FRENCH PM WORK IN PROGRESS

1
FRENCH PM WORK IN PROGRESS
Jean-Pierre Fontelle
With the contribution of
Sonia Babu, Jean-Pierre Chang, Carole Levy,
Bénédicte Oudart, Emanuel Rivière
2
PM INVENTORY

• Previous inventory (before mid 90s)
• TSP only

• Limited number of sources

• New inventory (supported by the French Ministry
  of Environment )
• Geographical area France

• TSP, PM10, PM2.5, PM1.0 (primary sources)

• Annual time series from 1990 to 1998

• 200 types of sources all defined in SNAP 97
  additional sources

3
SECTORS CONSIDERED

• road transport
• exhaust, brake, tyre and clutch wear.

Mobile sources

• other mobile sources
• air traffic, railways, inland waterways, sea
  transport, machinery, household and gardening.

Stationary sources

• Combustion industrial and non industrial

• Agriculture

• Nature

• Waste incineration

4
COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
Goal to complete and to validate the French PM
inventory
Observations high discrepancies in

• source coverage

• methodologies

• emission factors

• emissions by sectors

• total emissions

5
SECTORS CONSIDERED

• Industrial processes

• iron and steel industries,

• cement, lime, plaster, glass production,

• road paving,

• bricks and tiles, fine ceramic materials,

• non-ferrous metal industries, aluminium, lead
  and zinc,

• adipic acid, chipboard,

• sugar and flour production,

• storage and transport of cereals, etc...

6
RESULTS IN BRIEF
7
TEACHINGS

• Problem in defining the inventory fields (eg
  resuspension ?)

• Not complete (missing sources)

• Lack of knowledge (missing and obsolete data)

• Data from foreign studies possibly misused

• Large discrepancies between various sources of
  information

• Extremely high uncertainty

8
COMPARISON OF INVENTORIES
Comparison between TNO (edit.1997), IIASA
(edit.2000) results and other national inventories
related to a limited number of sources (35 of
sources considered for TSP)
9
SOME EXAMPLES

• Combust. in manufac. industry combustion
  plants gt 50MW

• Combustion in households

10
SOME EXAMPLES

• District heating plants combustion plants lt
  50MW

• Aluminium production (electrolysis)

11
SOME EXAMPLES
12
EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENCES IN SOURCE COVERAGE
13
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SOURCES

• Sugar production

• Charcoal manufacture

• Flour production

• Smoking

• Fireworks

• Tilling of arable land crops

• Explosives production

• Construction

• Wood work

• Road abrasion

• Cereals handling

• Quarrying

• Smoking meat

• Harvesting

• Shoes sole wear

• Use of BBQ

Conclusion SNAP and other nomenclatures to be
revised ?
14
OBSERVATIONS
From discussion between experts

• limited knowledge in most countries

• very limited number of available inventories

• need for more monitoring campaigns

• fugitive emissions much more complex to
  estimate and probably represent a significant
  amount of total emissions

• stress politicians on the high level of
  uncertainties and risk to use irrelevant
  information when elaborating regulation
  involving high economic impact

15
CONCLUSION

• French inventory to complete and to improve

• Need for exchange of knowledge between experts,
  initiatives for cooperation is welcome,
  especially regarding transparency of data

• As primary sources represent a minor part of
  total PM, would it not more efficient to
  focus essentially on secondary sources ?

• Need to consolidate PM inventories before use
  by policy makers

Further French work

• Revision of the French Inventory in 2001 by
  CITEPA

• Comparison study on methodology used by
  different countries to carry out PM inventories
  (final report expected for September 2001) by
  CITEPA

• Projection study, 2015-2020 (expected for
  October 2001) by CITEPA and INERIS

16
CITEPAs web sitewww.citepa.org