1 / 13

Balance of 1st order review process

AGENDA. Balance of 1st order review process Identify any remaining issues which need to be solved for acceptance. Define how these remaining issues must be addressed in order for the GB to be accepted (Distinguish between editorial issues and substance)

morag
Download Presentation

Balance of 1st order review process

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. AGENDA • Balance of 1st order review process • Identify any remaining issues which need to be solved for acceptance. • Define how these remaining issues must be addressed in order for the GB to be accepted (Distinguish between editorial issues and substance) • Start the discussions about the need for long-term scientific improvements beyond this project (identify priority areas and funding opportunities)

  2. 1st vs 2nd order draft evaluation & revision -general • The reference: Guidebook (2006) or CEPMEIP (2004) are not acceptable, where is not possible to introduce original reference write something as “TFEIP or expert evaluation on available information” or similar • In some cases different technologies/abatement systems are defined introducing EFs for each technology (for example for Volume 2C) in some case new technologies/new products are introduced under abatement (for example for Volume 3). We think the approach must be unique! • Clearify the way to assign the interval confidence • Clearify why some SNAP have no EFs

  3. 1st vs 2nd order draft evaluation & revision -1 • A.1.a Public electricity and heat production • the 1st order tables was unclear and unusable, the "interpretation" of the "old" GB EF is an unacceptable simplification • The EFs was clearly inadequate • A.1.b Petroleum refining • The tables was unclear and unusable, the only complete work by Concawe was not used • CONCLUSION: The chapter was unacceptable! • FD accept all the EP suggestion but we don’t have the time to review the chapters

  4. 1st vs 2nd order draft evaluation & revision - 2 • A.2 Manufacturing industries and constr. • Some general preliminary comment is necessary. This section of the Guidebook and the related "old" chapter was the most critical ones. In the past the structure of the guidebook can give rise to double count of emissions. The new Guidebook have to resolve this problems, but this was not the case • We have two kind of technologies: • the SNAP Group 0301 Combustion in boilers, gas turbines and stationary • the SNAP Groups 0302 Process furnaces without contact and 0303 Processes with contact

  5. 1st vs 2nd order draft evaluation & revision - 3 • For the first group the conditions are very similar to 1.A.1. An very simple example is the following: in the paper industry the main emissions arise from drying processes in which water vapour is used; this vapour come from a boiler, so the emission from this boiler is very similar to emissions in 1.A.1. Where these emissions are allocated? The only "additional" non boilers emissions from 1.A.2 can be emissions from evaporation of organic substances used in paper manufacturing that can evaporate in the drying process. The ”FOD" Guidebook don't take into account these last and report EFs for combustion that can be different from EF in 1.A.1. Then we have a lot of similar cases for example Combustion in Food Industry, Mechanic Industry, ecc. What emissions factors? We need a specific subsection? • Next we have old SNAP 0302 and 0303 group and related new chapters.

  6. 1st vs 2nd order draft evaluation & revision - 4 • In these chapters must be inserted only emissions come from processes in which special condition or the contact between fuel and materials produces different combustion characteristics and different EFs: essentially process furnaces. For these applications, all the existing documentation (and for example BREF of the IPPC directive) reports EFs in g pollutants/kg product. Also statistical data are available for production and not for energy consumption of single product (for example are available sinter production and fuel consumption in iron & steel industry but not fuel consumption in sinter plant). If the fuel approach is mandatory then: 1. It's necessary to develop specific emission factors, only from fuel, not to copy "old" EF that derive from another approach (example US EPA approach, that take into account the overall process 2. Specific fuel consumptions in GJ/Mg of product MUST BE REPORTED. INFORMATION EXISTS AND CAN BE RETRIEVED IN IPPC BREF DOCUMENT.

  7. 1st vs 2nd order draft evaluation & revision - 5 • CONCLUSION: The chapter was unacceptable! The documentation from BREF, the about separation between combustion and processes and of use of product approach ignored. • FD accept all the EP suggestion but we don’t have the time to review the chapters • A.4.b.i Residential plants • The tables contained a very large number of emission factors quoted as Guidebook (2006) but with different values. • FD revise the EF, news one are choerent with old GB but some problems exhist with Turgogas and Stationary Engines in connection with 1A

  8. 1st vs 2nd order draft evaluation & revision - 6 • B.1.b Solid fuel transformation • OK with scientific improv. (some minor corrections) • B.2.a.vi Geothermal energy extraction • NEW emissions factors from Italy proposed • B.2 Industrial Processes • Generally acceptable without scientific improvem. • B.3 Product use • Good, with scientific improv. Some integrations/ corrections needed • B.6 Waste • Generally acceptable but without scientific improv.

  9. Acceptance sheet (1) (1) The EP agree with new structure. In principle the Expert Panel comments have been accepted. However, as we need some more weeks to verify the completly new EFs inserted in the chapters. Comments in two or three weeks! (2) We agree about new structure of tables but need more time to review EFs combined with 1.a.1

  10. Acceptance sheet (2) (3) Observation to 1st order draft don't taken into consideration: Concawe considered the methodology as obsolete! Replace all with the sentence "For depots of gasoline in refinery refer to Tier3" (4) Osservation to 1st order draft don't taken into consideration. (5) Osservation to 1st order draft don't taken into consideration Convert the data from g/kg pig iron in g/kg sinter using appropriate change factor to compare with "state of the art" EFs (6) Osservation to 1st order draft don't taken into consideration YOU ACCEPTED TO USE BREF BUT NO CHANGE ARE MADE

  11. Acceptance sheet (3) (7) No EFs Consultant say “Chapter needs to be discussed. Where to collect all this information? All relevant pollutants was moved to NE and the emission factors are deleted, since they're all wrong!” (8) OLD - There is an emission factor of 200 kg/Mg for Leather Finishing from BREF that must be taken into account! Comment to Consultant Comment YES INSERT HERE (statistic given Mg of leather treated) (9) New EF for VOC is unclear I ask to discuss in EP (10) The activity 030313 Asphalt Concrete Plants was expired from new GB and I think must be inserted in a new or existing charter

  12. Acceptance sheet (4)

  13. Acceptance sheet (5)

More Related