1 / 16

Development of NFR

Development of NFR. July 2004 ‘mini-Q’ Summary of the ‘mini-Q’ results Draft proposal for modifications Discussion. Prepared by Z.Klimont, J-P.Fontelle, W.Winiwarter - members of the Review Panel UNECE TFEIP meeting, 19-20 October, 2004, Palanza, Italy.

charlesrusso
Download Presentation

Development of NFR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Development of NFR July 2004 ‘mini-Q’ Summary of the ‘mini-Q’ results Draft proposal for modifications Discussion Prepared by Z.Klimont, J-P.Fontelle, W.Winiwarter - members of the Review Panel UNECE TFEIP meeting, 19-20 October, 2004, Palanza, Italy

  2. ‘mini-Q’ Experience in using the EMEP NFR format (1) • Did you experience problems with allocating emissions from specific sources into existing NFR codes? If YES, Please list the concerned emission sources. • Would you suggest splitting some of the existing NFR codes in order to improve source allocation? If YES, please propose specific extensions according to their importance (your priorities). • Do you have suggestions for the extension of the existing NFR list (add new source categories)? If YES, please propose specific extensions according to their importance (your priorities) and indicate the importance (% contribution to total emissions) in your inventory.

  3. ‘mini-Q’ Experience in using the EMEP NFR format (2) • If changes/extensions to the NFR you suggest would be proposed and approved, how large of an effort would it be to integrate them into your inventory (e.g., in terms of person-days)? Or would those changes even reduce the workload? Please separate between a one-time effort for system changes and a recurring additional effort every year. • Do you have any other comments/concerns with respect to the NFR and its links to CRF? If YES, please address them below. • Answers received from 14 countries: LUXEMBOURG, FRANCE, SPAIN, CANADA, BULGARIA, ESTONIA, BELARUS, BELGIUM, AUSTRIA, GERMANY (2), DENMARK, UK, POLAND, SWEDEN (2) as well as SPIRIT/Slovakia, IIASA/Austria and ETC/Austria

  4. Summary of ‘mini-Q’ responses Did you experience problems with allocating emissions from specific sources into existing NFR codes? If YES, Please list the concerned emission sources (1). • PM in agriculture – ambiguity in allocation (4B or 4G?) and missing sources, • NH3 from non-agricultural sources (pets, breath, smoking, etc.) • Category 4D – ambiguity in allocation (e.g., NH3 from: crops, grazing animals, N-mineral fertilizers, N-mineral and organic fertilizer?), • Split of off-road (a’la SNAP) into industrial sectors, • PM sources – e.g., manufacture of furniture, sawmills, shipment and handling of bulk industrial and agricultural products, etc. 13xYES, 2xNO, 4xNo opinion

  5. Summary of ‘mini-Q’ responses Would you suggest splitting some of the existing NFR codes in order to improve source allocation? If YES, please propose specific extensions according to their importance (your priorities) (2). • NFR is often generated from SNAP’97 estimates and so most of suggested splits refer to SNAP, although some go beyond, • Split 2C into two to five sub-categories, • Split 3A, 3B, 3D into few sub-categories (each of them), • Split 6A, 6B, 6C into specific waste types, • Split 4D to distinguish grazing and N-fertilizer application, • Split 4F by type of crop as in CRF • Split of 1A3b by fuels (gasoline, diesel, other), • Splitting is not enough, extension of current SNAP necessary and then translation into ‘new NFR’. 13xYES, 3xNO, 3xYES/NO

  6. Summary of ‘mini-Q’ responses Do you have suggestions for the extension of the existing NFR list (add new source categories)? If YES, please propose specific extensions according to their importance (your priorities) and indicate the importance (% contribution to total emissions) in your inventory (3). • Add specific categories for PM, e.g., welding, handling of products, fireworks, tobacco smoking, tyre/wheel and brake wear (off-road machinery), harvesting, etc., • Extend 1A2 to specifically recognize mobile machinery, • Fires, use of pesticides, prescribed burning of savanna, • Extend fuel definitions, • Further extensions, especially for POP and NMVOC, very problematic due to poor data availability, • No need if place for proper explanation of ‘other’ is introduced. 7xYES, 11xNO, 1xYES/NO

  7. Summary of ‘mini-Q’ responses If changes/extensions to the NFR you suggest would be proposed and approved, how large of an effort would it be to integrate them into your inventory (e.g., in terms of person-days)? Or would those changes even reduce the workload? Please separate between a one-time effort for system changes and a recurring additional effort every year. (4). • DONE – systems were either extended to include specific reference to sources which are not directly referred to in NFR (even in aggregated form) or to cover more detailed splits of existing categories, • SMALL – means either only one-time effort of few days to few man-weeks; in general (in case of splits of categories to SNAP like) a change might bring reduction of workload but contribute significantly to improvement of transparency, • SIGNIFICANT – would require large changes in the currently used system and necessitates collection of additional data; both require considerable resources. 2xDONE, 8xSMALL, 2xSIGNIFICANT, 7xNo opinion

  8. Summary of ‘mini-Q’ responses Do you have any other comments/concerns with respect to the NFR and its links to CRF? If YES, please address them below. (5). • NFR reporting linked to Guidebook that in turn is based on SNAP…update necessary (review links to NACE, IPPC, NOSE-P), • The strong GHG bias in NFR visible and not always welcome, e.g., problems for reporting PM, • NFR should be closely linked to CRF, • Some CRF categories ‘lost in translation’ although emit air pollutants while others remained but either irrelevant for air pollution or could be aggregated to ‘other’, • Discrepancies in fuel classification, e.g., lack of bio-alcohol, and issues related to CHP and autoproducers allocation, • Need for monitoring of changes in the CRF format and consideration of NFR adjustment. 12xYES, 7xNO

  9. Summary of ‘mini-Q’ responses Conclusions • Large proportion of respondents recognizes a need for changes in NFR but the preferred solution is splitting rather than extension, • Exception from the above is reporting of PM sources (mostly fugitive) for which there is no categories in the current NFR, • If such splits or extensions introduced, majority suggests that benefits outweigh efforts put into adaptation of reporting system and in general the ‘extra’ effort is a one-time exercise, • A need for clarification of current source allocation signalled several times. THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO RESPOND!

  10. Example of extension (France)

  11. Proposal for splits (1) Draft for discussion • 1A2g: Other mobile and machinery/Industry (SNAP 0808) • 2B5: Processes in Organic Chemical Industries (SNAP 0405; current 2B5: Other would become 2B6) • 2C:Metal production (split follows existing CRF) • 2C1: Iron and Steel Production • 2C2: Ferroalloys Production • 2C3: Aluminum Production • 2C5: Other (please specify)

  12. Proposal for splits (2) Draft for discussion • 3A:Paint application • 3A1: Decorative paint application(includes domestic and architectural paint use, see EU Product Directive) • 3A2: Industrial paint application • 3B:Degreasing and Dry Cleaning • 3B1: Degreasing (SNAP 060201) • 3B2: Dry cleaning (SNAP 060202) • 3B3: Other (please specify)

  13. Proposal for splits (3) Draft for discussion • 3D:Other • 3D1: Printing (SNAP 060403) • 3D2: Preservation of wood (SNAP 060406) • 3D3: Domestic solvent use (SNAP 060408) • 3D4: Other (please specify)

  14. Proposal for extensions (1) Draft for discussion PM sources • (Code?) Wood processing (sawmills, furniture; possibly could be reported under the new category 3A2:Industrial paint application) • 2D3: Storage and handling of industrial and agricultural bulk products • 2A7: Quarrying (& mining of minerals other than coal?), 2A8: Construction (possibly can be covered together in the current 2A7: Other on the other hand they might be a significant source of coarse PM) • 4D?: Agricultural operations (harvesting, ploughing, etc.) • (Code?) Tyre/wheel and brake wear – off-road vehicles • 7A: Fireworks, use of explosives, etc. • 7B: Tobacco smoking

  15. Proposal for extensions (2) Draft for discussion NH3 sources • (Code?) Crops(Do we know how to report it? Interface with the models needed?) • (Code?) Humans and pets (perspiration and breath) • 7B: Tobacco smoking(relevant for a number of pollutants) Pesticides • 4G: Use of pesticides (There exists already category 4G: Other where a reference to SNAP categories referring to the use of pesticides are mentioned)

  16. Development of NFR Discussion • The current draft proposal reflects the suggestions of many respondents, BUT • Suggestions for splits of source-sectors differ between countries; any changes require a consensus for a particular source-sector, • Need to clarify the current source allocation in NFR, • Need for monitoring of changes in the CRF format and consideration/harmonization of NFR adjustment. • Are there any issues that were not reflected in the presentation?Are there any additional comments/responses to the questionnaire that could not be delivered prior to the meeting? • Can we organize an ADD-NFR group that could discuss these issues further during this meeting and report to plenary?

More Related