Compliance With EU Air Quality Limit Values - A First Set .
Service Contract onMonitoring and Assessmentof Sectorial Implementation Actions(ENV.C.3/SER/2011/0009)Compliance withEU Air Quality Limit Values A First Set ofSensitivity andOptimization AnalysesTSAP Report #8Version 1.0Editor:Markus AmannInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis IIASANovember 2012
The authorsThis report was compiled by Markus Amann, Jens Borken-Kleefeld, Gregor Kiesewetter, Peter Rafaj andFabian Wagner, all working at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg,Austria.AcknowledgementsThis report was produced under the Service Contract on Monitoring and Assessment of SectorialImplementation Actions (ENV.C.3/SER/2011/0009) of DG-Environment of the European Commission.DisclaimerThe views and opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent the positions of IIASA or itscollaborating and supporting organizations.The orientation and content of this report cannot be taken as indicating the position of the EuropeanCommission or its services.
Executive SummaryThis report provides additional information to the baseline and optimizedscenarios that have been developed for the review and revision of theThematic Strategy on Air Pollution in TSAP Reports #6 and #7.The report examines the implications of different assumptions on theimplementation of the Euro-6 emission standards for light duty dieselvehicles on compliance with NO2 air quality limit values in Europe. For thebaseline assumptions of the TSAP-2012 baseline scenario, i.e., a decline ofreal-driving emission in two stages down to 1.5 times the value of test cyclevalue in 2018, it is estimated that almost all AIRBASE stations that havebeen modelled in this exercise would achieve the NO2 limit values by 2030at the latest.However, in the least optimistic sensitivity case, i.e., under the assumptionof a failure of Euro-6 (no change in real-driving emissions compared toEuro-4), about 100 out of the 1173 AIRBASE monitoring stations would stillremain in non-compliance with the limit value in 2030.A second analysis examines the optimization results presented in TSAPReport #7 in more detail and provides, for each of the optimized scenarios,the sectors in which emission reductions would occur in the cost-optimalcases. These emission reductions will lead to lower background pollutionconcentrations in Europe, which will affect PM10 levels within cities. It isestimated, e.g., for the high ambition case, that in 2030 the number ofstations for which non-compliance is robustly estimated will decline byabout 20%. The number of stations for which compliance seems possiblebut not certain would fall by 30% compared to the baseline. In contrast, theoptimized scenarios do not yield significant improvements in thecompliance with NO2 limit values, as the series of scenarios did not considerfurther measures for road vehicle emissions.Finally, an initial assessment of current and future emissions of mercury inEurope suggests for the TSAP-2012 baseline a decline of Hg emissions of22% in 2020 and about 30% in 2030 (relative to 2005), mainly as aconsequence of lower coal use in the power sector. Full implementation ofthe available technical emission controls, especially of certain measures toreduce PM emissions, could eliminate Hg emissions in the EU by anotherthird, so that in 2030 the total release of Hg in the EU could be more than50% lower than in 2005.Page 1
More information on the InternetMore information about the GAINS methodology and interactive access to input data and results is available atthe Internet at http://gains.iiasa.ac.at/TSAP.Page 2
Table of contents1Introduction . 51.12Compliance with NO2 air quality limit values under different assumptions for Euro-6 . 62.1Future NOx emissions under different assumptions on the effectiveness of Euro-6 standards . 62.1.1Sensitivity cases . 62.1.2Impacts on NOx emissions . 62.23Structure of the report . 5Compliance with NO2 limit values . 8Cost-optimized scenarios: Emission reduction measures and compliance with air quality limit values . 103.1Cost-effective portfolios of emission reduction measures . 103.2Compliance with PM10 and NO2 limit values. 154Mercury emissions of the TSAP-2012 baseline and MTFR scenarios . 175Conclusions . 19Page 3
List of acronymsBATBest Available Technologybblbarrel of oilboebarrel of oil equivalentCAFEClean Air For Europe Programme of the European CommissionCAPRIAgricultural model developed by the University of BonnCH4MethaneCLRTAPConvention on Long-range Transboundary Air PollutionCO2Carbon dioxideCCSCarbon Capture and StorageEC4MACSEuropean Consortium for Modelling Air Pollution and Climate StrategiesEMEPEuropean Monitoring and Evaluation ProgrammeETSEmission Trading System of the European Union for CO2 emissionsEUEuropean UnionGAINSGreenhouse gas - Air pollution Interactions and Synergies modelGDPGross domestic productGHGGreenhouse gasesHgMercuryIEDIndustrial Emissions DirectiveIIASAInternational Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisIPPCIntegrated Pollution Prevention and Control (directive)ktkilotons 10 tonsLCPLarge Combustion Plants (directive)N2ONitrous oxideNECNational Emission CeilingsNH3AmmoniaNMVOCNon-methane volatile organic compoundsNOxNitrogen oxidesN2ONitrous oxidesO3OzonePJPetajoule 10 joulePM10Fine particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 µmPM2.5Fine particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 µmPRIMESEnergy Systems Model of the National Technical University of AthensSNAPSelected Nomenclature for Air Pollutants; Sector aggregation used in the CORINAIR emissioninventory systemSO2Sulphur dioxideTSAPThematic Strategy on Air PollutionUNFCCCUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeVOCVolatile organic compounds315Page 4
1IntroductionAs an input to the review and revision of the EU airpolicy in 2013, IIASA analysed for a range of futureemission scenarios their impacts on air quality.Baseline emission scenarios and the scope forfurther emission reductions have been presentedin TSAP Report #1 (M. Amann, J. Borken-Kleefeld,et al., 2012). TSAP Report #6 (M. Amann, I. Bertok,et al., 2012) examined the health andenvironmental impacts of these scenarios, as wellas the likely compliance with EU air quality limitvalues for PM10 and NO2.While the TSAP-2012 baseline employsassumptions about the effectiveness and timing ofthe forthcoming Euro-6 limit values that areconsidered as most likely, there is considerableuncertainty about these issues. As has beenpointed out in version 2 of TSAP Report #5(Borken-Kleefeld&Ntziachristos,2012)conceivable different realizations of Euro-6 wouldhave significant impacts on emissions of NOx frommobile sources, and thus on national totalemissions. This report examines the implications ofthese sensitivity scenarios presented in TSAPReport #6 on the compliance with air quality limitvalues of NO2.Furthermore, TSAP Report #7 (Wagner et al., 2012)explores the scope for cost-effective emissionreductions in 2025 and 2030 that go beyondcurrent legislation. While it presents for each yearthree scenarios with different environmentalambition levels, due to time constraints the reportcould not include an analysis of such costoptimized emission controls on compliance withair quality limit values.This TSAP Report # 8 report presents for the Euro6 sensitivity cases and the cost-optimized emissionreduction scenarios estimates about compliancewith air quality limit values for PM10 and NO2.The analyses employs the new feature that hasbeen developed for the GAINS model to estimatefuture compliance with air quality limit values forAIRBASE monitoring stations. This methodologyemploys a ‘hybrid’ downscaling approach, whichdetermines for street canyon and hot spotAIRBASE stations the differences in observedconcentrations to the measurements at thenearest background observation sites. It relatesthese differences to corresponding quantities thatcan be derived from available models. This makesit possible to modify the contributions of thedifferent source types for future emission controlscenarios. A brief summary of this methodology isprovided in TSAP Report #6 (M. Amann, J. BorkenKleefeld, et al., 2012), and a full description willappear in a separate forthcoming TSAP Report.An further section provides first estimates ofmercury emissions for the TSAP-2012 baseline andMTFR scenarios.1.1 Structure of the reportThe remainder of this report is organized asfollows: Section 2 of this report examinescompliance with NO2 air quality limit values for theseries of sensitivity cases on the effectiveness ofEuro-6 standards that has been developed inversion 2 of the TSAP Report #4. Section 3 providesadditional detail on the optimization scenarios ofTSAP Report #7; it presents the sectorialcomposition of optimized emission reductions forall five pollutants, and assesses the implications ofthese measures on future compliance with PM10and NO2 air quality limit values. Mercury emissionsof the TSAP-2012 baseline and MTFR scenarios arepresented in Section 4, and conclusions are drawnin Section 5.Page 5
2Compliance with NO2 air quality limit values underdifferent assumptions for Euro-62.1 Future NOx emissions under different assumptions on the effectiveness ofEuro-6 standardsIt has been pointed out in Borken-Kleefeld &Ntziachristos, 2012 that one of the most importantuncertainties about the future NOx developmentrelates to emissions from light duty diesel vehiclesunder real-world driving conditions. The (revised)TSAP-2012 baseline scenario assumes from 2014onwards a stepwise decrease of real-drivingemissions with the introduction of the Euro-6emission standard. Second generation EURO 6.b(from 2018 onwards) light duty diesel vehicles areassumed to emit only 120 mg NOx/km at averagereal-world driving, given the limit value over thetype approval cycle of 80 mg/km. For comparison,Euro-5 vehicles are measured at almost 870 mgNOx/km under real-world driving Hausberger,2010. First measurements on premium-classvehicles have confirmed the technical feasibility ofthe low value with SCR technology under realworld driving Demuynck et al., n.d.; Hausberger,2012.controls, e.g., by on-board PEMS or random cycletesting.2.1.1It is assumed that Euro-6 vehicles are introduced in2015, but they only deliver emission reductionsproportional to the ratio of the emission limitsover Euro-5, i.e., about 380 mg/km. This is the‘default’ approach used by COPERT 4 and theHandbook Emission Factors.Sensitivity casesAs this development is however not certain,sensitivity cases explore how much total NOxemissions would be affected by different realdriving emissions from light duty diesel vehicles.To span a range of possible developments thefollowing cases are considered:The baseline scenarioAs a most realistic assumption, the TSAP-2012baseline assumes a stepwise reduction of realdriving emissions, such that a first generation ofEuro-6 vehicles (EURO-6.a) would deliver areduction over Euro-5 proportional to the declineof the emission limit values by 2014, i.e., about380 mg/km. The second generation vehicles (Euro6.b) are assumed to emit on average 1.5 times thelimit value under real-world driving from 2018onwards, i.e., 120 mg/km. This reduction mayresult from the introduction of real-drive emissionPage 6The legislation caseThis case assumes average real-driving NOxemissions of Euro-6 diesel LDV equal to the testcycle emission limit value of 80 mg/km from 2015onwards. With current knowledge, this seems alow emission scenario.The delayed steps caseThis case assumes that the introduction of thesecond step of the baseline case, i.e., the Euro-6.bstandards with real-driving emissions of 120mg/km would only be available from 2020onwards due to a delayed introduction of realdrive emission controls.The proportional reductions caseEuro-6 Euro-4Here it is assumed that real-driving emissions fromEuro-6 diesel LDVs are only 30% lower than thoseof the previous generation and thus similar tothose of Euro-4 vehicles. This pessimistic scenariowould correspond to historic experience that newemission limit values did not result in reduced realdriving emissions. It is thus a scenario where thelegislation fails.2.1.2Impacts on NOx emissionsAs shown earlier, NOx emissions from all roadvehicles in the EU- 27 are projected to decreasefurther from about 5000 kt in the year 2005.
A potential delay in the timing of the Euro-6.bemission step to the year 2020 would result in120 kt and 95 kt higher NOx emissions in 2020 and2030, or 6% and 13% more than in the baselinescenario, respectively.If Euro-6 vehicles would only deliver a proportionalreduction on real-driving, NOx emissions from lightduty diesel vehicles would be 130 kt higher in theyear 2020; in the year 2030 they would be morethan twice as high compared to the baselineprojection. As a consequence, NOx emission fromall road vehicles would be higher by 7% and 60%If Euro-6 vehicles would bring only smallreductions and emit, e.g., the same as Euro-4vehicles in real-driving, emissions from light dutydiesel vehicles would only slightly decline after2015 to about 1200 kt. In that case, emissionsfrom all road vehicles would be 20% higher than inthe baseline scenario in 2020, more than twice ashigh in 2030 and almost three times higher in2035, however still down by 70% compared to theyear 2005.160060001400E55000E41200E34000NOx emissions [kt]If real-driving emissions would be as low as thenominal limit value from 2015 onwards (i.e., the“Legislation” case), total NOx emissions from roadvehicles would be 180 kt and 140 kt lower in 2020and 2030, respectively, i.e., 10% and 18% lowerthan in the baseline.years 2020 and 2030 respectively, though stillmuch lower than in 2005.NOx emissions [kt]Under baseline assumptions, they are expected todecline to about 1900 kt in 2020 and 730 kt in theyear 2030 (Figure 5.4 – left panel). However, thisdecline is driven by decreasing unit emissions fromgasoline cars and heavy duty vehicles, whileemissions from light duty diesel vehicles areexpected to increase at least until the year 2015.Light duty diesel vehicles contributed about onequarter to NOx from all road vehicles in the EU-27in 2005. By 2015, their share in emissions isprojected to grow to 45%, when they will emit1400 kt. By then, Euro-6 vehicles will enter themarket and under baseline assumptions emissionsfrom light duty diesel vehicles will graduallydecrease to 1000 kt and 380 kt in year 2020 and2030, respectively (Figure 5.4 – right panel, er caE2E102005201002005201520102015Figure 2.1: Development of NOx emissions from all roadvehicles in the EU-27 (left panel) in the baseline scenario(shaded area) and under the different assumptions forreal-driving emissions from light duty diesel vehicles.Right panel: Close-up on NOx emissions from light dutydiesel vehicles under the different scenarios.Table 2.1: NOx emissions from light duty vehicles for the sensitivity cases (kt )Vehicle categoryCars, gasolineTrucks & buses, dieselAll otherScenarioAllAllAllDiesel carsLight trucks, dieselEE1400All road vehicles Baseline scenarioLight 915728BaselineLegislationProport. reduct.Euro6 islationProport. reduct.Euro6 418215157314383138952773569661263356Page 7
2.2 Compliance with NO2 limitvaluesThe wide variation in emissions will havesubstantial impacts on future compliance with NO2limit values. Out of the 1174 AIRBASE stations forwhich the analysis has been carried out, thenumber of stations for which non-compliance wasrobustly estimated (i.e., with computed annual3mean concentrations above 45 μg/m ), declines inthe baseline case from 186 in 2010 to 43 in 2020,11 in 2025 and 6 stations in 2030. Theoretically,the strict ‘legislation’ case should eliminate allexceedance stations in 2030 (Figure 2.2).In contrast, if real-driving emission factors of Euro6 remained at the Euro-4 levels, non-compliancewould prevail throughout Europe; between 2010and 2020, the number of stations with unlikelycompliance would fall from 186 to 112. However,for 2030, clear non-compliance is still estimatedfor 100 stations (Table 2.3). Thus, the performanceof the Euro-6 standards for light duty dieselvehicles emerges as a dominating factor for futurecompliance with the NO2 limit values.Figure 2.2: Number in the total set of 1174 analysedAIRBASE stations for which robust non-compliance hasbeen estimated for the various sensitivity analyses onthe effectiveness of Euro-63Table 2.2: Number of stations with computed annual mean concentrations of NO2 (a) below 35μg/m - likely compliance (b)33between 35 and 45 μg/m , - compliance uncertain, and (c) above 45 μg/m - compliance unlikely, for the TSAP-2012baseline and the ‘Euro-6 Euro-4 sensitivity case202020252030BaselineEuro-6 Euro-4BaselineEuro-6 Euro-4BaselineEuro-6 Euro-4 35 35-45 45 35 35-45 45 35 35-45 45 35 35-45 45 35 35-45 00000000000000Czech 500France207146 1891820 22250 1881821 22340 1911719Germany1841810 1452839 198140 1452740 20840 0800800Ireland410410500410500500Italy2033712 1854324 223245 1943523 233154 243675150445753304637EU-2710329943 905 157 112 11036011 921 142 111 1133356 941 133 100Page 8
Figure 2.3: Computed annual mean NO2 concentrations at AIRBASE monitoring stations for the baseline and theEuro6 Euro4 sensitivity case:3grey: 35 μg/m : compliance with annual limit value likely3blue: 35-45 μg/m : compliance uncertain3red: 45 μg/m : compliance unlikelyPage 9
3Cost-optimized scenarios: Emission reduction measuresand compliance with air quality limit valuesbeen identified as cost-effective means to meetthese environmental targets, and analyzing theimplications of these scenarios on compliance withPM10 and NO2 limit values. For reference, figureson optimized emission reductions as well as theirimpacts on the other effect indicators arepresented in TSAP Report 7.TSAP Report #7 (Wagner et al., 2012) presented aseries of cost-optimized emission reductionscenarios for progressive ‘gap closures’ of the fourenvironmental effect indicators between thebaseline and maximu
Baseline emission scenarios and the scope for further emission reductions have been presented in TSAP Report #1 (M. Amann, J. Borken-Kleefeld, et al., 2012. )TSAP Report #6 (M. Amann, I. Bertok, et al., 2012examined the ) health and environmental impacts of these scenarios, as well as the likely compliance with EU air quality limit
Precision Air 2355 air cart with Precision Disk 500 drill. Precision Air 2355 air cart with row crop tires attached to Nutri-Tiller 955. Precision Air 3555 air cart. Precision Air 4765 air cart. Precision Air 4585 air cart. Precision Air 4955 cart. THE LINEUP OF PRECISION AIR 5 SERIES AIR CARTS INCLUDES: Seven models with tank sizes ranging from
Page 1 of 9 Rapid Regulatory Courses in HealthStream Getting Started Tip Sheet Please note: Everyone is required to take two compliance trainings titled: Rapid Regulatory Compliance: Non-clinical I Rapid Regulatory Compliance: Non-clinical II Depending on your position at CHA, you may have more courses on your list. One must complete them all.File Size: 1MBPage Count: 9Explore furtherRapid Regulatory Compliance: Clinical II - KnowledgeQ .quizlet.comRapid Regulatory Compliance: Clinical I - An HCCS .quizlet.comRapid Regulatory Compliance: Non-clinical II-KnowledgeQ .quizlet.comThe Provider Compliance Tip fact sheets are now available .www.cms.govRapid Regulatory Compliance - Non-Clinical - Part Istudyres.comRecommended to you b
58 AIR FORCE Magazine / May 2016 Acronyms & Abbreviations AABactivated 1935. Named for Lt. Col. Frederick I. Eglin, Army Air Base AAFRG (ANG), RPA operations; 309th Aerospace Army Airfield AB Air Base ABG Air Base Group ABW Air Base Wing ACC Air Combat Command ACG Air Control Group ACS Air Control Squadron ACTS Air Combat Training Squadron ACWHistory: Air Control Wing
Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA) Audit & Compliance Committee Conference Communicating with The Audit & Compliance Committee of the Board . Compliance Contract Compliance Board Structure & Leadership Competition Alliances Debt Management Planning/ Budgeting Payer Contracting Diagnostic and Treatment
at 150 fpm and the air conditioned air is delivered at 200 fpm. The air conditioned air completely pressurizes the untempered air toward the exhaust hood, thus preventing the hot air from entering the kitchen. The hot air is forced into the exhaust hood to be exhausted and the cool, air conditioned air is free to mix with the air in the conditioned
the air line may not be pushed all the way in or cut squarely. NOTE: The Air Command kit is designed to monitor the air pressure in the air springs not the pressure be-tween the air compressor and the gauge. If no air is reaching the air springs, or the pressure will not release from the air springs, the air line tubing connections may be reversed.
3 / 6 Das AIR-System. Das AIR-System führt der Verbrennung Aussenluft zu. Das VISIO brennt raumluftunabhängig. AIR système. Le système AIR alimente la combustion en air extérieur Le VISIO brûle indépendamment de l'air ambiant. The AIR system. The AIR system feeds outside air to the combustion. The VISIO burns independently of the room air.
Indoor Air Quality The air inside your home can be five times dirtier than the air outside. Dry heated air, sticky summer humidity, and stale air from today's "tighter" more insulated homes all contribute to your indoor environment. Ask your dealer about a 30-minute air analysis to learn more about the quality of the air in your home.
