Development of NFR

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).
13xYES, 2xNO, 4xNo opinion

• 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 (ala SNAP) into industrial
  sectors,
• PM sources e.g., manufacture of furniture,
  sawmills, shipment and handling of bulk
  industrial and agricultural products, etc.

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).
13xYES, 3xNO, 3xYES/NO

• NFR is often generated from SNAP97 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.

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).
7xYES, 11xNO, 1xYES/NO

• 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.

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).
2xDONE, 8xSMALL, 2xSIGNIFICANT, 7xNo opinion

• 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.

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).
12xYES, 7xNO

• NFR reporting linked to Guidebook that in turn is
  based on SNAPupdate 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.

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)
• 2CMetal 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

• 3APaint application
• 3A1 Decorative paint application (includes
  domestic and architectural paint use, see EU
  Product Directive)
• 3A2 Industrial paint application
• 3BDegreasing and Dry Cleaning
• 3B1 Degreasing (SNAP 060201)
• 3B2 Dry cleaning (SNAP 060202)
• 3B3 Other (please specify)

13
Proposal for splits (3) Draft for discussion

• 3DOther
• 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
  3A2Industrial 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?