TAP2002 Ships

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 dont 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 dont 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)