Annexes A-D

Page Last modified 20 Apr 2016, 02:32 PM

ANNEX A: CORINAIR 90 QUESTIONNAIRES

ANNEX B: CHARACTERISTICS OF CORINAIR 90 DATABASES

ANNEX C: NATIONAL CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS

ANNEX D: PROPOSED SOFTWARE CHANGES FOR AIR EMISSIONS


ANNEX A CORINAIR 90 QUESTIONNAIRES

A questionnaire on the CORINAIR 90 methodology was sent out in early 1994. 16 out of the 30 participants returned completed questionnaires to the EEA:

EEA Members:

Belgium (Flemish)
Belgium (Walloon)
Germany
Spain
France
Luxembourg
Portugal
Finland
Norway
Sweden
UK

Eastern European Countries:

Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Slovenia

In 1995 the Air Emissions Topic Centre contacted seven countries who had not completed the questionnaire to establish their general views on the CORINAIR 90 methodology. The countries contacted were:

Greece
Ireland
Italy
Switzerland


Croatia
Slovakia
Romania
Russia

The main results of the questionnaire are discussed below. As only just over half of participants replied to the questionnaire in full the results can only be taken as indicative.

 

1. Resources

Between 1 to 2 man-years were generally required to compile CORINAIR 90, although some of the Eastern European countries compiling CORINAIR for the first time took 4 to 5 man-years.

 

2. Relationships with National Inventories and International Reporting Requirements

Only four countries used the CORINAIR database as the basis of a national methodology; in addition in Germany CORINAIR was used to help complete the national inventory, and in France, CORINAIR is initially developed in parallel with rough national estimates, and is then used as the national inventory as it is developed further. In six countries CORINAIR is used to reproduce estimates made in the national emissions inventory, and in the remaining four countries the two inventories are completely independent.

Just over half of countries (10) used the 11 main CORINAIR/EMEP source sectors to report to LRTAP, and half were planning for CORINAIR data to be used by EEA-TF in the preparation of EMEP data. Just under half were preparing greenhouse gas emissions data for the Framework Climate Change Convention using CORINAIR methodology and the proposed IPCC reporting format.

 

3. Reasons for Delay in Completing CORINAIR 90

The most common reported reasons for delay which were reported were all linked to data requirements (Table 1). Data was seen as difficult to find and data requirements as demanding; in addition waiting for the publication of official statistics and for data from various source sectors caused delay. For some countries official statistics for 1990 were not available until the end of 1992 or mid 1993, and in France and Germany, source data for some activities was not available until 1994. In some countries, data was only available in socio-economic categories and additional work was required to extract data in the technological categories required for CORINAIR. This was a particular problem in countries completing CORINAIR for the first time.

A lack of priority for CORINAIR work was also identified as a cause for concern. In some countries there is an emphasis on producing a ‘top down’ national inventory quickly first, before beginning work on CORINAIR.

Table 1 Reported Reasons for Delay in Completing CORINAIR 90*

Reason No. of countries No. of countries as % of  those responding (20)
Data difficult to find 15
Data requirements very demanding 13 65%
Dependent on data supply from various source sectors 13 65%
Dependent on publication of official statistics 11 55%
Priority given to other work 10 50%
Shortage of national funding 10 50%
Needed training in use of software 9 45%
Data requirements very complicated 8 40%
Software difficult to understand 7 35%
Shortage of CEC funding 7 35%
Late receipt of contract from national/regional customer 7 35%
Shortage of (experienced) staff 6 30%
Changes in software/data requirements lead to duplication of effort 5 25%
Late entry into CORINAIR programme 5 25%
Dependent on completion of emission estimates using national methodology 4 20%
Late reply from EEA-TF following request for help 3 15%
Late receipt of contract from CEC (EEA-TF or PHARE) 2 10%
Need to completely verify database before sending to CITEPA or Zierock/Samaras 2 10%
Staff switched/lost from CORINAIR during data build 2 10%
Late reply from CITEPA or Zierock/Samara with consistency check reports 0 0%
Late reply from CITEPA or Zierock/Samara following request for help 0 0%

* Based on replies from 16 countries returning questionnaire plus information from Croatia,
Romania, Slovakia and Russia.

 

4. Inconsistencies

The questionnaire revealed inconsistencies in the way that CORINAIR is compiled. Half of countries submitted estimates of CO2 emissions as the actual emissions from the exhaust, and half as ‘ultimate‘ CO2 which assumes that all the carbon in the exhaust will eventually be converted to CO2. Similarly, about half of countries included CO2 emissions from biomass burning and half excluded them.

 

5. Verification

The most common sources of information for verifying CORINAIR were emissions estimates made using the national methodology and emission factors in the Default Emission Factor Handbook (Table 2). National energy statistics and emission estimates from point source operators were also used in many countries.

 

Table 2 Other Information used to Verify CORINAIR 90

Verification against: No. of countries No. of countries as % of those responding (16)
National methodology emissions estimates 14 87%
Emission factors in Default Emission Factor Handbook 13 81%
National energy statistics 11 69%
Point source operators emissions estimates 10 62%
Emissions estimates from local/urban/regional inventories 7 44%
Other international energy statistics 5 31%
Eurostat emissions estimates 4 25%
EMEP emissions estimates 3 19%
OECD emissions estimates 3 19%
Eurostat energy statistics 1 6%
UNECE emission estimates 1 6%

 

6. CORINAIR Material and Software

CORINAIR and COPERT material (software and manuals/instructions) were rated as average, and additional information, check reports, progress meetings etc. as good. Although the use of English for all printed material caused few difficulties on average, 7 participants asked for material in an alternative language - French (3), German (2), Russian (1) and Portuguese (1).

The various aspects of the CORINAIR software were rated as average or good:

 

Average Good
Screen data entry Overall design
Speed of response Data Build - emissions calculations
File transfer (without screen interface)

Data Build
- definitions and data files
   allocation procedures
   checking procedures

Data Edit
- data files emissions files

Initialisation

Options - indexing

Options - backup/restore

Options - COPERT import

Options - empty temp files (very good)


There were also a number of specific comments on individual aspects of the software’s usability (Table 3).

With regard to the overall design, there were several calls for a Windows-based application of the software - the system was not felt to be user friendly by today’s standards, and data entry in the current software was found to be very time consuming, with a lot of duplication (e.g. area sources, ratio and emission factors have to be filled in one by one, fuel emission factors for point sources have to be repeated many times). These aspects could be remedied by using spreadsheets for data entry. It was also felt that it was not easy to aggregate data and to produce summary tables, or e.g. to produce tables giving all the data on one particular point source, or one SNAP code. At least two countries had transferred data from CORINAIR files to their own database systems to allow them to produce tables, cross-check data, and edit results.

 

Table 3 Comments on Aspects of the CORINAIR and COPERT Software*

CORINAIR Comments
Screen data entry very slow, lot of duplication; too many keystrokes necessary to enter data; problem with numeric fields which do not have decimal places;
Speed of response calculations take too much time;
File transfer (without screen interface) non-existent;
Data build - data files for some classification groups it is impossible to add new items such as types of units; for area activities when the default socio-economic variable (BASEA) is not used, problems with the conversion ration which must be defined;
Data build - allocation procedures time consuming, very slow to update; slow; needs error messages stored simply; incomplete- lacks a good facility to aggregate data;
Data build - emissions calculations very slow - need to process after each correction to view the result; slow and old fashioned;
Data build - checking procedures very slow - need to process after each correction to view the result; not possible to choose printer ports; too many messages, many of which have little information value;
Data edit - data files large number of codes make the screens difficult to understand; impossible to do some types of queries (e.g. to view LPS’s with an activity rate above a certain level);
Data edit - emission files not possible to look at emissions from separate parts of an LPS;
Initialisation problems when CORINAIR is in use on a PC in network (LAN); need to change parameters and reboot at start of each session;
Options - backup/restore backup is only possible to diskette; not operational with DOS 6; problems -does not work properly;
COPERT In COPERT there is no clear differentiation between data and procedure files (except for COPERT/CORINAIR transfer) - this applies to file transfer, data build, definitions and data files , data edit files and emission files; Screen data entry - spreadsheet design not so good;

* Each of the comments in the Table were made by one expert only

One country felt that CORINAIR should allow more flexible input of data on point sources; it suggested point source data should be entered whatever the size of the source, and CORINAIR should then have the capability to select large point sources through a given selection criteria.

Other comments included:

  • weighted emission factors have to be calculated ‘manually’ when specific emission factors are defined;
  • it is not possible to define fuels and area sources everywhere;
  • in EDIT, a unit for emission factors would be helpful; an opportunity to choose the fuel code would be helpful;
  • in EMISSION, for sub-codes such as 0301XX, the main code (30100) is included in SUMMARY, so values are doubled;
  • graphical representation of data would be useful;
  • the software should make using a ‘bottom-up’ approach easier;
  • it would be helpful if the software allowed the definition of new activity units.

6. Surrogate Definitions

Table 4 Surrogate Parameters provided for CORINAIR 90

Type of surrogate data Provided Not available Not provided
but available
Provided Not available Not provided but available
Nos. of road vehicles 8 1 5 50% 6% 31%
Distances travelled by road vehicles 4 2 7 25% 13% 44%
Nos. of non-road vehicles 6 4 2 38% 25% 13%
Forest area 9 0 5 56% 0% 31%
Agricultural area 10 1 3 63% 6% 19%
Other land use 4 2 5 25% 13% 31%
Nos. of households 4 1 9 25% 6% 56%
Nos. of employees/workers 5 0 8 31% 0% 50%

 

7. COPERT

6 countries directly used COPERT, 2 used it to cross check data, and 8 did not use it all. Some countries expressed difficulty in obtaining data in the format required for inclusion in COPERT e.g. mileage per vehicle.

 

8. SNAP Codes

Suggestions for SNAP codes which should be subdivided, added, or aggregated or deleted are shown in Tables 5a, 5b and 5c. More general comments included:

Additions/completeness

  • Some countries suggested that particular SNAP codes (02, 03.03, 04.03, 04.04, 04.05, 04.06, 06.03, 06.04) should include an ‘other’ category for completeness, and two countries suggested that every SNAP code should finish with an ‘other category’. Transparency could be maintained by attaching comments to such categories.
  • Category 11, ‘Nature’ should be more comprehensive if it is to be used to compile a complete inventory of emissions of CO2 and other pollutants.

Areas for improved clarity/definitions

  • One area causing concern to several countries was processes where emissions arise both from combustion and from the process itself and the material used in it (e.g. the pulp and paper industry, cement and glass production). It was suggested that each sub-code in 03.03 should be split to allow for emissions from combustion and for emissions from non-fuel materials which are combusted.
  • It should be clearly specified how to assign consumption of fuel between subgroup 3.01 (industrial combustion in boilers, gas turbines and stationary engines), and subgroups 03.02/03.03 (process furnaces without contact/processes with contact) for economic sectors which have both types of activities.
  • For some activities there should be a distinction between ‘immediate’ and ‘lagged’ emissions.
  • SNAP codes should be accompanied by other nomenclatures such as
  • NAPACT (ISIC, NACE...) economic-sectoral
  • NAPTEC -techniques
  • NAPCONT - control reduction technologies
  • NAPFUE - fuels
  • Thought should be given to SNAP codes where emissions might be considered to be non-anthropogenic - e.g. waste handling and combustion of black liquor in the pulp and paper industry .

Deletion/Aggregation

  • One country suggested activities causing relatively low emissions (<0.1% of emission total) should be deleted. Another suggested that before deleting any codes, checking whether SNAP codes were empty because there is no activity or because of lack of data.

Table 6 shows reasons why it was not possible for countries to complete the CORINAIR database - either because the activity definition was unclear, or activity data or emission factors were unavailable. Some of the comments reflect ambiguities already mentioned above (e.g. the split between combustion and process dependent emissions in some industries); other problems are probably particular to one country. The main areas where several countries experienced problems were solvent use (06), other transport (08), and nature (011) .

In some countries, the mismatch between SNAP codes and categories used for socio-economic data had caused some problems in data collection for some sectors.

Table 5a SNAP codes to be Sub-divided

Code Description To be split into:
02 Commercial, institutional and residential combustion plants commercial
residential
tertiary
02.00.02 Commercial, institutional and residential combustion plants - combustion plants <50 MW residential
non-residential
03.03.11 Processes with contact - cement dry method
wet method
04.07 Cooling plants ammonia plants
freon plants
04.02.08 Iron and steel processes - rolling mills hot rolling
cold rolling
05.01.02 Underground coal mining with methane emission reduction
without methane emission reduction
05.05.01 Refinery dispatch station railway tanker
pipeline tanker
06.01.01 to 06.01.04 Solvent use paint application using water solvent
using non-water solvent
06.01.02 Other industrial paint application automobile repair
06.04.02 Other uses of solvents -fat, edible and non-edible oil extraction grinding
06.04.03 Other uses of solvents -printing packaging
edition printing
06.04.04 Other uses of solvents - fat, edible and non-edible oil extraction grinding
degreasing
06.04.06 Other uses of solvents - preservation of wood impregnation
coating
06.04.07 Underseal treatment of vehicles undersealing
treatment of hollow spaces
06.04.06 Domestic use of solvents use of cosmetics
06.04.09 Vehicle dewaxing vehicle dewaxing
vehicle waxing
08.03 Inland waterways inland waterways
coastal navigation
09.01 Waste water treatment refinery industry
municipal
09.07 Open burning of agricultural waste open burning of
agricultural waste
open burning of forestry wastes

 

Table 5b Activities to be Added

To Code Description Add
03.02 Process Furnaces without Contact drying kilns (e.g. in car manufacture)
03.03 Process with contact sugar
04.03 non-combustion processes in ferrous metal industries production of silicon carbide
04.05 Production processes- organic chemical industry ethylene glycol
aniline
cyclohexane
ethylene dichloride
06.03 Chemical products manufacturing or processing additional substances for chemical production
processing of synthetic materials (excluding 06.03.02)
06.04 Other uses of solvents and related activities other industrial cleaning
protective coatings for the construction industry (excluding O6.04.06)
metal treatment
pesticides
other industrial applications
10.04 Animal breeding poultry
10.04 Animal breeding (enteric fermentation) tame reindeer
10.05 Animal breeding (excretion) tame reindeer
11 Nature Land use changes
Others? (as relevant to IPCC/OECD reporting format)
? not specified by respondent charcoal production
? not specified by respondent nickel or other non-ferrous metal production
? not specified by respondent production of soda fluffy
? not specified by respondent furnace induction for cast iron
? not specified by respondent coal drying
? not specified by respondent caprolactam
? not specified by respondent well testing

 

Table 5c Activities to be Deleted or Aggregated

Code Description  
04.04.11 graphite delete
04.06.09 bark gasifier delete
04.06.12
04.06.13
04.06.14
Cement
Lime
Glass
aggregate
09.08.00 Latrines delete
11.07.02 termites delete

 

Table 6 Reasons for Incomplete Database

SNAP
code
Activity definition Activity definition unclear Activity data unavailable Emission
factors unavailable
Note
1 PUBLIC POWER, COGENERATION AND DISTRICT HEATING PLANTS
10104 GAS TURBINES   *    
10105 STATIONARY ENGINES   *    
10204 GAS TURBINES   *    
10205 STATIONARY ENGINES   *    
2 COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND RESIDENTIAL COMBUSTION PLANTS
20003 GAS TURBINES   *    
20004 STATIONARY ENGINES   *    
3 INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION PLANTS AND PROCESSES WITH COMBUSTION
30104 GAS TURBINES   *    
30105 STATIONARY ENGINES   *    
30311 CEMENT *     Confusion with 40612 and 40613, cement and glass, non combustion processes
30314 FLAT GLASS *      
30318 MINERAL WOOL   *    
30320 FINE CERAMICS MATERIAL *      
4 NON COMBUSTION PROCESSES
40100 PRODUCTION PROCESSES - PETROLEUM INDUSTRIES *     Difficult to differentiate between emissions from constituent parts and overlap with refinery furnaces (30201)
40302 FERRO ALLOYS * * unclear  
40406 AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE   *    
40411 GRAPHITE   *    
40500 PRODUCTION PROCESSES -ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY In addition to the problems reported below one country reported general difficulties with activity data and emissions factors for all 405XX codes
40503 1,2 DICHLOROETH (EXCEPT 040505)   *    
40505 1,2 DICHLOROETH + VINYLCHL (BALANCED PROCESS) *      
40513 STYRENE-BUTADIENE LATEX *      
40514 STYRENE-BUTADIENE RUBBER (SBR) *      
40515 ACRYLONIT. BUTADIENE STYRENE (ABS) RESINS *      
40522 STORAGE AND HANDLING OF CHEMICAL PRODUCTS * ** **  

Key: * reported by one country; ** reported by two countries

Table 6 Reasons for Incomplete Database (cont’d)

SNAP code Activity definition Activity definition unclear Activity data unavailable Emission factors unavailable Note
40601 CHIP BOARD *      
40606 WINE   * *  
40607 BEER   * *  
40608 SPIRITS   * *  
40609 BARK GASIFIER * ** **  
40610 ASPHALT ROOFING MATERIALS   ** **  
40611 ROAD PAVING WITH ASPHALT   * *  
40612 CEMENT *     Confusion with 30311 and 30314
40613 GLASS *      
40700 PRODUCTION PROCESSES - COOLING PLANTS * * *  
5 EXTRACTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FOSSIL FUELS
50103 STORAGE OF SOLID FUELS *      
50201 LAND BASED EXTRACTION, 1ST TREATMENT AND LOADING OF LIQUID FUELS *      
50502 OFF-SHORE EXTRACTION, 1ST TREATMENT AND LOADING OF LIQUID FUELS *      
50302 OTHER LAND BASED EXTRACTION, 1ST TREATMENT AND LOADING OF GASEOUS FUELS *      
50303 OFF-SHORE EXTRACTION, 1ST TREATMENT AND LOADING OF GASEOUS FUELS *      
50502 TRANSPORT AND DEPOTS FOR GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION   * partially    
50602 PIPELINE COMPRESSOR STATIONS   * partially    
6 SOLVENT USE
60101 MANUFACTURE OF AUTOMOBILES   *    
60102 OTHER INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS   **    
60103 CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDINGS   *    
60104 DOMESTIC USE   *    
60201 METAL DEGREASING   **    
60202 DRY CLEANING   *    
60300 SOLVENT USE -CHEMICAL PRODUCTS MANUFACT/PROCESSING     In addition, one country reported general difficulties with activity data and emissions factors for all 603XX codes.
60301 POLYESTER PROCESSING *      

Key: * reported by one country; ** reported by two countries


Table 6 Reasons for Incomplete Database (cont’d)

SNAP code Activity definition Activity definition unclear Activity data unavailable Emission factors unavailable Note
60302 POLYVINYLCHLORIDE PROCESS *      
60303 POLYURETHANE PROCESSING *      
60304 POLYSTYRENE FOAM PROCESS *      
60305 RUBBER PROCESSING *      
60305 PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTION MANUFACTURING   **    
60310 ASPHALT BLOWING   *    
60311 ADHESIVE TAPES MANUFACTURE * * partially *  
60401 GLASS WOOL ENDUCTION   *    
60402 MINERAL WOOL ENDUCTION   **    
60404 FAT EDIBLE AND NON-EDIBLE OIL EXTRACTION *      
60405 APPLICATION OF GLUES AND ADHESIVES * *    
60406 PRESERVATION OF WOOD *      
60407 UNDERSEAL TREATMENT OF VEHICLES   ** *  
60408 DOMESTIC SOLVENT USE (OTHER THAN PAINT)   ** *  
8 OTHER TRANSPORT
80100 OFF ROAD VEHICLES AND MACHINES       One country reported unclear activity definitions for all 801XX
codes; two countries reported that activity data and emissions factors were partially or wholly unavailable
80103 INDUSTRY   **    
80104 MILITARY   *    
80105 HOUSEHOLD/GARDENING   ** *  
80400 MARINE ACTIVITIES   *unclear *  
80401 HARBOURS *      
80500 AIRPORTS (LTO CYCLES AND GROUND ACTIVITIES) * * * For ground activities
9 WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL One country reported that data was incomplete and unavailable and that emissions factors were unavailable for all code 9 data
90100 WASTE WATER TREATMENT *      
90203 FLARING IN OIL INDUSTRY   * *  
90204 FLARING IN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES * * *  
90300 SLUDGE SPREADING   * *  

Key: * reported by one country; ** reported by two countries


Table 6 Reasons for Incomplete Database (cont’d)

SNAP code Activity definition Activity definition unclear Activity data unavailable Emission factors unavailable Note
90600 BIOGAS PRODUCTION *      
90700 OPEN BURNING OF AGRICULTURAL WASTES *      
90800 LATRINES   * *  
10 AGRICULTURE One country reported that emission factors for methane and NMVOCs were unavailable for all SNAP code 10 activities
100100 CULTURES WITH FERTILISERS       One country reported that it was not possible to distinguish between data for 10100 and 10200
100200 CULTURES WITHOUT FERTILISERS        
100510 FUR ANIMALS * *    
11 NATURE       One country reported that an emission factor for methane was unavailable for all SNAP code 11 activities. Another country queried where scrublands and open forests should be included.
110501 UNDRAINED AND BRACKISH MARSHES *      
110502 DRAINED MARSHES *      
110602 RAISED BOGS * * *  
110603 SHALLOW SALTWATERS * * *  
110604 GROUND WATERS * * *  
110605 DRAINAGE WATERS   ** **  
110606 RIVERS   *    
110607 DITCHES AND CANALS   * *  
110701 OPEN SEA     *  
110702 TERMITES   * *  
110800 MAMMALS   *    
110900 NEAR SURFACE DEPOSITS ** * *  

Key: * reported by one country; ** reported by two countries


ANNEX B CHARACTERISTICS OF CORINAIR 90 DATABASES

Table B.1 The number of area source data defined by each country in CORINAIR 90 is given below. They show the range of approaches adopted to completing CORINAIR 90 by individual countries.

  Rubrics Fuels Activities Territorial units Activity rates Emission factors
Belgium (Flemish Region) 20 62 184 29 2297 2705
Belgium (Wallonie region) 29 32 153 28 2884 1232
Germany (former west) 10 84 268 366 16405 ?
Germany (former east) 12 84 182 229 4829 5060
Denmark 17 64 175 21 3642 952
Spain 200 142 509 78 39702 3616
France 109 260 516 128 50335 5316
Greece 0 12 228 67 12568 1665
Ireland 0 28 95 12 1140 683
Italy 4 20 242 127 17134 3491
Luxembourg 11 22 124 1 124 579
Netherlands 48 25 683 57 15702 683
Portugal 22 65 170 38 5780 2256
United Kingdom 1 22 173 95 16340 573
Austria 27 19 115 10 1150 549
Finland 27 18 229 14 836 894
Norway 76 21 187 23 4301 1559
Sweden 2 91 124 25 1708 1836
             
Bulgaria 44 29 283 11 2322 1507
Czech Republic* 1 177 188 10 1276 4202
Hungary 2 34 144 147 2823 438
Poland 18 148 164 51 8364 761
Romania 8 14 171 44 4284 15643
Slovak Republic 22 48 138 43 5680 862
Estonia 3 18 86 19 1126 2322
Latvia 8 24 162 12 1104 3158
Lithuania 8 13 99 12 1032 3900
Slovenia 58 17 57 75 58 185



ANNEX C NATIONAL CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS


Country All Open SNAP Groups restricted 1 Loca-
tion
2 Source data 3
Opera-
tions
4
Activity data
5
Emiss-
ions
Comments
Belgium-Flemish YES              
Belgium-Walloon ?              
Denmark YES              
Germany ?              
Greece NO Refineries O X X X X  
Spain NO LPS O O X X O except LCPs LCP data more restricted
France NO ALL LPS O X X X O  
Ireland YES              
Italy   ALL LPS O O O X O  
Luxembourg YES              
Netherlands NO ALL LPS O X X X O  
Portugal NO ALL LPS X X X X O Coordinates restricted
United Kingdom YES              
Austria ?              
Finland ?              
Norway NO 3 & 4 O X X X O Area source activity/emission factor restrictions
Sweden O LPS              
Switzerland ?              
Albania ?              
Bulgaria YES              
Croatia ?              
Czech Republic NO All LPS X X O X O Coordinates restricted
Estonia YES              
Hungary NO All LPS O X O O O Capacity restricted
Latvia YES              
Lithuania ?              
Poland   All LPS X X X X O Coordinates restricted
Romania ?              
Russia ?              
Slovakia   All LPS O X X X O  
Slovenia YES              

Key X confidential

O unrestricted

? No reply received to questionnaire



ANNEX D
PROPOSED SOFTWARE CHANGES FOR AIR EMISSIONS 94

1 Proposed Changes

It is proposed that the following changes are made to the CORINAIR 90 software by the end of 1995.

 

1.1 Data model

Two new elements will be introduced:

  • A ‘National Energy Statistics’ module where national energy data can be entered, and an ‘Energy Balance Process’ where a comparison can be made between the national energy statistics and estimates of fuel use in the emissions inventory.
  • A facility to enter data at a national aggregated level.

1.2 Inventory Specifications

New pollutants (heavy metals, POPs and possibly others) will be included. SNAP 90 will be modified to include sources of the new pollutants and to ensure as good a compatibility with IPCC requirements as possible.

1.3 Software Facilities

Default emissions factors from the UNECE guidebook will be included in the revised software.

Some data handling and input facilities will be improved:

  • there will be an option to ‘call-up’ default emissions factors stored in the software;
  • a ‘bottom-up’ function will be introduced, i.e. it will be possible to aggregate spatial data (activity rates or emission factors);
  • some other changes suggested in the CORINAIR 90 questionnaires (Annex A) will be implemented. For example, it will be possible to edit aggregated emissions results without an intermediate ‘data build’ step.

2. Benefits of the Proposed Approach

The main benefits of the proposed changes are:

  • It will be possible to use the revised software to complete both a detailed spatial inventory and to produce national annual totals.
  • The revised software will be fully compatible with the CORINAIR 90 software as the changes will extend, rather than modify the structure of the CORINAIR 90 data model.

This compatibility with the existing CORINAIR 90 structure will have other advantages. Firstly, countries which have already developed a procedure to transfer their national inventories into a CORINAIR 90 format, will not have to undertake major revisions to the procedure. Secondly, it will be possible to provide a starting point for the Air Emissions 94 inventory by prefilling the revised software with the CORINAIR 90 data.


3. Conclusions

The proposed changes take into account the main issues identified in this scoping study:

  • the production of both annual national totals and more detailed spatial inventories;
  • achieving convergence between these two processes
  • ensuring that a comparison with national energy balances is carried out as part of a validation process;
  • the need to speed up the inventory process by improving the usability of the software and allowing the CORINAIR 90 data to be used as a basis for the 1994 inventory.

The revised version of the CORINAIR software will be distributed to national experts at the end of 1995.

lijn.gif (900 bytes)

up.gif (859 bytes)
left.gif (869 bytes)
</head0
European Environment Agency (EEA)
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Phone: +45 3336 7100