Forum posts to 'Forums'

Job announcement

EEA — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:06:13 +0100

Information received - EEA.

Dear colleagues,

I would like to mention the opportunity for a job of a permanent scientist at IFSTTAR, laboratory Transports and Environment, near Lyon in France.
The works concern air pollution from transports and more specifically the pollutant emissions, measurements on chassis dynamometer, non-regulated pollutants, metrology.

The deadline for application is the 11/05/2012

Information can be found at
http://www.ifsttar.fr/fr/recrutements/recrutement-chercheurs/concours-cr1-cr2/

Best regards
Michel ANDR�

Posted to: Job announcement Show Thread | Post Reply

Air Pollution Dispersion Modeling

Milt Beychok — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:29:13 +0000

Anyone interested in or involved with the modeling of air pollution dispersion is invited to visit the website at:
.
.... www.air-dispersion.com <== click here
.
to learn about "Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion" ... a very comprehensive reference book on dispersion modeling of continuous, buoyant pollution plumes. The website provides a brief description of the book, peer reviews published in technical journals, the book's complete table of contents, and other information.
.
Topics covered in the book include: classifying atmospheric stability; determining of buoyant pollution plume rise; Gaussian dispersion calculations and modeling; developing windspeed profiles; trapped pollution plumes; fumigated plumes; flare stack plumes; meteorological parameters, and much more. Copies of the book have been purchased in a total of 66 countries and are available in over 130 libraries worldwide.
.
Click here if you would like a free copy of "Air Dispersion Modeling Terminology" emailed to you as a Microsoft Word document.
.
Milton Beychok
Newport Beach, California
.

Posted to: Air Pollution Dispersion Modeling Show Thread | Post Reply

16th International conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment

EEA — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:50:10 +0000

A copy of announcement forwarded to TFEIP:

Dear Colleagues,
I would like to invite you to contribute to the 16th International conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment http://ichmet16.iia.cnr.it/ that will be held in Rome on 23-27 September 2012.

ICHMET has been historically the key conference for all those involved in HM research. It provides a great opportunity to senior as well as to young researchers and PhD students to get in contact with leading worldwide experts in the field of HM emissions to air, releases to surface and ground waters, HM in contaminated sites, remediation technologies and impact on human health and ecosystems.

The conference is also a great opportunity for all those involved in the policy making process at national and international level. The 16th ICHMET will provide a number of special sessions on emerging environmental issues as well as selected short courses for young scientists. Please visit the web site for more detailed information.
The authors contributing with poster or oral presentations will be invited to publish their results in special issues of peer-reviewed international journals.

ICHMET will also assign the Life Achievement Award for a distinguished scientists in HM research. The criteria for this assignment will be published on the web site very soon and you all will be asked to contribute.

ICHMET will also assign an international award for the most highly qualified young scientist (less than 10 yr experience) in any of the HM research field.

In September the weather is mild and dry, so it is a nice time to visit Rome, to explore this very interesting urban area in the world. The local organizing committee has scheduled a number of events, also for accompanying persons, for site seeing in and outside Rome, so we strongly invite you to take advantage of this great opportunity.
Please keep in mind the deadline for submitting abstracts, which is 15 April 2012. We kindly invite you to prepare the abstract following the instruction reported on the web site. We have the International Programme Committee that will meet by mid of May to organize sessions and the whole conference programme. We will notify the acceptance of abstracts to authors by end of May 2012.

Looking forward to meeting you in Rome.
Sergio Cinnirella

on behalf of
Nicola Pirrone
Chair of ICHMET 2012

Posted to: 16th International conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment Show Thread | Post Reply

19th Transport and Air Pollution (TAP) Conference. Thessaloniki, 26-27 Nov.

Transport — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:27:43 +0000

With great pleasure we announce that the 19th Transport and Air Pollution Conference will take place in the beautiful city of Thessaloniki, in northern Greece from 26-27 November 2012.
_
We would like to invite you to the conference and to present the new conference website TAPconference.org, where you will find the call for abstracts, news and practical info.
_
Deadlines:
_
Submission of extended one-page abstract: 30th April 2012
Decision on Abstract: 15th July 2012
Full Paper Submission: 15th September 2012

_
Conference chairs:
_
Zissis Samaras
Lab of Applied Thermodynamics
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
e-mail : zisis[at]auth.gr
Tel : +30 2310 99 6014
_
Panagiota Dilara
European Commission - JRC
Institute for Energy and Transport
Sustainable Transport Unit
e-mail: panagiota.dilara[at]jrc.ec.europa.eu
Tel : +39 0332 78 9207
_
Looking forward to seeing you in Thessaloniki!

You will find the leaflet of the first announcement here.

Posted to: 19th Transport and Air Pollution (TAP) Conference. Thessaloniki, 26-27 Nov. Show Thread | Post Reply

COPERT training. Belgrade,7-8 May

Transport — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:19:22 +0000

This is an announcement for a forthcoming workshop on the COPERT road transport emissions software to be held in Belgrade, Serbia on the 7th and 8th of May. The workshop is being arranged by the JRC / Institute for Energy and Transport, and Emisia S.A.

Registrations for the workshop will be prioritised for existing users and interested potential users of the COPERT software from the EU Candidate and Potential Candidate Countries, as well as countries participating to the European Neighbourhood Policy and Russia. Experts from other countries are also invited to register. A Russian version of the COPERT software, user�s manual, help file and the relevant COPERT webpage will be available prior to the event.

For your information, a separate COPERT workshop for advanced users, will also most likely be held in Copenhagen, Denmark towards the end of 2012.

See you soon in Belgrade!

Download the leaflet here

Posted to: COPERT training. Belgrade,7-8 May Show Thread | Post Reply

Mistakes in EFs for 1.A.1.c (Chapter 1A)

Carlo — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:14:37 +0000

I think the 1.A.1.c Manufacture of solid fuels and other energy industries section of chapter 1A contain a mistake. In general (as I already noted when the chapter was updated) there is no direct equivalence between EFs in the GB and EFs in the quoted reference (US EPA AP42). But in the cases I analyzed (mainly NOx) the differences was small. Now for a local emission inventory in Italy we analyze in detail the EFs and evaluated that the CO EFs in "Table 5-3 Tier 2 default emission factors for source category 1.A.1.c, coke manufacture with by-product recovery" and in "Table 5-4 Tier 2 default emission factors for source category 1.A.1.c, coke manufacture without by-product recovery" were wrong.
The value proposed in the two tables 15000 is really to high!
From original source the values 340 g/Mg coal (with by product recovery in Table 5-3) and 35 g/Mg coal (without by-product recovery in Table 5-4) can be derived.

Posted to: Mistakes in EFs for 1.A.1.c (Chapter 1A) Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Fuel categories

Carlo — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:55:51 +0000

Hi Mia

The definition of fuels for reporting was introduced in a draft of Annex I but, as I known, not in the final version. You can find the draft at the address: http://www.emep.int/emis2008/Draft07Guidelines/RevisedGL_AnnexI_2_Definitions.pdf .
It's clear from the definitions that the classification follows the "Energy Statistic" rules: the derived (or secondary) fuel follow the primary fuel so for example coke oven gas is "solid" while refinery gas is "liquid" and natural gas is "gaseous".

The GB don't contain in the EFs table fuel codes. Previous versions of GB used classification of fuels, linked to SNAP, and known as NAPFUEL code. This classification followed the physical characterization of fuels so all gases are gaseous.

I hope this post can be useful! for you.

Posted to: Fuel categories Show Thread | Post Reply

Fuel categories

Mia — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:52:46 +0000

Hallo,
I have question, in the Report for the Stage 3 in-depth review of emission inventories submitted under the UNECE LRTAP Convention and EU National Emissions Ceilings Directive for Croatia the ERT encourage Croatia to improve the energy consumption split between fuel categories as fuels are not always reported in the proper category: this seems for example to be the case for coke oven gas which should be reported under solid fuels. Is this correct? In the EMEP-EEA Guidebook-2009 coke oven gas is in category of derived gases.

Posted to: Fuel categories Show Thread | Post Reply

PM emissions from quarries

Carlo — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:21:07 +0000

I open this discussion after the email from Julien Vincent (CITEPA, FR).
.
Julien Vincent (CITEPA, FR) writes:
.
My colleague Julien JABOT is responsible from sectors emitting PM. He is currently working on PM emissions from quarries as the default French EF we use has not been updated for a long time now. Comparing to the EEA/EMEP GB EF, we overestimate PM emissions from this sector.
EEA/EMEP GB provides the following default emission factors (page 2A7a):
� TSP : 0.07 g/Mg mineral
� PM10:0.04 g/Mg mineral
� PM2.5: 0.004 g/Mg mineral
We wanted to use these emission factors, to be consistent with the last version of the GB. However, we would need more information to justify this choice.
1. Do you have more details about the source of these emission factors? Do you know if the document cited in reference is available and where we can find it? The reference is:
Visschedijk A.J.H., Pacyna J., Pulles T., Zandveld P. and Denier van der Gon H. (2004), Coordinated European Particulate Matter Emission Inventory Program (CEPMEIP), in: P. Dilara et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the PM emission inventories scientific workshop, Lago Maggiore, Italy, 18 October 2004, EUR 21302 EN, JRC, pp 163-174.
2. Another question we have concerns the resuspension of particles. How does it have to be taken into account for this sector? We assume that it has a big influence on EF considered. This question can be extended to the perimeter to be considered (i.e. emissions from NRMM and trucks on tracks, etc.)
3. Finally, would you have or know EF according to the type of mineral extracted or to the type of abatement technique applied?
.
Kuenen, J.J.P (Jeroen) emailed the following answer:
.
Regarding the CEPMEIP reference you may find more information on http://www.tno.nl/downloads/CEPMEIP.pdf.
There is a study undertaken by TNO some years ago (before I was working there, so I can�t give you the details personally) to look into PM2.5 especially for inclusion in the Guidebook. The link above provides some more background, although I believe there is (unfortunately) no official report or publication from this study.
Given that this is a rather broad category, obviously there can be a lot of variation in the emission factors between the different emission sources included in this source category. In the Guidebook we have tried to take a value from this study which is more or less representative as an average. The information is available in some more detail in the link I provided � see the Annex where EFs are given for TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 for 4 typical technologies representing the typical range in Europe (from low to high control technologies).

For the resuspension issue, at the moment this is not taken into account in the reporting requirements nor is it taken into account in the Guidebook. I think that several studies will have more information on this, but I don�t have this available.

I hope this helps you � if you need more information please let me know and I can ask the authors of that study.
.
Carlo Trozzi emailed the following answer:
.
I have a lot of experience on that and I think the better methodologies was the US EPA AP42 ones. The problem is very complicated as you have:
1) emissions from explosives use
2) emissions from crushing
3) emissions from handling of materials and piles
4) emissions from wind erosion

You have the following chapters:
* 13.3 Explosives Detonation (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s03.pdf)
=> useful for evaluate the emissions from use of explosives
* 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s09.pdf)
=> useful for evaluate the emissions from coal mining
* 11.19.2 Crushed Stone Processing and Pulverized Mineral Processing (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s1902.pdf)
=> useful for evaluate the emissions from crushing of stone
* 13.2.4 Aggregate Handling And Storage Piles (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s0204.pdf)
=> useful for evaluate the emissions from handling of crushed material
* 13.2.5 Industrial Wind Erosion (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s0205.pdf)
=> useful for evaluate the emissions from wind erosion of piles
.
Julien Vincent (CITEPA, FR) finally asks:
.
To open a discussion to know if other countries have work on this subject and if they have any feedback on the subject.

Posted to: PM emissions from quarries Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions

Carlo — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:39:02 +0000

Dear Mirela, dear all

Some clarification and , I hope, some improvements.

Clearly the presence of PM10 EF but not of PM (TSP) EF is alway an error, it's sometimes possible to have PM10 emissions but not PM2.5 emissions (only big particles in emissions)!

In the specific case of 1B2aiv there are some mistakes!

1. The EFs for PM2.5 and PST in 040102 Fluid catalytic cracking - CO boiler and Fluid coking units defined as Not applicable is a mistake.

2. The EFs for PM10 was taken from Concawe in the GB update project; the Concawe quote "Environment Australia (1999) National pollutant inventory � emission estimation technique manual for petroleum refining. Canberra: Environment Australia" (http://www.npi.gov.au/publications/emission-estimation-technique/pubs/petroleum.pdf). Concawe was only interested in PM10 but the original source reports also TSP EFs are reported.

3. Environment Australia report EFs for TSP from US EPA AP42 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch05/final/c05s01.pdf).

4. In the US EPA there are the following TSP EFs:
� Fluid catalytic cracking units (US EPA AP42):
- Uncontrolled 0.695 kg/10^3 L fresh feed
- Electrostatic precipitator and CO boiler 0.128 kg/10^3 L fresh feed
� Fluid coking units (US EPA AP42):
-Uncontrolled 1.50 kg/10^3 L fresh feed
-Electrostatic precipitator and CO boiler 0.0196 kg/10^3 L fresh feed

4.For PM10 fractions Environmental Australia uses US EPA speciate data (http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/software/speciate/)

5. For PM 2.5 fraction the same source can be used (http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/software/speciate/)

PS
I will review in the next weeks the PM speciation profile for PM 2.5 and I hope to give some update to GB chapter in January.

Posted to: TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:10:51 +0000

Dear Mirela,

Thank you for pointing us at this issue. This is an issue of inconsistency indeed, if there is a PM10 emission then obviously there should also be an emission of TSP and most likely also PM2.5.

The reporting template tells you that you do not need to report PM emissions from source category 1.B.2.a.iv since they are not applicable (applies to all PM fractions from this source category). But in the latest revision of the Guidebook, an emission factor for PM10 has been included despite it's as N/A in the reporting template. At that time there was no information on the PM2.5 and TSP for this source, only a PM10 value.
I agree definitely that this situation is far from ideal, but if the EFs for the other PM fractions are not available we cannot include those in the Guidebook.

However, I do think that the PM emitted from refineries will be mostly from combustion activities and therefore reported under source category 1.A.1.b. The sector 1.B.2.a.iv is about the fugitive losses which are mostly NMVOC emissions. A practical solution might therefore be to report your PM emissions from refineries in 1.A.1.b instead and do not include them in 1.B.2.a.iv (and explain this in your IIR).

Concerning reporting requirements, there are two ways: change the Guidebook or change the reporting templates. I think this is an issue for discussion within the TFEIP how to deal with issues like this one. If other people have a view on this issue, this is highly appreciated.

Kind regards,

Jeroen Kuenen
Co-chair Expert Panel on Combustion & Industry

Posted to: TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions

EEA — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:17:36 +0000

Hi Mirela,

thanks for the query - I've passed along to the relevant TFEIP expert panel chairs and they'll post a reply shortly!

Martin

Posted to: TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions Show Thread | Post Reply

TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions

Mia — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:40:38 +0000

Hi,
This summer Croatia has the stage 3 in-depth review of emission inventory submitted under the UNECE LRTAP Convention. In the ERT report one of the general recomendation was to always report PM2.5 whenever PM10 are reported and also TSP so that sectors and trends can be compared and the emission levels reviewed. So, I have a question, if the EMEP EEA Guidebook 2009 propose only defoult emission factor for PM10 and state that EF for TSP and PM2.5 are not applicable (NA) should I report these emissions or not? This kind of situation I found in sector 1B2aiv (Tier 2 emission factors).
Thanks in advance!
Mirela

Posted to: TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions Show Thread | Post Reply

Correction made in chapter 3.A Paint Application

EEA — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:45:09 +0100

The default emission factor for NMVOC in Table 3-9 "Tier 2 emission factors for source category 3.A.2 Industrial coating application, Wood coating" has been corrected from 960 g/kg to 800 g/kg based upon the maximum solvent content of paint assumed in the original reference

Posted to: Correction made in chapter 3.A Paint Application Show Thread | Post Reply

Geothermal energy extraction chapter renamed

EEA — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:29:30 +0100

The Guidebook chapter dealing with geothermal energy extraction has been renamed from:
�1.B.2.a.vi Geothermal energy extraction� to
'1.B.3 Geothermal energy extraction�

The NFR code used in the old chapter title had not been updated in line with the agreed NFR nomenclature as used in the 2009 version of the reporting template.

Posted to: Geothermal energy extraction chapter renamed Show Thread | Post Reply

HCB from wood in small combustion plant

Carlo — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:09:54 +0100

I report a question related to HCB and residential wood combustion we received from Peter Meulepas from the Implementation Committee (see below in italics) through Kristina Saarinen.

Here is what Peter asked:

Current default emission factors for HCB for residential combustion: In the information we received from you on 11 May you refer to the large uncertainties associated with the default emission factors for the residential combustion. For example the default emission factor (tier 1 and 2) for HCB for residential wood combustion is 6 �g/GJ with a 95% confidence interval of 3 to 9 �g/GJ. Several Parties however in their response to the Committee refer to the fact that the default emission factors themselves are obsolete, not taking into account the technological improvements taken place since 1990 and not taken into account implemented abatement measures for inter alia PM, DIOX and PAH, having simultaneous impact on HCB. What is your assessment of this claim that some of the default emission factors for HCB are obsolete and in need for an update? Do you have any comments to make on the fact that the tier 2 default emission factor for HCB for residential wood combustion is the same for all technologies (6 �g/GJ). Are HCB emissions not dependent at all on the type of technologies used? Do you have any recent information on this issue? Are there any plans to provide more detailed emission factors for this pollutant?

and Kristina Saarinen comment:

It seems that little information is out there about real emission measurements according to the attached earlier Guidebook chapter on HCB sources, as well as according to other litterature. However, some countries are also using other EFs in their inventories (see www.apef-library.fi. According to some sources it also seems that HCB maybe connected more to fuel (e.g. Cl containing waste) than the combustion technique. In case you have better information, could you kindly inform us asap, as the meeting of the IC is already next week? Otherwise we maybe just state the facts that we do not actually know other than what the earlier GB chapter already states that information is a bit unsure....

I agree that EFs for HCB (but also for dioxins and PCB) can be improved. Don't seems to me that in APEF there are other wood EFs (some more higher values for Austria and other for Polland but in g/Gg and without heat content). So it's very difficult to update this information. A lot of new information I have found in:

Emission of PCDD/F, PCB, and HCB from Combustion of Firewood and Pellets in Residential Stoves and Boilers
j�rn Hedman,*� Morgan N�slund,� and Stellan Marklund�
Unit of Biomass Technology and Chemistry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 4097, SE-904 03 Ume�, Sweden, and Chemistry Department, Environmental Chemistry, Ume� University, SE-901 87 Ume�, Sweden
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2006, 40 (16), pp 4968�4975

Abstract
To assess potential emissions of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and hexachlorobenzene (HCB) from residential combustion of biofuels, experiments were performed in which various types of pellets and firewood were combusted in four types of stoves and boilers, with both full and reduced rates of air supply. Intermittent combustion of wood pellets resulted in emissions of 11 ng(WHO-TEQ)/kg combusted fuel (dry weight). A modern, environmentally certified boiler yielded somewhat lower emissions of PCCD/F and PCB than a wood stove. Both gave <0.1 ng(WHO-TEQ)/m3n(1.3?6.5 ng(WHO-TEQ)/kg) and considerably lower emissions than an old boiler (7.0?13 ng(WHO-TEQ)/kg). No positive effect on emissions could be observed in full air combustion (simulating the use of a heat storage tank) compared to combustion with reduced air. Two of the wood combustion experiments included paper and plastic waste fuels. Chlorine-containing plastic waste gave rise to high emissions: ca. 310 ng(WHO-TEQ)/kg over the whole combustion cycle. The homologue profiles of PCDD/Fs show characteristic differences between ashes and flue gas from combustions with different levels of air supply. These differences do not, however, seem to have any correlation to the relative amount of toxic congeners

But I have only abstract and I wait for the paper.

There are someone with more information.

Posted to: HCB from wood in small combustion plant Show Thread | Post Reply

Sludge spreading

Carlo — Fri, 13 May 2011 08:33:49 +0100

Someone arise question about possible error in Guidebook 2009 NFR 6D Other waste regarding Tier 2 emission factors for sludge spreading in Table 3-2.

There is no error in the Guidebook. The emission factor was derived from a previous version of Guidebook itself. In the old Guidebook version this description was contained:

"The amount of ammonia produced by sludge spreading is determined by the dry matter content of the sludge and the total amount of ammoniacal nitrogen present. The dry matter content of a communal sludge may be between 4% (digested) and 5% (undigested). Recent results from the United Kingdom gave a percentage ammonia of about 5% of the total ammonia-nitrogen content of the sludge."

So the data on the GB is consistent 5% = 50 g NH3/kg total ammonia-nitrogen content of the sludge.

As all we know. this chapter was not updated during the last Guidebook edition but only reformatted.

There are some more interesting data in US study "ESTIMATING AMMONIA EMISSIONS FROM ANTHROPOGENIC NONAGRICULTURAL SOURCES - DRAFT FINAL REPORT, April 2004."

In this work we can found a value of 50 g/Mg wet digested sludge (rated as E - very high uncertainty).

I will propose an update in the next year task force meeting.

Posted to: Sludge spreading Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Software

EEA — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:58:38 +0100

Hi,

as Thomas notes there is indeed a wide range of software available depending on your requirements. Some of these are available free to users eg two software tools supported by EEA include the COPERT model for estimating emissions from the road transport sector, and the CollectER model which provides a database system for storing, compiling and reporting emission inventory data.

Another useful link is http://www.environmenttools.co.uk/ which provides a listing of over 400 accounting tools.

regards
Martin

Posted to: Software Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Software

Thomas — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:41:30 +0100

Hi Dragos,

there are a lot of software solutions "on the market". Which software you are looking for? In which field you want to use it and for what exactly you want to use it? More detailed information needed.

I'm looking forward to your input.

Regards
Thomas

Posted to: Software Show Thread | Post Reply

Software

dragos — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:17:58 +0100

Is a software that we could use?

Posted to: Software Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Navigation chapter

EEA — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:54:02 +0000

Thanks for noting this error.
A corrected chapter has been posted on the main Guidebook site http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009, with the change also noted in the revision log file.
Martin
EEA

Posted to: Navigation chapter Show Thread | Post Reply

Navigation chapter

Carlo — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 17:52:21 +0000

I found some editorial errors in the final version of the tables 3-1 and 3-2 of EFs of the chapter. The tables in the chapter report the value 20 for the EFs for SOx while the correct value is 20 * S with reference at note 1 (the note 1 must begin with S = and not SOx =). Finally, also references to note (2) in correspondence of NOx and NMVOC values are missing.

Posted to: Navigation chapter Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Aviation Chapter

EEA — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:13:42 +0000

Thanks for noting this error.

A corrected chapter has been posted on the main Guidebook site http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009, with the change also noted in the revision log file.

Martin
EEA

Posted to: Aviation Chapter Show Thread | Post Reply

Emissions from diffuse PM sources

Carlo — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:34:39 +0000

As reported in the last TFEIP C&I meeting (http://tfeip-secretariat.org/assets/Meetings/Documents/CI-May-2010-Meeting-Documents/CIEPDiffusePM.pdf), models of transport of pollutants do not explain the measured concentrations of PM in Europe.
A possible cause of error is the existence of ghost emissions not evaluated in the inventories A source of PM rarely assessed, and difficult to assess, is the storage and transportation of solid fuels, raw materials and waste.

As discussed in the meeting, it�s very difficult to assess these activities with sufficient reliability for Tier 1 and Tier 2 and, also if specific activities can be developed to assess and define Tier 3 methodologies, it is very difficult to apply Tier 3 methodologies on national scale.

In conclusion some methods or models must be defined at Tier 3 level and procedure to derive EFs at Tier 1 and 2 must be introduced, while information from national inventories, if any, must be used.

The following questions are relevant in this area:
o   Are diffuse emissions evaluated in national inventories?
o   Are diffuse emissions taken into account in local inventory or local air quality studies?
o   How the emissions are estimated (Tier 1 emission factors, Tier 2 emission factors, Tier 3)?

This forum is intended to represent an instrument for share opinions, experience, documents and other information on this topic. Please post comments and links.

Posted to: Emissions from diffuse PM sources Show Thread | Post Reply

Emissions from Small combustion installations

Carlo — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:32:06 +0000

As reported in the last TFEIP C&I meeting (http://tfeip-secretariat.org/assets/Meetings/Documents/CI-May-2010-Meeting-Documents/CIEPNonIndustrialCombustion.pdf), a lot of problems arise when the methodology is used. A first group of problems are related to fuels and technologies as:
o   fuel consumption split between residential and non-residential is not always available (for example for some east Europe area) particularly for some fuel (wood, coal);
o   EFs are defined only for generic liquid fuels but single fuel differ significantly;
o   fuel consumption split between technologies is not available, particularly in residential sector also if some statistical data about technology distribution can be available in member states;
o   fuel consumptions split between technologies is not homogenous in the member states territories (difference between climatic region, urban vs. rural, �);
o   no control procedure is available about estimated subdivision of fuel consumption by technologies and activities.

The following questions are relevant in this area:
o   Are fuel consumptions allocated to the dif
ferent activities? And, if yes, how it�s allocated.
o   Are fuel consumptions allocated to the different technologies inside the activities? And, if yes, how it�s allocated.
o   Are liquid fuels consumptions evaluated for the single fuels? And, if yes, what EFs are used?
o   How the emissions are estimated (Tier 1 emission factors, Tier 2 emission factors, Tier 3)?

This forum is intended to represent an instrument for share opinions, experience, documents and other information on this topic. Please post comments and links.

Posted to: Emissions from Small combustion installations Show Thread | Post Reply

Guidebook chapter 2.A.1 Cement production

JeroenKuenen — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 12:15:28 +0000

There are a few problems with the cement production chapter (2.A.1) as it is currently online on EEA's website. The Expert Panel has received some clarification questions, therefore I post here a short further explanation to this chapter.

The Tier 1 factors are derived from the BREF document which was then a draft version. In the meantime, the BREF was finalised and the values have been changed. In the next Guidebook update, we will update the emission factors to the values as now in the BREF. Furthermore, the PM emission factors include both the combustion & process emissions of PM from cement plants and not just the non-combustion. The other emissions (non-PM) may be found in the combustion chapter relating to cement production (industrial combustion chapter NFR code 1.A.2.f.i).

Please note also that the BREF values are derived for the EU, outside the EU these may not be applicable. Therefore, some information from EECCA countries was added to the Tier 2 section. These are much higher than the Tier 1 because of the older technologies and abatement equipment which is in use in these countries.

Therefore, the user of the Guidebook should be aware that the values used are not always applicable to all countries and should handle the values with care. At the moment, Tier 1 is for EU countries and Tier 2 for EECCA countries. We wish to expand this in the near future to have all necessary information on emission factors applicable to all relevant countries, however we depend on available data to do so.

If you have any information (emission factors?) to expand this chapter, please make this known to the Expert Panel leaders!

Posted to: Guidebook chapter 2.A.1 Cement production Show Thread | Post Reply

Emissions from the use of solvents

JeroenKuenen — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 12:00:17 +0000

One of the sectors with a lot of uncertainty in emission inventories is the sector product use (NFR code 3) an, more in particular, the use of solvents. A workshop was organised in Utrecht in February 2010 to discuss this topic. A couple of key problems were identified at this meeting:
- The lack of methodologies, specifically for the domestic use of solvents (3.D.2) and other product use (3.D.3). These categories appear to be among the most important ones.
- The lack of activity data to apply the methodologies as currently available in the Guidebook and other sources.

Based on the outcome of the meeting, Marte Kittilsen (Statistics Norway) has made a report on the methods applied in Norway and what other countries might benefit from that. It is available on http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/01/04/10/doc_201020_en/doc_201020_en.pdf, so please have a look and post here your comments and ideas.

Main questions to be answered are:
- What emission sources can you estimate based on Norwegian emission factors � or for which sources do you have the activity data available to do this?
- To what extent would it be useful to generate simple �per capita� factors based on the Norwegian situation which could be applied in whole of Europe?
- Do you have any other ideas on how to improve this?

Please know that the Expert Panel is discussing with industry representatives aiming to have more data available to inventory people to allow them to make better emission inventories. However, it is difficult to get the data as we all know and it is therefore worth the effort we are currently making to try and use the Norwegian information to improve all our inventories. We will keep you updated on the progress and feel fee to ask any questions or present ideas.

Posted to: Emissions from the use of solvents Show Thread | Post Reply

Aviation Chapter

Leon — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:25:04 +0000

In the GB2009 aviation chapter (http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/1-energy/1-a-combustion/1-a-3-a-aviation.pdf), there is an error in p.9, where the smoke number limit is given.

The correct limit. according to ICAO Annex 16 is [83.6*(Foo)^(-0.274)], instead of [83 (Foo)-0.274], as erroneously written in the chapter.

Posted to: Aviation Chapter Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Welcome to the new TFEIP discussion forum.

Tinus — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 09:44:16 +0000

This is a great improvement over the earlier TFEIP website! Congratulations.
I am confident that the forum will also serve the inventory community well!

Posted to: Welcome to the new TFEIP discussion forum. Show Thread | Post Reply

The Art of Emission Inventorying

Tinus — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 08:09:44 +0000

The Art of Emission Inventorying
This publication provides an overview and practical advice for all those that are compiling and using emission inventories both in policy and in scientific applications. It is a compilation of the long term experience of TNO within the emission inventory community, in both air pollutants and greenhouse gases, translated into a pragmatic approach, including a proposed database structure. The explanations are fully in line with the EEA emission inventory software CollectER III and the latest versions of the Guidebook.
An electronic copy can be downloaded free of charge from http://www.tno.nl/emissioninventorybook/

Posted to: The Art of Emission Inventorying Show Thread | Post Reply

Welcome to the new TFEIP discussion forum.

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:44:33 +0100

Welcome to TFEIP's new discussion forum. The forum provides an opportunity for users to discuss a variety of issues concerning the estimation and reporting of air pollutant emission inventories.

Posted to: Welcome to the new TFEIP discussion forum. Show Thread | Post Reply