL).
An example of complete decommissioning is RadioCHemistry Laboratory — RCHL. This lab has been progressively shutdown in 1990s. The decommissioning programme was completed in 2010 and the building is currently being used as the JRC Visitors’ Centre.
The nuclear activities at the JRC–Ispra impact the environment in essentially three ways:
1. Radioactive emissions during the operating and the future decommissioning activities phase (see Paragraph G5.4 on Radioactive emissions);
2. The management of old radioactive waste and the generation of radioactive decommissioning waste (see Paragraph G6.5 on Radioactive Waste Management System);
3. Indirect use of conventional industrial resources (i.e. not due to the nuclear nature of the operations).
(2) Shutdown: an interruption of nuclear activity. Therefore it does not necessarily imply that nuclear facilities have been decommissioned.
G9
(c) The Decommissioning programme
The site’s nuclear plants and most of nuclear research installations are currently either undergoing or in prepara-tion for decommissioning (3) which has the ambitious goal of restoring the site to its original condition (also called ‘greenfield’ status) in most of the former nuclear areas by 2030. The programme includes the following steps:
1. removal of nuclear materials;
2. dismantling installations and removal of the radioactive waste;
3. reduction of any residual radioactivity and a final radiological survey;
4. Re-establishing ‘greenfield’ status having no radiological constraints.
The decommissioning programme, as well as all the nuclear activities performed on the JRC Ispra site, are fully implemented under the Italian legislation and are inspected by the Italian nuclear safety authority (I.S.P.R.A.). The completion of the decommissioning programme is funded by a budget of about EUR 750 million (to be com-pleted by 2030). The preliminary assessment of the environmental impacts associated with decommissioning of nuclear power stations or reactors is subject to EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). The voluntary stage of Scoping to enable an interim channel with the authorities and start an open communication with the public has been completed (4).
end of nuclear fuel removal
operating activities
decommissioning authorization
decommissioning activities
pre-decommissioning activities
Pre-decommissioning is an intermediate stage between the operating and decommissioning phases (see figure to the left-hand side).
The main objective of the Ispra site Decommissioning and Waste Management Programme (5) is to decommission the shutdown nuclear facilities and to manage the resulting waste together with the old waste.
The SGRR, the radioactive waste management facility, is the supporting facility for the treatment, characteri-sation, conditioning and storage of radioactive waste coming from decommissioning activities. This facility is located in the designated zone known as ‘Area 40’.
The Interim Storage Facility (ISF) was built in 2013, this building is designed to safely store low and inter-mediate level conditioned radioactive waste. The ISF will host only the JRC-Ispra radioactive waste.
(d) Research activities
The non-nuclear research activities of the JRC in Ispra are a combination of desk-top research and experimental research. The latter encompasses chemical, biological and physical testing and analysis in dedicated laboratories onsite, and includes the following major facilities (non-exhaustive list (6)):
� European Union Reference Laboratory for European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (EURL ECVAM);
� European Crisis Management Laboratory (ECML);
(3) Decommissioning: the last major licensed phase of a nuclear installation. It involves taking the installation out of operation while ensuring the health and safety of personnel and the general public and the protection of the environment, and culminates in the termination of the installation licence.
(4) http://www.va.minambiente.it/it-IT/Oggetti/Info/1571(5) For further information please refer to: http://dwm.jrc.ec.europa.eu(6) Further details can be found on the JRC internet, currently on: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-facilities
G10
� European Interoperability Centre for Electric Vehicles and Smart Grids;
� European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA);
� European Microwave Signature Laboratory (EMSL);
� European Nuclear Security Training Centre (EUSECTRA);
� European Reference Laboratory for Air Pollution (ERLAP);
� European Solar Test Installation (ESTI);
� Greenhouse gas monitoring facilities;
� Indoortron Facility;
� JRC air pollution observatory;
� Marine Optical Laboratory;
� NanoBiotechnology laboratory;
� Next Generation Sequencing technology (NGS) - Bioinformatics infrastructure; and
� Vehicle Emissions LAboratory (VELA).
G2.3 JRC Ispra stakeholders
JRC Ispra has identified its internal and external stakeholders and is committed to relate to them in a transparent and timely way, in accordance with the EMAS Regulation. JRC Ispra has also identified the needs and expectations of these stakeholders, which vary between ‘political role’, ‘legal requirements’, ‘collaboration’ and ‘communica-tion’. The JRC Ispra internal stakeholders include staff, Management as well as the Unions, whereas the JRC Ispra external stakeholders are:
� Neighbouring Municipalities (Ispra, Brebbia, Cadrezzate, Travedona Monate);
� Other Municipalities;
� Other Public Administration (e.g. Regione, Provincia, Italian fire brigade);
� The Italian EMAS Competent Body (Comitato Ecolabel Ecoaudit) and the environmental control bodies (I.S.P.R.A. (7); A.R.P.A. Lombardia (8));
� Environmental Associations (e.g. Legambiente);
� Other associations (e.g. Unione degli idustriali, Confindustria, Camera di commercio);
� Local communities;
� Neighbouring citizens; and
� EU citizens.
G3 Environmental impact of JRC Ispra activitiesThis section considers the site’s significant environmental aspects. An analysis of environmental aspects has been made using a specific procedure (9) under which significant environmental aspects have been identified and these are summarised in Table G.4. The JRC Ispra is taking measures to reduce pollution (airborne emissions, waste pro-duction, wastewater discharge) and to achieve more efficient use of natural resources (mainly energy and water).
On top of this, every 2 years, JRC Ispra site updates its site Organisational Environmental Footprint (OEF) study which analyses, with a scientific and recognised method (10), the impact of all direct and indirect activities. The OEF results help to identify the JRC Ispra site’s environment priorities and act as a decision support tool for management.
(7) ‘Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale’, namely the national environmental protection agency.(8) Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale, namely the regional environmental protection agency.(9) P01, ‘Identification and evaluation of environmental aspects’, Environmental Management system.(10) The OEF is based upon the Commission Recommendation 2013/179/EU of 9 April 2013 — Annex III ‘Organisation Environmental
Footprint (OEF) Guide’.
G11
Table G.4 also shows the indicators that are most pertinent to the significant environmental aspects, along with actions that have been defined and validated by the European Commission EMAS Steering Committee, and which are referenced in the following sections.
The Commission services in Ispra undertook a full update of the environmental aspects in 2016, the results of which are summarised in the table below.
Table G.4: Summary of significant environmental aspects at JRC Ispra
Aspect group Environmental aspect
Environmental impact
Activity, product or service Indicator
1) Resources Electricity (Indirect) & fossil fuel consumption
Reduction in natural resources
Heating, cooling, ventilation, electrical equipment and transport, trigeneration plant; non-nuclear scientific laboratories; site maintenance and infrastructures development; nuclear controlled areas
(1a) Total energy buildings
(1a i) supplied
(1a ii) mains supplied gas
1a vii) site generated renewable — PV,
(1b) Total energy used by service vehicles
(1c) Total non-renewable energy use
Use of chemicals and consumables, including paper
For office activities, printing, training and communication requirements
(1e) Office paper consumption
(1f) Offset paper consumption
Water consumption For catering, sanitary and technical installations
(1d) Water usage in EMAS perimeter
2) Air CO2, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC emissions
Air pollution, climate change
Buildings: HVAC and equipment maintenance
Transport: work-related travel and commuting to work
Site activity: trigeneration plant; non-nuclear laboratories; site maintenance and infrastructure development; nuclear controlled areas
(2a) Total office building emissions from energy
(2c) Site vehicle CO2 emissions (2d) Total air emissions for buildings (CO, NOx)
HCFC gas emissions Depletion of the ozone layer
Used in refrigerators and cooling systems
(2b) Refrigerant gases
Radioactive atmospheric release (11)
Air pollution Generated by nuclear controlled areas
Gaseous radioactive effluents
2) Local aspects
Dust and noise Noise and air pollution
Generated by building renovation/repairs, staff travel and Commission car fleet
Indicator 2c / mobility plan
3) Waste Hazardous and non-hazardous waste production
Air, water and/or soil pollution, biodiversity risks
Medical laboratories, sanitary installations, cleaning, maintenance, office activities, IT and catering, non-nuclear scientific laboratories
(3a) Total non-hazardous waste (3b) Total hazardous waste
(3c) Percentage of waste sorted
Nuclear waste (12) Pollution Generated by nuclear controlled areas
Quantity of waste
(11) The radioactive release in the environment (air and water) is authorised and monitored by the Italian authority (Italian Supervisory Authority) to whom JRC Ispra sends annually a detailed report.
(12) It should be noted that nuclear waste is currently not disposed as preparatory work is ongoing.
G12
Aspect group Environmental aspect
Environmental impact
Activity, product or service Indicator
3) Water Wastewater discharge from wastewater treatment plant
Soil and groundwater contamination
Risk of eutrophication,
water and soil pollution
Sanitary and technical installations, wastewater treatment plant, scientific laboratories, site management and infrastructure, nuclear controlled areas
3d) Wastewater discharge
Radioactive release in wastewater (13)
Water and soil pollution
Generated by nuclear controlled areas
Liquid radioactive effluents
4) Bio-diversity Choice of sites and type of buildings
Destruction of natural habitat, relief, visual pollution
In the context of the Commission’s buildings policy (Life cycle approach)
4a) Built surface area
5) Public procurement
Environmental performance of contractors. Sustainability and impact of products and services selected (14)
Environmental impact caused by third parties
Integration of environmental clauses in contracts: influence of contract through ‘sustainable’ purchases
Life cycle approach.
5a) Contracts > 60 k with ‘eco’ criteria
5b) Green products in office catalogue
6) Environmental risks (legal compliance and emergency preparedness)
Load losses, malfunctions, leakages, spills of chemicals, gas, waste, etc.
Air, water and/or soil pollution, health risks
In the context of delivery, storage and use of chemicals/fuel used for maintenance of the technical installations, waste management, storage and fire prevention
6a) EMAS registered buildings
G4 More efficient use of natural resources
G4.1 Energy consumption
Buildings energy consumption data should be considered in the context of climatic conditions. Analysis of degree data (15) presented below suggests that:
� during the winter period climatic conditions have been harsher in 2016 than the previous two years and therefore more heating was needed to satisfy the site’s heat winter demand;
� during the summer period climatic conditions in 2016 have been milder than in 2015 and warmer with respect to 2014 and therefore less cooling energy was needed to satisfy the site’s cooling summer demand compared to 2015.
(13) See previous note.(14) For example: transport, use of natural resources, the lifecycle of the product, recycling, waste management, etc.(15) Hourly data is collected from the ‘ARPA Lombardia meteo station in Varano Borghi (VA)’, (http://www2.arpalombardia.it/siti/
arpalombardia/meteo/richiesta-dati-misurati/Pagine/RichiestaDatiMisurati.aspx): • winter heating degree days: 20 °C is the reference temperature during month from January to April and from October to
December, It is a measurement designed to quantify the demand for energy needed to heat a building; • summer cooling degree days: 26 °C is the reference temperature during month from May to September. It reflects the amount of
energy used to cool a building.
G13
Figure G.3: Annual winter heating degree days and summer cooling degree days at Ispra, 2014-2016
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Summer cooling degree days [°C]
0
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
Winter heating degree days [°C]
Winter heating degree days [°C]
Summer cooling degree days [°C]
2014 2015 2016
33 112 69
2014 2015 2016
2609 2384 2939
(a) Buildings (16)
Electrical energy consumed by JRC Ispra site is provided mostly by the internal trigeneration natural gas plant and, for a minor part, by:
� electric energy purchased form the grid (this is important as a backup power supply for Ispra site, in case of a reduction of the energy production of the site trigeneration plant, e.g. for extraordinary main-tenance); and
� on-site photovoltaic (PV) plants producing a small, but increasing, amount of renewable electric energy.
The trigeneration plant has been in permanent operation since September 2004. It is connected to a thermal and cooling pumping station and related networks for heating and air conditioning for most of the buildings. Currently only a small number of buildings, including INE (which stands for ‘Impianto Nucleare ESSOR’) remain unconnected to the site’s refrigeration system which is either provided by independent coolers or by pumping fresh water from Lake Maggiore, which passes through the site’s filtering station, and is then distributed as cooling water.
The canteens and the Club House of the site are supplied with methane gas, directly from the methane distribu-tion network, for cooking purposes as are the sports centres and the residencial areas, located outside the fence.
An energy recovery heat pump exchanges hot and cold energy from the wastewater discharged from the site’s wastewater treatment plant and the water used in the site’s district cooling network (the latter is used for build-ing heating and cooling).
Diesel liquid fuels is used to run emergency power plants. Both diesel and petrol liquid fuel are used for VELA lab-oratories and small portable devices as chainsaws and lawn mowers.
(16) Energy consumption of building of JRC Ispra site is considered the energy consumption of plants, installations, buildings, facilities, laboratories, and — generally speaking — from all energy consumption devices/usages other than vehicles.
G14
Figure G.4: Annual buildings energy consumption (MWh) in the EMAS perimeter (indicator 1a)
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total energy consumption (purchased or produced on site from renewable sources) 111 076 109 507 108 983 103 555 103 129 97 798
mains supplied gas
cooling energy form heat exchange with lake water
electricity purchased from the grid
electricity generated on site from PV
diesel and petrol for laboratories and facilities
101 028 101 954 100 544 97 609 95 413 90 333
6 480 5 140 5 140 3 610 4 800 3 900
3 502 2 328 3 236 2 232 2 493 3 033
13 15 17 52 378 431
53 70 45 52 44 102
Figure G.4 shows the regular decrease of global site energy consumption both from 2015 to 2016, and more over from 2011 to 2016 due to the remarkable reduction of the natural gas consumptions, thanks to several energy efficiency improvement actions concluded in the last years; these effects will also be seen in the years to come. The main actions are listed hereunder:
a) the heat recovery pump facility working in a fully operation mode;
b) continuing the demolition or refurbishment of old inefficient buildings, as applicable (e.g.: new foresteria building);
c) abandoning progressively all buildings partially occupied;
d) completing the construction of new energy efficiency buildings (e.g.: completion of building 27b, that achieved BREEAM certification);
e) continuing the substitution of old lamps in streets and technical tunnels (about 1 000 in 2016) and fur-ther external and internal old lighting system with LED ones, coupled with presence sensor installations for automatic light switch;
f) continuing the installation of automation devices regulating building’s heating and cooling on the basis of the effective needs;
g) full operation of the new low-consumption Data Centre;
h) continuing the insulation of all piping following the removal of asbestos;
i) continuing the implementation of an automatic energy management system to monitor energy con-sumption of single buildings. This currently allows to monitor end user buildings/facilities energy con-sumption with the following results:
a. 37 % of global site heat consumption (corresponding to 54 end-user buildings/facilities);
b. 48 % of global site electric energy consumption (corresponding to 70 end-user buildings/facilities);
c. 60 % of site global cooling energy consumption (corresponding to 51 end-user buildings/facilities).
Preparatory work is ongoing in relation to INE for conducting a self-assessment of electrical energy consump-tion. The self-assessment will start following the installation of metering devices to the supply lines serving the nuclear areas. In the meantime, a number of small actions to optimise electrical energy in the nuclear areas were undertaken in 2016. These were mainly related to increasing the efficiency of the illumination of buildings and open areas by substituting old lamps with LED lights and installing presence sensors in the building access areas.
G15
This proactive approach to energy management permitted JRC Ispra to be close to achieving its 2020 energy efficiency targets in terms of per capita and per square metre total annual energy consumption (Figures G.5, G.6 respectively).
Figures G.5 and G.6: Evolution of total annual energy consumption for buildings
44.142.5
39.837.4 38.7
35.535.3 35.3
1.40 0.91 1.19 0.83 1.08 1.26
40.1 39.636.7 35.3 35.8
32.8
0.021 0.027 0.017 0.019 0.017 0.0370
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MWh/person
TotalTotal target 2020ElectricityGasFuel
502 493 489
404 407384
382 382
15.9 10.5 14.6 8.9 11.3 13.6
456 459 451
381 376355
0.238 0.316 0.203 0.202 0.4010
100
200
300
400
500
600
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
kWh/m2
TotalTotal target 2020ElectricityGasFuel
0.175
Table G.5: Evolution of electric energy consumption breakdown for buildings2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total electric energy consumption [MWh] 32 886 32 131 32 576 31 394 31 000 30 316
Share of electricity from cogeneration plant [MWh] 29 371 29 788 29 323 29 110 28 128 26 852Share of electricity purchased from the grid [MWh] 3 502 2 328 3 236 2 232 2 493 3 033Share of electricity generated from PV [MWh] 13 15 17 52 378 431
Table G.5 shows the breakdown of electric energy consumption. The data highlights a total reduction of 8 % between 2011-2016, mainly due to the savings produced by the careful management of the trigeneration plant which is by far the main contribution. The electricity purchased from the grid also decreased (– 13 % in the period 2011-2016) and the electric energy from the photovoltaic is on a considerable growing curve.
All JRC Ispra’s energy saving achievements and the measures taken to reduce on-site energy consumption are included in the Energy Management Technical Report, which is updated yearly. Specific initiatives have been planned and delivered yearly, such as the participation to the yearly ‘M’illumino di meno’ campaign (see Chapter G10.1 Internal communication).
The 2017 target is to keep a constant positive trend of total energy savings, possibly anticipating the 5 % total energy saving target set for 2020.
(b) Vehicles
JRC Ispra service vehicles are a fleet of 105 vehicles which support site staff in their research and other techni-cal activities, providing mostly internal mobility. The fleet includes mobile laboratories and work, internal postal service, firefighting and ambulance vehicles. In addition to the related vehicle emissions, JRC Ispra has further vehicle emissions for experimental purposes (VELA laboratories), which are accounted for in the dedicated Chap-ter adressing buildings and facilities.
G16
Figures G.7 and G.8: Internal fleet engine types (no of vehicles) and Total energy used by service vehicles
283.6
267.4
274.5 270.6 265.7
216.5
16.2
16.4
15.2
14.4
13.5
12.1
13.7
11.7
13.8
14.615.0
10.7
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.96
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016M
Wh/
yr
Total (MWh/yr) Diesel used (m3)Petrol used (m3) Electricity (MWh)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Electric
Euro 6
Euro 5
Euro 4
Euro 3
Euro 2
Euro 1
Euro 0
Petr
oel o
r die
sel u
sed
(m3 )
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1
0
0
39
43
14
14
4
1
0
0
39
43
9
10
2
3
0
0
39
43
7
9
2
3
0
1
39
43
7
9
2
21
0
1
39
43
7
9
2
21
1
1
39
43
7
9
2
Figure G.7 shows the breakdown of the vehicle fleet by Euro standard. The standard is imposed on manufactur-ers of engines of vehicles sold in the EU, with each successive standards being more stringent than the previous one particularly with respect to emissions. The number of site vehicles has fallen because a policy of reduction and rationalisation has been in place since 2009. Older and less efficient and more polluting vehicles with Euro 0 and Euro 1 engines are still required for some special purposes such as towing mobile laboratories and firefight-ing. However, they are seldom used, and their impact therefore small. After the entry in service of the new elec-tric vehicles (EVs), the same number of petrol/diesel powered fleet vehicles will be dismissed in the short term.
The fleet has become cleaner, and vehicles have engines classified at least as Euro 3 (including EVs) increasing from 72 % in 2011 to 85 % of the total in 2016. 18 new EVs were added to the fleet in 2015 for a total of 21 EVs and these have all become operational in 2016. At the end of 2016, an additional 13 EVs, 6 small cars and 7 vans, were purchased, bringing the total to 34 EVs. These new EVs are under registration and will be opera-tional in mid 2017.
In 2017 JRC Ispra plans to buy a further 40 electric vehicles equally divided between small passenger cars and small vans. The service vehicle fleet would then comprise low or zero emission vehicles with the exception of large vans (vehicles for infrastructure works) and special vehicles, such as mobile laboratories, firefighting vehi-cles or the site ambulance.
Figure G.8 shows that the total energy (17) used by service vehicles decreased about 25 % from 2011 to 2016. When the refurbished JRC Ispra petrol station became operational, the consumption of diesel and petrol during 2013 stabilised at just below the 2011 values. The dip in 2012 is explained by the fact that while the petrol sta-tion was under refurbishment, diesel fuel was still available on site: this consequently fostered the use of die-sel fuel with respect to that of petrol. Total annual vehicle energy consumption illustrated above represents only 0.22 % of that for buildings.
From April 2016, six electric charging stations for internal EVs have been installed and became progressively operational. These permit us to monitor the EV’s electrical consumption (2.96 MWh, or nearly 0.01 % of JRC Ispra’s total electrical consumption from April 2016-December 2016) and their indirect CO2 emissions. Some EVs may also be charged using ordinary schuko-sockets in buildings in which case the recharges were not monitored.
The actions contained in the Commission’s 2017 Annual Action Plan for vehicles addressing the energy saving targets are summarised below.
(17) Figure G.8 also accounts for external refueling for service cars during missions, but not fuel consumption for VELA laboratories activities, ‘operating machinery’, lifter, generator and other little machinery.
G17
JIRA# (1) Service Date in AAP
Action Description Action Type
Description of latest progress
132 JRC.R.I.3 2015 Multi annual renov-ation of the fleet with additional electric and hybrid vehicles.
Multi-stage
2017 objective: launching the new call for tender for the purchase of additional electric vehicles,
2016 - 13 new electric and 1 hybrid vehicles purchased 19 conventional vehicles dismissed;
2015 - 18 new electric vehicles purchased (total of 21 electric vehicles on site) and 19 conventional vehicles dismissed.
128 JRC.R.I.3 2014 Fully implement ‘Policy on JRC Ispra Service Bicycles’: operative repair shop, inventory of service bicycles, common identification plates.
Single 2016 - Repair shop is operative, inventory exists, common identification plates being put on service bicycles,writing of ‘Policy on JRC Ispra Service Bicycles’ is ongoing; 2015 - Repair shop fully operative, identification plates being placed.
129 JRC.R.9 ≤ 2014 Install charging stations for electric vehicles.
Multi-stage
2017 objective: Installing charging stations for electric vehicles at 3 further buildings, 2016 - Installed and operation at 6 buildings
302 JRC.R.I 2017 Implementing a site plan for sustainable mobility.
Multi-stage
2017 objective: following the 2016 JRC Ispra transport survey, write a dedicated Transport survey report.
Note: (1) JIRA is the EMS coordination team workflow for recording and following up audit findings
(c) Renewable energy use in buildings and vehicles
The JRC Ispra trigeneration plant, is being fueled with fossil natural gas, which cannot be classified as a renew-able energy source, even though it provides greater efficiency than traditional means of energy generation. The installations which can produce energy (heat, cold or electric) from renewable sources within the site are:
� the cooling systems which use lake water. This historical heritage concerns specifically INE buildings. For specific technical needs also other JRC buildings use this;
� photovoltaic (PV) pannels systems for a global PV peak capacity installed of 485 kWhp at the end of 2016 (+ 29 % in comparison to 2015);
� some small solar thermal pannels plants for heating sanitary water in building 100 and 101;
� a small geothermal heat pump for the heating and cooling of 4 residences. This first small plant is fore-seen to be followed by more significant geothermal plants which will be built onsite as of 2017 and will then be monitored in time.
Furthermore, a share of the electric energy purchased form the grid comes form renewable sources. In 2016 the renewable energy from the grid accounted for 23.01 % of the energy mix supplied to Ispra.
JRC Ispra will increase its renewable site energy production in the next few years by installing:
� new PV plants: in 2017 the foreseen global PV peak capacity [kWhp] installed will be 515 kW (+ 67 % in comparison to 2014); and
� further geothermal heat pumps for building 46-CAS.
Furthermore, following the call for tender (scheduled to be assigned in 2019) JRC Ispra intends to acquire biom-ethane from the grid, when this becomes available on the market.
Table G.6: Renewable and non-renewable energy use in the buildings (indicator 1c)Energy source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016i) Total electricity from renewables (MWh)
1 177 1 059 1 199 976 983 698
Total electricity from renewables (%) 33.6 45.5 37.1 43.7 39.4 23.0
G18
Energy source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Total electricity from non renewables (MWh)
2 325 1 269 2 037 1 257 1 510 2 335
Total electricity from non renewables (%)
66.4 54.5 62.9 56.3 60.6 77.0
mains supplied gas (% non renewables)
100 100 100 100 100 100
mains supplied gas (MWh non-renewable)
101 028 101 954 100 544 97 609 95 413 90 333
viii) site generated renewables (PV) (% renewable)
100 100 100 100 100 100
site generated renewables (PV, MWH renewable)
13.2 14.69 17 52.2 378.3 430.9
ix) site generated renewables — lake water heat exchange, (MWh)
6 480 5 140 5 140 3 610 4 800 3 900
Total renewables (MWh) 7 670 6 214 6 356 4 638 6 161 5 029
Total renewables (%) 6.9 5.7 5.8 4.5 6.0 5.1
Total non renewables (MWhr) 103 406 103 293 102 626 98 917 96 967 92 770Total non renewables (%) 93.1 94.3 94.2 95.5 94.0 94.9
G4.2 Water consumption
The JRC water supply is obtained from a pumping station, considered part of JRC Ispra, located on the shore of Lake Maggiore about 3 kilometres from the Ispra site. It delivers water through three steel pipes to a treatment station within the Ispra site boundary. This water is initially treated with chlorine dioxide to eliminate microorgan-isms and then passes through a series of sand filters. The pre-treated drinking water then undergoes a second phase of disinfection again by means of chlorine dioxide in order to ensure treated water can reach the distribu-tion network. From the filtering station, the water distribution network branches into three different lines which run for about 74 km underground within the centre and comprise:
a) low pressure drinking water: for most staff use (canteen, toilets, etc.);
b) high pressure drinking water: high pressure is maintained within the main circuits (particularly the fire circuit within INE and the Social Areas), and
c) cooling water: it supplies many utilities, such as some the building’s cooling plants, all fire circuits, the evaporative towers serving the trigeneration plant.
Apart from the drinking and sanitary use, the water is used also for cooling buildings, using two different networks:
i) a closed circuit supplied with the cooling water produced in the trigeneration plant;
ii) an open circuit supplied directly with the cooling water pumped from the lake which is then discharged into the sewage system and received mainly in the site wastewater treatment plant and partially in the sewerage system that collects rain water and discharges it outside the site into the Acquanegra Stream.
During the last few years most of the site’s buildings have been connected to the closed cooling circuit, reducing the needs for lake water uptake. Currently, the main buildings that are still cooled with lake water in an open cir-cuit are those in INE (with a flow during the summertime approaching 100 m3/h).
When INE and other laboratories were built, the lake was an obvious source of water for HVAC cooling. As a sig-nificant amount of the site’s energy and cooling water consumption is dedicated to ensuring nuclear safety (including maintaining nuclear plant and existing radioactive waste within confinement systems, safety devices, and systematic controls, along with monitoring of the site and the surrounding environment) reductions in water consumption will be challenging.
In 2006, JRC Ispra signed an agreement to supply water, upon request, to the Brebbia Municipality, especially dur-ing summer months. The total amount of water distributed to the Municipality was insignificant in relation to the site’s hydrological balance and typically less than 1 000 m3/year. Lombardy Regional Decree n. 9082 was signed on 15 October 2012 regulating the abstraction of water from Lake Maggiore.
G19
Figures G.9 and G.10: Evolution of total annual water consumption (indicator 1d)
1 257
942
761 621 827681
589
3 166 000
2 425 970
2 083 210 1 717 056
2 201 344
1 875 214
500 000
1 000 000
1 500 000
2 000 000
2 500 000
3 000 000
3 500 000
250
500
750
1 000
1 250
1 500
1 750
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
m3 to
tal
m3 /p
erso
n
m3/person2020 target m3/p
m3 total
14 297
10 921
9 339
6 705
8 6867 372
6 369
3 166 000
2 425 970
2 083 210
1 717 056
2 201 3441 875 214
500 000
1 000 000
1 500 000
2 000 000
2 500 000
3 000 000
3 500 000
2 500
5 000
7 500
10 000
12 500
15 000
17 500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
m3 to
tal
litres/m2
2020 target L/m2
m3 total
L/m
2
Figures G.9 and G.10 show how water consumption has evolved since 2011 to 2016, with an overall reduction of about 40 %. This was due to the implementation of the following specific actions aimed at reducing building water consumption and losses of water in the distribution system:
� a regulation system was installed at the pumping station, allowing for automatic regulation of the lake water pumps’ function and avoiding water overflows from site water reservoirs;
� the connection of buildings to the closed cooling circuit has been continued and has almost been fully completed; and
� at the end of 2015 an INE water cooling battery was replaced with a reduction of water consumption amount of about 40 % between June and September (from 264 000 m3 in 2015 and to 159 000 m3 in 2016, as can be seen in Figure G.11.
Figures G.11: Water consumption (m3) breakdown for different uses in 2015 and 2016
500 000
1 000 000
1 500 000
2 000 000
2 500 000
Share of cooling water consumed by JRC (m3)
Share of cooling water consumed by INE (m3)
Total site drinking water consumption (m3)
2015 2016
Total site water consumption (m3) 2 201 344 1 875 214
1 641 749 1 407 017
263 757 159 120
295 838 309 077
In 2015 and the beginning of 2016, due to extensive extraordinary maintenance interventions, the newly installed water pumping regulation system was not operational. In addition, the summer season was particularly hot in 2015 compared to 2014 and 2016. All together the district cooling network from site trigeneration plant was not sufficient to cool all the buildings on site and therefore more lake water was needed to meet the cooling energy demand.
In 2016 summer temperatures values were in-between those of 2014 and 2015, implying that cooling water consumption, which is clearly temperature dependent, followed the same pattern. Consequently 2016 per cap-ita water consumption and water consumption per square metres are close to the 2014 values and to the 2020 targets.
The target for 2017 is to keep the reduction trend with respect to 2016. This will be supported also by the installations of new water consumption metering devices dedicated to the Social Areas.
G20
G4.3 Office and offset paper
Office paper is mainly used for everyday printing in the offices but also in the internal print shop for the produc-tion of reports, leaflets, etc. An environmentally friendly printing policy limits single orders to the internal print shop to a maximum of 200 copies.
The evolution of office and offset paper at JRC Ispra and per capita breakdown presented below:
Figure G.12: Evolution of paper consumption at JRC Ispra (totals)
Offset paper (tonnes)
Office paper (tonnes)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Office (A4 sheet equivalent) x 1 000 000
Total paper consumption (tonnes)
9.853
49.163
0.00
49.163
9.517
47.488
0.00
47.488
8.935
49.818
5.233
44.585
9.325
52.331
5.800
46.531
8.160
45.538
4.820
40.717
7.074
39.059
3.760
35.299
Total paper consumption (18) has been decreasing, mainly due to increasing use of e-signature workflows, and in 2016 was 13 % less by weight than in 2015. There has been a 34 % reduction in paper consumption since 2011 (equivalent to a drop of 19 to 12 sheets per person per day).
This performance exceeds JRC Ispra’s target of 9 % reduction in paper consumption for 2014-2020, which itself was significantly greater than the 5 % target proposed by the Commission. A new 10 % overall paper consump-tion target was internally set for 2015-2020; even this target was reached in 2015! Consequently, at a JRC Ispra level, a further 2 % reduction target has been set for 2017 compared to 2016.
G5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint
G5.1 CO2 emissions from buildings
Buildings account for over 94 % of JRC Ispra’s calculated CO2 emissions in 2016, down from 96 % in 2015 and include those from energy consumption and from refrigerant losses as described below.
(a) Buildings (energy consumption)
CO2 emissions are generated through combustion of the main energy sources:
i. natural gas for the operation of trigeneration plant (production of electricity and hot water), hot water for heating the residences and sports centres, and cooking in the canteen and club house;
ii. electricity supplied by external supplier from the electricity grid; and
iii. petrol and diesel used for laboratory’s activities and specific facilities (including fuel consumption of VELA activities, operating machinery, lifter, generator and other little machinery); this contribution start-ing to be monitored from 2016.
Total CO2 emissions from buildings energy consumption are shown below (Figure G.13) together with per capita and per square metre (Figure G.14). Total CO2 emissions have been decreasing steadily since 2011, due largely to a reduction in emissions associated with gas consumption.
(18) JRC Ispra’s offset paper consumption was measured separately from office paper consumption from 2013 onwards. Previously it was included within the office paper figures.
G21
Figure G.13: CO2 emissions from buildings energy consumption in the EMAS perimeter, tonnes per year (indicator 2a)
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
mains gas
electricity
diesel and petrol (laboratories and facilities)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total (tonnes/year) 21 807 21 508 21 430 20 430 20 127 19 322
20 367 20 554 20 230 19 615 19 181 18 158
1 425 936 1 188 801 935 1 137
14 19 12 14 12 27
Figure G.14: CO2 emissions from buildings energy consumption in the EMAS perimeter, tonnes per person and per m2 (indicator 2a)
8.7 8.47.8
7.4 7.67.0
7.0
98.5 96.8 96.179.8 79.4 76.0
75.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
KgCO
2/m2
Tonn
es C
O2/p
erso
n
tonnes CO2/person 2020 target Tonnes CO2/person kg CO2/m2 2020 target kg CO2/m2
Figure G.14 shows that, as with energy consumption, per capita CO2 emissions has decreased in the last few years, decreasing by 7 % with respect to the 2015 and almost 20 % with respect to 2011. The slight increase of the CO2 tonnes per person in 2015 is explained by a 3.8 % reduction in staff. The Target for 2017 is to main-tain a linear reduction to reach the 2020 goals set at an EC level.
JRC Ispra decided to apply the 2020 EU Climate and Energy package objectives (19), which target a 20 % reduc-tion in CO2 emissions by 2020, but adopting 2010 as a baseline rather than 1990 because the construction of the trigeneration plant would have meant that the 2020 targets were already met. This commitment was for-malised in the Site Energy Management Policy, signed by all Directors having staff Ispra site, on May 2012. The measures introduced to reduce energy consumption described in section G4.1 will also reduce CO2 emissions.
The JRC Ispra Energy Management Plan was revised in 2017, following analysis of energy management results and taking into account new legislation and planned site development, to confirm or modify previous targets.
(b) Buildings — other greenhouse gases (refrigerants)
Figure G.15 shows JRC Ispra’s recorded losses of cooling gases (in kg), together with equivalent quantity of CO2
(in tonnes).
(19) Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community. For further information, please refer to; https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2020_en
G22
Figure G.15: Losses of refrigerants in JRC Ispra EMAS perimeter (indicator 2b)
2014
2015
2016
0
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101 0.04
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.40 587 0.22
0.00
8.98
13.46
39.37
85.80
0.00
515
0.00
16.08
0.00
6.37
7.10
84.40
0.00
0.00
1 474 0.00
0.00
459
0.00 0.00
0.00
91.09
0.00 0.00 0.00 22.80 2 139 0.78
R22 R410A R134A R404A R407C R507A R422D R23 R427A R508B NAF S III R227A SF6 Total (t CO2 e)
TotalTonnes CO2 e/person
A new Operational Instruction on the management of machinery containing Greenhouse gases and Ozone Deplet-ing Substances was issued in 2016 in order to improve their environmental management. Specific training was then delivered to staff. As a result of this action, a better reporting of losses of refrigerants was made leading to about 2 140 tonnes equivalent of CO2 were lost from machines installed in offices as well as laboratories and service buildings. An in-depth analysis was undertaken to understand the specific causes and adopt corrective actions as needed. In 2016 the F-Gas register was extended to additional installations including those for fire prevention. This newly achieved standard will be kept in time.
Although some cooling installations still contain R22, there were no detected leakages of this gas.
G5.2 CO2 emissions from vehicles
(a) Commission vehicle fleet
The actual value of the JRC Ispra’s internal vehicle fleet emissions was calculated based on fuel consumption. A theoretical value is calculated using data from the vehicle manufacturer data available in the log books of cars and trucks and is increased by a nominal 10 % to take into account older vehicles for which manufacturer infor-mation on CO2 emissions was not available. Results are shown in Figure G.16.
Figure G.16: Emissions per km and distance travelled per vehicle
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Km/v
ehic
le
Vehi
cle
emis
sion
s (gC
O2/k
m)
g CO2/km (manufacturer)
g CO2/km (actual)
kms/vehicle
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0 0 0 191 191 190
279 264 270 277 245 261
2 334 2 578 2 606 2 487 2 349 1 762
G23
In 2016, the actual vehicle fleet emissions (20) (gCO2/km) increased by 6.3 % with respect to 2015 due to the fact that:
� the positive impact of EVs in terms of replacing old conventional service vehicles (ongoing action: see section G4.1) was limited in 2016 on account of a delayed entry into service;
� the journeys inside the JRC tend to become shorter, due to the site-planning strategy of concentrat-ing new buildings within the same area, and therefore vehicle efficiency is reduced (a consequence of increasing consumption and emissions).
On the other hand, a decrease in the total vehicles’ CO2 emissions was obtained (– 19.6 % with respect to 2015) on account of the reduction in distance travelled (69 764 km less with respect to 2015).
On top of the ongoing EV replacement action, there will be a very significant reduction in tailpipe emissions. Moreover, normal and electric bicycles are already available for service use and several actions have been planned in order to encourage their use around the site (also reported in section G4.1).
The JRC Ispra internal 2016 target to reduce the total site vehicle CO2 emissions (tonnes) by 10 % with respect to the 2015 was achieved. New JRC Ispra internal target for 2017 is a further 5 % reduction of the total site vehicle CO2 emissions (tonnes) with respect to 2016.
(b) Missions and local work based travel (excl. Commission vehicle fleet)
R.I.3 Logistics manages a contractor taxi service (‘Navette’) for transporting staff from the site to the most impor-tant transport interchanges (chiefly Malpensa and Linate Airports and Milan railway station). Usage is shown below in Figure G.17
Figure G.17: Navette service users and covered distance (km)
The data shows an increase in the number of people served by the Navette service of about 16 % in 2016 compared to 2011. During the last few years, flights to and from Linate Airport have increased, resulting in the Navette service covering a greater distance. Requests to use the Navette service depend on JRC core activities.
There are currently no specific actions planned relat-ing to Navette service use.
(c) Commuting
Public transport is not practical for commuting to JRC Ispra. Staff predominantly drive or carpool to work with a dedicated Intranet site ‘smallads’ helping staff to find carpooling partners. The site has provided a free bus ser-vice since the 1980s mostly covering Varese Province, but also reaching Milan.
In order to establish the future JRC Ispra transport strategy and to develop specific actions to reduce our envi-ronmental footprint, in November 2016 Department JRC R.I Safety, Security & Site Management Ispra launched a very detailed Transport Survey for all staff. Overall, more than 20 % responded ensuring that the survey results were representative of the site population. Preliminary analysis of the survey indicates that more than 50 % of the respondents live within 10 km, a distance that can be covered by bicycle, and that 20 % live within 2 km, a distance that could be covered on foot. A key finding was that staff would be highly interested in commuting by foot or bicycle if there were more safe paths and bicycle lanes in the surrounding area. A detailed report on this subject is under preparation and will be available in 2017 internally and shared with local stakeholders.
(20) This indicator excludes EVs given that their CO2 up-stream contribution is already accounted for within the total site CO2 direct emissions indicator. The resulting upstream EV charging is 0.767 equivalent tonnes of CO2, which corresponds to ca. 1.4 % of the total site vehicles’ CO2 direct emissions (reference period April, when EVs started being used — December 2016). This indicator shall be refined in the future by means of a specific policy e.g. allowing assuring a full monitoring of EVs.
25 56026 676 27 117 27 689
29 566 29 602
690 209742 551
805 211 835 599882 049 872 427
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
700 000
800 000
900 000
1 000 000
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
30 000
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Km
Num
ber o
f use
rs
Navette service number of users
Navette service distance covered
G24
On the basis of the above-mentioned results, JRC Ispra asked the Politecnico di Milano to draft a ‘Bicycle to work’ feasibility study for bicycle accessibility to the Commission’s premises, particularly linking the main bicycle paths to JRC Ispra. This unique project aims to collaborate with local Authorities ultimately to promote the construction of bicycle commuting to work. This study will be concluded in 2017.
G5.3 Carbon footprint
The figures below show the relative importance of emissions under Scopes 1, 2 and 3.
Scope 1 values account for the emissions directly made from the JRC Ispra site including those produced by the trigeneration plant and by the JRC Ispra vehicle fleet. These are overall the most impacting Carbon footprint contributions.
Figure G.18: Carbon footprint elements (Tonnes CO2)
2015
2016
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
30 000
2 046 135 236 115 1 274 24 63119 181
18 158
0.000
0.000
11.8
27.1
70.3
56.5
586.5
2 139
935
1 137 1 683
28.0
23.0 111
13.0
11.0 233 119 1 319 25 017
Scope 3;Business
travel: JRCnavette
Scope 3;Commuting:
JRC busservice
Scope 3;Commuting:Other homework-trips
SumTotal
carbonfootprint
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs: diesel/petrol
Scope 1;Commission
vehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business
travel: hire /private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:coach
Figure G.19: Carbon footprint elements (Tonnes CO2/person)
2015
2016
0123456789
10
7.205
6.593
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.010
0.026
0.021
0.220
0.777
0.351
0.413
0.000
0.000
0.769
0.611
0.011
0.008
0.051
0.040
0.005
0.004
0.089
0.085
0.043
0.043
0.479
0.479
9.25
9.08
Scope 3;Business
travel: JRCnavette
Scope 3;Commuting:
JRC busservice
Scope 3;Commuting:Other homework-trips
SumTotal carbon
footprint
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
diesel/petrol
Scope 1;Commissionvehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business
travel: hire / private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:coach
Scope 2 accounts for those emissions generated indirectly, particularly out of purchasing electricity consumed on-site. The Scope 3 emissions are a consequence of the activities of the organisation but occur from sources not controlled by JRC Ispra itself, including emissions associated with business travel and commuting to work.
Unlike other Commission sites, and in relation to business travel (Scope 3), JRC Ispra’s contractor does not supply directly the distance travelled per type of journey nor estimate emissions due to business travel. When a relia-ble data set is acquired, possibly within the next framework contract, it will be used to calculate Scope 3 busi-ness travels. Estimations for previous years also need to be further analysed. The data provided in 2016 has been upscaled from that of 2015, taking into account the reduce number of business travels (8 153 to 6 707 respectively), using the in-depth 2015 Organisational Environmental Footprint analysis. To be noted that Scope 3 considers all it has been CO2 equivalent emission (not only CO2 emission) thus guaranteeing higher quality data.
In the meantime, JRC Ispra is providing alternative systems, such as videoconferences (VCs), in order to reduce the need for missions. Accordingly a new KPI measuring call counting and the duration of VCs started to be mon-itored and it will be consolidated next year.
G25
The 2015 Scope 3 JRC Ispra commuting mode split has been calculated by means of the 2016 JRC Ispra Trans-port Survey.
Regarding commuting, JRC Ispra is working to implement a more sustainable mobility. In particular, as previously stated (ref. Chapter G5.2).
G5.4 Total air emissions of other air pollutants (CO, NOX)
Figure G.20: Evolution of annual air emissions from buildings
Ispra estimated the quantity of air pollutants emit-ted by the trigeneration plant which is equipped with instrumentation providing continuous analysis of NOx and CO concentrations.
As the trigeneration plant is fuelled by natural gas, other air pollutants such as SO2 or PM are not emitted.
For other minor air emission sources (i.e.: natural gas boilers at the JRC Ispra residences, laboratories and facilities using diesel and gasoline) air emission data is not available (being negligible and there being no monitoring legal obligation).
In 2013 a catalytic converter was installed at the tri-generation plant to reduce the concentration of NOx and CO in plant emissions, ensuring that the limits in
force in the Lombardy Region were respected. From 2011 to 2015 the amount of NOx emission decreased by 53 %, and the amount of CO emission decreased by 23 %. CO and NOx emissions in 2016 are substantially sta-ble compared to 2015 values.
The 2017 target is to not exceed 2015 air emission levels. A significant decrease of NOx and CO emissions can only be achieved through the installation of new gas turbines which is foreseen in 2020.
A call for tender for writing the technical specification of the new turbo gas engines will be launched in 2017, rep-resenting the first step towards upgrading the trigeneration plant. The 2013 call for tender for the gas turbines was cancelled for technical reasons.
G5.5 Radioactive emissions
JRC Ispra, as established in the operational provisions for nuclear installations and under Italian law, has set up a program of environmental monitoring in order to detect and record potential radioactive releases and monitor the level of radioactivity in the environment in its surroundings. This uses a network of fixed instrumentation for sampling and/or direct measurement complemented by environmental sampling made within the site and in the surrounding areas. Main sampling characteristics are shown in following table:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Tonn
es
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
35 25 16 13 16 15
26 24 20 21 20 22
NOx (tonnes)
CO (tonnes)
G26
Environment compartment Type of Samples Sampling place
AirAir effluents JRC nuclear plant chimneys
Acqueos vapor, Air particulate, Fall out
JRC environmental monitoring stations,
LiquidLiquid effluents JRC Liquid Effluent Treatment Station (STEL)
Surface Water, Groundwater, Drinking water, Sewage sludge
JRC water treatment plant,Rio Novellino, Acquanegra stream, JRC pond, Lake Maggiore (Ispra, Ranco, Cerro) Ticino river
Soil Soil and sediments Soils in Ispra, Brebbia and Capronno, Rio Novellino,
Feed
Fodder, Vegetables, Fruit Ispra, Brebbia, Capronno, Angera farms
Fish Lake Maggiore
Honey Brebbia
Milk Ispra, Brebbia, Capronno farms
Ambient dose DosimeterJRC perimeter stations, City Hall of: Angera, Besozzo, Brebbia, Cadrezzate, Taino, Travedona
Within the framework of operation and pre-decommissioning of its nuclear and radioactive facilities and installa-tions, the site is authorised to discharge low quantities of gaseous and liquid radioactive effluents (FdS), through authorised release points, in accordance with the limits set out in operational provisions issued by the Italian Reg-ulatory Authority. Gaseous radioactive effluents can only be released from the nuclear installations after filtra-tion and continuous radiometric control.
Amount of gaseous release are shown in following table with values from the dedicated website (21) of I.S.P.R.A., the relevant Competent Body.
YearGaseous radioactive effluents Percentage of authorized limit
type [Bq] [%]
2016 Tritium 3.36*1011 0.45
2015Tritium 1.40*1011
0.19Cs-137 7.03*103
2014 Tritium 1.34*1011 0.18
2013 Tritium 1.56*1011 0.21
2012 Tritium 1.74*1011 0.24
2011 Tritium 3.06*1011 0.41
2010 Tritium 3.39*1011 0.46
Similarly, the release of radioactive liquid effluents is permitted only after treatment and prior radiometric con-trol. Amount of liquid releases are shown in following table:
YearLiquid radioactive effluents Percentage of authorized limit
type [Bq] [%]
2016
α-emitters 7.16*103
0.011β-γ emitters 4.52*105
Sr-90 3.56*105
Tritium 1.45*108
2015Tritium 2.85*107
0.0017β-γ emitters 1.21*106
(21) http://www.isprambiente.gov.it
G27
YearLiquid radioactive effluents Percentage of authorized limit
type [Bq] [%]
2014
α-emitters 7*104
0.05β-γ emitters 5.33*106
Sr-90 1.37*106
Tritium 1.67*108
2013
α-emitters 6*104
0.04β-γ emitters 1.62*106
Sr-90 1.48*106
Tritium 4.75*107
2012
α-emitters 4*104
0.06β-γ emitters 5.75*106
Sr-90 1.84*106
Tritium 4.98*108
2011
α emitters 4*104
0.10β-γ emitters 2.87*106
Sr-90 3.40*106
Tritium 5.22*108
2010
α-emitters 3*104
0.06β-γ emitters 7.35*106
Sr-90 1.53*106
Tritium 1.52*109
The overall releases resulted in negligible dose values to the population, quantified well under 1 microSv/year (22), even under conservative assumptions. 2015 data is still to be published by the Italian Control Authority and are available on http://www.isprambiente.gov.it. The 2017 target is to keep discharges well under the authorised limits, in line with the values of the last years and to keep, in any case, the dose values to the population well below the threshold of non-radiological relevance of 10 microSv/year, as defined by Italian legislation and Euro-pean directives. In order to improve the communication and the transparency of data concerning nuclear activi-ties is under evaluation the monitoring and publishing of additional KPIs.
JRC Ispra is committed to keep the effluent treatment systems, the measurement instrumentation and the whole environmental monitoring network updated and efficient both in order to keep emissions as low as reasonably achievable and to be ready for the most challenging decommissioning activities.
In this context, in 2007 the JRC Ispra replaced the old liquid effluents treatment plant (called STRRL, Radioactive liquid effluent treatment facility) with a modern treatment plant for liquid effluents (called STEL, Liquid efflu-ent treatment plant facility) based on more environmentally friendly physical phenomena such as precipitation and flocculation whose operational provisions foresee more restrictive limits for authorised releases. Further-more, during the last year, most of the fixed instrumentation for the environmental monitoring network has been replaced with more modern and efficient instruments.
G6 Improving waste management and sortingJRC Ispra produces many different types of waste which vary according to site activities and which are sorted as much as possible. All the activities of conventional waste collection, handling and disposal are managed by Unit JRC.R.I.3 Logistics through a contract with external suppliers specialised in waste management.
(22) The Sievert (Sv) is the unit of measure of dose (technically, dose equivalent) deposited in body tissue, averaged over the body. Such a dose would be caused by an exposure imparted by ionizing x-ray or gamma radiation undergoing an energy loss of 1 joule per kilogram of body tissue.
G28
G6.1 Non-hazardous waste
The evolution of non-hazardous waste is shown below in Figure G.21.
Figure G.21: Evolution of total non-hazardous waste in JRC Ispra (tonnes)
0
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
Other
Street cleaning
Glass
Organic waste
Wood
Paper and cardboard
Plastic
Metal (scrap)
Mixed urban waste
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 990 883 1 286 1 148 1 235 878
Total (tonnes/person) 0.39 0.34 0.47 0.41 0.46 0.32
121 116 95.4 108 173 102
4.9 24.5 24.9 31.1 21.1 23.6
0 0 57.8 151 137 135
58.7 51.1 62.0 50.3 84.5 57.1
19.5 34.2 37.7 44.1 48.1 51.7
153 109 130 138 114 90
31.3 27.6 33.0 33.1 27.4 25.8
318 246 243 222 214 196
283 275 601 371 416 196
The data shows that it is difficult to define trends over the years, for the total non-hazardous waste produced and for the different types, with one exception which is an increasing trend for organic waste. The latter is under observation in order to better understand the reasons behind this (number of meals has fallen since 2014). As stated before, the production of non-hazardous waste depends strongly on the number of staff present on site and on certain activities, such as maintenance and construction, so fluctuations can be expected over the years.
Actions are foreseen in order to increase the recycling of urban waste (#161) and to reduce the quantity of waste and increase its separation (#162). For instance, an in-depth analysis over fostering the use of water dispens-ers kicked-off in 2016 and is expected to become the cornerstone of a dedicated site-level strategy to tackle not only plastic waste production, but also to analyse legal issues and favour staff request to have water dispens-ers available on-site.
The amount of some types of non-hazardous waste produced such as plastic, glass, organic waste, paper are directly correlated with the total staff presence on site and roughly constant over time. This cannot be said for waste from maintenance and construction activities, such as metal, street cleaning debris, etc. Consequently, it is not possible to set an overall reduction target for waste production for the next year because the total amount of waste produced on JRC Ispra site is strongly influenced by the maintenance, construction and demolition activi-ties undertaken at the site, as well as eventually future nuclear decommissioning. Action included in the Commis-sion’s EMAS Annual Action Plan for non-hazardous waste management are as follows:
G29
JIRA # Service Date in AAP
Action description Action type
Description of latest progress
161 JRC.R.I.3 2015 Increase the percentage of recycled urban waste, to assist in transition to EMAS.
Continuous 2016 - Continuing action.
162 JRC.R.I.3 2015 Increase awareness of waste management (reduction and separation), to assist transition to EMAS.
Continuous 2016 - Continuing action.
168 JRC.G.III.9 2016 Clarification of the procedures for managing the waste management in classified areas from a documentary point of view as well as for refurbishment and reorganisation
Single 2016 - A new procedure on ‘E’ type materials has been recently approved (NE.83.2625.A.001). At the end of the procedure the ‘E’ type materials can be managed as waste (according to D.Lgs152/06).
All the waste materials currently produced in INE are inventoried in data sheets.
A table to compare the most commonly produced waste materials with the EWC waste catalogue is ready to be use as support to the procedure NE.83.2625.A.001.
307 JRC.R.I.4 2017 Installing water dispensers on site.
Multi-stage 2017 objective: finalising the ‘Analysis of the management of drinking water dispenser at JRC Ispra’ report and kicking off its implementation.
2016 Kick-off of dedicated analysis.
G30
G6.2 Hazardous waste
Figure G.22: Evolution of total hazardous waste in JRC Ispra (tonnes)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Other
Electrical equipment WEEE
Waste containing PCB
Waste belonging from buildings and streets maintenance
Asbestos material
Mercury containing objects
Lead acid battery
Medical waste
Spray cans
Solvent
Paint
Filters
Waste oil
Laboratory mixed waste
Batteries
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total (tonnes/person) 0.047 0.023 0.027 0.018 0.021 0.022
Total 119.3 59.3 74.1 50.1 57.2 60.9
0.00 1.35 0.72 0.24 0.09 0.21
24.0 15.0 43.2 28.0 25.0 21.6
0.00 0.08 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.89 2.04 0.17 0.11 7.39
46.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.24 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02
9.0 11.6 4.7 7.6 11.1 9.6
3.64 2.72 2.58 3.02 2.60 1.55
0.00 1.49 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.08
1.74 1.34 0.42 1.19 0.00 0.00
1.41 0.10 0.60 0.31 0.32 1.39
0.00 4.01 3.28 0.24 2.92 2.52
14.93 9.10 9.77 2.63 9.28 6.33
18.01 10.92 6.59 5.83 5.36 10.02
0.00 0.75 0.18 0.00 0.38 0.22
The data in figure G.22 shows that it is difficult to define a trend over the years, for total hazardous waste pro-duced and for the different types. As stated before, the production of hazardous waste depends strongly on specific research activities, maintenance operations and possible removal/dismissal of laboratories. In fact, an increase of the total quantity of hazardous waste can be expected, because some old buildings which hosted laboratories will be demolished in 2017, and old reagents, chemical substances, solvents, electronic devices and other materials shall have to be disposed. Per capita hazardous waste generation has been far lower in recent years than in 2011.
Hazardous waste generation depends on site specific research activities carried out in the laboratories and the particular maintenance operations needed. From 2012 responsibility for asbestos disposal was transferred to the contractor.
Nevertheless, it is not feasible to set a 2017 target reduction as this depends on the possible removal of labo-ratories containing large quantities of hazardous waste. One specific management approved action for controlled waste is as follows:
G31
JIRA # Service Date in
AAP
Action description Action type
Description of latest progress
160 JRC.R.9 2015 Construction of a new hazardous waste storage shed, to assist transition to EMAS.
Single 2016 - Inauguration of building 16B on 22/09/2016.
167 JRC.R.I.3 2016 In the call for tender for the disposal of dangerous waste, to be launched Sept. 2015, foresee the daily presence of an operator for the control of the hazardous waste storage shed.
Single 2016 - Action completed, an operator is present every day at the special waste deposit.
306 JRC.R.I.3 2017 Optimise the operational control of the new storage of special waste in order to maintain low quantities of waste stored (especially hazardous or flammable waste).
Single AAP 2017 - write and implement the operational control instruction.
G6.3 Waste sorting
Table G.7: Percentage of waste sorted at the Commission in JRC Ispra
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Percentage of waste sorted 71.3 73.9 82.1 81.5 83.4 79.1
Percentage of waste not sorted 28.7 26.1 17.9 18.5 16.6 20.9
Table G.7 demonstrates that in the last few years there has been a generally increasing trend in the amount of waste sorted into separate waste streams; the slight decrease in 2016 (– 5.1 %) is due to the fact that even if the total quantity of disposed waste decreased the quantity of non-sorted remained about the same, thus reduc-ing the percentage of sorted waste. The source of non-sorted waste is mostly old non-recyclable material from buildings to be demolished, or from removals, both activities that were significant in 2016. The 2017 target is to achieve 85.2 % of waste being sorted, thus continuing to increase the sorted and recovered proportions. The 2014-2020 target is at least an overall 5 % waste sorting increase.
G6.4 Wastewater discharge
In Ispra, wastewater (including WC, laboratory sinks, canteen, etc.) is conveyed by a 26 km sewerage system to the site wastewater treatment plant which has been operational since 1978. Just under half of JRC Ispra’s treated wastewater originates from the Ispra Municipality (23) sewerage system and it should comprise waste only from civil and some craft activities.
A secondary wastewater discharging system collects ‘white’ wastewaters (building cooling water, precipitation and soil drainage) and channels these to the Acquanegra Stream through several discharge points around the site. Inevitably some rainfall runoff is also collected in the wastewater sewerage system causing dilution which can reduce the treatment plant’s efficiency.
About 4 million cubic metres of wastewater were treated in 2016. During heavy rainfall, the maximum flow that can be treated in the plant and which is limited by the UV treatment equipment, is 870 m3/h. Excess flow is diverted into the final reservoir through two different bypasses located upstream of the plant. Wastewater dis-charge is monitored to ensure compliance with the Italian threshold limits for water discharges.
The following dedicated project has been launched in order to analyse and address improvement actions for the entire JRC Ispra sewage network.
(23) Treatment of the wastewater from the Ispra Municipality is according to a specific Agreement between the two parties stipulated on 30.06.2011 (Ref. Ares(2011)750566) and renewed on 15.06.2016 (Ref. Ares(2016)2775778).
G32
JIRA # Service Date in
AAP
Action Description Action type
Description of latest progress
51 JRC.R.I.4 ≤2014 Separate the rain water and the ‘black’ wastewater implement-ting the wastewater multiannual management plan/
Multi-stage 2017 objective - delivering the executive project for the preliminary project and ordering the first modification works of the sewerage system 2016 - Received preliminary project containing the modifications of the sewerage system
99 JRC.R.I.4 2016 Completion and implementation of the site sewerage Regulation including the release of internal discharge authorisations.
Multi-stage 2017 objective - publishing a new policy for the internal wastewater discharge and writing new documentation for any internal discharges to the sewerage network.
2016 - Starting, the site sewerage regulation will be completed and fully applied.
100 JRC.R.I.4 2016 Monitor the connecting of refurbished and new buildings to the sewage systems.
Single 2016 – Completed, all new projects that deal with new constructions or major refurbishments are subject to the approval by the wastewater officer during the PdC phase.
G6.5 Radioactive Waste Management System
INCR
EASI
NG
ENVI
RON
MEN
TAL
IMPA
CT
STRA
TEGI
C PR
EFER
ENCE
WASTE PREVENTION
MINIMISATION
REUSE
RECYCLING
DISPOSAL
Significant quantities of radioactive wastes were accumulated on site from past on-site activities. Even greater quantities of waste are expected to be generated by the decommissioning activities in the next few decades. The Nuclear Decommissioning Unit is developing a management system for radioactive wastes ensuring strong internal controls are in place both for historical waste and for new waste originating from operations and (pre)decommissioning activities. Solid materials are released following a clearance process (24). A detailed report of the releases by the site and an assessment report of the dose to the human population in the surrounding areas are sent annually to the Italian Control Authority.
(24) Clearance: the removal of radioactive materials or radioactive objects within authorized practices from any further regulatory control following verification that the content of radioactivity is below the limits established the regulatory authority.
G33
Historical solid nuclear waste is stored in ‘Area 40’, either unconditioned or conditioned in bituminised drums, or in concrete blocks or in buried concrete cylinders (the so-called ‘roman pits’).
The radioactive waste management system set up at the site includes clearance materials and radioactive waste in accordance with Italian Law (mainly Legislative Decree 230/95). It includes elements related to planning, qual-ity assurance and activity recording.
The waste management policy of JRC Ispra is based on three main rules according to Italian law and interna-tional guidelines:
1. Minimise the amount of unused nuclear materials by recycling them within industry;
2. Maximise the quantity of clearable waste that can be removed from regulatory control; and
3. Reduce the volume of remaining radioactive waste for temporary storage on the Ispra site.
For radioactive waste, the route from bulk waste to an acceptable form for final disposal goes through multiple steps of characterisation, pre-treatment, treatment and conditioning. The waste management system thus pro-vides for the flexibility in the waste management strategy to respond to changing external constraints, such as the evolving regulatory framework and the design of the final disposal facility.
A summary diagram of radioactive waste management is included below:
Plant radiological characterisation(activation / contamination)
Dismantling
Radiological characterisation
Radioactive material?
Radioactivity measurement
Clearable material?
Conditions of clearance met?
Clearance
Decontamination (if necessary)
Material preparation & classification
Radioactive waste (resins technological waste, sludge, liquids)
Classification
Radiological characterisation
Treatment and conditioning
Remove from site(subject to clearance)
Temporary storage
Decontamination or removal of hot spots
Control radiological characterisation
Characterisation
Clearance
Waste Management
Potential clearance
Radioactive waste
Resins and decontamination mixtures
Radioactive liquids (except effluents)
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
The Italian regulatory framework allows for the clearance of materials, i.e. its unrestricted use after removal from regulatory control. The procedure for clearance of materials is complex but well defined; the clearance guide-lines and procedures are being updated according to the Italian Safety Authority requirements. Currently limited quantities of material are removed from regulatory control, following a strict procedure providing for substantial safety margins to minimise any risk of releasing uncontrolled quantities of radioactivity to the public. Given the high value of clearance in the Waste Management Strategy Hierarchy and the absolute priority given to safety, the challenge is to increase the efficiency of the process to cope with the increasing flow of material produced by the rising decommissioning activity.
G34
JRC Ispra’s nuclear waste is less than 1 % in radiological content and 10 % in volume of the radioactive waste produced in Italy. Whereas the implementation of the Decommissioning & Waste Management Programme is under the sole responsibility of the JRC, as stated by the Euratom Treaty and corresponding national legislation, most of the activities are today carried out by contractors with internationally recognised expertise in the nuclear field to ensure the application of the most exacting technological standards. Provision of complementary on-site/off-site waste management services will integrate and complete the full range of complete activities.
A summary diagram of Decommissioning & Waste Management is illustrated in figure below:
2004 2024 2030
waste management plant provision (part 1)
old waste nuclear material management
waste management plant provision (part 2)
Decommissioning & new waste management (part 1)
Decommissioning & new waste management (part 2)
1998 2008 2012 2016 2020
At the end of 2016 a new procedure for disposal of non-contaminated waste, called E type material, started. Con-sequently specific targets will be available after one year of monitoring, in 2018. Currently 57.40 m3 of E-type material were disposed; examples of these are: daily consumables, packaging and furniture.
G7 Protecting biodiversityInvasive exotic/alien species are understood to have a detrimental effect on an ecosystem (Target 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy). Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of 22 October 2014 lays down the EU’s obligation to ‘pre-vent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species, which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species’. On the Ispra site, active measures such as the following are underway to:
1. Remove Prunus serotina (black cherry);
2. Cut low the Pleioblastus pygmaeus (pygmy bamboo) in the ‘laghetto’ area regularly; and
3. Cut low the Solidago gigantea (giant goldenrod) on a regular basis.
A complete list of species and plant communities of conservation concern (to name but a few: Rana latastei, Rana dalmatina, Lucanus cervus and Eleocharis carniolica) including their protection measures shall be described in the document ‘Management of Green Areas’, which is currently being written and shall be finalised in 2017.
To ensure no net loss to the Ispra site ecosystem (Action 7 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy), and stimulate biodi-versity, compensation schemes are being developed and described in the Management of Green Areas document.
To allow biodiversity to flourish (varied species and different flowering times), steps have been taken to create wildflower meadows e.g. where buildings 76a and 65 were demolished.
G35
Figure G.23: Distribution of the naturalistic value in JRC Ispra site
During the field surveys some samples of Rana Latastei were found within the site as well as other types of amphibians. Rana Latastei is protected under Annex II of the Habitats Directive and the other amphibians found are all protected by various laws (community, national or regional). A dedicated action was launched in order to improve management of the green areas of JRC Ispra site:
JIRA # Service Date in
AAP
Action description Action type Description of latest progress
172 JRC.R.I.4 2015 Define a JRC Ispra green policy addressing green areas, flora and fauna and apply this.
Single 2016 - JRC Ispra Site Green Areas Policy is in draft.
310 JRC.R.I 2017 Monitoring the presence of Rana Latastei on the JRC Ispra site.
Continuous 2017 objective: carry out the censuses of Rana Latastei and define an action plan to ensure its protection, if necessary.
311 JRC.R.I.4 2017 Develop a multi-annual plan that takes into account the JRC’s Strategic Infrastructure Develop-ment Plan and that faces the challenges of future reduced funding and results in no net loss of ecosystems (in line with Action 7 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy).
Multi-stage Starting in Q2
2017 objective: approve and start implementing the multi-annual plan.
To be noted that the built surface on-site was slightly reduced during the years (– 4.2 % with respect to 2014) on account of demolished buildings.
G36
G8 Green public procurement
G8.1 Incorporating GPP into procurement contracts
GPP has been embedded by the JRC public procurement manual (v.6 November 2015). Following developments in the Public Procurement Management Tool (PPMT) in 2014, since the beginning of 2015 the categories of goods and service which may potentially be subject to green procurement have been flagged based on Com-mon Procurement Categories (CPVs). If products and goods belong to these categories, at an early stage of the procurement process PPMT automatically identifies the actor responsible for the environmental issues in a given Institute/Unit, usually an Environmental Officer. S/he can either approve the request, reject it or require changes when needed. This Corporate business rule is implemented at all the JRC Sites.
JIRA # Service Date in
AAP
Action description Action type Description of latest progress
185 JRC.R.8 2015 Identify JRC Ispra’s planned tenders where GPP criteria can be included and implement GPP (in technical specifications, selection and award criteria), long term to support transition to EMAS.
Continuous 2017 objective: to finalise 1 green and 2 light green procurement and to manage new planned procedures; 2016: 4 green by nature procurement + kick-off 1 green and 2 light green procurement.
186 JRC.R.8 2015 Implement GPP in JRC Ispra procurement where applicable, long term to support transition to EMAS.
Multi-stage 2016 - Monitoring of the planned procedures in PPMT.
Mapping of the CPVs
Environmental Officers/coordinators in EWF for approval.
187 JRC.R.8 2015 Provide advice and support on application of GPP in JRC procurement, long term to support transition to EMAS.
Continuous 2016 - Training/presentations/ad hoc suport exists. The PPMT workflow for environmental purposes will possibly be implemented on the basis of forward planning within specific procurement tools.
263 JRC.R.8 2016 Improve the communication of Environmental Management System procedure and Operational instruction to Contractors.
Continuous 2016 - ongoing analysis over current situation and how to improve this.
G9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness
G9.1 Management of the legal register
According to the Site Agreement, Italian Law 906/1960, JRC Ispra is fully implementing Italian legislation regard-ing nuclear activities, including prescriptions relating to requirements laid down in the 18 licences issued by the Italian Nuclear Authorities and adheres on a voluntary basis and under its own responsibility, to the limits allowed for actual environmental performances set out in Italian national laws and regulations and/or in laws and regula-tions of the Lombardy Region. JRC Ispra has developed a dedicated strategy for the latter, namely to issue internal environmental authorisations which are technically equivalent to those issued by Italian Authorities. This strat-egy has been shared with (and accepted by) the Italian Authorities during the yearly EMAS Round Table meetings.
Under the framework of the Environmental Management System, developed at the site since 2009, several tools are currently in place to ensure that all legislation applicable to the site activities is checked and implementation monitored. These include:
� Register of legal requirements and obligations;
G37
� Procedure for the management of the legal compliance and environmental requirements applicable to the JRC Ispra site;
� Consultation Procedure for all new projects and activities performed on site;
� Safety and Environmental Inspections performed by the JRC Ispra Inspector; and
� Internal and external audits.
An ambitious project is ongoing in order to implement and verify the legal compliance with respect to all current environmental legislation. For each environmental aspect within the environmental legal register a detailed anal-ysis is carried out in order to check which environmental requirements is applicable on-site. For each of these, the level of applicability and the relative implementation is also determined (who does what). The legal regis-ter is updated twice a year. When significant new legislation is issued, timely communication is sent to relevant internal stakeholders.
In addition, JRC Ispra is working to establish an agreement including formal collaboration with the competent Environmental Protection Agency (named A.R.P.A.) for legal and technical support on environmental matters and in particular addressing the internal environmental authorisations.
G9.2 EMAS registration and compliance with EMAS Regulation
JRC Ispra has been ISO 14001 certified since 2010. It had excellent results for the 2015 and 2016 third party EMAS verification audits. In both cases, the auditors failed to identify even one nonconformity in the scope of the audit. The formal extension of the European Commission’s EMAS registration to the JRC Ispra site was success-fully obtained on 30 December 2015.
The outcome of the 2016 internal audit performed in preparation for the external verification has been of one minor non-conformity and 11 ‘scopes for improvement’. JRC Ispra monitors the findings of EMAS internal audit, and in cooperation with the EMAS Commission’s corporate team ensures that non conformities as well as ‘scopes for improvement’ are followed up.
G9.3 Prevention, risk management and emergency preparedness
In order to test the preparedness of the JRC and the Italian authorities to respond to potential nuclear emer-gencies, in February the annual nuclear emergency exercise was held at the presence of the local and national authorities with a positive outcome with further improvement actions foreseen.
The updated version of the external emergency plan for INE ‘Piano provinciale di emergenza esterna dell’Impianto Nucleare ESSOR del Joint Research Centre di Ispra (VA)’ was presented in November 2016 by the Prefect of Var-ese to all the local and national authorities involved. The plan is scheduled to be approved at the end of 2017. This document is drafted in compliance with the requirements of D.Lgs. 230/1995 and is the results of inten-sive collaboration among local and national authorities, in particular the Prefecture of Varese, and the JRC, rep-resented in the Committee as per art.118 D.Lgs. 230/1995 by the JRC Nuclear Decommissioning Unit. This new version analyses the activities of the nuclear decommissioning programme currently ongoing at the JRC with the related scenarios of incidents involving radioactive materials. The document contains the analysis of reference scenarios and provides detailed information of the potential radiological consequences on the areas surroundings the JRC. The worst-case scenario is identified and used to plan the emergency response. Actors and operational procedures to be followed in case of emergency are described, with particular emphasis on actions to safeguard the health and safety of the population living in the areas impacted.
In order to test the actual preparedness of the JRC and the local authorities to respond to such an emergency, the most critical scenario was then adopted during the JRC annual nuclear emergency exercise 2016.
Following an agreement between JRC Ispra and the Varese Provincial Fire Brigade, a new fire station was built by JRC inside its premises for the Varese Provincial Fire Brigade. This new facility, was inaugurated in May 2015. Its main purpose is to make rescue services more efficient and to shorten firefighters’ arrival times in the area of lower and mid Verbano thus supporting the Italian Civil Protection. Additional advantages of the fire station are to allow JRC Ispra and the Varese Fire Brigade to mutually exchange information, as well as train staff and share good practices. This has been successfully operating in 2016, as much appreciated by the neighbouring commu-nity. Clearly, the new facility is not within the EMAS scope, being outside JRC’s jurisdiction.
G38
At the end of 2016 the JRC Site Manager decided to plan further investment on the emergency and crisis pre-paredness for the JRC Ispra site. The plan for the year 2017 includes the updating of emergency procedures and the detailed analysis of non-nuclear emergency scenarios with particular attention to the potential impact on the JRC surrounding areas. The plan includes also the reinforcement of collaboration with local authorities to pre-pare a coordinated response in case of relevant incidental events that could extend their effects outside the JRC.
G10 Communication
G10.1 Internal communication
An Environmental Communication Action Plan was established in 2014 and is yearly being revised in coordina-tion with the EMAS Commission’s corporate team. The corporate programme is adopted at JRC Ispra according to the actual implementation feasibility and with the addition of specific site-level initiatives.
In 2016 the focus for internal communication was on:
a) Raising staff awareness of the various ongoing initiatives to further improve the environmental performance of JRC Ispra as an EC EMAS registered site; and
b) Encouraging personnel to consider their own environmental impact and how their actions could contribute to better environmental performance of the JRC Ispra site.
The main tool for internal communication campaigns has been the Connected collaborative platform which replaced the traditional ISPRAnet portal in 2015. Selected 2016 communication highlights are presented below:
Event Description/Purpose
M’iIlumino Di Meno
19 February 2016
JRC Ispra staff contributed to energy savings of the JRC Ispra site by participating in the European wide energy-saving initiative and switching off lights and heating on that particular day (Friday) and the weekend. An energy saving of 8 % and 7 000 mc reduction in methane consumption was accomplished with respect to business as usual conditions. This event was organised along with the JRC Ispra Green Team.
Earth Hour
19 March 2016
Invitation to JRC Ispra staff to participate in this symbolic global WWF movement by switching off lights for 1 hour. Additional communication of zero-energy recipes as an additional motivation for using less energy.
JRC Ispra Open Day
28 May 2016
EMAS stand and presentation of measures taken to reduce the environmental impact of the Ispra site (heat recovery pump station, co-generation plant, water cycle, waste separation plant).
Interinstitutional EMAS Week
23-27 May 2016
Promotion of the event via Connected and local site flatscreens and invitation to staff to actively participate in its various activities. Featuring of custom-produced JRC videos: on e-mobility, energy production and saving, energy efficient buildings.
Special Waste Cleaning Day
22 June 2016
Invitation to colleagues to actively help collect and remove hazardous waste by liaising with Safety Officers.
EU Sustainable Mobility Week
16-22 Sept 2016
4th edition of the JRC Ispra ‘Sustainable Mobility’ Unit competition, whereby the Unit with the most colleagues arriving to work by sustainable means on the day of the competition is declared the winner. The aim is to encourage colleagues to regularly use sustainable means of transport and reduce the carbon footprint of the JRC Ispra site.
Green Commission (EMAS) Awards Several applications were made by JRC Ispra’s staff. The outcome of this will be in 2017.
EU Week for Waste Reduction
19-27 November 2016
Blog and Broadcast featuring EMAS Ambassadors videos, invitation to follow dedicated panel discussion and reference to ‘leftover recipes’ to encourage reduction of food waste.
G39
Photo from Award ceremony for EU Sustainable Mobility Week Unit Competition
In 2017 we will try to further strengthen collaboration with the Ispra Green Team and Ispra EMAS Ambassadors in our efforts to further engage Ispra colleagues in EMAS initiatives and events to raise their awareness.
G10.2 External communication and stakeholder management
The table below shows the main external communication actions that were performed in 2016.
Action description External stakeholders Participants
JRC Ispra Open Day
28/05/2016
Open day to show all interested stakeholders JRC Ispra premises and activities, including nuclear activities, and to provide them information over how these are managed. It was particularly targeting neighbouring citizens, enabling them to see what goes on behind the fence.
7 623
III EMAS Round Table, on
25/11/2016
Representatives of neighbouring towns, the Province of Varese, the Lombardy Region and the Italian EMAS Committee are invited to grant transparency and to verify the application of the EMAS regulation.
28
Photos from the JRC Ispra Open Day 2016
G40
On a yearly basis, JRC Ispra organises an EMAS Round Table in order to:
� enhance the dialogue with key stakeholders (local, and a provincial or regional level, as well as at a national level) over JRC environmental performances and to follow up over stakeholder’s expectations;
� abide to the transparency principle in EMAS;
� verify jointly that there are no impediments to continue JRC Ispra EMAS registration;
� promote the role that JRC Ispra wants to play, namely that of promoting a more sustainable environ-ment leading by example.
Photo from the III EMAS Round Table
Within the framework of the 2016 EMAS Round Table, JRC Ispra emphasised its desire to ‘step-up’ with respect to sustainable mobility and promote bicycle lanes in the neighbouring area. In particular, following the JRC Ispra staff Transport Survey, the site saw great potential to develop a ‘Bicycle to work’ strategy and is collaborating with Politecnico di Milano and Agenda 21 Laghi in order to launch a feasibility study for new bicycle paths in the neighbouring territory. On top of work-based commuting, such paths could also be used by tourist routes and for home-school commuting. JRC Ispra expects the study to be finalised in 2017 and intends to share this with rele-vant authorities so that this can lead, in due course of time, to an improvement of bicycle mobility in the neigh-bouring territory.
Details of participation in the recent EMAS Round Tables are summarised in the table below:
Invited Participants National Regional Provincial Municipal
2014 EMAS
Round Table
48 25 2 6 2 15
(12 VA (25); 3 NO)
2015 EMAS
Round Table
59 23 2 3 8 10
(7 VA; 3 NO)
2016 EMAS
Round Table
75 28 2 2 9 15
(12 VA; 3 NO)
(25) ‘VA’ stands for the Varese Province, where JRC Ispra is located and ‘NO’ stands for the Novara Province, on the opposite side of Lake Maggiore.
G41
G11 Training
G11.1 Internal training
In 2016, internal training focused on newcomers, all of whom attended a specific JRC Ispra environmental train-ing session lasting 20 minutes, and which included a question and answer session. The 17 sessions encompassed 331 participants. Two further environmental trainings were delivered in 2016. The first one focused on techni-cal staff to inform over the correct Environmental management of GHG and ODS machines, and the other one focused on laboratories staff and medical service was about EMAS environmental aspects and correct manage-ment of laboratory waste. In addition to the above, safety training courses are being extended in order to also include environmental aspects.
G11.2 External training
JRC Ispra does not intend to provide environmental training for contractor staff given that specific requirements are clearly indicated in the technical specifications of the relevant contracts.
G12 EMAS costs and savingThe following table estimates how costs have evolved for running EMAS and for expenditure on energy, water and waste disposal. Table G.8 shows general savings over the last years and in particular on energy and fuel costs.
Table G.8: EMAS costs and virtual savings in JRC Ispra
2013 2014 2015 2016 Change in last year
Total Direct EMAS Cost (EUR) 486 799 383 760 368 168 446 200 78 032
Total Direct Cost per employee 178 139 138 162 24
Total buildings energy cost (EUR) 4 652 111 4 148 033 3 355 464 2 428 729 – 926 734
Total buildings energy cost (EUR/person) 1.699 1.499 1.261 882 – 379
Total fuel costs (vehicles) (EUR) 24 854 20 049 19 777 11 106 – 8 672
Total energy costs (EUR/person) 9 7 7 4 – 3
Total water costs (EUR) 374 978 377 752 484 296 412 547 – 71 749
Water (EUR/person) 136.9 137 182 150 – 32
Total paper cost (EUR) NA 57 376 51 745 44 860 – 6 885
Total paper cost (EUR/person) NA 21 19 16 – 3
Waste disposal (non hazardous) — unit cost/tonne
176 208 221 304 83
Waste disposal (non hazardous) — EUR/person
83 86 102 97 – 5
Buildings energy costs have fallen by more than 48 %: a reduction of over EUR 800/person from 2013 to 2016, and equivalent for the same period to a virtual saving of EUR 2 223 382.
Expenditure on fuel cost for service vehicles has also decreased significantly, having fallen by 55 % from 2013 to 2016 representing, for the same period, a virtual saving of EUR 13 748. However during the same time inter-val, expenditure on water consumption increased slightly (+ 10 %) due to the costs for some extraordinary main-tenance works performed during the last few years. Regarding the non-hazardous waste disposal between 2015 and 2016, although the unit cost/tonnes is higher, the overall cost, including the management costs, which are constant over the last two years, accounts for a net virtual saving of EUR 5 594.
Finally, it should be noted that the direct EMAS costs, mainly account for advisory services, not only strictly speak-ing for the EMAS registration as these grant Internal Control Standards, such as the respect of environmental leg-islation, and also include specific projects, such as the monitoring of the Italian agile frog on-site. Such costs fell in 2014 due to the limited possibility of use of the relative framework contract. The increase in 2015 and 2016 EMAS costs is accounted for by the need to reinforce the environmental advisory team, which has been running according to the necessary manpower as of March 2016.
G42
G13
Conv
ersio
n fa
ctor
s:Pa
ram
eter
and
uni
ts20
1120
1220
1320
1420
1520
16kW
h of
ene
rgy
prov
ided
by
one
litre
die
sel
10.0
610
.06
10.0
610
.12
10.1
210
.12
kWh
of e
nerg
y pr
ovid
ed b
y on
e lit
re p
etro
l8.
758.
758.
758.
568.
568.
56Pa
per D
ensit
y (g
/m2 )
8080
8080
8080
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
1 k
Wh
of e
lect
ricity
(grid
ave
rage
)0.
407
0.40
20.
367
0.35
90.
375
0.37
5
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
1 k
Wh
natu
ral g
as0.
2016
00.
2016
00.
2012
00.
2009
50.
2010
30.
2010
1
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
1 k
Wh
fuel
s (d
iese
l and
pet
rol)
0.26
70.
264
0.26
60.
266
0.26
60.
266
GWP
of R
221
760
1 76
01
760
1 76
01
760
1 76
0GW
P of
R41
0A2
088
2 08
82
088
2 08
82
088
2 08
8GW
Pof R
134A
1 43
01
430
1 43
01
430
1 43
01
430
GWPo
f R40
4A3
922
3 92
23
922
3 92
23
922
3 92
2GW
P of
R40
7C1
774
1 77
41
774
1 77
41
774
1 77
4GW
P of
R50
7A3
985
3 98
53
985
3 98
53
985
3 98
5GW
P of
R42
2D27
2927
2927
2927
2927
2927
29GW
P of
R23
14 8
0014
800
14 8
0014
800
14 8
0014
800
GWP
of R
427A
2 13
82
138
2 13
82
138
2 13
82
138
GWP
of R
508B
13 3
9613
396
13 3
9613
396
13 3
9613
396
GWP
of N
AF S
III
1 49
71
497
1 49
71
497
1 49
71
497
GWP
of R
227A
3 22
03
220
3 22
03
220
3 22
03
220
GWP
of S
F 622
800
22 8
0022
800
22 8
0022
800
22 8
00Kg
s CO
2 fro
m o
ne li
tre o
f die
sel
2.69
72.
697
2.69
72.
682
2.68
22.
682
Kgs
CO2 f
rom
one
litre
of p
etro
l2.
262
2.26
22.
262
2.26
12.
261
2.26
1Kg
s CO
2 fro
m 1
KWh
of e
lect
ricity
(EV)
NANA
NANA
NA0.
259
Annu
al c
ost o
f one
FTE
NANA
132
000
132
000
134
000
134
000
G43
The conversion factors above are generally standard for the all sites except for:
� ‘kWh of energy provided by one litre diesel’ and ‘kWh of energy provided by one litre petrol’: the conver-sion factors are drawn from the UNFCCC (26) national register for the reference year;
� ‘Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh of electricity (of grid average)’: the emission factor is drawn from the report over the disclosure of energy mix of the electricity purchased in 2016 from the Italian electricity suppliers (Terna S.p.A.) in that year. To be noted that, as the report, is not available at the time of writing, it has been assumed equal to the mix of 2015, i.e. the last published data;
� ‘Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh natural gas’, ‘Kgs CO2 from one litre of petrol’ and ‘Kgs CO2 from one litre of die-sel’: the conversion factors are drawn from the UNFCCC national register for the reference year;
� ‘Kgs CO2 from 1 kWh fuels (diesel and petrol)’: the conversion factor is calculated as an average value weighted on the specific conversion factors (petrol/diesel) and on the specific site consumptions;
� ‘Kgs CO2 from 1 KWh of electricity (of EV)’: the conversion factor is calculated from the energy mix con-sumed by the site, considering both self-production of electricity from natural gas trigeneration and the purchase of electricity from the grid, and self-production on site by photovoltaic plant;
� To be noted that for the carbon footprint Scope 3 calculation, the Ecoinvent database v3.2 was used, according to OEF Methodology.
(26) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Environmental Statement2016 resultsAnnex H: DG SANTE at GrangeFinal
Prepared by the EMAS Site Coordinator in DG SANTE at Grange: Humberto Latino – Unit F6
Supervision: Brona Carton, Head of Unit and Canice Bennett, Head of Sector
Contact: DG Health & Food Safety (SANTE) Directorate F - Health and food audits and analysis, Unit F6. GRAN 00/017 Grange - Dunsany Co. Meath Ireland
Cover illustration: Provided by the EMAS Site Coordination Team in DG SANTE-Grange All other illustrations: © European Union unless otherwise stated.
Environmental Statement
2016 resultsAnnex H: DG SANTE at Grange
Final
H2
H1 Overview of core indicators at Grange ...............................................................................................................................H3H2 Description of SANTE Grange’s activities, setting and stakeholders ..................................................................H5H3 Environmental impact of the SANTE Grange activities .............................................................................................H6H4 More efficient use of natural resources .............................................................................................................................H7H5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint...............................................................................................................H10H6 Improving waste management and sorting ..................................................................................................................H12H7 Protecting biodiversity ..............................................................................................................................................................H14H8 Green public procurement .......................................................................................................................................................H16H9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness ......................................................................H17H10 Internal communication ...........................................................................................................................................................H18H11 Training ..............................................................................................................................................................................................H20H12 EMAS costs and savings ..........................................................................................................................................................H20H13 Conversion factors ......................................................................................................................................................................H21H14 Site breakdown of buildings and performance ...........................................................................................................H22
Contents
H3
ANNEX H: SANTE Grange
The European Commission’s Health and Food Safety Directorate General (DG SANTE), has offices located at Grange (Dunsany) in County Meath in Ireland, some 45 kilometres north-west of Dublin, and approximately 10 kilometres south-east of Trim as shown in Figure H1.
Figure H1: DG SANTE at Grange, 45km NW of Dublin
There are approximately 190 staff, covering a range of administrative and technical activities. The working environment is typical of an administrative office and English is the predominant working language.
The site is home of SANTE Directorate. F – Health and Food audits and analysis. A large proportion of staff conduct audits within Europe and abroad and therefore at any one time many staff are on mis-sion. The site is currently certified EMAS compliant and was included in the Commission’s EMAS registra-tion in 2015 and 2016.
In this document, the European Commission site will be referred as SANTE Grange or simply Grange.
H1 Overview of core indicators at GrangeGrange has been collecting data on core indicators (mostly utilities) since it opened as a purpose built facility in April 2002. A summary of some of the main parameters from 2005 is presented below in Table H1 which focusses on data expressed per square metre, as staff numbers prior to 2014 are estimated.
H4
Tabl
e H1
: His
toric
al d
ata,
per
form
ance
and
targ
ets
for c
ore
indi
cato
rs p
ropo
sed
for C
omm
issi
on le
vel r
epor
ting
Phys
ical
indi
cato
rsHi
stor
ic d
ata
valu
esPe
rfor
man
ce tr
end
(%) s
ince
:Ta
rget
(Num
ber,
desc
iptio
n an
d un
it)20
05 (1 )
2013
2014
2015
2016
2005
2013
2014
2015
2020
* Δ
% (2 )(
3 )va
lue
(2 )(3 )
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(MW
h/p)
10.2
112
.42
12.6
913
.47
12.5
222
.60.
8–
1.4
– 7.
1–
5.0
12.0
5
1a) E
nerg
y bl
dgs
(KW
h/m
2 )19
922
622
724
223
819
.55.
24.
7–
1.9
– 5.
021
5.6
1c) N
on-re
n. en
ergy
use
(bld
gs) %
94.1
94.3
94.3
94.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
– 5.
089
.6
1d) W
ater
(m3 /p
)30
.66
24.8
227
.69
28.1
619
.76
– 35
.6–
20.4
– 28
.6–
29.8
– 5.
026
.30
1d) W
ater
(L/m
2 )59
745
149
550
637
5–
37.2
– 16
.9–
24.3
– 25
.9–
5.0
470.
3
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (T
onne
s/p)
0.00
0.00
00.
010
0.02
00.
033
220.
467
.4–
5.0
0.01
0
1e) O
ffice
pap
er (S
heet
s/p/
day)
9.9
19.9
33.3
235.
967
.4–
5.0
9.4
2a) C
O 2 bui
ldin
gs (T
onne
s/p)
3.98
4.63
4.68
4.83
4.49
12.9
– 2.
9–
4.1
– 7.
1–
5.0
4.45
2b) C
O 2 bui
ldin
gs (k
g/m
2 )77
84.1
83.7
86.9
85.2
10.0
1.4
1.8
– 2.
0–
5.0
79.5
2c) C
O 2 veh
icles
(g/k
m, m
anu.
)17
417
417
40.
00.
0–
5.0
165.
3
2c) C
O 2 veh
icles
(g/k
m, a
ctua
l)17
417
417
40.
00.
0–
5.0
165.
3
3a) N
on-h
az. w
aste
(Ton
nes/
p)0.
000
0.20
10.
251
0.22
50.
269
34.2
7.1
19.7
– 5.
00.
239
3b) H
azar
dous
was
te (T
onne
s/p)
0.00
00.
000
0.00
00.
000
0.00
70.
000
3c) S
epar
ated
was
te (%
)95
.096
.396
.21.
2–
0.1
5.2
100.
0
Econ
omic
indi
cato
rs (E
UR/p
)
Ener
gy c
onsu
mpt
ion
(bld
gs)
687
663
613
– 10
.8–
7.5
– 5.
065
3
Wat
er c
onsu
mpt
ion
0.00
34.0
634
.64
24.3
0–
28.6
– 29
.8–
5.0
32.3
5
Non-
haz.
was
te d
ispos
al
Note
: (1)
Ear
liest
repo
rted
data
; (2)
com
pare
d to
201
4; (3
) EM
AS A
nnua
l Act
ion
Plan
201
7.* T
arge
t for
% im
prov
emen
t for
the
perio
d 20
14-2
020.
H5
The site reduced water consumption (per m2 and per person) in 2016 compared with 2015. Energy consumption for buildings and CO2 emissions per square metre have reduced too. Energy and water consumption have fluc-tuated since the site opened, and several attempts to identify the causes have been unsuccessful. As a priority the site will seek to identify patterns and explain performance trends behind the variations, in order to translate analytical results into remedial actions. Different approaches are currently being explored and should be imple-mented in the near future.
The evolution of basic parameters of the EMAS system at Grange is shown below:
Table H2: EMAS system parameters
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Population: total staff 188 186 189 182 179 180 190
Total no operational buildings
3 3 3
Useful surface area for all buildings (m2)
5 453 5 453 5 453 5 453 5 453 5 453 5 453 5 453 5 453 5 453 5 453 5 453
H2 Description of SANTE Grange’s activities, setting and stakeholders:SANTE’s Directorate F has about 165 employees, who are professionals originating from virtually all 28 Member States of the European Union. In addition trainees and IT contractors working on site bring the number of staff to 190.
SANTE Grange carries out audits in EU Member States and in countries exporting food, feed, animals or plants to the EU to verify that standards set out in EU legislation are met. It checks how the national authorities in each country ensure that products entering the EU market are safe. SANTE Grange audits also check that national authorities keep important animal and plant diseases under control and that animal welfare rules are respected.
The main stakeholders of SANTE Grange are the local authorities (Meath County Council, Irish Government; HSE; Gardai, Kiltale private water scheme), its direct neighbours (Teagasc research centre; GAA club and the local pop-ulation) and all the governmental counterparts from EU Member States and third countries. The new Director, who was appointed in August 2016, has already met some of our national and local authorities’ representa-tives and highlighted to them our EMAS certification and commitment to improving environmental performance.
Figure H2: Aerial view of SANTE Grange
As shown in Figure H2; the site consists of one main rectangular building and several outbuildings set in a rural location. It includes a restaurant, café and crèche. There is a large conference facility which can accommodate major events, and which is being used more and more frequently.
Notable features in the vicinity include a surface watercourse along the Teagasc boundary and which discharges into the River Boyne. The nearby Teagasc agricultural research centre, which is adjacent to the site, is responsible for coordinating national research
and development on cattle. According to its mandate, it seeks to ensure that production of Irish Beef is world class and therefore environmentally aware, safe for consumers while meeting best practice of animal health and welfare.
The Commission site also includes an old wastewater treatment plant, disused since October 2010, that still awaits decommissioning by the site owner — the Office of Public Works (OPW). The Commission has a lease/purchase arrangement with the OPW ending in April 2022 by which time the Commission will own the premises outright. Since October 2010 site wastewater discharges into the new mains sewer, part of the Kiltale sewage scheme, following the construction of a link from the Grange site.
H6
H3 Environmental impact of the SANTE Grange activitiesA local procedure for the identification, examination and evaluation of SANTE Grange’s environmental aspects and impacts, both direct and indirect under normal, abnormal and emergency conditions was developed in 2016. The identification of environmental impacts takes account of the organisation’s current and past activities, prod-ucts and/or services.
A summary of the preliminary analysis of aspects and impacts is presented below in Table H2, which also shows the related indicators and actions identified in the Commission’s 2016 EMAS annual action plan that was adopted by the EMAS Steering Committee.
A study on the Grange environmental aspects was undertaken for the first time in 2014. This table is reviewed and updated every year, the results of which are summarised in the table below.
Table H3: Summary of significant environmental aspects for the Grange site
Environmental aspect
Environmental impact
Activity, product or services
Indicator/Action plan Significance Rating
Resource con-sumption (Energy – Elec-tricity)
Energy production and usage has impacts on air and water quality as well as depletion of natural resources.
For office activities; facilities and all parts of the site
Energy usage is monitored, however this is not related to specific significant energy users in order to identify energy reduction opportunities. Projects have been implemented to reduce energy use (e.g. energy saving from changing out sodium for led fittings for external lighting) or energy equivalent use (e.g. by saving water). There is a plan to install meters in different parts of the building in order to identify significant energy users.
54
Resource con-sumption (Energy – Oil & LPG)
Energy production and usage has impacts on air and water quality as well as depletion of natural resources.
Diesel is used for heating. Liq-uid Petro-leum Gas (LPG) is used for cooking purposes.
The Commission has installed gas oil burn-ers which generates GHG. These are well main-tained and serviced as required. Gas is also used on site. Gas oil use for the period January to end November 2016 is 4.3 % below the usage for the same period in 2015. The overall pattern of use was similar with the expected dip in the sum-mer months. A significant insulation project on the building structure during 2016, and over the fol-lowing years, is expected to reduce the require-ment for heating. Lifecycle considerations for fuels include sourcing of fuels (gas, oil) and impacts on environment, depletion of resources, transport of fuel. Burning of fossil fuels creating CO2 emis-sions and other pollutants. Storage of fuel and risk of spillage or leak to ground water, soil or water-ways. Reduction of fuel use will have an impact on the environment at each stage of the lifecycle and reduce the overall environmental load and risk.
54
Non-hazardous waste
Impacts are resource depletion in the re-use, recycling and recov-ery activities, and use of landfill. Impact on landfill is minimised by re-use, recycling and recovery.
Packag-ing materi-als, timber, metals, non-hazard-ous WEEE, food waste, paper
The site is working to reduce the impact of non-hazardous waste by improving segregation and recycling. In 2016 it has diverted 96 % of non-hazardous waste from landfill.
48
H7
Environmental aspect
Environmental impact
Activity, product or services
Indicator/Action plan Significance Rating
Water use Upstream impact on treatment and deliv-ery to site, including energy, land use, mate-rials and chemicals. Downstream impacts include requirements related to water treat-ment and potential effects on the receiving environment.
Water is used for sanitary and kitchen require-ments. Water is also used in utilities such as the boilers.
The impact of water use during 2016 has been significantly reduced from 2015 based on the monitoring data from the site. From January to end November 2016 the usage was reduced by 31 % over the same period in the previous year. This was mainly due to a signifcant decrease dur-ing the summer months.
36
Hazardous Materials
Potential impacts include contamination of air, water and land.
Operation of equipment, cleaning, mainte-nance and catering
Material Safety Data Sheets are available for all chemicals in use. Secondary containment is in place for bulk chemicals and smaller containers. This is designed to prevent release of chemicals to groundwater, or drainage. The main fuel tank has been integrity tested and repairs implemented as applicable.
36
H4 More efficient use of natural resources
H4.1 Energy consumption
Buildings energy consumption data should be considered in the context of climatic conditions. Analysis of degree data (1) presented below suggests that winter weather conditions may have been milder in 2016 and that less heating was necessary.
Figure H3: Total annual degree days at Grange, 2013-2016
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
Cold degree days (CDD). cooling required
Hot degree days (HDD). heating required
kWh/person/degree day
2013 2014 2015 2016
Total degree days 2 179 2 297 2 056
110 63 128
2 069 2 234 1 928
2 458
147
2 311
5.05 5.82 5.86 6.09
(a) Buildings
Most of the site’s energy requirements for the buildings are met from the electricity grid, and from heating oil supplied on average three times per year and stored in an 85 000 litre bunded storage tank as shown in Figure H2. There is no mains connection for gas on site because there is no such facility in the area. A very small quan-tity of gas is used for cooking in the canteen and restaurant, and is provided by a propane storage tank. Heating oil has in recent years provided a larger share of the site’s energy use than electricity.
(1) Monthly data for EIDW station (15.5 °C reference temperature), www.degreedays.net; using buildings energy consumption data for Grange.
H8
Figure H4: Annual buildings energy consumption (MWh) for Grange (indicator 1a)
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
diesel
mains supplied gastank supplied gas (LPG)
electricity
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 2 333 2 378
1 406 1 543
6.87 2.68
1 991
1 060
6.87
924
1 639
844
6.87
788
1 841
883
6.87
951
2 131
1 424
6.87
700
1 296
691
6.87
598
2 041
1 405
6.87
630
1 878
1 023
6.87
848 920
2 260
1 347
6.87
906
2 271
1 383
6.87
881
2 425
1 568
6.53
850 832
Per capita total buildings energy consumption in 2016 was 10.96 MWh, of which 3.83 MWh was from electric-ity and 7.1 MWh from heating oil.
Figures H5 and H6: Evolution of total annual energy consumption for Grange buildings
1 991
1 6391 841
2 131
1 296
2 0411 878
2 333 2 260 2 2712 425 2 378
924788
951
700598 630
848 920 906 881 850 832
1 060844 883
1 424
691
1 4051 023
1 406 1 347 1 3831 568 1 543
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MWh
Total Electricity LPG
199
164
184
213
129
204
188
233 226 227242 238
216 214
9279
95
7060 63
85 92 91 88 85 83
10684 88
142
69
140
102
140 135138
157
154
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
kWh/m2
Total Total target 2020Electricity FuelLPG
Fuel
Energy consumption reduced in 2016. A breakdown electrical consumption (an environmental aspect with signif-icant environmental impact) by month in 2016 is provided in Figure H5.
Figure H7: Monthly electrical consumption, 2014-2016 (kWh)
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
80 000
90 000
January
FebruaryMarch
April MayJune
July
August
September
October
November
December
2014 2015 2016
The trends in electricity consumption are largely related to external causes such as climate, seasons (natural light levels) and to office occupancy rates.
Indeed, in 2016 staff conducted 230 audit missions amounting to a total of 4 005 man-days of staff absence. That combined with other factors such as holidays, missions to Brussels and other absences has an impact on electricity consumption.
H9
In 2016 one of the main contributors to reducing electrical consumption was the changeover to low consumption car park lights, each with an effective hourly consumption of 42 W. In 2016 they consumed only 2018 KWh, rep-resenting a saving of 5 516 KWh compared to the 7 534 KWh consumed by the previous lighting.
(b) Site vehicle
The site vehicle which is used for audit missions in either Éire/Ireland or Northern Ireland is a 1999 Seat Alham-bra diesel with CO2 emissions of 174 g/km, according to manufacturer’s specifications. The distance travelled each year is typically low, and only 2 928 km in 2016.
(c) Renewable energy use in buildings and vehicles
The composition of the grid electricity supply is shown in Figure H8. Gas is the most important component, but renewables account now for 20.7 %.
Figure H8: Grid electricity in 2016 (%)
A new solar thermal hot water system was installed in August 2014 to supply the main kitchen, the vari-ous kitchenettes around the building, and hand basins in toilets. Due to technical issues data on the expected electricity savings has not yet been collected.
H4.2 Water consumption
Figures H9 and H9a below, shows water consumption as a total and per square metre since 2005. 2016 has seen a decrease of around 26 % compared with the
previous year and this despite a year on year increase in the number of external meetings and workshops on site. In 2016 we had 35 meetings with an average duration of 2 days and between 40 and 60 participants, compared with the 23 meetings in the previous year.
The installation of utilities meters commenced in 2017 and they will connect to an Energy Monitoring System in order to monitor the onsite energy consumption, identify patterns of water consumption in different areas of the site and also possible leaks in the water pipeline, facilitating rapid repairs and minimising water damage.
Figure H9 and H9a: Total water consumption at Grange
30.7 31.0
35.0
19.614.6
20.1 21.5 21.8
24.8
27.7 28.2
16.9
24.124.1
5 979 6 054
6 821
3 829
2 840
3 778 4 003 4 1154 517
4 956
5 069
3 754
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
m3 t
otal
m3 /
pers
on
m3/person
2020 target m3/p (AAP2016)
Total (m3)
597 605
681
383284
377400 411
451495
502
371
466 466
5 9796 054
6 821
3 829
2 840
3 778 4 003 4 1154 517
4 956
5 069
3 754
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
m3 t
otal
L/m
2
L/m2
2020 target L/m2 (AAP2016)
Total (m3)
H4.3 Office paper consumption
Paper usage in 2016 was 1 336 968 sheets, an average of 7 037 sheets per person, equivalent to around 33.3 sheets per working day. In 2015 all printers and photocopiers had the option to print double sided set as a default. Since 2015, Grange followed other Commission sites in using 75 g/m2 office paper instead of 80 g/m2. As shown in the Figure H10 below, paper usage increased in the last 2 years compared with 2014 benchmark fig-ure. We are looking at implementing a better usage control procedure to ensure that the usage data is accurate.
16.28
55.27
6.92
20.7
0.33
CoalGasPeatRenewablesOther
H10
Figure H10: Evolution in paper consumption at Grange, 2014-2016
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Office paper (tonnes)
2014 2015 2016Office (A4 sheet equivalent)x 1 000 000 Total paper consumption (tonnes)
Offset paper (tonnes)
0.38
1.839
0
1.839
0.76
3.54
0
3.54
1.34
6.254
0
6.254
H5 Reducing air emissions and carbon footprint
H5.1 CO2 emissions from buildings
Figure H11: CO2 emissions from buildings energy consumption at Grange, 2005-2016
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1 000
diesel
tanked gas
electricity
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total 776 646 743 752 504 709 725 865 842 838 870
280 223 233 376 182 371 270 371 356 365 414
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
495 421 509 375 320 337 454 492 485 472 455
853
407
1
445
Emissions associated with energy supply for the buildings account for virtually all the CO2 emissions evaluated for the site. Heating (diesel) and mains electricity are responsible for roughly half of the emissions in 2016, the proportion due to electricity having fallen since 2011.
(a) Buildings (CO2 from energy consumption)
Figures H12 and H13: CO2 emissions from buildings energy consumption
776
646
743 752
504
709 725
865 842 838 870 853
495421
509
375320 337
454492 485 472 455 445
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.5
280223 233
376
182
371
270
371 356 365414 407
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
CO2 emissions (tonnes)
Total Electricity LPG Heating oil
77
65
74 75
50
71 72
86 84 84 87 85
4942
51
3732 34
4549 48 47 45 44
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
2822 23
38
18
37
27
37 36 3641 41
80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
CO2 emissions (kg/m2)
Total Electricity LPG Heating oil 2020 target
H11
Less heating oil was used in 2016 compared to 2015 owing to a milder winter. CO2 emissions due to electric-ity consumption fell by 17 tonnes assuming that the percentage of non-renewables in the grid mix before 2014 was similar to that in 2014.
Per capita CO2 emissions in 2016 were 4.49 tonnes of which 2.34 from electricity generation and 2.14 from diesel.
(b) Buildings other greenhouse gases (cooling gases)
No loss of refrigerants was recorded in 2016, following the maintenance schedule below:
i) air conditioning units (quarterly/six-monthly and annually depending on capacity);
ii) main kitchen freezers and fridges (6-monthly and annually); and
iii) the two main Hitachi chillers for the air-conditioning system in the main conference rooms (monthly and annually) and, although they are rarely used, they are maintained in operational condition.
H5.2 CO2 emissions from vehicles
(a) Commission vehicle
The car is well maintained and serviced according to the manufacturer’s service schedule. Since annual CO2 emis-sions are quite low, it was decided that no further action was required.
(b) Missions (excluding Commission vehicle)
There are still no specific actions to improve performance in this area.
(c) Commuting (and mobility)
There were no specific targets or actions identified in the Commission’s EMAS 2016 Annual Action Plan for Grange to reduce CO2; Grange site is located in a rural area where transport options are limited.
H5.3 Carbon footprint
Figure H14: carbon footprint elements (tonnes CO2/person)
2013
2014
2015
2016
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
1.95
2.04
2.30
2.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
2.66
2.63
2.53
2.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.86
3.58
2.44
2.31
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.54
8.31
7.34
7.21
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commissionvehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
H12
Figure H15: Carbon footprint elements (tonnes CO2)
Scope 1;Fuel for bldgs:
mains gas
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs: diesel
Scope 1;Commissionvehicle fleet
Scope 1;Refrigerant
leaks
Scope 2;External
electricity supply
Scope 2; District heating
Scope 3; Business travel: air
Scope 3;Business travel: rail
Scope 3;Business travel: hire car
Scope 3;Business
travel:private car
Scope 3;Business
travel:air taxi
Scope 3;Commuting
Sum
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
1 400
1 600
1 800
Scope 1; Fuel for bldgs:
tanked gas
2013
2014
2015
2016
356 0 0 485 0 702 2 9 0 0
365 0 0 472 0 641 0 7 0 0
414 0 5 455 0 439 1 6 0 0
0
0
0
0
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3 414 0 5 455 0 387 1 9 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0
1 554
1 487
1 321
1 271
The figures above show the relative importance of Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions at Grange, although commuting data are lacking. There is no mains gas supply and diesel supplies the boilers on site. Business travel emissions are dominated by flights as expected owing to the frequency of audits and inspections carried out by staff both inside and outside Europe.
The relative importance of the three major contributors to the carbon footprint are shown in Table H4. It is lit-tle surprising, given the nature of the work carried out by a large proportion of staff, that air travel is an impor-tant contributor to the carbon footprint. Emissions due to commuting were not evaluated, but it is our intention to do so in a near future, once we will have identified a suitable evaluation model that can be adapted to our site.
Table H4: Contributions to carbon footprint (tonnes CO2/p) exceeding 1 %
Tonnes CO2/p % of total
2013 2014 2015 2016 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total measured carbon footprint 8.54 8.31 7.34 7.21 100 100 100 100
— of which diesel for buildings 1.95 2.04 2.30 2.30 22.9 24.6 31.3 31.9
— of which electricity supply 2.66 2.63 2.53 2.53 31.2 31.7 34.4 35.1
— of which business travel (air) 3.86 3.58 2.44 2.31 45.2 43.1 33.3 32.1
Sum of these components 8.47 8.26 7.27 7.14 99.3 99.4 99.0 99.0
H5.4 Total air emissions of other air pollutants (SO2, NO2, PM)
Some air pollutants are produced by the combustion of heating oil in the three boilers. In 2016 the site was seek-ing to better understand the quantities of pollutants generated and potentially released to the atmosphere.
H6 Improving waste management and sorting
H6.1 Non-hazardous waste
Waste generation is an environmental aspect with significant impact, and the evolution of waste generation since 2014 is shown below.
H13
Figure H16: Evolution of waste generation at Grange (tonnes)
Glass
Recovery*
Compost
Shredding
Paper
Cardboards
Recyclables
Household waste (tonnes). landfill
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2014 2015 2016
45.0 40.5 51.2Total
Total (tonnes/person) 0.25 0.23 0.27
0.0 0.1 0.1
14.6 16.6 18.8
10.3 10.3 9.0
0.3 0.0 16.7
11.9 5.1 0.0
2.4 3.8 1.3
3.1 3.2 2.0
2.3 1.5 2.0
In 2016 a total increase in waste generated resulted mainly from shredding following a reorganisation of the Directorate — see below.
The data in Table H5 shows the breakdown of non-hazardous waste types by month at Grange in 2016
Table H5: Breakdown of waste types at Grange 2016 (tonnes)Landfill Recyclables WEEE Cardboard Compost Recovery Glass Shredding Total Monthly %
Recycle rate
Jan 0.252 0.122 0.000 0.132 0.690 1.176 0.000 2.560 4.932 95
Feb 0.230 0.194 0.000 0.060 1.274 1.082 0.000 4.845 7.685 97
Mar 0.097 0.339 0.000 0.140 0.680 1.205 0.000 3.112 5.573 98
Apr 0.107 0.195 0.000 0.120 0.720 1.305 0.000 0.880 3.327 97
May 0.256 0.113 0.000 0.071 0.793 3.017 0.000 0.000 4.250 94
Jun 0.207 0.193 0.000 0.120 0.714 1.396 0.650 0.000 3.280 94
Jul 0.140 0.140 0.000 0.140 0.742 1.516 0.000 0.875 3.553 96
Aug 0.196 0.074 0.000 0.070 0.685 1.774 0.000 0.520 3.319 94
Sep 0.127 0.165 0.000 0.100 0.656 1.497 0.000 0.000 2.545 95
Oct 0.104 0.123 0.535 0.120 1.010 1.516 0.000 0.650 4.058 97
Nov 0.092 0.178 0.000 0.095 0.585 1.880 0.000 0.530 3.360 97
Dec 0.201 0.109 0.850 0.120 0.410 1.425 0.650 2.685 6.450 97
Total 2.009 1.945 1.385 1.288 8.959 18.789 0.065 16.657 52.332 96
% of total
3.84 3.7 2.6 2.5 17.1 35.9 0.1 31.8 97.6
The average monthly recycle rate was 96 %, representing all waste streams that did not go to landfill, and ‘recov-ery’ (2) representing further manual sorting of waste by the contractor. Although the quantity of waste generated
(2) Residual waste collected from Grange and sorted by the waste contractor, and representing that amount which would otherwise have gone to landfill.
H14
rose in 2016 compared to 2015, the recycle rate remained at 96 %. The rise in non-hazardous waste generation was due to the unusually high volumes of paper shredded during the year, because the Directorate had a major reorganisation at the beginning of the year. Many colleagues moved offices and took the opportunity to clear their desks and cupboards of redundant papers.
Figure H17: Monthly breakdown of waste in 2016 (tonnes)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Shredding Recovery Compost Cardboard WEEE Recyclables Landfill
The distribution of waste types throughout 2016 is shown in Figure H17. Recovery and shredding was the largest single component, and with shredding and compost (food waste from the kitchens) accounted for nearly 85 % of the waste.
The figures still show that the improved recycling and recovery measures put in place are working, as the recycle rate was 96 % in 2015 and 2016, up from 95 % in 2014.
H6.2 Hazardous waste
Most of the WEEE collected (1.39 tonnes in 2016) is considered hazardous waste. Grange will work with its facil-ity managers and waste contractors to record waste categories according to European Waste Code (EWCs) so derive a more accurate breakdown of waste by type.
H7 Protecting biodiversityThe dimensions of the Grange site are shown in the plate to the left, from which the footprint is calculated at approximately 8.5 ha within which the constructed area is about 0.55 ha. Owing to its rural location, pre-serving and promoting biodiversity is very important. The site is sparsely populated, a staff member occu-pies on average 447 m² of the site or 52.7 m2 of the built-up area.
In order to maintain and improve biodiversity the fol-lowing actions were taken:
1) In the winter of 2014/2015 a tree at the front of the site died. Fearing a disease that may spread, an arborist was commissioned to investigate and reported that the very poor soil quality was respon-sible. Subsequently all trees located at the front of the site have been monitored, since a num-ber of other trees were in poor condition. Following the arborists advice a pilot project was carried out.
An air spade was used to aerate the soil within a 2-metre radius of six trees, and the soil treated with mulch, soil conditioner and slow release fertilizer as shown in the photos below.
H15
2) As a result the facilities management team arranged for all the trees at the front of the site to be sur-veyed and tagged. Of the 172 trees tagged, 102 were English Oak and the remainder comprised Golden Oak, Sweet Chestnut, Small Leaved Lime, Apple tree, American Sweetgum, Copper Beech, White Wil-low, Black Walnut, Weeping Birch, Maple, Weeping Ash, Persian Ironwood and American Chestnut. Photo-graphs below show the work carried out.
Fastigiate English Oak American Sweetgum
H16
Maple tree Golden Ash
H8 Green public procurement
H8.1 Incorporating GPP into procurement contracts
Separate tenders for audit services, joinery services and technical consultancy were launched in 2016 and each contained reference in the technical specifications to EMAS as presented in the extracts below:
Environmental Considerations
Either:
The European Commission is particularly anxious to uphold best practices which have due regard to environmental considerations relating to all activities under this contract.
The Contractor shall fully respect the requirements of Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) and ISO 14001 as these standards are currently applicable to the Grange site.
The Contractor shall maintain all records and provide all reports under EMAS requirements in accord-ance with the EU EMAS Regulation EC No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009.
or
III.1.1) Suitability to pursue the professional activity, including requirements relating to enrolment on professional or trade registers
List and brief description of conditions:
Candidates must be at least certified:
ISO 9001 — quality management system standard;
ISO 14001 — environmental management system standard;
OHSAS 18001 — H&S management system standard;
or equivalent.
H17
H8.2 Office supplies
Grange uses the Commission framework contract for its office supplies. An encouraging 48 % of the 1 806 items bought in 2016, were ‘eco-friendly’, up from 40 % in 2015 which is our baseline.
H9 Demonstrating legal compliance and emergency preparedness
H9.1 Management of the legal register
A procedure for maintaining the legal register has been in place since late 2014. The Register of Environmental Legislation is reviewed and updated continually by an external consultancy (3). The SANTE personnel responsi-ble receive automatic email updates relating to new or changing legislation and ensure that there is appropri-ate follow up.
For each piece of legislation, the Legal Register provides:
a. Full title of legislation;
b. Reference number;
c. Purpose of the Act/Regulation/Directive; and
d. Summary of the Act/Regulation/Directive.
The Register of Environmental Legislation is divided into the following sections:1 - General Environmental Legislation2 - Water3 - Waste4 - Air Pollution5 - Physical Planning6 - Noise
7 - Energy8 - Dangerous Substances9 - Emergency Preparedness10 - Habitats and Eco systems11 - Existing Licenses, Planning Permissions and EMS
Policy
Unlike most other Commission EMAS sites, Grange does not require a permit to operate. It does require a fire safety certificate and a planning permit. Legal compliance is demonstrated through the responses the site pro-vides to legislation specific questionnaires which generate scores. The Grange site is compliant with all relevant legislation.
SANTE Grange monitors the findings of EMAS internal and verification audits and, in cooperation with DG HR’s EMAS coordination unit, ensures that all non-conformities and scope for improvements are monitored and that remedial actions are taken to close them down.
H9.2 Prevention and risk management
The site implements a programme of environmental incident prevention based on its evaluation of environmental aspects and impacts, and on the identification of potential emergency conditions or abnormal incidents related to each aspect. The main aspects likely to give rise to an accident or incident are:
1. Waste management on site and off site: Waste management procedures have been implemented and authorised and approved waste management contractors identified and employed through the Facility Management contractor. Dedicated storage areas for specific wastes are maintained, including a fluo-rescent tubes ‘coffin’, food waste containers, recyclable waste containers, general waste containers.
2. Hazardous materials: Diesel is stored in a bunded overground 85 000 litre tank. The bund is subject to 3 yearly hydrostatic testing, in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, by a com-petent engineering contractor. Paints, water treatment and cleaning materials are stored in small quan-tities and provided with secondary containment. A liquid propane gas (LPG) tank on site is subject to maintenance and periodic testing by the supplier, who also own the tank.
3. Air emissions: Regular maintenance and annual emissions testing of the boilers ensures that these do not become sources of air pollution.
(3) www.pegasuslegalregister.com.
H18
4. Discharges to water: Polluted discharge to ground and surface water is prevented by primary and sec-ondary containment of all hazardous wastes and hazardous materials and substances on site. Dis-charges to sewer are from sanitary and cooking facilities. The kitchen sinks drain through a grease trap which is regularly serviced and emptied. Cleaning chemicals are low or non-hazardous and are diluted in use.
5. Use of resources: Utilities and waste consumption are monitored each month and variances from expected levels are investigated.
6. Contractors: All contractors used by the site are subject to approval based on competence and envi-ronmental probity. Contractors are also regularly audited and operational audits include environmental requirements and considerations. Key on site FM and security contractors are certified to ISO 14001.
The preventive measures outlined above protect the local ecosystems and habitats. Furthermore measures to encourage wild life and bees on site and to prevent damage to healthy trees have been also implemented.
H9.3 Emergency Preparedness
The Emergency Plan, last updated in 16/09/ 2016 contains procedures for minimising the potential for impacts associated with significant environmental aspects, for example contaminants leaking into the surface water drainage system, or directly into the ground.
H10 Internal communication
H10.1 Internal communication
Internal communication may involve Commission staff and contractors. A summary of the actions is included here below:
No Description Undertaken by: Timing Status
1 Communicate key environmental messages through meetings, induction, signs, posters and notice boards
EMAS Site Co-Ordinator(ECOR), Facilities Management Team
All year round
Done (TV screen)
2 Circulate environmental information and references by email, including
� Site and Commission results through the Environmental Statement
� Commission environmental website � Environmental Policies (corporate and site) � EMAS system information including the Manual, key performanc indicators (KPI), Objectives and action plans
ECOR Sept/Oct 2016
Done (via email)
3 Use site screens to highlight environmental issues relating to: � Environmental aspects and impacts � Evolution of KPIs (tables of utilities + waste consumption) � Projects � Staff and contractor behaviour � Achievements
ECOR All year round
Done
KPIs tables
and posters)
Samples of internal communication are shown below:
Email sent to all Directorate F staff (point 2 of table above)
H19
Images of KPIs and posters displayed on TV to communicate environmental issues
(point 1 & 2 of table above):
H20
H11 TrainingAn all day introductory EMAS training course was provided for the internal facility management team and the external facility management contract manager on 6 September 2016. The objective was to enlarge the group of staff with knowledge of EMAS in Grange and to ensure that EMAS was taken into account in all aspects of facil-ities management.
H12 EMAS costs and savingsThe per capita costs of implementing EMAS at Grange in 2016 were approximately EUR 255, a EUR 12 decrease on the previous year. Per capita energy and water costs were EUR 613 and EUR 24 respectively which repre-sented reductions of 8 % and 31 % respectively.
Table H6: EMAS costs and savings (EUR)
Parameter Costs Change in last year
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Direct EMAS Cost (EUR) 0 0 0 0 47 400 47 900 48 356 456
Total Direct Cost per employee 0 0 0 0 265 266 255 – 12
Total buildings energy cost (EUR) NA 0 0 0 123 051 119 259 116 481 – 2 779
Total buildings energy cost (EUR/person)
NA 0 0 0 687 663 613 – 49
Total water costs (EUR) NA 0 0 0 6 096 6 235 4 617 – 1 617
Water (EUR/person) NA 0 0 0 34 35 24 – 10
H21
H13
Conv
ersio
n fa
ctor
s:Pa
ram
eter
and
uni
ts20
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
1020
1120
1220
1320
1420
1520
16
kWh
of e
nerg
y pr
ovide
d by
one
litre
die
sel
10.8
910
.89
10.8
9
Pape
r Den
sity
(g/m
2 )78
.63
7575
Kgs C
O 2 from
1 kW
h of
elec
tricit
y (if
gr
id av
g.)0.
535
0.53
50.
535
0.53
50.
535
0.53
50.
535
0.53
50.
535
0.53
50.
535
0.53
5
Kgs C
O 2 from
1 kW
h na
tura
l gas
0.20
40.
204
0.20
40.
204
0.20
40.
204
0.20
40.
204
0.20
40.
204
0.20
40.
204
Kgs C
O 2 from
1 kW
h die
sel
0.26
40.
264
0.26
40.
264
0.26
40.
264
0.26
40.
264
0.26
40.
264
0.26
40.
264
Kgs C
O 2 from
one
litre
of d
iesel
2.67
2.67
2.67
Kgs C
O 2 from
one
litre
of p
etro
l2.
282.
282.
28
Annu
al co
st o
f one
FTE
(EUR
)13
2 00
013
4 00
013
4 00
0
Conv
ersio
n 1
Litre
hea
ting
oil =
x kw
h10
.169
10.1
6910
.169
10.1
6910
.169
10.1
6910
.169
10.1
6910
.169
10.1
6910
.169
10.1
69
H22
Note
: See
Cor
pora
te v
olum
e fo
r con
vers
ion
fac
tor r
efer
ence
s
H14
Site
bre
akdo
wn
of b
uild
ings
and
per
form
ance
:
Building
Address
Occupant
Construction Yr
EMAS registration
Useful surface area (m2)
Staff
Office
Café
Self rest
Creche/child care
Printing and mail sorting
Medical service
Depot, large storage
Workshop
Sports/recreation centre
IT Server centre
Power generation
Water treatment plant
Lab/experimental (non nuclear)
Nuclear lab/experimental
Electricity
Mains gas
Other gas
Diesel
District heating
District cooling
Site renewable solar
Site renewable biomass
Water (m3)
Non-hazardous waste (tonnes)
Hazardous waste (tonnes)
Wastewater discharge (industrial)
1) B
uild
ing
esse
ntia
l det
ails
201
6:2)
Bui
ldin
g us
e 20
163)
Ene
rgy
sour
ces
and
amou
nt (M
Wh
for 2
016)
4) W
ater
and
was
te
cons
umpt
ion
GRAN
GE
GRAN
Gran
ge,
Kilta
le,
Duns
any,
Co
Mea
th,
Irela
nd
DG
SANT
E/Di
r F
2 00
2BX
L -0
0000
310
100
190
XX
XX
XX
XX
X83
22.
6 8
1 54
33
754
51.2
01.
39
Note
: See
Cor
pora
te v
olum
e fo
r con
vers
ion
fac
tor r
efer
ence
s
H14
Site
bre
akdo
wn
of b
uild
ings
and
per
form
ance
:
Building
Address
Occupant
Construction Yr
EMAS registration
Useful surface area (m2)
Staff
Office
Café
Self rest
Creche/child care
Printing and mail sorting
Medical service
Depot, large storage
Workshop
Sports/recreation centre
IT Server centre
Power generation
Water treatment plant
Lab/experimental (non nuclear)
Nuclear lab/experimental
Electricity
Mains gas
Other gas
Diesel
District heating
District cooling
Site renewable solar
Site renewable biomass
Water (m3)
Non-hazardous waste (tonnes)
Hazardous waste (tonnes)
Wastewater discharge (industrial)
1) B
uild
ing
esse
ntia
l det
ails
201
6:2)
Bui
ldin
g us
e 20
163)
Ene
rgy
sour
ces
and
amou
nt (M
Wh
for 2
016)
4) W
ater
and
was
te
cons
umpt
ion
GRAN
GE
GRAN
Gran
ge,
Kilta
le,
Duns
any,
Co
Mea
th,
Irela
nd
DG
SANT
E/Di
r F
2 00
2BX
L -0
0000
310
100
190
XX
XX
XX
XX
X83
22.
6 8
1 54
33
754
51.2
01.
39
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU
In personAll over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at:https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
On the phone or by emailEurope Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), – at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or – by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU
OnlineInformation about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en
EU publicationsYou can download or order free and priced EU publications from: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).
EU law and related documentsFor access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Open data from the EUThe EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.
ISBN 978-92-79-81987-2
KT-04-18-334-EN-C
