Report on a Survey in Fiscal 1999 for Trends in Policies on Prevention of Global Warming by Use of Substitute Fluorocarbons;
3 M 1 N E DO-GE T- 9 9 2 9
al Q B
NEDOBIS T94009 12%3 ^
INEDD mm 8
0 0015757-7 mum 3$ ffit i ? -f h & it#? o (mi%) *'/>mmmmB.mw,m& (fEJS^fl) ¥tii 1 2 ¥ 3 fl 2 5 2^-y
hfc, pfc sfg z^-ist lt, * v>e«tthiiii«?aeffctoihit«<7) B4«-ui'i. z i n-omuz ttt> tZo 1987 Lfc* > 1'! 1, *-/>g® L^L, 20 VkfcMZMz. 1990 likirii, ;)-y>Ji<7>|iHli±ji/Vr-v'&vi 0 kM±, 0±#V\ IBviSHl^tiit^marogtL, Vii5X5l7l?Et#^^v>^k'coa Efi t7/jQ ;k, o T v & & k' tc -#, 1997^Mli5T^ffi$ nr® 3 0jR«*W#a*£ft!SttH£-&(COP-3)tC:fc;i'T, HFC, PFC k'J: i7 SF6 7)?Sr7kt:SSli$t0iid'*»'X k LTWjgSetSft, 2008 4M' 7asa$»'x#|iffi5S6*ftroBELKMLr4-¥El±*S^liiS7li*,o^o HFCiUElkPFCIi, Cix b Kit t> lot's > @ «ti* k ifesrnttft <0 PJ5 H * 151 Bf K »*■+£ k k **-e § -5, Sr ms % n ga §s* g Jg-t * ® t* gf x. * ;v^'- £ Srtt T, rgr®it®^M%yn-yx^ M ro #jii:«1-£ck£itok LT, f/ym^mai K Mt i> m iWoBc* fssrotoisix x u='e#fM56«#a*, HEsa^^ms, x tsbfzkcoX~&Z, 0 SfrMKl±, HFC/PFC 7X7 7*-X(7)ffi|;!j, a##$#x#mm@:%^'*M,ELirA' #, tv'7gcMi-&###*k i o ###6-^(0##, HFC, PFC ^ Z If SFg k HFC, PFC j= J: U*" SF6 coffitiflWj-®, R1§Sii±ffl I: &ttZ>* '/ >g«E*t$ k SEfttoikl'tS ons^ k"^#@5tLTV'6„ ^ess*?, r#rm%m#immyo7x7 12^3 H 31 B : f$r U # 6 #m fa?i #ml # M (%#%#!% - # M MU Jt'/n hm - wmm) g & #1# UNEPOHFC/PFC*X^7*-XDfSS& ...... i 1.1 ^X^7^--X^]A<7)##...... i 1.2 f X ? 7 t - X 7 X/S'“...... i 1.3 ?Xf 7f-X(7)^#...... 2 1.4 ###...... 2 1.5 ...... 6 #2$ #...... 8 2.1 cop - sm#e^...... 8 2.2 c o p - 5 ...... 9 2.3 I PCC^7^XhV^^X77f-X ...... 12 S3S ...... 16 3.1 f...... 16 3.2 # i i m^y h v * - ...... 21 3.3 E U C & O 6 H C F C m$IJ ...... 27 3.4 n -7°n h°;i/7'n K...... 29 H4S 3m> J:7y-;l/^Z[fm^K^tt6HCFC. HFC ...... 32 4.1 ...... 32 4.2 %f&...... 45 4.3 iT7-^...... 53 4.4 ...... 56 4.5 /\o 7...... 57 4.6 0DSft##m^(OHFC, PFC, SF^^mA...... 57 #5# HFC> P F C> SF6^^(7)^GWP&^m^X(D#m#eiJ#^(D#[6] 61 5.1 HFC#(0#m4#IJM#...... 61 5.2 #^#$IJ#^(0 3X h ...... 62 5.3 7 □ 7E±1WJ t Sr L v >ESMt...... 68 #6$ 3&mm±@K^tt6CFcm$u#miLa...... 72 6.1 3&mm±m(Do o s...... 72 6.2 )...... 74 *S(f ...... 77 ...... 79 ##*#...... 81 til m XiftSK* t"i; 1^*v'7SeRtt**3*uW#fieifcKtit«c>llEliftll$HTV'*6' tizihtbtzc (i) t'/>mmt £i6»i&SIfctolh*t«<7)iWS KftttT, TEAP t IPCC tS^IbIT-ES: btz HFC/PFC 9 A7 7 * -AWffiijte, 4-E<7) MFC, PFC *J J: 0=" SF6 W&gftlt * tfe* ^±r-®»»ra$r-*-E,„ -%¥ o ffiltoift £SS l/-:„ ipcc T-, fisa$»*x#Fmi:S:$^$ 1 Executive Summary Recent situation of ozone layer protection measures and global warming prevention measures were investigated and reported through participating in the international conference, discussing with the experts and surveying literature. (1) International trend of harmonization between ozone layer protection and global warming prevention Cooperative task force of TEAR and IPCC on harmonization between ozone layer protection and global warming prevention was established. The task force made a report which will strongly influence the future policy on ozone layer protection and global warming prevention measures. IPCC Inventory Task Force published the draft report on the revised estimation method on greenhouse gas emission. (2) Situation of application and alternative technologies on HFC, PFC and SF6 Global situation of application and alternative technologies on HFC, PFC and SF6 were introduced based upon TEAP and IPCC task force report. (3) Emission reduction measures on HFC, PFC and SF6 In the international trend of HFC, PFC and SF6, policies and measures of several countries, investment for emission control measures and fluorocarbon destruction technologies are introduced. (4) International conference of climate change Outline of COP-5 is introduced. (5) International trend of ozone layer protection Meeting of the Parties in 1999 in Beijing decided that each party should report on CFC management strategy by July 2002, chlorobromomethane as a new ODS should phaseout in 2002. N-propyl bromide was not assigned as a new ODS because of the scattered ODP values. New ODS phaseout project in developing country was approved by using Multilateral fund and Global Environment Facility including energy efficiency improvement. n * X UNE P(DHF C/P FCfX/7 7 1.1 yx7 7:*-xS£:iz;0E*$ 1998 ¥0 cop-4 n'vmMzntcW, 10 h HFC, PFC> SF6 0#m^#a#m#^mm0mg6, ^0^0 cop-5 & 1.2 ^XX7^-—X0X>/\— J!XT0mOT^6. #M# : Stephen 0. Andersen, EPA, USA BUHilil : Lambert Kuijpers, Eindhoven Univ., Netherlands : Rajendra Shende, UNEP/DTIE IPCC : Mack McFarland, IPCC, DuPont : Yuichi Fujimoto, TEAP Senior Advisor, JICOP, Japan : Radhey S. Agawal, Production/Recycle/AC/HP, India IIT Steve Anderson, Production/Recycle, Australia James Baker, MAC, USA Denis Clodic, Ecole des Mines, France Michael Kauffeld, DTI, Denmark Haruo Ohnishi, Daikin, Japan Roberto de Peixoto, Brazil : Paul Ashford, Caleb Management Service, UK Mike Jeffs, Solvay, Belgium X7V* )1 : Paul Atkins, MDI, UK Nick Campbell, AtoChem, UK Helen Tope, MDI, Australia : Jorge Corona, Mexico Mohinder Malik, UNEP Solvent TOC Chair, Germany Abid Marchant, DuPont, USA A □ > : Walter Brunner, Switzerland Babara Kucnerowicz-Polak, Poland PFC: Sally Rand, EPA, USA -1 iptffljiS : Thomas Morehouse, USA : Suely Carvalho, UNDP , Brazil Wiraphon Rajadanuraks, DIW, Thailand Lee Kheng Seng, Environment Ministry, Shingapore 6§UT#i)0 L fc. 1.3 yxi-y^-xcos®) 1999 ip 1 fl 29-30 B tC9 X > F >TDHS£ n, ESASffla L*scX t3' 1/>T. «S*fp5g©a*M*#A*. =&SM © 1.4 #■&# ±16(96^-^ Utf^-yn-feX SET, 1999 f 10 H !:###&#**&6* 6fit <2)o UNEP 0 Web Site (http://www.unep.org/ozone/HFC-PFC-Rep . 1999) A b $6. HFC, PFC *54: U? SF6 0#5RS)j|6]eiiS!|-r-5±T*:$6'«tta$T85©T, £& iI5S£lTl:*Lfc. «gu»»0 HFC #3#X0#)g*iR, ti'6, *ISS»0S>iRj:VT^4Sy,ISlcE«Lfc„ ffi0SS3)j*7)x^it-oT, HFc*5 -2- 1.4-1 ftilBtCiSltS CFC, AO >© HCFC, HFC^COtej^Jt* CFC-AD/0 HCFC- mm HFC SEmtWWHft, ®1R, WOll), 3 0 % SHt**, 7>t-7 to-X Y <4 5 - 5 0 % Mki K^> C02 1 5% zK, IT)’ -Ittmt 3 % stb*s, m©###* IRS, Tkts, xr |)»7-, a, <5% C02, tsa 3 % *M, S*?SiSSiJ HCFC 12% Amm%# HFC 3 % 5fei4H©#'o, :#'./> HI®® #|R(0DS : Ozone Depleting Substance)© 8 %tt HFC I- g#L, 12%tt HCFC tCG&lfc. SO© 80%tt, n Ice^Silfc. HFC tt, CFC iO. OWP tt'hSlA,, HFC, HCFC A©g#©tt*H, 8 # 1.4- 1 HFC #© Em, fmL. 5 Thousand ODP Tons Million Tons Carbon Equivalent 800 - 400 QCFCs 0HAIONS BIICFCs El MFCs m 1.4- 1 0 tit#© CFC, AO>, HCFC, HFC ©###©## % 1.4- 1 011 tit#© CFC, An >, HCFC, HFC ©##. ODP MWM. -5-n-EnissnT^5. ###©s^m±t: odp A <, -3- (1) *-/>B8«£iMSlS'fl;ttM»tt£W1--5 ods a, ods ©SEtt- @E{kK±i;y7x©(ess ts. sec, *'/>66Ettift$$affi$syi"r'5ro"e- -#. SR (2) HFC ODS ©mSAR##KT&^ JtllTIl, CFC ^AD>©fcfi'8 HFC K. HCFC Cte&bfc trr #75:1,1. @© 80% Ttt7 n >HEffl S tl75: < 75:-? fc. HFC tt. CFC &£'J;D GWP ;W5<, tt*67li*«tlTI,i5ffl^lc6fcnTH-E>. 4-#. HCFC ©fflit©5-6, ?nETtt2/37)$, HFC ICG$T5 (D MDI CiSttS CFC ©R# © x^-x6##©HA7)^6#^e#-c©/\a>©ft# ® cfc-113 (3) R##aRl=&*:cTK. LCCP C J:-5ff«7l$*8l)TS5 4- TEWI (Total Equivalent Warming Impact )T Uti® tfWflE 5-11-6 C C U •£: 5 e.icffua®T, jgy<6t®ssBt43J:tfEggco®s- Em. mmmn co 2 mm#©mo-c ^05nS LCCP(Life Cycle Climate Change Performance) T©W (35'SrUfPILTV'iSo lccp 1$, lccp ©a Wtt. S(SESj'x©SSl$£R5a ibSSBI: HFC HFC $EofcJ*£), X*iFf- %$A%#5ns@A-|:«. LCCP Off-#«tt/L5 <*5. ©imss. Emmimmuf ©*a®#m6nsam#*#x©E##m#6'E-©m&Em •r-5fc*(c*s*xt')f^-iciii#LTSpai5n5fi^a*^x©^it*^b*»&n6. *ICC©0iJ6St". ESSPtti • Emm©%*©i#& • 7^-Atmm©%®%©#ai • MDI £ffiffl-r-5i*©8Etti • E$ne©x*-A^6©#tti FalESEtti • HCFC-22 SEIN?© HFC-23 ©#ttl • yXfASllt^it© C02©SPU1 • co2©Sftti *-5fS«5ii©-55tt:J:D, EggEffltlciJSS ns co24B6*tt, aA#m#x©E##m#e±iai&c as. *s*icmts^<5)^©ft@s«©it«icn^Ttt. EggSifi^ic^s^x^iL f-6E*#©X%;i/f-6©#«'L6 <. EK#mm6x%)l/f-##mXcljAimAS. BEttAUfcofcO, Stt®5S©tt#&E5#^l5tt. ftuto. mei:#a#&#i=%a. ss(tto±©s*»iES(bsnsfc»iu4, lccp ©ttefc*ireij;zs:<. wc&#©#%#ttR^en»M-nim6At\. (4) Responsible Use ©fEJS HFC SSIBTSKISUT, ®$X-*-tt, ®~@© Responsible Use ©#X*£ftig 5#S^$T&S. ® # HFC ^3 #X®,BTttBJs£T£&t>=kd&8*M. x%;Lf-W. $£B. ## m©#Am#6nsagi:©»HFc# 3 ©®®. Effl. E#©mm-cHFc©#me?i#6iBo@t)U/<;t/i:mxs ® tt©*fr«fc5n-5fte.ll T*Sfc'tf GWP ©/Jx$ HFC s-ii.5. cnt:j;D. HFC #©#m#«2 X 7'/-IF®®* Wet St, -5- m^ x u -a , si*i?sS:9J. aw%&Mxx"u-% 1.5 #@#©M&© C©#e#tl. COP-5 Tii, 1999 ¥ 10 fl*IC. $ n in^e > h u HISS#$*9BIS -aTH. ii fl^tc^en^e'Mgesnfc. -E > h U 11/MiHOIK'D T*lit XXX X d"— X ©##&%'$) <5, Stephen Andersen U A 0- !86Stlfc„ ®tt. HFC tt^-V*>S$S^K(ODS)©^:)MlCtt^F=rXTfcdir 0, ffiu, mdi ffli4®*SttSfTx, yj-Xtf-Xtt rsfl^XX'Tfitohfc'X-X-Xa -yXtt, HFC ftgffiSIFtfdtiiBU TtA&t>©T, ESflilC® t)*l* OgttAtT.Btl&VU tfSB'Lfco EU KffijRZhB, ft* • }g*©*« iasn©ft«tt£'SttZj:©. a-Hftittt^n-E-'n?®g©tf-BiT^n b©»*&»]«ut ^<. ezzx/'cx'y-y hT®asn, —xzcu^ftom-r^tttT^zctn $fc, §i£*©ft*t #a©#b6#w-e+^6*#&m&3RAB#T#t. c©R«© # -6 (1) &m\Z, HFC, PFC <5 o (2) IPCC ^ 3 ^ Iz^t- M^S 0 &&<, (3) COP-6 '&(DmW(D SBSTA T##$a6. #%, ipccm3#i/#-H:, IPCC 3 WGE (D Chapter 3 CD Appendix (C#3 WT “Options to Reduce Global Warming Contributions from Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances" Lead Authors : Stephen O. Andersen (USA), Kornelis Blok (Netherlands), Suely Maria Machado Carvalho( Brazil), Lambert Kuijpers ( Netherlands), Mack McFarland (USA), William Moomaw ( USA), Jose Moreira (Brazil), Remko Ybema (Netherlands) Yuichi Fujimoto (Japan) Contributing Authors : Paul Ashford (UK), Paul J. Atkins (UK), James A. Baker (USA), Denis Clodic (France), Jochen Harnisch (Germany), Abid Marchant (USA), Thomas Morehouse (USA), Sally Rand (USA), Robert Russel (USA) Review Editors : Ramon Pichs-Madruga (Cuba), Hisashi Ishigaya (Japan) l2^F77h^ 2000 ¥5 H 5 B 1/ b: rr — 2000 ¥5~7H 2000 ¥11 H 3 B wGmm#mm 2001 ¥3 n 2 B ipcc 2001 ¥7 ft COP-7 RIW _ 7 — -8 - $C£>2Pay@ii ^■¥*0?¥v5-^^^*gfif4TSaq>pi?-n®5^M:)B©5PifW^a '9^BT# °v ns*3!m-w%^0#4 '?»#M®X^ 'FRK,MS0'5^B#9'4-M2|*K Sti*E0*$W®3S: (s) 9-dOO '?2 9X^#X^#3#@#[ig# OOdI 0W S* 000Z (/?<<-#@m# - %m0Wim:F 'M6WT te) •?4f x?2§-4-$«x e-doo y-Y 0#x«%^0^%%#0a: g%%#X 9-dOO 'flits® e-dOD ®f#B*^ 2 3X##X2| G-dOO ?,^¥il2iYq=5U2 ZS HS 'S,e¥®’¥S®B-g 'XV)C2|#X^%^1 ¥WsV¥»M0 ias YiTSf vxsas YX-yyS YX-YYSW (I) "s-^-WAxy^SiMtiWYiisi^ >¥flM^l2'Q*t;i X# £ 0# OdH "fllS-v- °^TX4ta G)^: — 6 — saoi • jfl*B 'oaaN '®B» • 9^$B 'Stv °»M#Sfel5^»* '6-\l H SS-SI y II : 9-dOD >:i(!SBllRl)0 6I-II M 6 (yrc-*c^6< 9i~zi y 9 : ^9#* t ©ivrws 0 E<-_x^.c^a>^>^0-«tH|;i 9 ‘dOO ZZ’ •aa^#tolsl%- °af'Yl!.^*W®i /lSfB5¥‘®fflaV3 9-aoo '?)0irs®a>s>"y?£l ° 2? 5 T 3 BSI tift© ''H r"^'\ £©YX=¥*iEEY-ri 6-Wif.tei¥ ximo%fzm^x-^^4 #%©W@**M* • n»'¥©y#+toyW®BE^• Ttel®$MMY '##9% - d$C|)Sto|$X|T@ • *s{54-«;iJpm±a>mm ■ 0$rervto#tf0(YX-^Ki£MK-ri « '9m t-doo yc^^'i(/.a><-i<^u. '*# /r.>H-x-/i7r^ 'xnsF=iB:%mm -^u?mE:iviii^g¥»iieec'r/.<.m?) -# °^U5®Ma.if¥^Y¥n aczx# ‘S s y ii~b es y 01 * 6661 •» s-aoo WW (I) S-dOO Z'Z e^=iW:$W©?g-#3#@fX©;f=l 9-dOO "l#W3X^ EY n / 'tfUCX. 3#*S (9) >#^#©MEQ8!S©0 11 tg 5#seto'ia-¥<>^d ’^vEYS-i-WS^S-J-Il^jaTStW °^fRj?’¥»©?4XS'B;i ©¥#1g#3#m#:W^©M^ '0 • a,# T'7 1-y-^ai'iS ngo (2) £SIilIifta§«5 ® S-< ©t6M-S1¥' 8sn, 4#Cf!5©^T&K&Tt7¥!aW%6f, fflSElAiXXXn.-.H/C&O^XT *6. 2000 ¥ 1 fl*$-e(C*totoH®3X > H®3felT®¥+X COM IcSBUTtt^AHfeStj-AiUdiSooSO, l±ai:^'J 7 t'MSSftxo* 6. zic, u x G7?+f tl3 0©m%X * = XA&-*l:a#A#Rf-5 ©TKA< . — 75—3«5(i6l: CDM WlcJiKt'^Sfe*t±!SUfc. fife’s. 56C CDM SxWfiJlcSiRUTU^Ati:, $>b may hxx-x*»t@y:TU$VA *H*is • cdm ©x h^ogfffflye^fttn ERflK*'\©'f >-fe>X'f X43 AtMEit©®,^6r XTH ® ®JRiH(A>X) COP-6 PiES$6a61id;5 jrbfcftECWofcS: tttc B *©38 a ttMT-516]» & St)*, #t:NGO XoSkL ®JR®4£*K eSStl¥i¥TS^fc. 2000 ¥5fl© IPCC 1#gUSSE®©$ 12 @#SbEMS^IC*^ T*##WAAS. ©4^8, 91 (##@^©#m) roa EfSHriiC©IBtcoUTiMtiSitin^toEiStiUDrii&tttitf, ffi©§§IlSrX’o •> X¥ 5g*SiLTV'5i!i*, S^SWT'fT^l.tibft^i ©i£±HI;:>rf S5:g©33Hb£5SUT, *tftH©MiUt;£0oTlTS. -e©il§$, 4i#2o ©7-X->3 y ti ttTslIm-r-5 C X¥*nTIB £ /£ o fc„ © t'^f-f >X(6gAWtic) 4®XD-X*T'7 7’$nfc1BT*-5. 4i;iOl#BX-X$ Annex tl/TAHt. % *W¥MfBUctX iLTl'5. 4'#i»'5^@f±#©^< HX¥ >»*gt$ofc£t7xS. -10- »5STt;:ffio71.5;^£IEt'ck7&iM$$#xTn-5. COP-6 $T*ICi$S»<*» 6nTV^„ (3) HFC #3#X ICMig-r-BSJ* HFC MfUcWUTtt, 7X7 7:f-X#6e©fge»U 10 FI 27 B 1C SBSTA ©JS_hT ^ni;jyuT, • si®ftntt-xxi-^77f-fxs Tsurna eu tx'fx^e., ©t, *$6Snsbt-M-ry £©$$*%snfc, n>xxFXii—x" <*-/ T30 BSTMSE^Etdnfc. *B. B*^'TEAP XXXX *-X©?Sei65S< 3£^L. a SBSTA COP-5 m£T Decision 17/CP.5 t LT&mZtlfc, C©"*T. HFC/PFC XXX 7 *-X©SS*ttM sn, HFC # 3 *XCOP-6 TIA5. HFC/PFC 7X77*-X UtS- Ml, IPCC ©SB 3 HC-EStS-H-E) A £: C©l)#ICOHTtt, 1.5 lcyi'Cfc£43DT&-5. (4) cop-5 mA©m# 11 H 2 B#6jM»©XU-T : NGO, WHO • IPCC • UNEP# ©###M. GEF • UNDP #©H$EW. OECD • OPEC 27 ©R* ©X Y— 9 Lz)!$>-3 fc„ IPCC © Bob Watson ©X U-T^'Hl&WT&b fc. U6^©SS±#tt^HT* D, #%&#*!#% U. R#nI#%%m%m#UTW6. 77'J*. TUCRmSSISa-n y/IT tio & <>: *©*IS £ § 1177 < & b T n 5 A A, 77U*777>7X U*TH* *£*#MbTn3 d £, #em^T«T7 U 7© j:5/j:E^H4©lSa,»uax.TH-5 C fc. $B±#lcj; DIBITS A t)»i. #mUAlfflim6A<%6T&5 7C6. tlXrfSH’Stt fimmztiTgtccttf^awT&o, no. t'CT. ^©esslffT^^iin^ElroSV. IffiKAG/ktU r©7c«i)lcliMlBE6#©jtti6tS8i6$-iS7*lcfT5-<#T$5. m$BS SWtM'-fU6BS8!i$SX©S$6$£IETe-E>i2Alctt/j:6»n7)t, SSItOfc*©* -ISTcfe^ A5S B*R*©m$ft-#R#*g©XU-TH. «B®*tt©®l6AEUiknT 19 SBKfrfc nfc. #Ax,%ie%T. cop-6 TM@M#%#©%#e*T®*6An7%n*miiiatic -11 fTMnU'tti'ofeii, 6Hft)WftSlcfc*tj'IB*snfcB*ro®yE*tt«ro/'S>XI/ •y Ha=k<"e$TH-5= <5) 6-Bi6iSK=t;5S:1.35it : 3 B^iifi08BTfil**#Jf ftWiis3$H65R(6, B*Rlft©MlS ttE(B*BUS^'S-IHtSlcE*UT/t>7 L^-y htortW) ®B*SSIE$l6#E»Ufc= 7#A^6tt, COP-6 6685bSlt-5fc«i)(OslBX*xx'A%®j(c*$Zj:e-Ej|ilBi*cott ${f^©),n^icE1"'5*mSiS^3ZtiSnfc„ B*iiJ*@:E*Wtt, COP-6 liftics-nt iB'l#r#JLTtbSt»5iPS^4i5. 6 0 Zi » l: tt, 11*6+)-^- ht5 Facilitater 6.fc <^£Ai*L . *B, *B& 6 0 ^ < ©£ft 6 f#T 0 fc„ tpHtt, SBSTA. SBI A0.S:1.6BS< 4Bl:ftoTt)TO85fci'oTl' 3J;7ttJ?.xfc. C0RR- ##m-C0tB*Rm*'g0#8ij#mm6916^/2. slOSi® : 4 Btt, SWJ0 1 BtRfl¥an-tzf1Hii06E*'ii6$ *) , Wftrt''40©£§itt. *5fcofct3X>PbT. Decision l/CP.5<6l©ft«IC£TJ#7T07tz, ^W: ML. •y-7v»^$T*A0 6*L3iTfc»t. *g$nffldLfc„ f#0@BTtt. HXX bip#0fc»(ct-<'tpE$n. ,Ff$7Be¥^e>RMSnfc„ 22 © 0F57 h7)4-mic$ESh*Lfcl:l1fe/j: 2.3 IPCC 7 >^> h U-7X7 7*-X (1) S,lS%lb#E**#90Sti6ttj3tt-57 >^> h U-0*$tt 4'/>#EE#iM6®WJLTL66> h U 4-lHl/ttAL 4'/>ME##N0###6 S6JLT©60ttMLT, S,(SEto^E»#:toTtt, fi$8i*MS^X©SFtti»6«MLT 6'5. #mtt05 0 6©mm-cecg,0T, 8Ftti*0S$ictts-<©BE 6f#7. -12- stoniest lt, g# (Inventory)&#*#Km&mCT#*m66(COP)l:m#f 6 j=3#m#BT^6. 4fl 15 0STIC, #SrroSS8»S^xg@t)ffim»ssll$nT^5. 1997 ¥ICtt COP-3 IC*UiT»:®E6S»$StRSn, &6 (2) -i's^>b') -fF6E0fc»0 IPCC ; <3)ipcc'f >^>hu-xxxx*-x0»jia V^V, 1996 ¥1 PCC&ITltf'f H7'f>tt$fc*$fc*�&il6£#<5iUTio5„ « #m^#0*mica^oTA, &H0 §@0589914, JtRmtgtt. #tB"JS614, =m:£14£iS A. /W 7 X C t S#TIJ, 1996 # IPCC eyrtf-f M7<>0#m0»&tcT+^icfh&msC0K%&&#L, m#^*#m»#*]^a#Bm%#0#%m&@mT6^Aic, ipcc ©aiXDXvA f't * S K IS K if 1C t> If L X M W 1C tt -a 1t. C0S5 AKiRA^6. IPCC II 1998 f01ST|g7nX5AStit -T-5fc». < >hU-XXXX*-X0»JIS4tt$Ufc„ -tbT. B@-/nX,7A0lliS6i®i6'f5>fc«6 0XXXX*-XfrL-n-6i9Bb, -€-0lES:i--y F(TSU)%8*0*m*A%#m* ««SW5E*M(IGES, #£JH*SIUj)IC*< CtiZU-itc. IGES/TSU 14, 1999 ¥ 7 U 1C IE atC%Mb, mSTSSLTSTC OECD 0BST'D^7AS^ISE^StoSrMiElLfc, -13- (4) -'f 7 ^ 7 h U — Good Practice IPCC Good Practice! t:Mf ^toSSflH, 1998 ¥© SBSTA (C43UT IPCC CMLtSlt SIi:S^<,bffl?*5. 1996 f%:T ipcc I'7i'>®«*SI*tLcio, g@® ffs£ • #e#®A*%^&(Good Practice)®#^S-S-r^i(Cj;oT&BISft©H5ffi* Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories ” <5 0 HFC ^§f 3 #XI£, Industrial Gases _Lif 1999 IF 1 H ^ U vX h >~C SHSSr^SHSSh, SSRX3$#Wll£nfc„ Sl*F77lii, 1999 f 7->> h t'a-Jhfc. KTICift Good Practice ©BS£$t\ ® SEy-ifTtt, b"jZf¥'J>*^>*11$5ti, E5l$©^bA7'y7'*S;-!:©^nx5 L x-y ^©iK'B1t7)i5SMS#lTVi-5= h y ^ TSSft. ###, Si®*. fot, e. fcfc*v, ^©^ET'te^ffli^EtoSW^iijtefsiiShT V' -5 £ t (C tt ft L- & it tl i£ fc S> /<£ t U ® 15 txfrSiU M^6E/£UTt^-6. la >l, t g*©HST1$|ig@®UT©-5 = ® SF6®KM3£ft£ sm£:h.$>$TlAitl$w<£$:hTV>5„ Mg*2*l'-77lii. 1999 *F 12 fl*tcSf=1EixM$dn(8 l, *a^5R»Gnfc. C n6©3/>i$»t)AnfcSRi*77m, 2000 #dfm&icem&mcmGfie. 2000 f 5H%-%© IPCC !&f U Ucft5t£ nsii&fflt. Mk(cSn6S,i:7)i85„ (5) nff 4u s ss@j$yx©sm e©s$^te»i«$snfc7)t, 8um@&6ca isntos. HFC, PFC isir/SF6 ©H#tti*#5E*ffi&^*5fc*©ISl @©^w# »i, m%ir±#T?m ii ¥ 12 a i BicH -14- 'Ofz.tf, C(DX/ri/a.-)l\Z±^\zmnT^Z>o -15- 3.1 ®#ifi©»j ft g#*#, xpttst:#^.5®stt. unep ®a#ws/N°*;x$ *6:61$ A®. KILTIE. iSSlCtt. 1989 #, 1991 #. 1994 #, 1998 4@ICt>/toTffei8SS^ttiSnTVs.E>„ SH#Sg#(4. 2002 1999 #9fl*. *8*»'e^ <«dn, ;0fi#4iiLfcii *e»E,grE%'t >5'-®#tzRfftttS±^ bflfcWSe t) A C. ^51- SoiasSi;ont#gf5. 3.1.1 :*'/>)! ASgfl-iS!®^ (1) 1998f#@#®@A «M^'Mi!6snTK** 1970 • stskj 7 %, * • ycri94 %. *##$ %S®#IMTHKl6 %. $fcf88®#T*9 13%. 4tffi®#T$9 22% Ajitlt>6ttTV>5. iscun?. uv-b nite®ie»i:±s®*'/>M,>®ffiMtt- #^*##T®m±m iilcSbT, ±0*®E^n, gUkJntbS. *mtF*'/>*5=ktXS®S!SI»tAI«Sic jt¥^ uv-b ©tsjp&fefcefci^sfti't-s. %^E©ai SAifftihS j:5 (CtioZrf-3 ^E^e>*V>g$©i®(J>fi|6]ttB6 jlT Wc©T- 1979 C#|tO; Sfctolctt. m©#%©f-^^^©tZ%6##A%ST&6. Cffl^riLT, itiisse (bttfi£®B©*E^S$©ii»n6fcfce>L, ■*ilffl UV-B SS8y$ftrrlcjl^tt$m^T*0, *V>«iE»*ifefce>T(B;B£^ HT6_tTtSibTiA6,, #ZE^&©m#A j%U=%(b#SiEt:j;6A s© uv-b c#T6^#©##^ fTfenri'S. Ai#m6#*?©^#mi@©*M#©#WA^ekfiT^6. ##^©% 3.1.2 @j*^,©#@ (1) 1998$#@#©#A '/>##!= j: 6 8 iW^&AAi/u©##©**#:, 1987 h U ;*-;l/|i$#©# ff 1C i^TO«.7;(iTHt»Ci*i|t 6 C t f©#©&IE#m&me-#-6 6 ilC J:oTffllSJ1"6C:S:7)tTS6S:SnTVi6. m=em#3©$#uj: om@© * vm©@#A%©6#6u#«, *v >©®*lcff 5 UV-B fifflto(c1$*/j:t6*^S©%aE$6HSS6 {b©i8ttJSt)fc6 U#6. «*^ffliiitbt r@gj ©j:3%##&*©#%. SrtB ©%t^me(b. 88©i(&e^fll©*stt(* -17- ns. uv-b ©ttfina, siSifflsa^^MtKicwiBifflsa^^rofss (Rr/^nt;#55Et) wtfjDtiifetc, mcotijD *fi nat5. W%to$BT. j:5%#fL viitastiexTSTi/'s. uv-b taf ©##x ©KSlCftt'S^ltW&U XX7-feX;<> Hl*75:«4StiTViZj:Vi„ (2) 1999¥ro#liT(D#g}iS • ^«7lt UV-B ,W6SW5 •uv-b mwAm6Au:m##L,Tuemm0Kti#Aim%<«mLT^e. AKSMt Ufc^-¥©E%Ttt6)SU x/'ieroERflKBe.n-E.&^toZtglSEStt UV-B 5-XfflSSSit#A5itU.r!’t5l>. 3.1.3 (1) 1998f#@#©S^ UV-B ©mnlcJ:0#«6S:tt5C CH.6 < ©g;#m^a#n. UV-B ftfintc iltST-E)£ ttfT'iZ. eifi©E%K*n«, tSfinLfc UV-B tSL *#j:0tlL5mef*m©/^->&^x UV-B ttfiWC =k-5IE££<®?£©J6S: tt, 6*©4tia©ffS)j:0- OLd3£ttra©ffl5Effllc45HTB^6^T6-6<. UV-B ft fin Zlt>^)-6o Sfc, UV-B f#fiO©##tC3V)TH- &#&. #©# «Hf 11 & tc#as nfeti zc e. &ia. (2) 1999 ¥©6l*T©fgiiS • *m UV-B EMltoitfintt, B£HH*'/>««j:aiSUT45D- 6^tt,HT®fiKA LZc #tl® D N AfUS©®H t tt o T1'3 C t ZitfIS?;* nr -5. • if^WJEta&nsflttl® DMA DNA ii(S£$B'1"*|tB UV-B -18- — 61 — e re •£U<3¥21t ¥ SAlin 5-^5Mi a An °i £**?»« n»§'v¥5Xn^^,x/ 1fi!6V9;i*iiSaA'i^®$l¥^*<'l 6<££T&Bm- ”9-U0:tia ,Yi#a-@TStolB*ji#$iyii^O5U2HW^y2 °9rrn.i4:$m#w^?2x.$3#*m%a.if>/no3K 'in*:i (im mw%<4 //<6/:i##) a-An ¥H¥ '»agiflo>'f«oB‘» • ®8(oa.^9* 666T fe) 54-Wiiws#o* ‘nxstwaiQ^ciia:!**?: zoo ®4>K¥ >w a-An civ^i$i)p gK*?sng '«%m a-An 9T2i*»¥ 9 :1* 21%#^^*:###^ -n## 'U?zh®21 (OOd) *SE*#±a4- (000) SM#*SS 'WHif a-An MS^BSPn.n«2f a-An '2i#M?#5$>K ®WQ¥3*^M*^¥g ':icfK-i«<^/.w °g%a_@:g:^%¥moxxf n£F2iws^^¥«,5U2 °x.^5#$s®nen.nw2i a-An m¥«mm*m#m¥ •5 a-An uti . 0 9 ¥ i gi s 2i ga ? n as a-An H¥«TW ”5-T2hy<5-Y-%5S^iS21«’|il*q>®fl®i#Wi $fc. uv-B 'i,^jHc^n^'nws&R«u#67Kttg;tt?sroasBti®stticyvt, iEa#®< h£R«t\ XlHC&t'T, UV-B fc6»Sn-6${b - uv-b s# Si7i- h'A'y Cfi$ff«RtXES-r^>ELnSifi&7)tRMdiUL 3.1.6. *SKlcRt£1"K@ (1) 1998##@#®@% itflDLfc UV-B (2t#H) T®ft;#ffitt£M^t5gn**»-5. ffiffigB A*-rc»5ti>5fi$oTTIt. S6tc UV-B fr'iSASt, -mto&re$*K/WtfgitB ^6ftssn5iitt«W5T*55. *m#T® HCFC -P HFC ®^#l: jcoX#U6 F U Xll/#o##t: ft-rzu-ogv UfcimttillgSttTU&lA (2) 1999#6ET®ffi#i uv-b t< i:#*®*mmmL^-c^® j=x 3.1.7 StilcRt£t" (i) i998#«ee®s*9 si»f®ftaw • uv-b AitesafA®#@& -20- teiDUfc UV-B !S»t©»»£!|g«-t5 £ ti!-e#5ct 5 T & 5. (2) 1999 4p£S*T©fgjiS • @a®j:K>siumsruv-btt, 6. • *ifi. :KU X^l/XcmifcTto/EW UV fl8 ltroj*®lcy LT, JiU ?-©#&#& • * t C S &-5 i: © ffi e rt* £ n T-5. - *#^X7X7v X t:A^6&6#© UV ##©7t##Wme0#l, 7t5S$Cte#1- 5lW|6]7»t&5„ 3.1.8 /\u'fy{t*3-)Unm.% M; X 7 ;M3 J;tXS-fbX 7 ;b tt, @%#TtgK-t5/\ayxbX7lb-c*5. ftfbX^A- 91^©^ 11 Isl^ex b U 4-^i£f f © OOP tt, 0.6 6 0.4 icEZSnfc. -^S$TV>5 mm©m©^y>#m##Mtc#A6#@n@g#aT^6. *E%esnfc Nature © 2000 ¥ 1 fl 20 B#l=, rnSKOUT© 4tt®$©^Yj:dnfc©Ti@^M"-5, NOAA © James H. Butler tt, ##/\oy>fb%© 1999 ^©*fSt0't>©t£*j&#i§8 ^«euT^5,|u>. mfbx^;i/©##« 13%-e, %. minx ?;utt 14%T, d©5-fe 80 %tt@m#A^*&T5. H©T, ^V>M%#©?-#l©*$6l$$l:%:-cTf'5. All/7*;l/^ 7*® Robert C. Rhew 6tt, 628 @iE©S:ll;X7,Jl/6:£ltX7,Jl/© 10% tt, &45£&J6£«tt, 0±©# ma##m©#m»f Atn. #@*n- E*^VT 7 5x*ffiTEffxib-xic^^r %#ut*mM#aB$©A4A^©*#em*L. ^©-t^-cau mfbX7H/©^t\%& A-r^ll/^ll/X’*#© F. Keppler 6tt, * 4lA##l»6©###R^±i=###lt:^# $41-56$, KtlKt>t3*tfc®H:*>tt@ct:: 3.2 se ii ®t > m 3.2.1 8tS m ii @tx b u 1999¥ ii n 29 B~i2 n 3 b (XM ihe SE#l:43t5TM«$nfc. 4-tmU, EC)i*CJ; 5ai^#®BSciE45=kr/MS (HCFC ©*B 03£fc, #&#©#fbX7 )v -21- $> ~D fCo Ecmm, Heremm 2oo4#(Dfcmm, tueju 3.2.2 (i) h(eu mm) ® hcfc mmmik EU^mmLTV^t)(DH, HCFC(D^mm^(D#A, ## L), ¥(h ]¥'/>)l^lt £ $ 1997 ¥£S*P¥ 4ii^7x -X7^ F^mmuxco -^±7% sm> 7 X U * : HCFC (7)^#%^b •4>B, rm>H7 : •□'>r: sm@> e^mcd ^e^e^o a. mfe(D HCFC mu *^S$Sl<7)<^ ommm 1989 ¥# CFC ###X2.8% + 1989 ¥7) HCFC (Dffi C>X 7 yx- 11/ 1996 ¥~ 100%UT 2004 ¥~ 65%^T 2010 ¥~ 35%mT 2015 ¥- io%mm 2020 ¥~ 0.5%mT(##m(D^) 2030 ¥~ 0% b. ^Bmmcom# 2.8% -» 2.0% OX¥5x 0.-11/ 2004 ¥"''- 50%1XT1:^M 2010 ¥ — 30%J^T1:^M 1997 OX^ixo. 11/ &IE3m 22- 2014 20%J^T 2025 0 c. o'Ipt • ^E#WO#A 2004 ¥~ S^PiiCD 100%J^T om±0o&#%0^#^^^^m m##o i5%rt CFG mm hcfc \z *>mm *i£±0 om## 2015 ^0 HCFC OX^rya-Jl/ 2016 ¥~ &##0 100%J^T Oi£±ffl d. TEAP 2003 # ^T(:^m0(:43^6^E##j0#A^+ #±0 K:mt5 HCFC 0#mc<^0 4;3 t:^#T6ZM:owTom^&f+U 2003 ¥M0^ 15 m#$&)S£'nT$K&&MT£o (2) - m @(qps)m mo ^{ky o #, Eun^y^iFom^mmo 22% w qps a. mmm QPsmm^mMommim^ b. utw+i - QPsmm^#%'jTii^<^#f#^#eo^maT6. <^%iE> mu qps mmi:^mL^m{by+-;i/omm, #{by+-;i/o{t#a ^ 2003 #0 TEAP 6 C tzo -23- #9B#6T0#&*)&#/ct:#AL j; 3 6T6 t)0T&6. S fcSd p A ^ cnicttu B^t'T > yj >H-Xttii$6$jtLfc„ A< XttS*-kt)®sKUfc. r7-4L>;yyv-7"T03ei£K: cfc 0*0 J; 3 tc9i$ofc. a. #tt*0fflug{t ^®-a-f. b. ^Dt^DP/^> 2002 -5.1 £*'•(* 313 fc. fcfcU 6tSt$f?cffl0 <«»:asciH> @ 5 £B0*(i®W&ftg£if fcftztb Iz# 5 *}gStt- CFG- AD>, FU^PPX*>, SfcA^ll/, MSifc^SSlCO^T- m -hHtoXEto^BAEBSSSfc-tfc*. 1986 3.2.3 £Mfffl$&0*8# 2000 ¥~2002 ^ro^EHSSlfelCO^TH. #*l;MT-5T fc 3 «*Flbt. 5£_kHfliJ0»3 5 «*F;bK±t0raT32p75lfTt)nfcfe*. 1$ Sit El 6RIG@0 4 «7570 7JFJbift?gL-fco 3.2.4 CFG #a#K ts-rfftWl 19 0##@B60#0' OECDilH^^T5feiiBlc431t-5 CFG 0#@#K& AW^f^aSS-fflX S 6ICtHE0$$6ffHSSCSttiUTHfc. 4-EIH. tt#T$ /fE#0IS«04=IC 2 575" h >0 CFC7ii#®-r5i: VT. 0®, HffllW&iHiRISfcT 6Ct&^A7±#lE#*&m#l:aPLt^4' Hb£tttj"TtltiL, STSEVfcSmrE itltcj; <0 SfcjlBti (-0 ESK@i:S(i*60 CFG ©EJiRthBS (D) CFG 0i^$SiflE^'\0R%#a65Hi*0Effl«lk0B®i;f-5«e*li0S$ (A) EFKLit CFG 0#%i:K±T%m%ARTm. eaf LT#Km»i:*GTEs -24- °^q$:i t -2G m -o.o?7$'5-ir-'c<:--4-xi@ssao cy.c.tj.z\s.M~\uz x * oooz 'flto-3-nw#«»M) (VCi cx.rn t^c-4-*'\ ca:m#34f--":/:-4YqT%saO«Y-A< ny?-V$ "SnSltS -qoyq °^q$f#%q?%,n# ^'a'Spiw^-^cf®^®o 'YqM:)a#02 nw®HT^ -ss»0SE®wrigM«BK>p$:i»$»if--^ri m or -nsM®85 mmmqi: g -g =)¥5lSI*#iRr/©0^ Ym#«##^f (8 puBVsaxauuV) MWlSif i'2'G "^c$%^?2^.^9^'W#^E«M#9^*2002 swoe^^rfHHoa ;iEif e ®rig®m^to*3s 'm#®/if-^0 9^w###sgm 'm#®^#«9^* i$WEto#M* • 9'2'G ”-VcW 9 -V'1 #Sf Ct T4: n ^YciqM:)-emom®%^s-^-:l##3a#®^ ram i/$) 080 # ”-VU58e*Y^C.;|gEMS 080 0* 1002 y2W* 0002 0Y-%r/|r + q M l * 1002 E3»toE$>0#sy080 SV5UYfl§ em mm OOP —A" 9tmm «®ii±B(5*H) ttJRSA C F C —11 1.0 1995# ±m 1999# 1996#y.T r^-7° i C F C-12 1.0 2005# 50%^iJE C F C —113 0.8 2007# 85%RUM C F C — 114 1.0 2010# C F C — 115 0. 6 ttmm a /M3 y —1201 3.0 1993# ase 2002# 1996#£LT 9" if-1 n /\p y -1301 10.0 2005# 50%8'J# p y — 2402 6.0 2010# ±m ttJR*B 1. 1 1995# ±m 2005# 1999#m# rtr-T n 2010# #m#B i, l, l-H^pp^y 0. 1 1995# Agl 2003# 1999#J^T 9*tr- 7‘ m 2005# 30%fiiJM 0. 1 2010# 70%^W 2015# ■k& ###cH C F C —21 0. 04 1996# 1$*$$1 ^SIS : 2004#Zp 6SiP*0 100%UT -26- 3.3 EU IC45H5 HCFC HCFC m3;ES®l7)''Wrfcl-SASnfcz)s. c®#A®##%%5m* *6. ec 1:43145® hcfc ®ma®m$tm%&mm*&. EC tt HCFC ICC1UT. ^E> MJ 0 4)5${fcS4lfcES®jSSJ*efcIHT5 r*V>HE«#!S«ei|Sii (5B)j 6 1998 ¥ 7 fl 1 Elc%ELfc. f ®m»t4. £$**! a. #%mma. mAsu®em#±i#mc3^-cT&5. i) Here ®tmma (#m) 1997 *®*SM 2000— 100% 2008 — 35% 2014— 20% 2020— 15% 2025— 0% 2) hcfc ®«s 1999 *F —2000 #) #$# 1989CFC x 2.6% + 1989HCFC aaxlya-jl 1999- 100% (2001 $- ) $ip* 1989CFC X 2.0% + 1989HCFC aaxiya-ji 2001 — 100% 2002— 90% 2003— 35% 2004— 30% 2008 — 5% 2015— 0% t£*®E CJga •6 X H U S *P 1 1989CFC X 2,6% + 1989CFC x 2.8% + 1989HCFC 1989HCFC 1996 — 100% 1995- 100% 2004- 65% —;iz 2004- 65% 2010- 35% 2007- 40% 2015- 10% 2010— 20% 2020- 0.5% 2013- 5% 2030- 0 2015— 0 • E58E#tt. 1999-2002 *F*£T 1996 ¥®*48 i>x 7TB$T5. - CFC#&A#*5#&. Bgg®l6A, E5Ett«lh*5. -27- 3) HCFC ffljtS'lCDffifflSIlteW ® X7'/ —)V : t ® : iStyXfATfflSiSiijh • *-7"> h 7 7%)## • i^91->X-TA©6^*-7"> F V • IlyXfi • ESEE91 : 2003.1 ~ iiBSIlk fiu. © S«* : 1995 ¥«Pi$!;lS©TIB«lgfflS!Mi6itih Mttawitjs^avxxA. iESfflSSt*. *-xrx>, : mo? # : 2000.1 -1999 ^*GUWEiS©TIBi^ttffl^«lk A#rn • iSIISM. s®**, : 2001.1- 2000 lFSBMS$S®C>^:T a© hcfc ©SES : «lt fib, $£1B a: bT©l>T)- 7)1 • Xt/7*-A 6R£< : 2000.1- -i >7-?y)V • X + 774--A, PE 7* — Ja : 2002.1- ff btiibiMj X^bb : 2003.1- SgBffl^U rXl/Xv • 7*-A : 2004.1— • hcfc emmfama • tsm©E% • • mm^©#mi°nfHCFc sasffi©fc»©ttfflttBM^ b©sii)tt 1996 f omm©%Ki' > m± cap i.8~2.o%l:t5Ct, &VeBUffl^SMB#MS©S$S©MHTafe-p/t= ©aii|©H57 Mi 1999 % 2 H EC nfca@T*fB8;BMbS ilTtt tAftH, 14©tc5ECftt r*-/>eE«#SSSIMiJ (*)j bTfigu-r^^Tjs -28- asat IT EC 11 fl*©SI8T HCFC ®7x -XT'? KOMASIuBJ 3.4 n-^D H^T’DT'f Flcyt'-Sl.fW 3.2 ICiS^fc ±5 C, 9 0 0^0 A# it 1=3"'/>##### LTfgS&fL n-7"n fJI/^'DV'f F(n-PB)fe TEAP © U-5-fCM,ae»nT^fc. r ^$c¥n-7"D tf^T'nvi' Hi:it5*'/>«£««&& 3.4.1 CAS NO 106-94-5 oJEtiSfr R$A - 1 i or 6 9 r 143mmHg 4.3 (Q% = 1) its 1.3 5 2 It (closed cup) HB r 0.2 5 g/zK 10 0ml (2 OD 3.4.2 m&tmmfzm. cfc-ii3, tca , HCFC-i4ib> hcfc -2 2 5 2,000-5,000 h >d:fi^nTt^o t:kr 3 7j h 8 7? h >^$Tt# flaT 5 s o ^$1snx 11$ 61:l#A6(h?mi$aT^6o 3.4.3 X-7j- 3.4.4 ODP ee* odp ^ftasntsfe«(Sffl*stf •a. epa Tii, j;0 2EmAty;i/©m%&m%fT-3TW6. c© Sfc, -«^6W^7)S@^*'/>*ES 3.4.5 SBlC&WC. n-PB ©SttbbTifcS i-PB LTEo Ttfc$Ul ESSAYS EigwscfflTM^. i -pb ©x #mm^©#mt±, n-ps tcTFtotii: vt o.i~o.2%© i -pb »ts$*i TloS C t \X%XtS.i &^F»1li-C$> S. i -PB n-PB U*ff £#■< ©SttiitSIf-j'toStiTiUSA/TlAS. 1999 f ©g#*t##T© n-PB CMfS 12 fr©%*©ti>tt (18) 43J:Z7 1999 ¥lt«6Snfc*ffi#8#WtcBer5 2 7>©3tto <19,<20, S-##*Fi:UTB#Lfc. 3.4.6 i.tsb (1) UNEP #m#Ma&©^# n-PB ©•x'-^y-y h*$|teiJ#9Ulfl%'ti'n/t (2) SNAP ©SJj£ 1999 2 ^ 18 ti . f [00 EPA t4. n-PB © “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -30- (ANPR)(21>” %7i-y7sL1t. C0 ANPR «. t BigW«f3 t> OTtt* < . C ni'MT^SaS**. $fc- ODP B$rogTfcftffS8ft£'£i$T, SNAP tbX ©H*tt gyj$ff3 fe© tt5 i®roTV'£. -31- HCFC, HFC CdST'tt, $2$Ti@^hLfc TEAP/IPCC © HFC/PFC XXX Xx-X l/*-F©: 4.1 4.1.1 #g i%J$Sa43=t^t-h^>X'©5FSftt. CFG. HCFC. HFC *6. S-B©S1WTSft5»l. StitHTH. SXHWW© 10-25% ttiHisHSHIXlStoilT© 6. i=nSSiaj3j;y:t- hif >:/©#■»«:, CFC Kl-ftfciD, HCFC, HFC TUS^RTifc-E.. cn6xn>IC*fL, 7>t;T, Kit**, C02, S02, ffiltX7*. S;ltUy>A -32- ffl^ic=fco«i§®*$s- mmmtfsMm Ttt. ?N#SA 60-140W, %***##H 100—150 gTS5. lSffl?ni$*5V'ESffS ®-ti§’ntCl4, MW Jty._h~C, — 10 40X3tC BH8P S 41, kg^b ^—® X73 >^=t- H^>7"®S^roS%fiStt0~10X:T8-6. %8R$mm®#<%® 4 f*a@#. imm#*. #-I73>T£>-5<, io~2o afrfftt+K7;ny,?t-®sa®-tk'f fcn*i'®T, c®ix-i'7;h;j;d. 7^77, 7DDA-^>, K TttttS, G&isri. WR^a^STfe-S^, H/- x >T'^1W«®*7 hV-Xlf O^' cfi6 6R#i:m@-e$6. x$n/f-a$-^aK - m? - mw®*A#m, mtrn.uts.E0m, #^®$lj%#14&*^g 614411^66®. 4.1.2 SrBtoig^ V-#>-J #m%. $Ai4. Mm®###, e&. #*#®##7k#%^&#mT&^e-e $>5. S6IC, fiS&E/WsEfclih-S.ketcte- ffiE1t:[tI®fi$£)gB£#SUTS!i$$E£l§: m-LAW-fi«A6AV\. 7>t%7® Lfc, 777A®a%$&##L/Al^ W%%6. ->X7A®^1f'f >^gK®®tt*g» i$K JUiitCjitfJC&fcoTti, *®$tt£#ei/&t4nii&5>&V', • #A, SS • #14 • Bffttt • ODP, GWP % d: ®####/\®##a - %### (ttttiSS. e##». E®#*, Sltoi:) 6Sffl^C1$t>tl-5= fi$£0gB6#ttfc i-7'7>/7,nm>, HFC- 134a/HFC-125 ® J: 7/MASS# -33- ® fifl14 -$ B$ ® i§# fii, co 2 ®)S#l7jt,6ti&a%#% tttoia^At-etoicvx^AtosaveffiET-sfctoTtt^u. EestrT-^M{b**Aj:toPjE • #a##&#g##l=t4. $ ^tt6E<8T-5±T' 2 *;i/-7>*&g £&•£.„ 2 *7l'-7 -T'l4, I2lt±: 1 *1*36®®$$^ isws. 2 %*timi:4:7icB%#. *tt, 7k*i:*i-am%A^& »n UT ii^-r 3 !&g^'*> -5 „ 7>;En7^Rft7K*^#C0XT3 >14, HFC 4; D SB#mi* =k 5#U6lc*t75*)8S IIM'S <. t Avi. B*lt®$i]$"ett, 7n/\*>tt, HCFC-22, R-404A. R-407C- R-410A 4: 0®nTV5;»«, H8ETtt, R-410A 14^0/^ >4:0. 4:tAfltt6EW2ttTH-5 = HCFC-123 77-®X?7l/f-#$l4, HFC-134a J:0«nTV^. rmc#LT7>:EX7^$m7kSx73>$^:ttE«®fc«i)l; 2*®#: ®T, ##A(RV^®7. #m #14 CFG 434:0' HCFC ^e.©Et6$ge.-ti-fc»loTH5. HFC g»mIcStEMtcff 7 A 6 «, i£8&«®& GWP Ofl-S. I4£fc>ft5. ^SigB iffS:EB#^Ett©®#Ai:Tiia6-ynlcttm*/j:HV, ®1R* 100% fi5uiOT BllgTfe-5. #B • AAC14. (1) Slflm®tte4356#*®ffim'ft:lc4: 0. (2) (3) 5iik©toiL o»««mss«. #%#%#;. ##. mm) (4) )&%&##wk%4=A##*®9iimamm 1998^8 fl$-ei;, 25~30 S# #®Km7K^?1»*)*dS1!t#ct3 TE36SttTlAA»tik9l®f6#l4A-»'oA. L-^L. *jfi#-7, h 7 U 7T, #m%m#4: o±g®mm7t(m%K®%a#«®#ami:^%#%%&x,#ega^. >3 v tf>^t- 7Hcafe5)*S,i^$>g -0--XT. 500~1000g®^ft7K*^'iB®L/io 3l#ftlAfc£:egHb7KStC5l*UA. ifS#i:6®eif##»s*ikfS6*^/c„ 4.1.3 (1) #mw®i A%*##&#x^c6l4. ittt®t UT*ES5¥to A*#£T*5. *5g E®##. I8tttgl::4; 0 3E*#14*S < M 6f C -34- 3gmg@&yix-c6T±$7k%m@uM&mRKT*t. ms he # is it (2) EW5£©Etf$HtEBfES©&# iSS®^6>A-*;i/->-;i/ /x, ;\';U7'• 77>x©SK3feS, SB • fiWloftitc t'*%!» o# tti ffii »l * asgf -5 fc »ic it;-s t * s= (3) 16l$:S;y \ro@iKt:iii6*f$@S$,ltco®W. EffiHsEffl# • 6##. BE • E«^6©iSi$toihl;M1-5ftSJtb»£*'it;-STa65„ (4) %E®E. u •s-'fxik ®# 7’^«7)Vj:Vi©-e, *SO»!#ffi3nTl> 4.1.4 &Et$ffl 1C * tt 5 BE • *S?pS©$S:X»0S«^b6<. CFG j3=kt£ HCFC *6©GtS©fc6i)lcSiS(c BATk-S. ISO. Pr-EN. ASHRAE ©tvf WC t>|B| C • The Building Classification : %#. —Ak . Isl^&i:© 3SICif-i «asipap*ip-ett. *m^m*i:@BmmeBE#%E©#& i5o g (IEC 335-2-24) XT3>0i&tt, 150g a±©%EA^ig-BT&-5*l. *# « iso/ie c ©-&Riif#@;6a iec 335-2-40 X-/t-7-tr-y h^tVI/$!9&.t:©t>o AAS&iSiili/X^ATtt, W8yXrA« ^SfiTlAS. *#*©R@A«. -5^*©^* #*oiEtt?p!*fw©y7/NXtt. eft^fflicmtsEflT-Bi>o&tAiiM) ^Ttt«3xSnTH5.<, C©#At:K, 7?- -35- »i$th ae, » S6:©UX57£ft5 £ * l^ft«©«^ ;&&»#© U X X tt*fc C5? 3:1CH0il2 ft! U& t 4.1.5 ##mAKj3M-aAK©igiR *^--/©« m 4.1.5-1 hfc msstsuths . %m ft£trO-5fc©fc&ttli. ifflfx Fi8Pg©fe©, ttlBff«4,©7’n FX'I'7%*'E> = 4.1.6 #*^M%#©#g (1) ##,%m*HA#©© 2-4%©#*&#*T6©T, 6. ®rBti©a@, *##©*%., Hoot)--©x* #13%#^©##, SilyXfA, ^E©#SAtilC (2) ® #t@ $SfflilnSEggtt#l61Chfc5At*© 4 OlC^ESn^. *lL(Stand-alone)«^Ctt, 7037-5-, t'-JkX->>, TO? U-AO>&i:>'&5. 3 XO-OOx-y Mi, SUjl6^atC^i)tl^)o St4,i/X’T‘AtiX—/3— "7—5" y b#© *SEti:)^$S«9CEfcn6'>XxAT66. ^SOXOli, ttlftlOi*! U 7 £'£ 1C. 3>;/l/yti —SifoOXxA^gBesn, $tlin >0"9 —©tp©*TW*>n- 5<, MtE*##}i#OX5-A© 70%y.TICT#5. SiltlTli, HFC, xy»SEt^tt6tlTVi6„ C02Himepgleafed, d) X—73-T— *x "j h -36- m 4.5.1-1 7 7>"E- C02 7k 8Hfc*S HCFC-22 HEkVf) 7>t-7iR MFC HFC;E6 7 k 4%it esufrRS — — — ±#* — — ±#* — — i'm<7 £§L* ±#* £S* _ ts* hbs — HE 4= ±#* — — ±E* ±#* — £S* USE. 7'a — 4E* — ±E* £s* — h ±S.H SEE* 7“PW7" — £S* HUS HE* — £S* HE* §rralt ±E* rm 7#PhM7* HE* ±s* HE* ±#* ±#* S*$S@-^5- HE* — HE. 7eP HE* ±s* — ±#* £jl* HE* — h — 7*Ph$'f7* 7*PW7 e HE* 4E* — — ±k* £jH* *-XT3> — yp^^y — 7ePW7e — — — ±A* — 7ePh5^7° hus 7ePMH7* 7'nl-W HE* — ±s* — ^tijii* : Mass-produced (large-scale commercial production at competitive prices) HE* : Custom Application (small-scale, made-to-order or fabricated on site) 7 Ol'f'f7 : Prototype (pre-production model sold or otherwise placed in service for final testing and design adjusted HHH: equipment intended for laboratory or field testing of engineering concepts or design features but not expected to be produced in its current form $HS(Stand-alone)E§§ : 3jp|5nQ*t —7>©3-X "j h lC|8«l#-iA;£ilTt''l5, 9 -f >7 — 7 ~~. tl — XV -> >, 7 4* X X V—A?y>^£t,A^§(. plug-in system, self-contained system i:»tfn-5C (3) lUfflinS • X#m%#!4. BfUKb^fbESS^tift^xS. Hffl • ifeRME. ffljg a.m, ±m#%mf©m©x#^g-em^a-c©5. 20kw mi w©« hic *o . SSE««, -ioo'C7)'6*fi-e*5. @%axu —tf-©x 5%#*mm©^ ussc^sns. S6Ttt. HCFC i7>tA7il£&rtX* 5*s. 4T©»*«totm>?i. @Hb*$ 6Ei4iijEit©at#:6a5^ireHx<«fcn5. x$se* iet>nx © 5 em c it, -# *Ettifidtt7j:©©-e. $S:H^©#/J'©S*T7>XxT^Kfb*m©X5/j:WS • =TB tttoinESEd Cfc*iT#5. (4) XT3 > W-joXO##) A##T14. 2~420kW ©Si0$ftax73 t'#>7'*lxy 3 >®l*©XSit &6AT©5. rne.©%£T' HCFC-22 tilElflEEi: LTEfc>hT©5. 1994 4p«*. HCFC-22 m%#©m#HB#&tl7*©*!*5. R-410A £fcl4 R-407C &Efflt7cX 7 3 >*lf TI:$#lcailsloT©5. ?cit6HT14, 2000~2005 tl 5 ©finDn(4- E@#Sc. &m^&6*^3-©X%6%oT©5. HCFC ^ HFC 14. CFC lctt*7)lffi ©«T. i«M5ti0fl7)S'>&<»«3Xf/J^ -38- 3-n '7/1-1? (5) #m#@§ to, ttii. a>7-i —, <&'&ms.E1fihZ,. £fcffito, a'x, M*® m@®A*#m«^Tt±. %E®#*#Ai±#u®T. ooisn- fflSSWSTS?!. &Btt, R-407C, R-404A. R-410a, HFC-134a, HCFC-22 @Hb*S, 7>txy, C02. SSlH'X;i/®W55^$>-5g|$fft)nT HFC-134a, R-404A, HCFC-22 R-410A fe*>-5 SSffitons. Rfb**, VO-* 6) A-X73> *■- -of , 1995 fm*®AT®#f$i:a. HFC-134a M©x73>ii«8fiSliTi.^. iS«SE-fb®E,STS^tolx«n, @SFtt ®s-5ft#srj»iM%sn, sffl g 314.1.6- 1 *-i77>M© TEWItf® HFC-134a 7° D/V y CO, 222 3 0 1126 1575 1861 H*x*#ft# 972 1408 1694 irxa»» 154 167 167 TEW I 1348 1578 1861 E*B#i^EIEE* : 90* : 9f 6. MAC T-tt. 2 Kib*#^ HFC-152a ®d=3 AFim#AE&#g C iaBtt&Bt 2*/F-7 ,6Eofc->X7LA®^fi6WJXX7:)-U ->X, Lt»'L, 2 */l/-:/£texfcjB>Hb* 10%bl±±e<&%. ±®g Sg 4.1.6- 1 1C, *-x -39- 73 XC4514& 3 ISfflftiffl TEWI ffitSSSSLfc. AFEAS © TEWI fg (22> E#© MAC © 1/ h n 7 -f y H4, HFC-134a TfxfenS. X<#l:14, S{b*S^*6b tl%Z. £&$>&, (7) JroEWffl©t-Ftf>7' >7" ©lfiSffl?M7k©ijnEI::E4>4i-5. ^©X'T/©8B©±g|5:ft(4 g-n y/1lcA:t48>-E>. B*. 7 X V A, A AX’© t— h 4? >7'14®S£ftS©M^7!o'Fntg T&-5. itflffltifflH, H5t©tinB, E0>R. fi*$fcttE^,©%*©fc»C<6fcn5>= mya-fex© —SKlcE*)A$n, %#. ESlcEfcittS. SIx^;i/^-iSo7c $MS©Eiffi->XTATafe6„ Ek)nT©-E>ft®l4, CFC, HCFC, HFC, 7>FX7. Kfb7k$A 4.1.6 &«m%ft®©#iR# (1) 7>FX7 ft®©»f#A7j\4K. m%#B&4;7m###*$©R 7>Fx7i«nr»i. x#©^aicEfcnTSfc^. gniTtt, x -a -v -t-^ #4»ft#m©7k77—©4:7 A#©ft®7X7Alc%Ek4i6 4:7t:»o t. r>7-7f 14, 1990 IFl: 14 2~3 ©7 ^XXKMSZo'EEStlT©^, 1997 *FTt4, 30 WX©E# ^EBSnfc. Tkt8$*lc45HTl47>ex7^El4, HCFC HFC ft®4; 9 x*;!^- ###14 10%®©. X-/1-©ft#©4:7C77<>&E7#^14, HCFC HFC A# ©*Kft**4; 0x*;|/f-###14, 10~l5%fcS-©. 7»7i-J^X'fXTttftMl;: %©X? U-&EoT©5A!C©#6l=!4, HCFC ^ HFC ft® ilSftm-> X 7 A 4; 0 X* ll/4r—#*#14, 10%'>&< >7-7X14, 50Kw y,T©'hW#®7>:ex7ftW->X7A©M%7)ifTt3n T©6. $£,, ##(7>tx714mi'mm&%#T&), %e^&7i#W34l-C©6. 7> Xx7(4E6ftE*©4;A7j;/hS*©ftS->X7AlCl4^FSy]T$^. ZrfZt6. x>7V yA —ttElflitT/hS < , x$;Ff-a$14RA*^^ HFC 4:0$©^ 6 X&6. 7>XX7ft«S«14. HCFC HFC t±t < it 7 T©5 A £ £181161-5 A t^WC MA14, 7>tx714ft*mm£#14^k%©L, 0 FrEttTfc^. ffltB — 40 — EoT, ^LTfcl/'TUroilT H, HFC ±0®9aviSZFHEUlX (2) C02 C02 tlT 1990 Lorentzen th Pettersen B^J— X7 Z1 >©^l£ SSS®yCB*EteVfc. xXx-x>. X'f x. y;vj7x-Ta, x-n—^—'r-y Ht co 2 *##m%© 3i.8t:ttTTffibti5t- 7/^7® 5 fST'fc-acti, E*WWotfiHitTS5. ®*t- hzR>x>xT3>->x7:'Aa($tin5$6a. ttffiufttySEtH F©yfxA# ETifrSisn-a. a- F^>x'©#eaac©##& ioi^CB. co2tM x;i/©8MB, ffiroft!* J;9^£. C02 BSfcMffcTS 2 x^x-fyt a. 40 ^3r-e C02ft!*®fi®g«*S«(iUTl'5L-- Xf XT6 2 3®g#A#mLTV) 5. co2ammg§6#m#g&m#LT^6?KaT&6. «3®¥-ffi®^x-r>j:o. fas* ®**^$ax -7'f > (3) #Hb*S gHb*ggi$Eeea, mo ¥ftaE5Esnai;®, crc %*B»*#t)6$TE^frr *jia$fcsifflfksn-5j;5(c*oT#fc. m E -41- ESwmisliirofcAlc. E6ffl^ES"m, 97.5~99.5%®E$® HC-600a TWfrbttS. SSjSfcSBJ; 9 B#tt7)S iffi^n, get. %stt»^>-y>, #E#^66A*-9->roe$/hd<-ea-5„ ^>-t?> ■^^\4=-y->$-SWUfci^E©EfflttS-<(yBIT-«ihSnT^5. E6ffli^ja£»S»tt- AE& HFC-134a 6 HC-600a t, Da&A#*T©Kfb*#©K* B< 8%T $>?>&, 3-0 7/n?IJ45%, F'f'.yT'B 98%T$>5, *H. Aty, B*TB SftzkSitEeflEofcSEffli^Satt^—X MJ7. x>7-?. H'f'X, X 7i-f>, 3£HB7> CFG 4> HCFC fc#©@*## nTlri-5. r 5yci6IC 2 *ll/-7>'®:toft5. 2*Jl-7yXfAf b, 2 as©*-tg©E#:rH- 10-15% CO; #%^*X 9 U -©4: 3 2 *;i/-x ’ /JxStoXTH >tt3 —D -y I'CTfeiOESotUSK EoT, n&n#. m*n$esn5TSx,5. (4) HFC B*tolCjl,-5£?&£':£T©&EB. CFG Tafeofc. ^E> HJ *-ll/ES#%l4SH, M ##, ffiStt, S$Ett, ?FE1t©{b¥#lH»tESSnfc„ HFC B, ©T*V>Jg£ES-ti"f*, rni&©S#S:+5J-ICiSfcf{t#tiHT*ofc. fftlfc&E©# EB, 30 •&6t©B?EftT&6 • K:li7)s®e)T-afeti«- CFG tm-oX, S£tlf&S£W"t"5 CFG £iioT, V>„ ft ffi to B B -161891 B U T •£> 7)1, CftB#L/^Ma?&6. *ffi© 15 WIT, l'< HSW'ffl HFC R-134a ©*ttB^BB^67)7|cSftfc, E7)l#ft©mABMLT CFG, HCFC ©f%#£LT%%$ft^. #-© HFC TE##x. j:B^FBj|6'e$-5i7 -42- IC-t'D ODP S bC#UA> HFC CDM&ty.GWP OtlS*'* S^ttcoS^fBAittttSfEfc-frctelCigSSndT*^ 5. HFC SrSSET-SC^tt, a«WKttorffiT'*-5^\ $:£tt©BT§HAh6hrj:l,A $>5fflii"m. HFC 1C£. X) X-*n,¥-VlW\tn±? 5*6TS-5. HFC WjGlhti:, ODS to^EICtt, 0, ESi4±HTBSBAtie>n*^-C*^'5. HFC t A F U feo 5 (A AIC&bfcT*>A -S. (5) *i:B6X* 20 titEcOBCAICtt, *tt*l0fi£ElgliiyXfA'rfttoftTV>fc. *H4>0*T b. tfc. i«®s*tffi->xfAt feffifcn-5. iT^r^V-^Ttt, 7,roa#SmEiK'>X7:-A»sS3klg^ 1995 f mK. Tktt- lUffl^X-^lSyBk- F^AT’T'tiEfcittTH-S). *^7-->A ■ruxffitin, imizubmw T®5AiWoT#fc. HFC -£>7 At AT W*&Wt£« J: 5 . 30~ 7kia;0E$»Gjxs uto-r, s-c,'EEE»saSB@tin5<, h -f 7TI1, SEA 5OOkW0%T3>f 7-«3>yk yil- TKBSfc, ##&&wa*@#tL-c, i y^-r'PlfUkTkmmti cdM’PQ ##E0^X—/I — V—lr *y F C02 i3 (6) AtoffitoE&CMS, XTINXIF. 7.9—') >yts.E) 7>tx7/*^6#ft:U7^A/*%0 2 8^11669 C'lstohTt/''-5. |->XfAt feETBSjfS. #=fb'J A7A%B, A< B*$c9Si9ffl77-A VTfiEknTVi^tolcMLT, 7>tX 75KB. lift, A VT*feSRLTH6. F5-liT tt, AXRSrotRiRSi^EroilSSxAiF^-SWti:, m#$o3'077-A ®C «it«. a**rc&-5. SUtoUW-trti;, co 2sm*©E;S 7)'b, #m30i#'C,'^7-l=gcmf at&CB. 1.4 K±« COP SEffit-tetl @iRiU$, SmEttiej:0S«T*, SEX^-XAS/£< ^5. sath-f xiFSr^B. mm. rnffEtoSMicEhn-B. l*>u -43 qiH-OJDH °-4^<$2--<£CD^\ llt?*s# I .vyY¥X<-@3£SBto4 ^4 4 4»¥4X4#M3$Eto#i@*toW$# °-vn*¥a-6gg5 ’4.$M5tgi«Etfii*®odH co\/#a%m ei~g w n a-itss^Bii-ztons./ SSSB«$S!y9rti£f::n/^a-E 8 4 4 ooi to '>mi2.m£cnmm '^99 ? °9*a.e9sa.s$e^@:i6~9 'i* a.®* a tel 'iK:)09 3a_ ooe'i "9*a.te«jS M«a.m#i$9_#-?a'?3 aooi -«HEifi#to-irx>-6-^4 n-^x -94-$B>#¥** % '«/:-•ir^: z 9 4 4.^1$ :)■$/? 4 n-^x ”9Sa.)SW©v5l3ifa)i*?(««C5'^ $@5)9 ^#@9 >-frtS^94a.4?iis:)<<-^/?< n-xx '$1=19 %_^/ir¥%«4rxx* -ci¥:iuy 'osijiri-x-iXYrifKqxa °9$a_m#x ¥9*5:U@'vS39^@SCi¥:ig83 '1681 'ClT:!#$!% 'H1f */?< O-^X ”94iU»s^*«CiT¥S8B»» 'iW WJE’K© 'W-©Sfto-.-ft—fi XH XX/;94- :?S'3'3a0f'- °9%ZI4toc?\0 to ewes'to x,>.q °4%f)s#G4?94xifm 4.2 4.2.1. fSg HCEBtfSrffl^fcia.i'niEStt- 3 - □ -y /\ « hc ©%©©3x xhism. »*»i@$sn-E,emi^)as^ie#©e©Eit©*eictt, HFC 7^-AXiWA,T*k44'5. HFC-134a tt, fflUitiU#UX9Ll/>^')^5'>©%fSSJj:LT<$ton5C hcfc hfc 7i/7>^7 ®S,$¥£tt$£tt.*:#MfeT&-5,, 1995 ¥Ttt, ## M#i:AAx*7Ff-© 34%7)t$ssnTH6. EfBti©mett5~y %-e#otTVi^„ cfii:j:ox*iF^-*#A#xea. co2sfmfeWx?)ns. ^uhl-x^i/v^-ft tt, HCFC tt HFC 7 7X >^>7i /-7FT& C©M|B]^n5T HFC ttjfmil#'JXfF>y-h‘f>ft*74-i,Ttt, #mA4"J\A#©#A Sr^lxTttSt>n»Vx„ -5 £ HFC #$. CFG ^ HCFC 7)1%%^ IC®oTffiten-5Tfe5 7. HFC tt, #7P>?SfS?a=kD, X*7Ff- 15%®nTH-Ei©T, %?S(*©**^«iK)Sn5)»AICti- HFC £<87 Z. ifr'jfc* 6tl&. 2015 fAx 6 2020 f #ICH HFC £<8k%< Tt)j;W@fltX$7l/f— ##©*?& — 45 — »7)t8Eft£T&3 5. 4.2.2 co 2#m# foaamaLT co 2KEttoSE-^ XH^-R, 1995 fFTtt, x^n^-fHS© 34%s-fi«6, co 2»m»© 3i%(cffla-r-5o m#^#Ti %©x*;i/f s*e 5o ~8og h>© co 2#mw#j&m5gT#6. m$w#?a, %© X%^f-«##© 25~35%©tt^»l=Jffii#$dnTV^- X^ll^-ttMCdH'TSr ^ti©$fcffS»JH*SV'. 5^7^77^A'-©j;5*#fe?aitrSitf^'. # T&H©T, *E#©K#d!x*ll/4:-0l$©&A#l=%&. RETROFIT WALL INSULATION - C02 SAVED Dutch OamHfc - SO yw Hi 91 4.2.3- 1 H d- 9 >^&$*E#© co 2 m — 46 4.2.3 i*;i ®r$!tt© cost-effectiveness (i C02SBB%7 7 7 7 —TfeS. HFC 58fSfl:ttESitt*6^«nTH^<0TCO 2giJSE8»i**H. $4.2.3- 1 BIIC, tyy?©ft $*#e#%#©^*© k h o 74 v co 2#m#j*#©it#<& St-fcfctoT&S. #4--B©@et. ®r$Ht#g-£to*S-6iFUTi/>a„ »*-$©!§•&. 8O%0iR-r-5t. HFC £EfflL£fc©© C02 tx IHrSHtlg $—SlcLfcS^lCtt, HFC ££ ±cai^fcaaT", s&ennTus hcfc «, #:# hfc tce&-fstJB:bns. 2015 ~2020 • I—711/3 7 F©#{&% • 6gfflx*;i/^-ig© co2#mim#e • hfc © co 2##E@#ma • lltti:-; hlSiSWX^ll/^- -r^T©^T«nfc5ifasiJB*u©T\ *^Kr##©mR«m#TAAvx 4.2.4 %fSSJSK©to©Bfr (1) • tt, ^Ux^l/>7 4--A©3#mt:M6fi6j:7Am%#, RSiW©®ift • SB • ffiffl • m*#©#*i:#f to;k*tSg£BE$-t-5estc. HFC rtHItt ns. 7x7 —11/74- —A-^4* 7->T7 u-F 74- —A*S-5-©^ITftS. 4t'JX9 Llz>%ffi IAS. • tlSWttttR — 47 — yi'XiciSW-ixtrJSSlctt, A#icttSUro^8*i rr< -5. (2) Sifisero^ft VTE5#^rl-li- KifiEtl®S.EU»i*SA ffl7t-A0Sgt;tttinTU5. S (3) agij©as • voc ssititrm, Kht**©Effltt, voc smeffliSfc»icm±dnTvi5. icSTttSO, i%«*X-A-lc«S54-xfc. AX|#L^m%T0Hb**&E 9# -&(;«, x 6%@*J©M^i:Kfb*$Ecrc©g#&j#g&L^. hcfc Sf^Tit. bICi6^B®aB£$, HFCi$«ci0 HFC ©Sim, tTl^ft**ce«$Lfc7-*-t:io%, =tl^S«P3ififei VOC sa^Di^ros^iii' e>gsw&a«cft o 5 sts.5 5. rne,tt, EE#%%*J©Ema#$#Ka aifi©Mrtt, 7f>7X'j*f, t>hu^-;h*#&EotKA**© %?S'/7>h^ift^M©i’SE6SSIl;d:t9%B$:TS/j: -48- •ma©Em%# jiESHHEUizMZ)-e, (ottiK lefts. BB*;t;:43ioT14, EU. &B8Ufi*5j;tmfi6#ttl4$|!to©»Be8f!£3S-fl;LTtoS. WrL t*$(89/106/EU)AL 2000¥t:%x4V, 5 StUoj JiftTtt, ftS®©%SBE©il$l4#< tes. *^ro#%icj;0, <%#&&«# iltt#<&ott.'5. *fi-/7Xf7 ^/N'T'lbTd&frnTkS&SiIlSTHft^©;^;^ ftofc. UK Loss Prevention Test LPC1181 ©4 7&*$'E U toSV/Wfi £ tlOOft S„ 7KBX14, Product Liability Zb !j O 7 A A' Zt fi-1ft S % • E L titi L # U X9^k>©#Lt^%@& C02efflUfc5ft7)SM%SnTti5,»L igftitB'm. 2003~2004 4.2.5 4"J\Am6M%A±BI:MT6#m 5tiilBTft:h.ME&_hBTfth, tWJvifeSItct^TieSlnx b^SST-ftS,, -tfflnxh is. Kifts«©e». h7i7ji, *s6$ss,©w«. M##©mm. tjgf?ihB#ra. she* ©ns $-§■&. cn6ffl;t$#Il:An5i:, CFG Zb 6© b* O y 7-T >E«Zb*jRJ6 6W. EMM Wl^t)CftftftS@E©EE3X bl4^BTftSZift HCFC-141b Zb*. C©C-X©#ft S. CFG-11 btt^Z t'KgUt&Ztf, HFC-134a £"/U TV > b Ufc->X^Ailli ns«6-»tftS. i§#%/4f%@##TftS HCFC tloT. #lL7K#14##%i4ft##IT&S©-G. VOC StfWtCleEK&C, l*m##$ fti S » 614. 'WMfeSt-W'i yTtl7 ,DtAl:ioT8X4itt. ft4 0 ieft#T^S. bbW%14zb%< T# 5 ©IC^FWtEC 7*-A©WS. ODS © kg ftfcO, 7.83 HJltftoTOS. 500 b>©7d--A$4*LTt'^)X«T14. 50 b >© CFC-11 A'ifSna®-!:. 392 =PK;b©a^^e>©*^#t4Kib7K*K*^©em©&@*&©^-y-7 — 49 — ss 4.2.6-1 gmemmicto-a hfc Category Application Region Reason for choice 1) No HFC use of significance Flexible PU processes Expected Block Global Suitable COj technology (except for Box Foam) Moulded Global Suitable C02 technology 2) HFCs unlikely to be - Domestic Appliances Global (except in countries Good HC technologies used as primary where strong energy regulations blowing agent dictate otherwise) Rigid Integral Skin Global (except for some Viable HjO technology decoradve applications) Polyethylene A Polystyrene Global HC technology (although some packaging foams safety concern in developing countries) 3) HFCs likely to be used as primary Domesdc Appliances Japan Regulation (Energy) blowing agent Discontinuous Rigid PU processes Panels Global Process (Safety) Block Global Process (Safety); Product Performance (Energy and Safety) Pipe-in-pipe Global Product Performance (Energy) Water heaters Global Process (Safety) Refrigerated Global Product Performance (Energy) transport/reefers Commercial Appliances Global Process (Safety) One Component Foams Global Product Performance (Fire); Process (safety) Continuous RigidPU processes block Global Process (Safety); Product Performance (Energy and Safety) Bboardstock (incL PIR) Global Product Performance (Energy and Safety) Flex. Integral Skin Global Product Performance ( surface finish) better than otherwise viable HjO technologies 4) HFCs virtually certain for use Domesdc Appliances North America Regulation (Energy) Process (Cost) Spray Global Process (Safety) Phenolic Global Process (Safety) Product Performance (Energy and Safety) Extruded Polystyrene Global Product Performance (Energy); Regulation (VOQ -50- <157th*;nc iswf, s 4.2.6. me©?* teap -m, %mAR©eamz'6t:. hfc ^© 250000 200000 ■TO ! OTo ■To) I 100000 50000 ULl ll Yur 4.2.6-1 7*-A^>S©6-%SSJ©E$it^ — 51 — 4.2.7 (l) is-50 iF - me#*. tttt43 (3) (*ng) • i>JB14%Sffil • not-in-kind &« • HFC (4) SBT^SffllSM® KfBW®#Att*V>®-C\ fifilili=1CtifcoT7n >ti^*®%SSiJ®#tti»i88-5. 2010 SHC^-iaiSttTi^-SflEttie 115 f F >tt, 49%® 57 =F h XCST'fJMTS'S^'i C®5*.® 88%KfflST5 50=FF>tt, H*B#®^ai(CJ:oTit)j£T#5. i$«to&=rSE tttt, 3 - □ y /Ito TAMARA tt®5, AHC SflTV>57)t, j&fL, fc 14 £ igigtt \tts.^. *7 >¥ts -52- WZ> 5 fc&H. 2030 4.3 XT'/-;U 4.3.1 MDI X7V-;l' MDIffltoHFC tt, tttfMcW: 300 57J A©«,f,ig#j)Ei.5. tBT)Ift©j»fT(CffioT®#©ScttiittLT^-5. ^> h U LT CFG ©HSS36i*!kmJ A LT©Effl SSgfdTdS 0 , 1 77 h>© CFG OTSWSnr^-5. CFG ©R#aaL,T. HFC-134a -*> HFC-227 #>filFSIflHt£*l-5 SfflltSTtCtt 10 = HFC MFC ©Effltt. A At:%&©?, XE$3®T HFC &E9 A A 4.3.2 MDIUW©X7'/-7t x7V-;i/©i«lt9JB- Ag|5EttSft*S^yA7^x-77P(DME)IC, -gCtt C02 ^ SSl;{t@SnT$fc*S, HFC-134a HFC-152a MTftfcntl'?.. @$©*Btt ^5$sn5Esti^e©8eTEtin-5i$&sj(ctt. otsjalt hfc ^Eton-s. $ fc. Ttlb^X^-y y?lieS^-nm-9->-t;>XZj:£-ett l VOC JSWCit), R IbTkS^vXEll/X-^lPttEfflTSf- HFC 7)1#*^JA L TEkflT H 5. MDI HFC X7V-7P©. #HFCX7'/-71^©i|e»IC*^T, ttSMICST. Kit**. DME, C02. SS6 ttS69icEfflsnrv>5. x7V-;m%tt hfc &E9#^t:R, xesssc ® CTM-6. HFC ©##«m©###j j; 0 A <, HFC £tt5iltf ttXT'/- ^@as8i5icv«s&ie%, *r)T — 53 4>4i5. HFC-152a 14, *BI:45DT14 VOC L < jgffl 24l5®,8,©S!ifil !#L TiliR£4i5. *«©*4iW4)0-)i4:<*©nil>t:>x^'9->A'Xn®4;5**874*iIS ST14, VOC 14 NOX S. A#l:MiS445. VOC ©#Ri7)i:©4:6 74m##&t)*6 8*t,)#©#< ©®$T14, K (1) nltKie^x j'- HFC ©4:5 6i65ff#X/SWirLfcO. MtiZ Z l:t"5*66l:E4>4l5. &5#6I:14. @©##*&7)i&5(:&M)4)6'f, (2) ##*LT©HFC — 54 — Signaling Horn ti\ B 69T —UStolcEtoihT I4 5,, A#^©K#BMI:t)Ekfl6. ^ittAigSSn^iSI; HFC-134a $- < ©tlal’ti:, Mlfc*md6ffl7)tpr|gT-S5. W'iT*Tt>5. 6 ig»IH1£t>X*7X5l-y XO^'f 77?A • toto©Efg« : •i#©$±m* •x#—716808 ® x7'/-^*ffiicg5j<£n5ttiEtt. wrEa:, /i\@Tg©Rm#M HFC-134a £K{b7K**S± i; Ltttbtltl'li. HFC-152a t>Ex-5„ HFC tt, #X0 ma#& f'fx '%:#%#§#*hfc #®^ S6©Tfr#tt, 15%A^lk*$* —>T. ®9085%ttHFCT*9, f$ l%T%lmL T05. /ixx'J-a. %F4'yX;F%^0lt#*^A^6*t ^©±$$KHFC^#%±*^. (3) ffi|6] HFC-134a i5 #Bix7'/-WBT0 HFC 0Effll;SritS1"-Sr^liEU^AS, 15,000 F>£M iisns. #e* x7V-;f0 cfc ©itifft* 5*©-. &mR)&izf£n hfc ^E^nst T-5&£>tf, 2010 ¥$TH, HFC 0###H, 20,000 F >&&XZ> d 5 „ <£ 9 E U^ASUiieW Lti'h, #< 0®®^ VOC wa©fc«6lc HFC-152a £E5 c-klcte 6»ttni£, *-/>Rg@7)?@cofc 1970 fit. x7'/-ima%m##i=j:a?Mmm0%#B@i= &ofc„ 4@fcU ^FfflSK HFC x7V ’-;F£E5n"r-S>&6lf, :* VxllCttESTifc 9. -55- Sot, HFC £X7 '/-;H:ffi 0 £ 11:11, Responsible Use ©#x#6Bl££-ti-5 © iCfWSfcSn^ftbll XZZtc» GWP ro/bS H HFC ZM& Z<»W,n\zMiz5^T, HFC ©EmA%©64i^%614, !Sx^JW-t|gfllMS|l, to toiSSffiiJXt/H^STOyxT-^lt HFC £fiS-5 Z titsE'Mit^rU>X$,^z>. C4l6 © Responsible Use ©54*il4, HFC E cm 7^ bjf |5 4$: A li-1 , A x-f>//U-A, $l*m»9Jt:14aT14$6&VA |8IUaig6*T-6 HFC 8o DBTfe, Responsible Use ©#Xi5i:Eo T, ffli§lgfM£t'-51S'S^£ < CHLAA Mxl4, totoffl ©*&©«£, #<©am HFC Sffi©g«*#»o'ltTb'S. X^-'/©*a©fci?)©Sffitt HFC K^W^ffiT'S (4) Self-chilling Beverage Can cfc-12 Sfflnteft9ifflx7'/-;btt, #<©gtotcEtinTnfc„ «xi4, Affix’7 X©%0, *E6Ba8#©*SrS$SS'tt*E$'lh»5, S»8fil©fc©©6»©i^gtj:4:„ CFC-12 icftb-o T, HFC-134a, HFC-152a /5t E 4) 4l tti L fc = U*U. Self-chilling Beverage Can 14, l:M%S4lfci6S,T HFC-134a 7 A14 HFC-152a ItSlltEfflLTViS. -Hit 35-75 g©#M&J&#m-4a. *H ERA ©#@1:4:4114. 55%©->x7£ HFC-134a ©iSfi^fisej-S tt5 £, ^*##96 S7h >©fi^fl*4JX 9 , 2000 Ipl: JliASnTlAM'M* 76 E77 $w»C£l:, *#Mi:E5tE19tLTb^6&A#%Mt:14#14A4i6az4^c£\z% tWIAT, ft#©%aiylfAI:ftxA. *ISi$Jfil4, HFC 6 Self-chilling Can BKEBT-S £££«ltU£:,, *##&*# u&&#© v -y-A v yt4, m©A#Ai$ii^$©i@^iwi@©ma&E%-4 5 C £ 6 EihT £ &7)7 o fc „ EffinX H4, 1 F;H/T£b'4>4lT^3©T, Self-chilling Beverage 14. 6ftE^BT'E5n£4l ■56m^*x;b©g|5BT*8b •£>#:.» til £«#MS8e» VA HFC ©7 A 14, Self-chilling Beverage CanfflC14 HFC 4E% U&V1 £ jSl1I Lfc„ Bl^aS^^toEaSIfSr-S&eii, HFC ©**©#11114 Responsible Use ©H ¥51:14 4.4 ## ##^FC14, HFC, HCFC, PFC £4l6£&$ £ L&tAgtUn:/n-t:xAsm^ 2417^-5. 56 1989 f Ctt, 136,080 h >0 CFC-113 t 706,700 F >0 TCA iMfiEf 2 tlT Z. •liiiyXrAWtti • SSiFffTOf I1 ll/0f 7 U 7 &M. 4.5. /\P> ap >© 50%tt, v >AP>l:G&Ufc. 2O%0*gf nT Steffi i£fc*t:W HFC l:G# Vfc. 1 %tt PFC l:GBLT©5 = 5 %fc'tmAP >T7j:ttntto: 6&Of i£7)i®^Tl> 6. £fV>Et$#lK0 25% SrfiATOfcAl, SliTti: 5 %&, TT*5. 2010 fra, EU tCMvttt, ffilkSto© HFC 08Ptti*ta, A#m#© o.3% t:@#f, hfc 2%t:T^&W'S, AmA#*#xt:MLxti, o.ooe%t:T# 4.6 ODS TCStttiUI-© HFC. PFC. SF6fj£ 4.6.1 fk#-yptx HFC-23 tt, HCFC-22 ©KiSHfC, 2~5%@JfT3. HCFC-22 0#m#mAtlt> h U *-ll/liSSCExH, 5teiiHT'tt 2020 ft:, ii±HTH 2040 ft HCFC-22 ti, gffi-m, V-KEH#©®^ L-TfeEtinTO-a. 4.6.2 AN## 7f 5-7AOKS : 7f 5-7ASigtt, i§g$i@@T*8© PFC ASSmStl-S. 711/ -57- 5 < & o fc k £, CF4^ C2F6fr*9 : 1 ©tb*T£ fiKf-S. 1990^^6 1996f©mi:#m#©*^&iWTAM sf6 tt. Tiidy^mt-m 1C, SqDatoi&$£E«§S$roi6]±£Stocklt, M!7;b 5^6©»xa®t0®®^©^iicffifcn-5. ii&«xtLtStoftft sf6 b. yot x*T«8sn^. VX'^X'XAMiSkljnl : EBA^yy^-y^ASME-f -5 1 *7X'*X'XA:&®k8l$ s«igx*-ett, sayy*->r>A#aiie©t$a^xk ut , itttbnxufc so 2ic« sF6» 4.6.3 PFC H. X-/1-3>tfrL-y-^L/-^-ro«a$S,*6to^iK0fc«i)C0i^3fK#: 4.6.4 A*a C10Fle ->7±i6X U-A^Bffittik»miES®*y U7-k ItttfctlS. d©*fttt^X'y*JttlT'^C 4.6.5 K# HFC-152a ttX y Stf U y-^BMHk^Stoft^ESXS© HF St LTtefctlS. HFCtt, #©fb##RI:emT6. 4.6.6 #xXfflSkX'y7>X HFC-152a li. ft 7X©#IS k X y ft> yKfi&bnT(^5. 4.6.7 IS^^flSSiSi Nike tttt, jUbfUtro-J-'f^xySiaiC. ^^tCJJXffl* O&f^O. X-yvaAttStti "TfcAc sf6 sualtv^. sf6 ttjj^e^**#vi©-e, ms WMbntgfc. » 0^e>aEiflC< <#©##AK 6&XX-y Aa Nike ©SlWIt© 65%tt SF6 TUS. SFe «. xXXtf—JPC tM'X© 1 tt©SIWX — ft — tt. 5M-p®IB$SiJk LT, ttitl: < i' k k ftotsjc. 4.6.8 iSKtfX B/b# : JIHJfxXttMEttECf 5>igJMX k tTi»^ -58- StoffiEieSSroicSA-s. sf6 fclWxtLtft X-5, SF6 X t LTI8HS tlTy*. C©fflii^x©figffllj;Sr)T* #* : #A©#m^Ei&-C©%##X6LT©#mK, SF6 ±W- 4.6.9 E&$? SF6. C2F6. C3Fs tt, m^»'fJ©Bgi«E©J:5X<£. #Xti;. #&©ac%f%##llftD. 2 6 I:. CjoF.g^O^nfcJflWjgSSiJ'^AXjtLffit LTftfctlli. 4.6.10 3-7'/-)im%sm MFC-152a «. VOC JgiMIC^g^-e-ftltntf ft 6 &X7 '/-^Sffi©i«W^J t LTiMig sns. $Si©toA9©'>ftn#Wl::eBT-5S5£. 0iJAtfn-y->-tfii/X4>x + x3->x^- Ttt, NOX »s VOC UTAff IcWSftTtffc^XX'y X'6%4T-5 2 TH5. U^LAStoSSfTtt, NOX liSB^^tt'^SIftlS. & ttlcttSSfE*©T^lU^Otod: 5/j: VOC ^'#-^©T. xr V—il/ESlcXBfS VOC fi. #%*le ttWIS left 6ft!'. 4.6.11 ###I# CF„, C2F6. C3Fs, C4F8, CHF3. NF3. SF6 © J; 5 ft 7 y *ft ©#ftftam#m#xzmm$fi-ci,)&. enswi/xn #m©^7Xx Xyf AX'-^ CVD gB©*#le#t)flT!'&. 3-D-y/X B*. $gB. *■©¥ ##f###m(WSC)le^wx. 2010 ¥$Tle. 1995 ¥ letter ft < at io%ft*ttBiiiS-r-5B«£s$Lft„ ana. a^#m#x©Bim&m#%fta#x li'n-rzmmwtiiZfttcWibTomT'&z,' 4.6.12 9 — pfc. c6f14. cuf20, c13f22 «, $fflsesg$ig©iitiec@6ie6gtin5= pfc — 59 — ^ 7-99-0 h 1/- th-thLTEtonSo 3 oT, % -60- HFC. PFC. SF« & © 55 GWP fiSxi $ X © 5.1 HFc #©#m#a*m HFC #©3 ^Xl:#k6 19 am#©m#l:4:0 3#x©###w©§$fi#M-im&%ot cneroi+att. 1993 f s m©A#a# «6T%E3niifTi;ssnTH5. r©6±Rifiifett. n-5^itC*oT^I9. 1999 ¥ 5 fl U*ffl© P c©g$RSiitHtt. sbsta © hfc #3 ^X©#m*H*#&%0 (FCCC/SBSTA/1999ZMISC.6/Add.l) 1C sunt™. i©x«lctt. UNEP. E*. *H. EU(7y >7> K^Etti), yjwyx-, Xa-y-x> B. AxT, X-X'XtoSxH&J:?/ 19 © NGO B*©#iti#toJS±fTtolf-BiUtt. *1TIA5„ (1) HFC ^©ss Sjfi7,x>B©Xo-XhMt^iia©S'Ji«*J;U'@iR • RWffl, ^>^^ge©iiStoih. S91#>^lcS#LTH5>yx©iiE®L8. 0iR^X©»fiJffl • i#'>XfA©IS (2) HFC-23 SflE© HFC-23 HFC#3^X#m#©% 1/3 & 6A6. HCFC-22 HFC-23 #»)$-#-&. HCFC-22 |5!Se#©ES#fr©l:il'fbU J:5> HFC-23 ®/Mfc t HFC-23 ©#%%%##^&©#W (3) #%#:©#& SPffi«ia©HISffi*. PFC fWJJ7. • yXfifflK. 4El8T©^Xffiffllt¥©3)i $ib (4) 7,xX9 1yX7d--AS$ #xn>MfES9Jttffltfc*©|6]-h. SiSBttoSaSiJS. SS-^SS; 0 ©|6]_h (5) X7'/—JUSpb 7"X hXnu —i:LT©PJfflAt#'fc*i. y >xn>5S^©K^^Si$Ull6tiTH-5. ®I,®&£'©^®®AX7'./—/Bffl HFC ©y >X □ L t£ 6 < 3. (6) #m#m* E$e U -tM X;PEUX-d"< 0® • ®it©toE. 8r$itf©@Mfc**5S^©iEtt (7) A-X73> #%%. @iR • HfUffl • ®«©tt®. S#B#©SStoih. #7n>*©MfS (8) ^©to&ssia -61- Sifts# • m® • HfUffl • ««©#*. #7d >»» ± (9) «Affl SF6 Sift • *.#B#©iS»Bit. 0iR • BfW->XfA»*f, «SF6E8g®M% HFC W 3 #x© 20io¥aj3a5#titiea. % $ 5.1- l © 6£"e$5&6tf, c©gga+5*tc^ u tts-5. 5.1-1 HFc # 3 ^x©#mwei*m©a* HFC 2 0 19.5 5 4 3 0 PFC 1 1 14.0 2 9 1 3 sf6 1 7 14.3 2 4 8 -s-n- 4 9 4 7.8 1 0 7 5 1 5.2 SEtitiiTOM^tonx h #mmei#m**aa. comma, ^n-enoyssaj:o *s < g R$i®B6Si|fi"t5i:S, 8 BD0B«f»S »t5±Ta^n5. a^n-ea**DfTtenx®*®*«. %*?aa#®@mxHFc s®#aifflieijic^$»3x HiCS6ifrt>nT®5. c®j;5»iit»a. emgBonx fa X*-X>XS± tf65xT-aAiHT*fc^M'St *5£gfctt5. *CT'*ffi%aShfc ft g $ n -a 2 o © u ■$-h mm £ btf \zffi$-r %. 5.2.1 Ecofys Report <24) Reduction of the emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 in the European Union Final Report, April 1999 # $ ci S a. ^ 7 4 T? 8> -5 Ecofys ifi , K'JUSMe (the European Commission)© DGXI(SSfTi&ffiS)©ttEa j: 0 , EU U*a6 HFC. PFC SF6 © #ttillEj3«klXgiJM^ii©iH$$rff©$ -62- ^•niiy®ssT-(»isi6tt*(yaoT66. • SfffliiibT£l^t>©H, HCFC-22 tEBtlC*5tj--6 HFC-23, 7.^3 £ER© PFC, 7 sf6^_htfens. cne©giJM»'\ l^u w* 69lcfl.5 (1) ia6w MlEESS©afi£#ll8&^-6fc»to?g|i!j©-oAUT, 8«nx h©/hS VttiltMSSrifl -5 C £A^&6. it# 3 t/XCQHTIi, SSHSto^itASTTICfi-totiTH-B. HFC, PFC, SF6 © 3 # X 137> t^T Sfr 5 0. *i9$-Wfk>nfc. c©fc«6ic Euis #3^xmiH*m#m©?#*@6Mm*m©e#&M «L, #£tifiiJ«©e«ffi4=ti:MS©Sttj6ffofc, *#Mlctt*©S9»tsifTsnfc. ® ##©&#©&£T©E UA#© 2005 f At:#' 2010 f ©#m#&f #T6. MB ^sn$»%#©ms-cfT5. © #m&3X @ Hil©fc»©l»SSS67)McT-6. © iraBB^X^Xth-*5>©3X> 5. (2) M%©*#ALt#mm HFC : HFC ©£E£®9»V HCFC-22 ©tE nEffl, »m#) iS« x7V-;i/ S;k9J PFC : 7;l/3%xCA©@& ¥«»£E SF6 : -63- 7 7 a 7 A© Sifi &©ilg (3) #m#m EU15 xBCx-7©tStti£glf=?')->7. 7 'O 1/7>K, ;l/7-fe >7*J1X\ # ibbtfik x^'f >, *-X h 'J 7, f 77-7^6ti-f-XA%A^^o/c.. $fc, xf—xHjr, x^ >7 > h nii6*m*T$e. toK##HwmT&s. #§ms*ifcTr-xt), ri ti&ttAiinti'&n. £fc, PFC SF6to#i$ffli6toftkA^K^T$i5. 1995 ¥tC*5tt-5 EU A#© HFC # 3 *X©A#iM#il, C02 iff 6 T* h >T$ 0 - HFC »$ 37 @73 h >, PFCrt'*7S*h>. SF6»t 14 57J h >T$.7 fc. :nHfSIJ!lf *X©l~2%T*ifcS,, *igifcft«SW^T*ofc^'J y t, tflbhtflk 7 'OV y'y F, XM>l:iLTIl, to© 11 yH^'itSL-fcWSfflvnrkS, StoffllS*l$©7X F^sJ^Sfei*©^ —X£LT, #m#$!l###© 2010 ¥©8Nttll. HFC 7)t 65 5* F>, PFC tfi 5 57J F >. SF6t)? 12 5* F>, -&# 82 @ *f>t$9, B*©@^©mjM*mm©?@#m# 102 F>£t3;ti:fEgt;*nsiTT$> S. PFC, SFeliM^L,. HFC aiUPf-So SttTH, HCFC-22 &##© HFC-23 -^TIFS-OAfijgS#© PFC &£*© Process Emission ^'Ctl?.4*iS:ffi©fe5HTtt, ESticnStoPtti^ffll ms ns-*, #*% (4) *k 5i*gk*#9"eSS» a. ©#&##JM b. HFC #© u -»< 7 ii/1R#m c. f%##R^©K# a. HFc#?#m%sk«mmma§^©gi# e. f©to a. HCFC-22 ©£jSB#© HCFC-23 ©Ptti HCFC-23 4e*©©B$ttH, 53 TF>t!f6 80 T b >©S6Bn8 9, ®7itHtaa|S| -64- HFC-23 HFC rottiiltt, C02$WT- 12 ~37 077h> L7i o b. i^i$S59^SftC*5tt-5 HFC ®#m 1993 #®ifs8iU8 X □ XOflEElti;, 64.5 =Fh>$ofc„ ^hi>4S HFC ICBStoxo tzff&t. 97 @77 h> C02-eq TS5. 1995 ¥TIJ HFC ^®G&ti:%i 0it A/TD6W®T, 4.3 00h>CO2-eq-e&oA. 2010#®f NK. 0~100 @77 h > C02- 5 = #aiB'j«w*iUTtt. i*Stoih(cro$STtt, 5%tcfc), ft#a®#m. 7,D-kX®&#&i:»i3E&fc®T&-E>„ %%®3X <, A SALATS5). 7>:E-T®S-Bt), HFC IXtfcL- 20~30%®SS»l#<^*-5, c. Foam 1995 HFC (A&fflte'tfPT'&£0 2020 HFC CO GWP £ 800, ###J \t 32 W7? h > C02-eq tJ'MZn&o d. Other HFC Emission Sources : 2020 XTV-;i/ : 25-37 H75 h > C02-eq ®M : 1-4 MtC02-eq : 1H77 h>C02-eq □"It : 9 —43 W75" h > C02-eq # n 5.2.i-1 co 2 Wf hfc co2i b>^tco, 60-90 T^. #(&###HFC EU (7)^e -65- H 5.2.1 m £ Source Measure Marginal Estimated Maximum Marginal cost (ECU/t COreq.) emission emissions reduction reduction EU-15 in potential EU- 2010 15 (Mt COr (MtCOreq.) eq.) <0 0-50 50-100 >100 MFC HCFC-22 production Incineration 90% 10 9 0.40 Refrigeration general Recycling ? 25 ? 2 Industrial refrigeration Leakage reduction 67% 1 0.67 16 Alternatives 100% 1 1 50 Process modifications 1 ? Commercial refrigeration Leakage reduction 80% 11 8.8 170 Alternatives 100% 11 11 200 Process modifications 90% 11 9.9 110 Transport refrigeration Leakage reduction 80% 3 2.4 70 Alternatives 100% 3 3 70 Stationary airco Alternatives 100% 1 1 1000 Household refrigeration Recollection 100% 0.2 0.2 150 Mobile airco Alternatives 100% 8 8 25 Solvents, other Process optimisations 100% 5 5 0-100 Foam Alternatives 100% 25 25 ? H-r-y. xy> h, x^x-^y. x 6. -ff J XICH#^®B^##|At&6. *43. 4-7>^ttfflBtli, X-A-V-y-'y h©SrB;l!© 60-65%H7>t = 7% igT&S. 5.2.2 MIT®$©S<25,^6 1999 Ip 10 7 B 4l fl. Massachusetts Institute of Technology © J. Relly 6© “Multi-gas assessment of the Kyoto Protocol" CO S5:18717 <3. «ss8$*Ttt. staE0fiSx»*^x 8 faifliJig$ett. gwp rn-gsti* co2t&ssftti 4> iz lC5fcs66 <1 ©$*ssii. rs^hheppa ), ±#fk#a##©*@^-t 7%T$>6. *W6ttM$BMe$#©6 4/XA*X-y-y hT*tt. BEiifi£©3Xh£ 60%t#«T#6C jcSrEttiUte. 2010 if$^6 2100 ¥$TiSE}§BEx*tt4ltf. ##43 4:^0%!:# A 6%mic«aa/o^#x,im64i*t^c6, 2010 d;?* ELt^m$t|&666-c©#K©Mt:14:±$*#Xii-rT< 6cammL*. Sf*©«@*(2. GWP© 100 time horizon t##i'(t#©fflaf1;ffl2!l*©ffia^T'#T an^tssL, iam©mmw&ecTcat:*6 9a#omi/Tt^6. tiWlCdSlAT 3 7>©T--X£S6Ufc= Case 1 BE • gatt> C02*'tt Case2 BE : 6 #X, #a : C02 Case2’ 2100 35%ffl« Case3 BE: 6 41X. #g : 6#X Caee3’ Case2’lC|B]C 67- $5.2.2-1 Stitirovd-'J^-CSi^liBBh^-CarbontiiS) EU12-rH B* lavas mm(2oio##ma.&^a) co 2 1,362 (1,838) 822 (1,064) 298 (395) 891 (763) ch4 170(184) 129 (143) 9.0(10.9) 155 (209) n2o 92.3(12.1) 71.7 (92.3) 9.3 (13.7) 11.3 (14.2) SF6 10.5(12.7) 6.2 (7.7) 3.5 (4.9) 3.2 (3.5) HFC 12.3 (27.6) 7.6 (17.7) 4.6 (11.6) 1.6 (4.6) PFC 7.4 (5.0) 4.1 (2.8) 1.3 (0.3) 6.2 (5.3) £1+ 1,654 (2,188) 1,042 (1,327) 326 (466) 1,068 (1,000) «ag#(1990%&&#tLf=2010%©N'M$) -7.0% -8.0% -6.0% -0.2% 2010^(7) M##aim(2oio$$r0M%a) Case 1 1,267 (571) 757 (308) 280 (144) 889 (-126) Case 2,3 1,539 (650) 958 (369) 306 (160) 1,068( —66) ±©KIC43l/iT, HFC ©i&#itiiRB, HCFC-22 i#l#© HFC-23 t, A-X73> %%© HFC-134a il, HFC-23 ICHLTB. *- I73>^nm C02 %6$0G^S:E$VSiJS3X hS-liCHTV^. PFC 1C OUT B, 7)l$m%L-?7> SF6 Bo^TB. e*ffl#§g*e,©EliKRfiJffl 5.3 7D>«i8«fflatt 5.3.1 ±©ESHF©iifT®Jttli1CJ!,6:h5 4:51c. HFC ©#m##l##tLT. 0JRU u +H7)l/$fcB®ig£fi-5 CtB, PFC SF6 (c O^TfcBiR, UtH7;l/3;fcB«®©8$ttB HFC t^:< Ih ICT"*^^. cnb©5fct HFC t#A%. SF; B#)5|a|iRRfijmA%imtC«/L,T sfc. f##m© pfc icmltb. ^#R#M%icmi^%icmm/uT^e. cn^ico© T©#m&m#Bt cTBfjs-r-s. «t hfc oh «• wmcowT^a. aft. %#^M©M%##)T«A6aT© ^7D>©0iRB, it L-T CFC 43j:t/HCFC-22 ftM*tbTli-575S, HFC ICfeJIfST i&B-fT&D, tn$*ES1t-5Ct7)l HFC ©#ba$%A#aiWM#Kt% Q 3 %T $>3-5. ##©BiR^XiA7)i4-#i#:t^6t ^-SFiSATtonx h = = •7AZj:yXiA»tS$tl-5„ T©#lcaft##i©7 0>©^#*^ft^L/:. CC 1, 2 ¥T±Hmic^)BiSi$7)t$ 1/1. !&##©?o>©^-Wi%mT#6#aAi. BStiH*±7)to^:ti/ixj;5. -68- $5.3.1-1 £B0)7n>fi68iSt! SHS& 1 E$7" 7>W-t' XfLtil# D-9 1] - 4Jly 2 tans-a- as® 2 Mtt&fc tp 3 r umm& 4 Skffl lH'HJI v 5 n-^iJ-4Jl> 6 ## n-9'J -^Jlv 7 m^xssans ifc&SIAii 8 9 10 7-OXiXl 11 l-tfiX? 12 tH3E *5FStX>h 13 WUY aiBEaJ5(E;i 14 BfflBSnEiJS 15 TWH##i>y :7W n' 7 16 f# 17 W^iil HS/7>W-k' XHiJEItl n-^'J-^y 18 T)U ftlfiEMRJSfi 19 mu M mMMfcJfcii 20 Sill mmm 7-97 " 73' 7 21 sw 7-97" 73' 7 22 IKS ±ffl5KSffiSESE9r 5K0EB£*p 23 BH MWb#X#Rf%#X# 24 Sto *%%# 25 smmm D-9'J -4lly 26 XR 3c*SSi#t»- r ummip 27 #4 7-97" 93' 7 28 fn^iJU 29 HI Q-9'J -4)ly 30 i£B 7-f-y--7-fit AXDD'rJWHUKifi Rif 31 4-y' -%3 32 FPf^^ aBSSEKSfi 33 SStiOBSIJQlS tx>w> 34 M-ffi □ -9'J -^)ly -69- 5.3.2 7n>comm ■ 1) ft&±¥©WiS$[if 6tt, CFC ©KL©:ti-#Wi££%8Lfc„ CFG © 28%Na XT17— SiS #6lcSaT*«5>y^6 2) SSti£^«te<2,> 1999 if 11 n 25 B®BTiJXSEMK«ktiti. 5>SiS«®*ffl4Kg)66-3ttfc6Sg$Ufc. F U 5AI 500~700‘Cl:ttfStV. ^tCfl,4Vfc7D>6SS6EK 0.1 5. 7 0>tt*Sfctl' V^AiSSttttcStEV. F U 7A. 7y(tthU')A. 4 h U 5»W*tt99%K±TS5). 3) IJ >m 711/5 CFC ©KtS'C. PFC *4^HFC ©^Wfeffofco 10 4;F%©-t'>7A6-ttlU >@E74 SfSBTtt, 700‘CT 100%© CF4©^ 4) l§mmfri ©#%#S'I$#t l/T#B$©%m#Xo6©7n>@iR*E-/ 7 > FTfrtonfcBtiB©7*,. *®69fc&W*S*;6i. 10 #,3 KEM^6©7n>@« KBBbT©<7z)i®Wtt»aB^i4^6nT^5>©TKTI-ffl*lri@4ht"5. • SIftii©7 0>a#$ : 1983 ¥®T7*-A4IC 8~1O%0S#LT /6s$S£iiTUS. %%7o n%iTOET&S©T, a © JS-S lc HE$B# i: 7 n > -70- tt 80 %JJ(±ii# ;r i: C&6. • 7n>®5>* : » V4'>IC^WdnTU-5 ll%ro7n>®5*>. 56fla?S®atBSI5IC 8%, • > HT$>5. BOT-UT. 100"Cm±(:g^$C t A%@T*6. -71- f > F 'J *-;W*5£#lc xntf, E»ii±Btc43W-£ CFG ft.Hours.* If? 0$#£Mtt, 1999 jp 7 fl 7)16 1995~97 $0¥i9?8 WifclC'J >Y£4l, 2010 $ (T CAB, 2015 f) $-etcmi#Mic±m$a6. TTicSM%ii-hsra4, f >F'J-;f$ CFG Aj:£'©giJSS*i<)T43 0 . f®K*tlTT®i $6.1- 1 ICSUfcJ; $ $6.1-1 M%i£_hlllc43t;|--5 ODS fi*etO#^<3» (=F F» 1995 1996 1997 1998 CFG 185 151 149 128 /\P> 45 43 49 44 CTC 9 10 12 TCA 3 2 2 2 *5=C?P 8 9 9 9 e#t 241 214 219 195 5 1C, E%i6-kH£#:0 ODS IC-m&SASffiSLTlA-S. U^UViSYc&jS, «$ 20 7: H>»i}S»S4lTH-5= C©^T, AD>ft S9 25% fi»-5 C i)51&g 5415. 5tei*H0 #^ica, hcfc 6E6-t±-ric-micx*;i/^-8»*&s$T6®HCA4iT^#sri0 ^HK'S’fr 7 0 C 0 £1 c71C 14, -6 7 F U 4"—IFISlfe 1999 ¥ 3 fl $TtCf > F IJ *-JF*^TH,iiJSnfcXT'/-JF, %#. 0@Bi|YD7x7 FIC430T, 8IJSS415 CFG, CTA, CTC if 0ft#R#&, TOi $ 6.1- 2 434;V’$ 6.1- 3 ICSLfc, 89 =PF>0 CFG ftt'055, HCFC 1C 17.3%, HFC 1C 6.5%, @Mb*$IC 51.0%, *tS, ###MkAi0f 0#K#/\0RIM< 25.2%"C& 6. #7D>7'nyx7M; 76%t)$E$ £ 4l 5 C i 1C & 5 „ 1,119 fr®fii7,Py x7 F0*m#&9, C0*9¥»^®M«0Ynyx^ FTifcofc. %fS#4STtt, AR%m#0A#»A#14, ##C7 F-7 C02 % tei'®#7D >%SlcEiSS4l5 7*13 7x7 F t UTigliJdnfc. S«7F7 >*&#» #70 >S«'\fflKi7’nyi7 F i C TEW 541/475'*, HHCFC-141b lC5Sigtt)ICEi&"t5 7"D7x7 FiLTEWSFl/t. HCFC^E#l/t& $6.1- 2 A±mi= ODS Sector/Sub-sector BASELINE REPLACEMENT (if of projects approved) TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY (MTODP) (MTODP md % of total) HCFCs HFCs HCs Other ODS IMPACT ODP y. ODP % ODP % ODP % Aerosols (84) um 0 0 11 0.01 19,995 83.05 4,077 16.94 Foams (588) 35,329 8,675 24,55 58 0.17 10,652 30.15 15,944 45.13 5,685 1 Refrigeration (363) 27,405 6,676 24.36 20.74 14,509 52.94 513 1.96 Solvents (84) 1,760 33 1.87 0 0 199 11.31 1,528 86.82 6.1- 3 j£_tB£4306 ODS ALL BASELINE REPLACEMENT SECTORS TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY (MT ODP) MT % ODP CFCs, CTC.TCA 88,566 HCFCs 15,384 17.31 HFCs 5,754 6.47 HCs 45,355 51.02 Other 22,402 25.20 Btt, HCFC ©^©SMtolSl-^ftEH-e^-COSJIE^X^- ST6 2003 HCFC ODS 4E©«^-3X h©^fcOlfig($g»5E»6il6. —:&. ODS ±E©fcfe(C, %%;i/f-#*&R#l=|S]±2-&6C,!:#-C$fl0. Cfl y-nx H$, ESrM&X U -y h»i$0. ®JSMOt)a$LO„ H%5S±Btt. *'/>■«« ©%:&©t> h lJ*-^$*^X*;k^-ieiS$lBlBtlC|6l±d'ti-5 6C >S«©SffllCJ;oTiiiB8TS6#eiCtt. t< C;e> MJ*-;b*^tGEF$ail#(Cffi ^.6C -73- 6.2 *V>effS£fi« i$-a-5cit©agitsa^fc*s, cc-m, z.cD^m^&.-oxn^-TMxvim^titzrf n^xi* hcfltLt. 9-i CdSttS-?1? —©£&:/nvx? i'-fTte. $ B 6.2- 1 CFC-11 64:7/ CFC-12 LZc^ 7-Zo'SSSSHS UT©-5„ ^7—/'oe>©iihtt. io%&AA, iftA^SuttZdrailiftoT© 5. MAtt*. 500kg (D^y-tz, 25 (C 3 bIC, 1,250kg© T&tnS. CFG 6Eb/j:©5L7-lceitUfct't^ -74 6.2-1 9-U Type of Cooling Capacity Manufacturer Refrigerant (TR) Age (Years) Number of Units Trane CFC-11 301-500 <5 100 CFC-12 501-1,000 <5 125 McQuay CFC-12 101-300 <5 14 CFC-12 301-500 <5 27 CFC-12 501-1,000 <5 10 Carrier CFC-11 101-300 <5 200 CFC-11 301-500 <5 500 CFC-11 501-1,000 <5 100 CFC-11 >1,000 <5 3 CFC-11 101-300 5 Total 1,478 75- hfc , pfc sf6 icmlt, M-t-E> -X UNEP t IPCC LT i t btz HFC/PFC f 7*-7. Vt'~ btbbMzo dtUi* ■£> t- V t-vvaSSSD16-6-T-|±*E5tL tzt\'7ibe 3-iL IPCC SgS^U-**- b^x<7)E 4-m-e(om # » L^o o , ^ -fA'i-t;, *-oto$|ulS6-LTv>S/^vi 0 swT-i±w% stirv^v^^\ a^ar-ii itt a, tm * a* v>sssftKit 4-E-?HFC 70*[p]ttS-i**?»±7)##U*L?#^(ci±, 4-#$ * V> 1««i:ittoSEfttoik&i d-®it7& ft If# -77- # # x m ( 1 ) Meeting Report of the Joint IPCC/TEAP Expert meeting on Options for the Limitation of Emissions of HFCs and PECs" , WMO and UNEP, July 1999 ( 2 ) HFC and PFC Task Force of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel “Implications to the Montreal Protocol of the Inclusion of HFCs and PFCs in the Kyoto Protocol ” , UNEP Ozone Secretariat, October 1999 (3) COP-5 UU&Decision 17/CP.5 “Relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and efforts to safeguard the global climate system ” ( 4 ) Robert T. Watson, “Report to the COP-5 Plenary Meeting ” , Nov. 2, 1999 (5) Government of Japan, “Climate Change Initiatives of Japan ” , October 1999 (6) COP-5 U jo O & i&!SI Decision 1/CP.5 “Implementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action ” ( 7 ) Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 2 Industrial Processes ( 8 ) IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, “ Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 3. Industrial Gases” Dec. 17, (1999) ( 9 ) UNEP Environment Effect Assessment Panel, “Intrim Summary, Environment Effects of Ozone Depletion ” , Sept., 1999 (10) Richard McKenzie et al, Science 285, 1709 (1999) (11) James A. Butler, Nature 403, 260 (1999) (12) Robert C. Rhew et al, Nature 403, 292 (1999) (13) Y. Yokouchi et al, Nature 403, 295 (1999) (14) F. Keppler et al, Nature 403, 298 (1999) (15) UNEP TEAP Solvent Technical Option Committee, 1999 Report, 137 (1999) (16) Donald J. Wuebbles et al, “Progress in Evaluating Ozone Depletion Potentials For N-Propyl Bromide as a Function of Location of Emission ” , Jan. 22, 2000 (17) submitted by Directorate of Health Standards Programme, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “Nomination of 1-Bromopropane and 2- Bromopropane for Testing by the National Toxicology Program ” , Dec., 1999 (18) m 72 E pp!37, 306-311, 511-514, 517, (1999) (19) *###, 9(1), 69 (1998) (20) 21(1), 23 (1999) (21) Federal Register, March 25, 1999 (Volume 64, p. 14417) -79- (22) AFEAS, US.DOE and Oak Ridge National Laboratory “Energy and Global Warming Impacts of HFC Refrigerants and Emerging Technologies ” ,1997 (23) UNFCCCtottS ! FCCC/SBSTA/1999/MISC/Add.l (24) H. Heijnes et.al (Ecofys, Netherlands), “Reduction of the emissions of HFCs, PFCs anf SF6 in the European Union ” April 1999 (25) J. Reilly et.al, Nature 401, 549 (1999) (26) Hideo Nishiumi, fg , “ Conversion of Chlorinated Fluorocarbons into the Second or Third Generation Refrigerants ” (27) @3# Wa, BflJZ##M,Nov. 25, 1999 (28) mm (29) Vol.10,160 (1999) (30) UNEP Ozone Secretariat, “Production and Consumption of ODS, 1986-1998 ” (31) World Bank, ^ > h 0 (0# “Program to Reduce the Usage of CFC- 11 and CFC-12 in Chiller Servicing by Replacin CFC-Based Chillers with HFC- 134a and HCFC-123 Chillers” (1998) -80 # # * # $#- 1 HFC PFC it'kVStiX Vs SF6 coiMffttjb' «t tFSItr- 9 (HFC and PFC Task Force of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Report, Appendix) ...... 83 2 COP-5 ## 1 “Implementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action ” ...... 95 ##-3 COP-5 &B2 “Relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and efforts to safeguard the global climate system ” ...... 97 ##-4 0 “Climate Change Initiatives of Japan ” , October 1999 ...... 99 5 0 ^(7) HFC ^ 3 if 7 6 UNFCC£?UC* : FCCC/SBSTA/1999/MISC/Add.l ...... 107 6 IPCC 'i y^y h V'?7?'T'(X (1999^ 12 ^ h) “Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 3. Industrial Gases” Dec. 17, (1999) ...... U5 ##- 7 EU (D HFC ^ 3 if 7 L “Reduction of the emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 in the European Union ” Ecofis, Netherlands ...... 191 -81- APPENDIX L - ATMOSPHERIC VALUES FOR VARIOUS OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES AND THEIR SUBSTITUTES Compound Chemical Formula Lifetime4 OOP5 GWPs from IPCC SAR1 GWPs from 1998 Ozone Assessment2 voc 7 (years) 100 year GWPs3 100 year GWPs 500 year GWPs Direct Net6 Direct Net6 Direct Carbon dioxide See footnote 8 - 1 - 1 - 1 Exempted CFC-U CC13F 45 1 3800 540 to 2100 4600 -1680 to 3610 1600 Exempted CFC-12 CC12F2 100 1 8100 6200 to 7100 10600 6900 to 10200 5200 Exempted CFC-13 CC1F3 640 1 14000 ' 16300 Exempted CFG-113 CC12FCC1F2 85 0.8 4800 2600 to 3600 600 1740 to 5330 2700 Exempted CFC-114 ccif2ccif2 300 1 9800 8700 Exempted CFC-115 ccif2cf3 1700 0.6 10300 14300 Exempted HCFC-21 chci2f 2 0.04 210 65 HCFC-22 chcif2 11.8 0.055 1500 1300 to 1400 1900 1500 to 1840 590 Exempted HCFC-123 chci2cf3 1.4 0.02 90 20 to 50 120 Oto 100 36 Exempted HCFC-124 CHC1FCF3 6.1 0.022 470 390 to 430 620 450 to 590 190 Exempted HCFC-141b CH3CC12F 9.2 0.11 600 170 to 370 700 -130 to 570 220 Exempted HCFC-142b ch3ccif2 18.5 0.065 1800 1600 to 1700 2300 1740 to 2210 720 Exempted HCFC-225ca cf3cf2chci2 2.1 0.025 180 55 Exempted HCFC-225cb ccif2cf2chcif 6.2 0.033 620 190 Exempted Halon-1301 CBrF3 65 10 5400 -85400 to-14100 6900 -97030 to- 2700 9510 Halon-1211 CBrClF2 11 3 1300 390 Halon-2402 C2F4Br2 W 6 HFC-23 chf3 243 11,700 - 14800 - 11900 Exempted HFC-32 ch2f2 5.6 650 - 880 - 270 Exempted HFC-41 ch3f 3.7 150 - 140 - 43 HFC-125 chf2cf3 32.6 2800 - 3800 - 1200 Exempted HFC-134 chf2chf2 10.6 1000 - 1200 - 370 Exempted HFC-134a ch2fcf3 13.6 1300 - 1600 - 500 Exempted HFC-152 ch2fch2f 0.5 43 - 13 HFC-152a ch3chf2 1.5 - 140 - 190 - 58 Exempted HFC-143 ch2fchf2 3.8 . - 300 - 370 - 120 HFC-143a ch3cf3 53.5 ' - 3800 - 5400 - 2000 Exempted HFC-161 ch3ch2f 0.25 - 10 - 3 Exempted HFC-227ea cf3chfcf3 36.5 - 2900 3800 1300 Exemption pending Report of the TEAP HFC and PFC Task Force, October 1999 Appendix-72 Compound Chemical Formula Lifetime4 ODP1 GWPs from IPCC SAR1 GWPs from 1998 Ozone Assessment2 voc7 (years) 100 year GWPs3 100 year GWPs 500 year GWPs Direct Net6 Direct Net6 Direct HFC-236cb ch2fcf2cf3 14.6 - 1400 - 430 HFC-236ea chf2chfcf3 8.1 - 1000 - 310 Exempted HFC-236fa cf3ch2cf3 226 - 6300 - 9400 - 7300 Exempted HFC-245ca ch2fcf2chf2 6.6 - 560 - 720 - 22/0 HFC-245fa cf3ch2chf2 7.710 - 1040*° - 320'° Exempted HFC-365mfc cf3ch2cf2ch3 10.2 - 910 - 280 Exempted HFC-43-10mee cf3chfchfcf2cf3 17.1 - 1300 . - 1700 - 530 Exempted HFE-E125 cf3ochf2 165 - 15300 - 10000 HFE-E134 chf2ochf2 29.7 - 6900 - 2200 HFE-E143a ch3ocf3 5.7 - 970 - 300 HFE-E227eal cf3ochfcf3 11 - 1500 - 460 HFE-E236ea2 cf3chfochf2 5.8 - 960 - 300 HFE-E236fal cf3och2cf3 3.7 - 470 - 150 HFE-E245cb2 cf3cf2och3 1.2 - 160 - 50 HFE-E245fal chf2ch2ocf3 2.2 - 280 - 86 HFE-E245fa2 cf3ch2ochf2 4.4 - 340 - 110 HFE-E254cb2 chf2cf2och3 0.22 - 25 - 8 HFE-E263fb2 cf3ch2och3 0.1 - 11 - 3 HFE-E329mcc2 cf3cf2ocf2chf2 6.8 - 890 - 280 HFE-E338mf2 cf3cf2och2cf3 4.3 - 540 - 170 HFE-E347mcc3 cf3cf2cf2och3 1.3 - 140 - 43 HFE-E347mcf2 cf3cf2och2chf2 2.8 - 360 - 110 HFE-E356mec3 cf3chfcf2och3 0.94 - 98 . 30 HFE-E356pcc3 chf2cf2cf2och3 0.93 - 110 - 33 HFE-E356pcf2 chf2cf2och2chf2 2.0 - 260 - 80 HFE-E356pcf 3 chf2cf2ch2ochf2 1.3 - 180 . 55 HFE-E365mc3 cf3cf2ch2och3 0.11 - 11 . 4 HFE-E374pc2 chf2cf2och2ch3 0.43 - 47 - 14 HFE- (CF3)2CFOCH3 3.5 - 340 - 110 E347mmy2 HFE- (CF3)2CHOCHF2 3.1 - 370 - 110 E338mmz2 HFE- (CF3)2CHOCH3 0.25 - 26 - 8 E356mmz2 Report of the TEAP HFC and PFC Task Force, October 1999 Appendix-73 Compound Chemical Formula Lifetime4 ODP5 GWPs from IPCC SAR1 GWPs from 1998 Ozone Assessment2 voc 7 (years) 100 year GWPs3 100 year GWPs 500 year GWPs Direct Net6 Direct Net6 Direct HFE-E347mcc3 n-C3F7OCH, 4.9 11 • - HFE-E449s4/ n-C4F9 OCHV i- 5.0 390 120 Exempted HFE- C4F9 OCH3 E449mmyc3 HFE-E569sf4/ n-C4F 9 OC2H5/i- 0.77 55 17 Exempted HFE- C4F9 OC2H5 E569mmyc3 2,2,2-Trifluoro- cf3ch2oh 0.46 - 52 - 16 ethanol 2,2,3,3,3-Penta- cf3cf2ch2oh 0.43 - 43 * 14 fluoropropanol Hexafluoro iso (CF3)2CHOH 1.4 - 150 46 propanol PFC-14 cf4 50000 - «* 6500 - 5700 - 8900 Exempted PFC-116 C2p6 10000 - 9200 - 11400 - 17300 Exempted PFC-218 c3f, 2600 - 7000 - 8600 - 12400 Exempted PFC-31-10 C4Ft0 2600 - 7000 - 8600 - 12400 Exempted PFC-41-12 c3f12 4100 - 7500 - 8900 - 13200 Exempted PFC-51-14 c6f14 3200 - 7400 - 9000 - 13200 Exempted PFC-c-318 c-C4Fg 3200 - 8700 - 11200 - 16400 Sulfur sf6 3200 - 23900 - 22200 - 32400 hexafluoride Nitrogen nf3 740 - 10800 - 13100 trifluoride n- C3H7Br 0.0310 Propylbromide Ammonia nh3 - Sulfur dioxide so2 - Methylene CH2C12 0.46 10 3 chloride Propane ch3ch2ch3 0.0412 - 3U 313 Yes 3u n-Butane ch3ch2ch2ch3 0.0212 - 313 Yes Report of the TEAP HFC and PFC Task Force, October 1999 Appendix-74 ‘Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) in these columns were taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (SAR) (Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996.). A blank indicates that no value was listed in the assessment report. These GWPs for HFCs, PFCs and SF& are the values adopted for the Kyoto Protocol according to Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of Decision 1/CP.3 (FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add. 1): “3, The global warming potentials used to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases listed in Annex A shall be those accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties at its third session. Based on the work of, inter alia, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and advice provided by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall regularly review and, as appropriate, revise the global warming potential of each such greenhouse gas, taking fully into account any relevant decisions by the Conference of the Parties. Any revision to a global warming potential shall apply only to commitments under Article 3 in respect of any commitment period adopted subsequent to that revision.” and Paragraph 3 of Decision 2/CP.3 (FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add. 1): “3. Reaffirms that global warming potentials used by Parties should be those provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Second Assessment Report (“1995 IPCC GWP values”) based on the effects of the greenhouse gases over a 100-year time horizon, taking into account the inherent and complicated uncertainties involved in global warming potential estimates. In addition, for information purposes only Parties may also use another time horizon, as provided in the Second Assessment Report.” ^Except as noted, GWP values in these columns were taken from Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project Report No. 44, Geneva, 1999. 3 As stated in footnote “\” 100 year GWPs listed in the IPCC SAR are to be used for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. Note that GWPs were not listed in the SAR 00 Ol for a number of compounds shown in the table. The 100 year GWP of a compound provides an estimate of its influence on global climate to that of carbon dioxide, the reference compound, over the first 100 years after emission to the atmosphere. Since carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere for well over 100 years (see footnote “8 ”) GWPs for longer time horizons such as the 500 year time horizon listed in the last column also provide valuable information relative to a goal of stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations as stated in Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. ^Except as noted, lifetime values were taken from Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project Report No. 44, Geneva, 1999. 5ODP (Ozone Depleting Potential) values are those adopted under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Dashes, indicate that the compounds have negligible potential to deplete the ozone layer. *Net GWPs include both the direct effect on global climate due to a compounds ability to absorb infrared radiation and the indirect effect due to the compounds ability to deplete stratospheric ozone. The ranges shown for compounds is due to the significant uncertainty in the indirect effect term. A blank indicates that no value was listed in the assessment report. A dash, indicates that the net GWP will be identical to the direct GWP. ’Federal Register. 51.100 Definitions. Vol. 63, No. 68. Thursday, April 9,1998. Rules and Regulations. P. 17333. “Exempted” means that the compound has been determined to be negligibly photochemically reactive and is not designated as a VOC under U.S. law. Report of the TEAP HFC and PFC Task Force, October 1999 Appendix-75 8 The effective atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide cannot be described in terms of a simple exponential decay as for the other compounds listed in the table (see the IPCC SAR for more information). However, a significant fraction of an amount of carbon dioxide persists well over 100 years after it has been released to the atmosphere. 9Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1991, World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project Report No. 25, Geneva, Switzerland, 1992. '^Personal communication from Donald Wuebbles. 1 'Personal communication from John Owens. '^Lifetime calculated based on reaction rate constant with OH taken from R. Atkinson, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data Monograph 2, 1994 and methyl chloroform lifetime of 5.7 years taken from Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project Report No. 44, Geneva, 1999. 13GWP based on conversion to carbon dioxide in atmosphere as taken from Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990. Report of the TEAP HFC and PFC Task Force, October 1999 Appendix-76 APPENDIX M - Toxicity Values for Various Ozone-Depleting Substances and Their Substitutes COMMON NAME CHEMICAL CAS No./ECETOC ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE CARDIOTOXIC CARDIOTOXIC ACCEPTABLE OCCUPATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL LOAEL (ppm) NOAEL (ppm) LONG-TERM LONG-TERM SHORT-TERM PUBLIC EXPOSURE (ppm) EXPOSURE EXPOSURE (RfD (ppm) or RfC) (ppm/ CFC-ll Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 NA NA 5,000" 1,100" 0.05" CFC-12 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 1,000' NA 50,000" 25,000d 0.04° HCFC-21 Dichlorofluoromethane 75-43-4 10" NA 10,000" NA NA HCFC-22 Chlorodifluoromethane 75-45-6 1,000" 1,250"" 50,000d 25,000" 14° HCFC-123 2,2-Dichloro-l,l,l- 306-83-2 10* NA 20,000" 10,300" 28 trifluoroethane HCFC-124 1-Chloro-l,2,2,2- 2837-89-0 1,000" 3,000" 25,000" 10,000" 508 tetrafluoroethane ECETOC 1989 HCFC-141b 1,1-Dichloro-l- 1717-00-6 500" 1,000* 5,000" 2,500d 20* fluoroethane ECETOC 1994a HCFC-142b l-Chloro-1,1- 75-68-3 l,000h 5,000y 50,000" 25,000" 12° difluoroethane ECETOC 1991 HCFC-225cb 1,3-Dichloro-1,1,2,2,3- 507-55-1 NA NA 20,000* NA NA pentafluoropropane HFC-23 Trifluoromethane 75-46-4 1,000" 3,000" 500,000° 300,000° 2" HFC-32 Difluoromethane 75-10-5 1,000" 3.00088 350,000' 200,000" 2" ECETOC 1995a HFC-125 Pentafluoroethane 354-33-6 1,000" 3,000" 100,000° 75,000" 2" HFC-134a 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane 811-97-2 1,000" 3,000' 80,000° 50,000d 20° ECETOC 1995b Report of the TEAP HFC and PFC Task Force, October 1999 Appendix-77 COMMON NAME CHEMICAL CAS No./ECETOC ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE CARDIOTOXIC CARDIOTOXIC ACCEPTABLE OCCUPATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL LOAEL (ppm) NOAEL (ppm) LONG-TERM LONG-TERM SHORT-TERM PUBLIC EXPOSURE (ppm) EXPOSURE EXPOSURE (RfD (ppm) or RfC) (ppm)* HFC-143a 1,1,2-Trifluoroethane 420-46-2 1,000" 3,000" 300,000° 25,000° 20** HFC-152a 1,1 -Difluoroethane 75-37-6 1,000" 5,000b 150,000° 50000“ 15° HFC-227ea 1,1,1,2,3,3,3- 43-89-0 1,000" 3,000" >105,000° 90,000° 2" heptafluoropropane HFC-236ea 1, U,2,3,3- 431-63-0 NA NA 35,000q 25,000q NA hexafluoropropane HFC-236fa 1,1,1,3,3,3- 690-39-1 1,000= NA 150,000' 100,000' NA hexafluoropropane HFC-43-10mee 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5 138495-42-8 200 N/A N/A N/A N/A decafluoropentane HFE7100 Methoxy- * 600‘ >104,000' NA 100,000“ 20' nonafluorobutane HFE 7200 Ethoxy-nonafluorobutane * 250w NA 50,000* 20,000* NA PFC-218 (C3F8 ) Perfluoropropane 76-19-7 1000y NA NA NA 0.5°° PFC-410 (C4F10) (FC-3-1- Perfluorobutane 335-25-9 1,000' 10,000' >400,000* 400,000* NA 10) PFC-614 (C6FI4) (FC-5-1- Perfluorohexane 355-42-0 1,000' 10,000* >400,000* 400,000* NA 14) sf6 Sulfur hexafluoride 2551-62-4 1,000* NA NA NA NA C02 Carbon dioxide 124-38-9 5,000“ 30,000“ 15,000v 30,000" NA CH3CH2CH3 Propane 74-98-6 1,000“ NA 1,000" NA NA Report of the TEAP HFC and PFC Task Force, October 1999 Appendix-78 COMMON NAME CHEMICAL CAS N0./ECETOC ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE CARDIOTOXIC CARDIOTOXIC ACCEPTABLE OCCUPATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL LOAEL (ppm) NOAEL (ppm) LONG-TERM • LONG-TERM SHORT-TERM PUBLIC EXPOSURE (ppm) EXPOSURE EXPOSURE (RfD (ppm) or RfC) (ppm)* CH3CH2CH2CH3 n-Butane 106-97-8 800" NA NA 5,000v NA c6h10 d-Limonene 5989-27-5 30h NA 24,000“ 24,000“ il™ HCC-30 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 50cc NA NA NA 0.02e 4,000™ 16™ CF3r Trifluoroiodomethane 2314-97-8 150hh 2000" 2000hh R-717 Ammonia 7664-41-7 25cc 35dd NA NA 0.10* Developmental toxicity has not been addressed in this table because it is felt that the exposure limits set by EPA for the general population (the RfD or RfC) are sufficiently protective of maternal and fetal health. These values are by definition those to which the general population, including sensitive subpopulations, can be continually exposed without the occurrence of adverse effects. # Values have been converted from mg/m^ to ppm for convenience. * Not applicable-chemical is a blend. ~ Compound used in various blends. aOSHAPEL. ACGIH Worldwide. 1991. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. Sixth Edition. Vols I-III. b Estimated: 1 or 0.1 x the NOAEL or LOAEL for cardiotoxicity. ICF Consulting. 1993. Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Foam-Blowing Sector. End-Use: Polyurethane Skin Forms. Draft. March 31, 1993. c Based on AIHA’s “good housekeeping ” limit (see footnote *) Report of the TEAP MFC and PFC Task Force, October 1999 Appendix-79 d Calm, James M. 1996. The Toxicity of Refrigerants. Presented at the International Refrigeration Conference, Purdue University, July 1996. e EPA’s IRIS Website. http://www.epa.gov/ngispgni3Ziris/mdex.htmL Accesssed August 4,1999. fpAFT Website, http://www.paft.org . Accessed August 3, 1999. 6 EPA. 1994. ASNAP Technical Background Document: Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection (Halon Substitutes).® Stratospheric Protection Division. March, 1994. h AIHA WEEL. 1997 WEELs Complete Set. AIHA. 1 Based on ACGIH’s excursion limit recommendation. EPA. 1994. ASNAP Technical Background Document: Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Sterilization.® Stratospheric Protection Division. March, 1994. j Based on ACGIH's "good housekeeping" limit (see footnote k) k EPA. 1994. ASNAP Technical Background Document: Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Foam-Blowing Agents.® Stratospheric Protection Division. March, 1994. * Based on ACGIH’s excursion limit recommendation (see footnote °) mNIOSHSTEL. ACGIH Worldwide. 1991. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. Sixth Edition. Vols I-III. n Estimated by analogy to HFC-134a (see footnote °) 0 EPA. 1994. ASNAP Technical Background Document: Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning.® Stratospheric Protection Division. March, 1994. P Based on ACGIH’s "good housekeeping" limit (see footnote °) A Acurex Environmental Corporation. 1996. Final Report: Acute Cardiac Sensitization Study of HFC-236ea in Dogs by Inhalation. Prepared for EPA under Contract No. 68-D2-0063. June 7, 1996. r 1CF Consulting. 1997. Halon Sector SNAP Risk Screens. Memorandum for EPA under Contract No. 68-D5-0147, Work Assignment 1-16, Task 02. July 31, 1997. Report of the TEAP HFC and PFC Task Force, October 1999 Appendix-80 s Estimated by analogy to HFC-134a (see footnote 8) 1 Estimated by analogy to HFC-134a. ICF Consulting. 1996. SNAP Assessments for HFE-7100. Memorandum for EPA under Contract No. 68-D5-0147, Work Assignment 0-18, Task 10. June 28, 1996. U3M Website, http://www.3mco.fi/market/industrial/fluids/7100.htm. Accessed August 4,1999. v ACGIH Worldwide. 1991. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. Sixth Edition. Vols I-III. w ICF Consulting. 1999. Acceptable Exposure Limit (AEL) for T-6333 (HFE-7200). Memorandum for EPA under Contract No. 68-D5-0147, Work Assignment 3-08, Task 03. March 18, 1999. x ICF Consulting. 1999. Review of Toxicity Studies on T-6333 (HFE-7200). Memorandum for EPA under Contract No. 68-D5-0147, Work Assignment 3-08, Task 03. March 24, 1999. y Estimated by analogy to propane (see footnote °) z Based on animal data and similarity to other HFCs (see footnote 8) to 33 Level shown to induce cardiotoxicity in 50% of the treated dogs (Clark and Tinston 1973) (see footnote k) bb Extrapolated from 8-hour TLV-TWA. EPA. 1994. ASNAP Technical Background Document: Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Aerosols.@ Stratospheric Protection Division. March, 1994. cc ACGIH TLV-TWA. ACGIH Worldwide. 1991. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. Sixth Edition. Vols I-III. dd OSHA STEL. ACGIH Worldwide. 1991. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. Sixth Edition. Vols I-III. ee Extrapolated from 8-hour TLV-TWA (see footnote °) Estimated based on limited data (see footnote °) 88 Estimated by analogy to HFC-134a. ICF Consulting. 1999. Updated Occupational Exposure Modeling Results. Memorandum for EPA under Contract No. 68-D5-0147, Work Assignment 3-06, Task 03. July 19, 1999. Report of the TEAP HFC and PFC Task Force, October 1999 Appendix-81 hh ICF Consulting. 1999. Final Version of Ikon® B Risk Screen. Memorandum for EPA under Contract No. 68-D5-0147, Work Assignment 3-06, Task 03. June 23, 1999. “ Short-term exposure limit of2,000 ppm based on NOAEL for cardiotoxicity. ICF Consulting. 1999. Final Version of Ikon® B Risk Screen. Memorandum for EPA under Contract No. 68-D5-0147, Work Assignment 3-06, Task 03. June 23,1999. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACGIH = American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists AIHA - American Industrial Hygiene Association CAS = Chemical Abstract Service ECETOC = European Chemical Industry Ecology and Toxicology Centre IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level NA = Not available NIOSH = National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Level OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEL = Permissible Exposure Limit PAFT = Programme for Alternative Fluorocarbon Toxicity Testing CD RffC = Reference Concentration (for inhalation exposure) CO RID = Reference Dose (for oral exposure) STEL = Short-Term Exposure Limit TLV = Threshold Limit Value WEEL= Workplace Environmental Exposure Level TWA = Time-Weighted Average Report of the TEAP HFC and PFC Task Force, October 1999 Appendix-82 Decision 1/CP.5 Implementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action The Conference of the Parties, Recalling its decision 1/CP.4, by which it expressed its determination to strengthen the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and prepare for the future entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol and to maintain political momentum towards these aims, Further recalling its resolve to demonstrate substantial progress on each of the issues encompassed by the Buenos Aires Plan of Action in accordance with their respective time-frames, Encouraged by the substantial progress achieved in the work specified in the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, 1. Resolves to continue this work in the spirit of progress demonstrated at its current session; 2. Requests its subsidiary bodies to intensify the preparatory work required to enable it to take decisions at its sixth session on issues included in the Buenos Aires Plan of Action; 3. Requests its President, with the assistance of the Bureau, to provide guidance to the subsidiary bodies; to take all necessary steps to intensify the negotiating process on all issues; and to recommend an effective organization of the work of its sixth session, in order to provide the basis for the decisions to be taken at that session, as called for in the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, with the aim, inter alia, of bringing the Kyoto Protocol into force as early as possible; 4. Invites all Parties to contribute to this preparatory work, substantively and, as appropriate, financially, inter alia to support adequate participation of developing countries, in particular the least developed countries and the small island developing states; 5. Requests the Executive Secretary to make the necessary arrangements and provide substantive support for this intensified work programme. 8th plenary meeting 4 November 1999 -95- *#-3 Decision 17/CP.5 Relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and efforts to safeguard the global climate system The Conference of the Parties, Recalling its decision 13/CP.4 on the relationship between efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and efforts to safeguard the global climate system: issues related to hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, Having considered the information submitted pursuant to decision 13/CP.4 by Parties, by intergovernmental organizations, in particular the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel under the Montreal Protocol, and by non-governmental organizations, on potential and available ways and means of limiting emissions of hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, 1. Invites each Party to give consideration to this information on available and potential ways and means of limiting emissions of hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, taking into account, inter alia, health, medical, environmental and safety considerations, energy efficiency and associated emissions in carbon dioxide equivalent, and technical and economic considerations; 2. Requests the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to take into account this information in the elaboration of its Third Assessment Report; 3. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to further consider information aspects of this issue at its first session following the sixth session of the Conference of the Parties. 9th plenary meeting 4 November 1999 -97- ##- 4 Climate Change Initiatives of Japan -99- Domestic Initiatives [1] Establishing the Global Warming Prevention Headquarters In December 1997 immediately after the Kyoto Conference (COP3), Japan established, within the Cobinet, the Global Warming Prevention Headquarters, headed by the Prime Minister in order to make every effort in addressing climate change. This Headquarters established the Guidelines of the Measures to Prevent Global Warming in June 1998 and specified a wide range of urgent actions to be undertaken by 2010. [2] Laying of a Foundation to Address Global Warming Japan is the first country in the world to enact a new law specifically dedicated to climate change, the Law concerning the Promotion of the Measures to Cope with Global Warming, in October 1998, which came into effect in April 1999, and laid a foundation for tackling climate change in Japan. This Law: (D Stipulates the responsibilities and actions to be taken by national and local governments, industries and citizens. Initiatives of local governments Local governments have an important role in preventing climate change and have started their own initiatives. "Eco-up Initiative for Business Activities" (Started by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government in April 1999) Businesses voluntarily apply for registration at the Metropolitan Government by declaring that they will change their methods of conducting business to environmentally-friendly ones, and in turn receive the authorization to use a special sticker. Registered businesses are obliged to submit a report ("a Green Report* ) every three years for review by the Metropolitan Government. (D Requires the national government to stipulate "Basic Policies relating to Global Warming" (Stipulation occurred in April 1999). (D Establishes national and local "Information and Activity Centers for Climate Change" in order to promote public involvement and the changes in lifestyle. -100- Toward comprehensive actions for climate change The Global Warming Prevention Headquarters established the Guidelines of the Measures to Prevent Global Warming in June 1998; in order to make every urgent effort up to the year 2010 in a mbre comprehensive manner. Under the Guidelines, a wide range of initiatives have b£en taken by each ministry and agency. The following figure shows a schematic view of measures for the mitigation of C02 emissions. -102- Figure. Countermeasures for mitigation of 002 emissions About 23% increase Energy demand-side measures Automobile fuel efficiency (FY1995 —2010) household electric products 14%-83% increase and office appliances etc (FY1995-2010) Stringent energy efficiency Energy efficiency of Hous 20% increase (Housing) standards ing and Buildings 10% increase (Buildings) • Improvement of physical transportation efficiency •Wide-spread use of clean-energy vehicles Transportation system (electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles, etc) • Promoting of public transportation use • Reduction of traffic congestion Voluntary action plans by private sectors • High-efficiency industrial furnaces (more than 30% increase in efficiency) Technology Research & • High-efficiency boilers (17% increase in efficiency) Development and Diffusion •High-efficiency lighting employing diodes (50% increase in efficiency) •Super-high efficiency solar cell (30% increase in efficiency) •C02 ocean sequestration technology etc. Energy supply-side measures By 2010 Solar Power,Wind power & •5.000MW by PV Power from waste incineration •300MW by Wind •5,000 MW by Waste incineration Cogeneration (heat/power), districtheating/cooling Nuclear power Utmost efforts to ensure safety • Environmental education Changes in lifestyle •Awareness raising • Information dissemination • Promotion of forest management Sinks • Urban greenery -103- [3] Promoting Efficient Use of Energy In order to facilitate more efficient use of energy, the Law concerning Rational Use of Energy was amended in June 1998 and came into effect in April 1999. Thereby stringent energy efficiency standards have been introduced. "Top Runner Approach" has been applied in setting standards for automobiles, household electrical products and office appliances. New standards on passenger automobiles using gasoline would require improvement of fuel efficiency by about 23% between FY 1995 and 2010, and those on household electric products and office appliances by 14 to 83%. 386 "Top Runner Approach" standards of energy efficiency are established at levels which meet or exceed the highest energy efficiency achieved among products currently commercialized. In addition to Top-Runner Standards, this Law also aims at rationalizing energy use at factories and business sites. Under the amended Law, more than 12,000 factories and business sites are required to improve their energy use. Energy Efficiency standards for housing and buildings were also strengthened. Energy efficiencies for heating/cooling of housing and other buildings are expected to be improved by about 20% and 10% respectively. [4] Encouraging voluntary actions by private sectors The Government has been encouraging industries to voluntarily work out their own initiatives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Many industries have already drawn their own action plans to save energy and curtail releases of carbon dioxide, MFCs, PFCs and SF6. For example, as for C02 emissions, 41 industries have participated in the 'Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan on the Environment* which aims at putting 'Incentives in the form of public promises' to work and ensures the utmost voluntary effort by conducting a follow-up survey each year. Nineteen industrial associations also have voluntary action plans to limit emissions of MFCs, PFCs and SF6. The government reviews annually the progress achieved and ensures the feasibility of action plans. -105- Key features of the Kyoto Protocol Quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment on the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2018 commitment Period) -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 +2 +4 +6 +8 +10 +12 Annex I Parties ij -5 1 EU -8 Switzerland —8 ■ Hungary —6 Japan —6 Russian Federation d 0 •; Australia +8 Iceland +10 Norway +1 i Canada —6 Reduction (%) Increase (X), Reduction rate compared with 1990 emissions GHGs targeted 6 gases (C02, CH4, N2Q, MFCs, PFCs , SF6) Base year 1990 (1995 may be used for MFCs, PFCs, SF6) Commitment Period 2008-2012 (5 years) Quantified emissions limi- Annex I Parties' overall emissions shall be reduced by tation and reduction com- at least 5% below 1990 levels. Each party's commitment mitment is inscribed as above. Emissions/removals resulting from the specified activities Sinks (afforestation,reforestation and deforestation) shall be used to meet commitments. Three mechanisms (emissions trading, the clean development mechanism, and joint implementation) Kyoto Mechanisms have been introduced for assisting Annex I Parties in meeting their commitments. (made from Kenaf hemp,as an alternative to tropical timber) -106- *#-5 22 October 1999 ENGLISH ONLY UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE Eleventh session Bonn, 25 October - 5 November 1999 Item 10 (b) of the provisional agenda DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY WAYS AND MEANS OF LIMITING EMISSIONS OF HYDROFLUOROCARBONS AND PERFLUOROCARBONS Submissions from Parties and intergovernmental organizations Note bv the secretariat Addendum 1. In addition to the submissions contained in document FCCC/SBSTA/1999/MISC.6, one further submission has been received. 2. In accordance with the procedure for miscellaneous documents, this submission* is attached and is reproduced in the language in which it was received and without formal editing. In order to make these submissions available on electronic systems, including the World Wide Web, these contributions have been electronically scanned and/or retyped. The secretariat has made every effort to ensure the correct reproduction of the texts as submitted. FCCC/SBSTA/1999/MISC.6/Add.l BNJ.99-059 -107 PAPER NO. 1: JAPAN WAYS AND MEANS OF LIMITING EMISSIONS OF HFCS, PFCS AND SF6 PURSUANT TO DECISION 13/CP.4 Contributed by Organization: Ozone Layer Protection Office, Basic Industries Bureau, The Ministry of International Trade and Industry [xjParty ’s submission [ ] United Nations [ ] Intergovernmental organization [ ]Non-governmental organization Contact person: Mr. Haruhiko Kono 1-3-1 Kasumigaseki 100-8901 Chiyoda-ku Tokyo, Japan Telephone: +81 -3-3501 -4724 Fax:+81-3-3501-6604 E-mail: [email protected] Date of submission: 20.10.1999 Title: Promotion of Measures to limit HFC,PFC and SF6 Emission in Japan Type: Policy and measure, voluntary agreement Category: By-product emissions; Refrigeration, domestic; Refrigeration, commercial; Refrigeration, industrial; Refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pumps (air cooled systems); Refrigeration, air conditioning (water chillers); Refrigeration, mobile air conditioning; Foam, other; Aerosols, industrial; Solvents, electronics cleaning; Solvents, other; Semiconductors manufacturing; Electrical insulation Gases affected: HFC-23, HFC-32, HFC-41, HFC-125, HFC-134, HFC-134a, HFC-152a, HFC-143, HFC-143a, HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-245ca, HFC-43-10mee, Other MFCs, CF4, C2F6, C3F8 , C4FI0, c-C4F8 , C5F12, C6F14, Other PFCs, SF6 General description: This is the voluntary action plan to limit HFC, PFC and SF6 emissions by industrial organization. -108- Impacts on ozone depletion: Impacts on global warming: VOLUNTARY EMISSION REDUCTION ACTION PLAN BY INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION (million GWPt:C02 equivalent) (1) Production of HFC, PFC and SF6 (1995:22.9 -^Estimated Emission 2010:9.2 (BAU 25.8)) Summary Each corporation that manufactures HFCs, PFCs and SF6 will: • determine a voluntary management target for the control of emissions of each gas, and cooperate to attain that goal, and • in order to attain the voluntary management target, do its best to use to the utmost the emission control technology available, based on a voluntary action plan, and take appropriate measures for changes in the manufacturing process, use of substitute substances, reduction of the amount of HFCs, etc. contained in products, etc. More specifically, the following measures for emission control of HFCs, etc. will be promoted. Specific Measures • More closed systems in manufacturing plants, etc.: reduced of leakage, recovery, and recycling • Reduction of HFC-23 produced in the manufacturing process of HCFC-22 • Recovery, use and destruction of HFC-23 • Prevention of leakage during the gas cylinder filling, during transport • Appropriate processing of gas remaining in returnable cylinders • Establishment of a system of recycling and destruction of recovered gas, with the support of the industries that use the gas • Development of substitute substances for HFCs, PFCs and SF6 • Other additional measures available in future (2) Foam Blowing Agent (1995:0.5 —►Estimated Emission 2010:8.6 (BAU 9.7)) Summary It is planned to gradually use from the year 2000 substitute blowing agents for insulation, such as HFC-245fa, etc. in place of CFCs used formerly, and substances currently in use, such as HCFC-141b and HCFC-142b. Moreover, blowing agents with a low rate of heat conductivity, low toxicity and low flammability which can be put into use and which is equivalent to HFC-245fa, etc., in these terms do not yet exist. Therefore, the foam and insulation industries promote the following specific measures, for the purpose of controlling HFCs emission from blowing agents for insulation, whose use can be estimated to increase in the future, aiming at promoting energy saving. —109 — Specific Measures • Reduction of leakage during filling of products • R&D on reduction of use of blowing agents for insulation • Increase of the rate of production, by improvements in manufacturing technology. • Development of alternative technology such as transfer to not-in-kind insulating materials with low GWP (water, hydrocarbon, liquid C02, etc.) (3) Aerosol (1995:1.4 —►Estimated Emission 2010:2.3 (BAU 3.3)) Summary The use of HFC-134a, which is used for aerosols, as a substitute for CFC-12, etc., began in the early 1990s. Moreover, its uses are, for considerably more limited areas than CFC-12. Each corporation in the aerosol industry will: • Set a voluntary management target for emission control, on a voluntary basis, and strive to achieve it • In order to achieve the voluntary management target, work towards greater use of emission control technology available at the present time, based on a voluntary action plan. More specifically, we will promote the following measures for HFC emission control. Specific Measures • Prevention of leakage during product filling (recovery of gas inside the pipes at the time of changing manufactured products, control of the amount of leakage when the gas is divided up, control of the incidence of defective products during manufacture) • Mixture of non-fluoride gas for some uses • Development of alternative technology for transfer to use of not-in-kind products with low GWP, etc. (4) Mobile Air Conditioning (1995:0.6 —►Estimated Emission 2010:4.0 (BAU 7.6)) Summary The use of HFC-134a, mobile air conditioner refrigerants, as a substitute substances for CFC-12, began using mostly since 1993. For recovery of HFC-134a when used as a refrigerants: • As part of the disposal of used automobiles, and based on the established concept of the recovery and destruction system for CFC-12 currently in operation, sales operators, equipment businesses, dismantling businesses, etc. will build up a system for recovery, transport and filling while installing refinery and disposal facilities for the re-use of the recovered HFC-134a. Concerning the operation of the system, the following specific measures for HFC emission control will be promoted, to ensure a smooth progress, with the cooperation of the government and related industries. -110- Specific Measures • Prevention of leakage during filling of mobile air conditioners • Prevention of leakage during use of mobile air conditioners • Development of mobile air conditioning systems with less leakage during use • Establishment of a system for recovery, recycling and destruction of refrigerants in disposed mobile air conditioners • Development of mobile air conditioners with reduced refrigerants (5) Domestic Air Conditioning (1995:0.0 —►Estimated Emission 2010:1.3 (BAU 2.5)) Summary Since the spring of 1998, HFC-type mixed refrigerants for domestic air conditioners (mostly HFC-410A) have been used as substitute substances for HCFC-22 used up till then in all different kinds of machines. Domestic air conditioners can be expected to make a great improvement in energy efficiency, through the "top runner method" based on the amendment of the Law Concerning the Rational Use of Energy. That means that an increased amount at the time of refrigerants filling is inevitable. Taking this into account, the following specific measures for HFC emission control will be promoted. Specific Measures • Prevention of leakage during original filling • Prevention of leakage during installation, use, repair and servicing • Establishment of a system for recovery, recycling and destruction of refrigerants from disposed equipment • Development of products with small amounts of refrigerants filling • Development of not-in-kind refrigerants with low GWP (6) Commercial Refrigerator and Air Conditioning (1995:0.0 —►Estimated Emission 2010:1.1 (BAU 2.1)) Summary Use of HFC compound refrigerants (mainly R407C, R404A, R507A) in commercial refrigeration units, as CFC and HCFC substitute substances, started in the spring of 1998. There are two points to consider regarding commercial refrigeration units - the indirect effect of C02 emissions caused by energy consumption and the direct effect of refrigerants gas emissions into the atmosphere. The following specific measures is to constrain HFC emissions: Specific Measures • Preventing leakage when the units are filled and preventing over-filling • Preventing leakage when the units are installed, used, repaired or serviced • Establishing a system of recovery, recycling and disposal of refrigerants from disposed units • Development of low volume refrigerants filling devices. • Development of and extending application range of non-fluoride refrigerants units • Development of low GWP refrigerants units -111- (7) Domestic Refrigerator (1995:0.0 —►Estimated Emission 2010:0.3 (BAU 0.7)) Summary HFC-134a has been used as the substitute refrigerants for CFC-12 in domestic refrigerators since 1993. HFC-245fa, along with other substitutes such as cyclopentane foam, is expected to replace HCFC-141b, which is currently in use. Refrigerators use a little less than one fifth of all the electricity consumed in the homes. The LCA Assessment (a comprehensive assessment of C02 emissions from the production and use of the product until its disposal) shows that 95% of total C02 emissions from refrigerators are caused by generating electricity needed to run them. For this reason, the most effective measures to reduce C02 emissions from domestic refrigerators is to reduce the amount of electricity they consume. So, considering total energy efficiency, the most effective way to constrain HFC emissions from refrigerants and insulating foam in domestic refrigerators is as follows: Specific Measures • Prevention of leakage during manufacturing of product • Prevention of leakage while in use and while repairing. • Establishing a system for recovering, recycling and destruction of refrigerants from disposed products • Development of recovery technology and establishment of a recovery/destruction system for gas that remains in insulating material contained in the disposed equipment. • Expanding use of low GWP for refrigerators and non-fluoride insulating foam • Development of and conversion to products that do not use refrigerants, and products that use low GWP, non-fluoride (hydrocarbon) refrigerants (8) Cleaning of Electronic Parts (1995:7.0 —►Estimated Emission 2010:3.0 (BAU 11.5)) Summary PFCs are used as CFG substitutes for cleaning or printing electronic circuit boards, hybrid ICs and other precisely manufactured components. It is also used for airtight and shock durability tests. There are three points to consider together regarding cleaning of electronic parts- that companies using PFCs are small-and medium-sized, that conversion to PFC substitutes requires the efforts of not only electronic component manufactures but also chemical manufacturers producing cleaning agents and electronic component users ,and that the use of PFCs is the norm for electronic component airtight tests. Taking these into account,the following specific measures will be promoted to constrain emissions. Specific Measures Provided that a suitable substitute is developed and that it can be adopted technically and economically and a stable supply can be ensured, emissions will be reduced by at least 60% from 1995 levels by 2010. • Prevention of leakage while in use (development and propagation of closed cleaning systems) -112- • Development and propagation of cleaning systems that do not use PFC • Conversion to a PFC substitute (9) Production of Semiconductor and Cleaning of Electronic Devices (1995:5.2 -►Estimated Emission 2010:12.0 (BAU 22.7)) Summary PFCs and SF6 are used as cleaning agents for removal of CVD chamber adhesives and also as plasma etching gas during the manufacture of semi-conductors and liquid crystal display devices. In April 1997 the industry as a whole released the "Voluntary Action Statement Concerning PFC Gases in the Electronic Device Manufacturing Industry." At the same time, activities such as international cooperation at the World Semi-Conductor Conference (WSC) will be promoted to make global common specific measures. Furthermore, the "PFC Countermeasure Committee" (provisional name) will be set up within the Electronic Industries Association of Japan, which aims to establish standards for emission control efficiency and methods to measure emission amounts. Specific Measures will be pursued in conjunction with related industries. Specific Measures The following specific measures will be combined to attain these goals: Regarding the old production lines ,Emission factor will be estimated to decrease by 10% or more from 1995 levels by 2010. Regarding the new lines, a 70% or more reduction will be aimed at. • Efficient use of gas in the manufacturing process • Research and development of substitute gases and systems for PFCs and SF6 • Development and promotion of systems for recovery, recycling and destruction of exhaust (10) Insulating and Arc-extinguishing Gas (1995:11.0 —►Estimated Emission 2010:1.6 (BAU 14.1)) Summary The superior dielectric, arc-extinguishing characteristics, and safety of SF6 make it an important contributor to the miniaturization of electrical machines, indeed it is essential for a stable supply of electricity. By using gas, for example, the surface area of equipment installed permanently in a 500kV sub station can be reduced by over 90%, considerably lessening the burden on the established environment. Although research for gas substitutes has been proceeding for some time, as yet an effective substitute substance and technology has not been developed. Due to this, the following specific measures for SF6 emission control will be promoted: Specific Measures • Prevention of leakage during manufacturing • Prevention of leakage during machine inspections • Establishment of a system for recovery and recycling from disposed equipment • Development of insulating devices which use less SF6 -113- j£f#~ 6 ffP INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE Cjfe) WMO NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES PROGRAMME UNEP GOOD PRACTICE GUIDANCE AND UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT IN NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES Draft for government/expert review 17 December 1999 -115- Government/expert review Do not cite or quote TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction SECTOR GUIDANCE 2 Energy 3 Industrial Processes 4 Agriculture 5 Waste UNCERTAINTY GUIDANCE 6 Q uantifying Uncertainties in Practice 7 Methodological Choice and Recalculation 8 Q uality Assurance and Q uality Control Annex 1 Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Analysis Annex 2 Verification Annex 3 G lossary Annex 4 List of Participants -116 Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 3 INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES -117- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Co-Chairs of the Expert Meeting 2 W. Zihong (China) and S. Seidel(USA) 3 Review Editors 4 ------ 5 Expert Group: C02 Emissions from Industry 6 Co-chairs 7 M. Tichy (Czech Republic) 8 Authors of background papers 9 M. Gibbs (USA), P. Soyka, and David Conneely (USA) 10 Contributors 11 N. Paciornik (Brazil); S. Bogdanov (Bulgaria), M. Strogies (Germany); T. Hiraishi (Japan); J. Martinez (Mexico); J. 12 Olivier (Netherlands); Kristin Rypdal (Norway); Pieter du Toit (South Africa); Astrid Olsson (Sweden); Wiley 13 Barbour (US); Marvin Branscome (USA); Michael Gibbs (USA); Virginia Gorsevski (USA); Heike Mainhardt 14 (USA); Joe Mangino (USA); Arthur Rypinski (USA); Hendrik van Oss (USA); M. Williamson (USA) 15 Expert Group: N20 Emissions from Adipic Acid and Nitric Acid 16 Production 17 Co-chairs 18 M. McFarland (USA) 19 Authors of background papers 20 Heinke Meinhardt (USA) 21 Contributors 22 Stanislav Bogdanov (Bulgaria); Milos Tichy (Czech Republic); Michael Strogies (Germany); Taka Hiraishi (Japan); 23 Jos Olivier (Netherlands); Astrid Olsson (Sweden); Wiley Barbour (USA); Joe Mangino (USA); Matt Williamson 24 (USA), John Chartier, Gordon Collis; Phillip Cook. 25 Expert Group: RFC Emissions from Aluminium Production 26 Co-chairs: 27 Michael Atkinson (Australia); William Agyemang-Bonsu (Ghana) 28 Authors of background papers 29 Michael J. Gibbs, Vikram Bakshi, Karen Lawson and Diana Pape (USA), and Eric J. Dolin (USA) 30 Contributors 31 Members; John Pullen (Australia); Guy Bouchard (Canada); Philippe Levavasseur (France); Emmanuel Riviere 32 (France); Petra Mahrenholz (Germany); Jochen Harnisch (Germany); Kiyoto Tanabe (Japan); Purushottam 33 Kunwar (Nepal); Kristin Rypdal (Norway); Willy Bjerke (United Kingdom); Vikram Bakshi (USA); Eric Dolin 34 (USA); Bernard Leber (USA); Jerry Marks (USA); and Debbie Ottinger (USA); Sally Rand (USA). 35 Expert Group: SF* in Magnesium Production 36 Co-chairs: 37 Bill Palmer (Canada); and Pieter de Toit (South Africa) 38 Authors of background papers: 39 Bill Palmer (Canada) 40 Contributors: -118- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Kay Abel (Australia); Chen Zhenlin (China); Toshiaki Ohgita (Japan); Takuya Suizu (Japan); Natalya Parasyuk 2 (Ukraine); Scott Bartos (USA); Lowell Brothers (USA); Kathryn Ellerton (USA); William Irving (USA); Tom 3 Tripp (USA). 4 Expert Group: Emissions of SF6 From Electrical Equipment and 5 other Sources 6 Chain 7 Jos Olivier (Netherlands); Newton Paciornik (Brazil) 8 Authors of background papers: 9 Jos Olivier (NL), and Joost Bakker(NL). 10 Contributors: I I Bill Palmer (Canada); Chen Zhenlin (China); Rainer Bitsch (Germany); Jochen Harnisch (Germany); Petra 12 Mahrenholtz (Germany); Ewald Preisegger (Germany); Michael Strogies (Germany); Takuya Suizu (Japan); 13 Natalya Parasyuk (Ukraine); Lowell Brothers (USA); Eric Dolin (USA); Kathryn Ellerton (USA) 14 Expert Group: RFC, HFC, SF6 Emissions From Semiconductor is Manufacturing 16 Chairs: 17 Alexey Kokorin (Russian Federation), Sally Rand (USA) 18 Authors of background papers: 19 S. Bartos (USA), and C. Shepherd Burton (USA) 20 Contributors: 21 Philippe Levavasseur (France); Emmanuel Riviere (France); Toshiaki Ohgita (Japan); Pieter du Toit (South 22 Africa); Kenneth Aitchison (USA); Scott Bartos (USA); Laurie Beu (USA); Shepherd Burton (USA); David Green 23 (USA); Michael Mocella (USA); Jerry Meyers (USA); Debbie Ottinger Schaefer (USA). 24 Expert Group: Emissions Of Substitutes For Ozone Depleting 25 SUSBSTANCES (ODS SUBSTITUTES) 26 Chairs: 27 Archie McCulloch (United Kingdom), Reynaldo Forte (United States) 28 Authors of background papers: 29 Reynaldo Forte, Jr. (USA); Archie McCulloh (UK), and Pauline Midgley (UK). 30 Contributors: 31 Francis Grunchard (Belgium), Mike Jeffs (Belgium), Candido Lomba (Brazil), Pierre Boileau (Canada), Gary 32 Taylor (Canada), Erik Rasmussen (Denmark), Eliisa Irpola (Finland), Denis Clodic (France), Christophe Petitjean 33 (France), Ewald Preisegger (Germany), Radhy Agarwal (India), Yuichi Fujimoto (Japan), Toshio Hirata (Japan), 34 Yutaka Obata (Japan), Masataka Saburi (Japan), Julia Martinez (Mexico), Margreet Van Brummelen (Netherlands), 35 Marit Viktoria Pettersen (Norway), Alexey Kokorin (Russian Federation), Niklas Hohne (UNFCCC), Paul 36 Ashford (United Kingdom), Nick Campbell (United Kingdom), Duncan Yellen (United Kingdom), Ward 37 Atkinson (USA), James Baker (USA), Marvin Branscome (USA), Anita Cicero (USA), Fred Keller (USA), Arthur 38 Naujock (USA), Deborah Ottinger (USA), John Owens (USA), Stephen Seidel (USA), Len Swatkowsku (USA), 39 Dwayne Taylor (USA), Daniel P. Verdonik (USA). 40 Expert Group: Estimation Of HFC-23 Emissions From HCFC-22 41 Manufacture 42 Chairs: 43 Nick Campbell (United Kingdom), Julia Martinez (Mexico) 44 Authors of background papers: -119- Government/expert review Do not ate or quote 1 W. Irving (USA), and Marvin Branscombe (USA). 2 Contributors: 3 Members: Wei Zhihong (China), Taka Hiraishi (Japan); Marvin Branscome (USA); Mark Christmas (USA); 4 William Irving (USA); Stephen Seidel (USA); Matthew Williamson (USA) -120- Government / expert review Do not ate or quote Table of Contents 3 Industrial Processes ...... 6 3.1 C02 EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRY...... 6 3.1.1 Cement Production...... 6 Appendix3. 7.7.7: Definitions of cement types...... 14 Appendix 3.7.1.2: Cement kiln dust...... 15 3.1.2 Lime Production...... 16 3.1.3 Iron and steel industry...... 21 Appendix 3.7.7. Common issues for cement and lime production, and iron and steel industry...... 25 3.2 NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM ADIPIC ACID AND NITRIC ACID PRODUCTION..26 3.3 PFC EMISSIONS FROM ALUMINIUM PRODUCTION...... 34 3.4 SF6 IN MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION...... 42 3.5 EMISSIONS OF SF6 FROM ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER SOURCES...... 46 3.5.1 Electrical equipment...... 46 3.5.2 Other uses...... 56 3.5.3 Production ofSF&...... 59 3.6 PFC, MFC, SF6 EMISSIONS FROM SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING...... 61 3.7 EMISSIONS OF SUBSTITUTES FOR OZONE DEPLETING SUSBSTANCES...... 67 Overview...... 67 3.7.1 Aerosols Sub-sector...... 73 3.7.2 Solvents Sub-sector...... 77 3.7.3 Foams Sub-sector...... 80 3.7.4 Stationary Refrigeration Sub-sector...... 87 3.7.5 Mobile Air-conditioning Sub-sector...... 93 3.7.6 Fire Protection Sub-sector...... -...... 101 3.7.7 Other Applications Sub-sector...... 106 3.8 ESTIMATION OF HFC-23 EMISSIONS FROM HCFC-22 MANUFACTURE...... 110 -121 Government / expert review Do not ate or quote I 3.5 EMISSIONS OF SF6 FROM ELECTRICAL 2 EQUIPMENT AND OTHER SOURCES 3 3.5.1 Electrical equipment 4 3.5.1.1 Methodological issues 5 Sulphur hexafluoride (SF&) is used for electrical insulation, arc quenching, and current interruption in equipment 6 used in the transmission and distribution of electricity. Most of the SF6 used in electrical equipment is used in 7 gas insulated switchgear (GIS) and circuit breakers, though some SF6 is used in high voltage gas-insulated 8 transmission lines and other equipment. Sulphur hexafluoride emissions from electrical equipment make up the 9 majority of SF& emissions world wide. 10 Choice of method II The choice of good practice method will depend on national circumstances. The decision tree (see Figure 3.7) 12 describes good practice in adapting the methods in the Revised 1996 /PCC Guidelines to these country-specific 13 circumstances. 14 The IPCC Guidelines include methods for estimating both potential (Tier I) and actual (Tier 2) emissions of SF6 15 from electrical equipment. This chapter describes good practice for using the Tier I approach and two variants 16 of the current Tier 2 approach. Three variants of a more accurate approach (termed Tier 3) are also described. 17 Emissions estimates developed using the Tier 3 approach will be the most accurate; estimates developed using 18 the Tier I approach will be the least accurate. 19 Tier 3 (Mass-Balance Approach) 20 The Tier 3 approach is the most accurate for estimating actual emissions of SF& from electrical equipment. It is 21 a mass-balance approach that tracks the amount of new SF& introduced into the industry each year. Industry 22 uses some of this newly purchased SF& to replace leaked gas that escaped to the atmosphere the previous year. 23 The remainder of the new SF& is used to fill an increase in total equipment capacity, and thus does not replace 24 leaked gas. To develop an accurate estimate, therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between the SF6 used to 25 replace emitted gas and SF6 used to increase total equipment capacity or replace destroyed gas. 29 26 The main advantages of this approach are: (I) equipment manufacturers and facilities can readily track the 27 required information, and (2) it does not depend on global default emissions factors, which are subject to 28 considerable uncertainty. This Tier can be implemented at different levels of aggregation depending on data and 29 resource availability. The most accurate approach is to estimate emissions from each lifecycle stage of the 30 equipment at the facility level (Tier 3a). Alternatively, the life cycle calculation can be bypassed and emissions 31 can be estimated at the aggregate facility level (Tier 3b) or at the country level (Tier 3c). Countries are 32 encouraged to use the most detailed approach that is practical, and to use alternative estimation methods to 33 check the results. 34 Tier 3A (Emissions by Life Cycle Stage of Equipment) 35 This approach is recommended for countries or facilities that, in addition to estimating their total emissions of 36 SF6 from electrical equipment, wish to determine how and when such emissions occur during the lifecycle of 37 the equipment. Information on how and when emissions occur is important for focusing mitigation efforts 38 where they will be most effective. The method includes separate equations for each phase of the lifecycle of 39 equipment, including equipment manufacture, erection (installation), usage, and disposal. Ideally, data are 29 For example, suppose that 100 circuit breakers are retired in a country in a certain year, and 150 new circuit breakers (with the same average charge size as the retiring breakers) are installed. In this case, the manufacturers and/or users of the circuit breakers in that country must purchase at least enough gas to charge 50 circuit breakers, even if they recover all of the gas from the retiring 100 circuit breakers and use it to fill 100 of the breakers that replace them. The gas used to charge the 50 *extra* circuit breakers is used to fill an increase in equipment capacity, and does not replace emitted gas. -122- Government / expert review Do not ate or quote 1 obtained for every equipment manufacturer and utility in the country, and the emissions of all manufacturers 2 and utilities are summed to develop the national estimate. The basic equation is: 3 Equation 3.13 4 Total emissions = ^Manufacturing emissions + ^Installation emissions + EUse emissions + 5 ^Disposal emissions 6 In the above equation, national emissions for each phase are equal to the sum of all equipment manufacturers' 7 emissions for each phase. 8 Each equipment manufacturer’s emissions can be calculated with three steps. 9 1. ) Collect the data on the net decrease in their annual SF6 inventory on hand (Note that if the inventory 10 increases, this will be a negative number); 11 2. ) Add the amount of SF6 obtained during the year (including any SF6 purchased from producers or 12 distributors, any SF6 returned from equipment users, and any SF6 returned by users after recycling); 13 and 14 3. ) Subtract the amount of SF6 transferred to others during the year (including the amount of SF& used to 15 fill equipment as estimated based on nameplate capacity, the amount delivered to equipment users in 16 containers, and the amount returned to SF& producers, sent to recycling firms, or destroyed). 30 17 Equipment installation emissions can be estimated by subtracting the nameplate capacity of all new equipment 18 filled from the actual amount of SF& used to fill new equipment. 19 Equipment usage emissions are determined by the amount of SF6 used to service equipment. If SF& is being 20 recovered from equipment before servicing and returned after servicing, it is important that this amount not be 21 included in the estimate. 22 Emissions from equipment disposal are estimated by subtracting the amount of SF& recovered from retired 23 equipment from the nameplate capacity of the retired equipment. 24 Tier 3B (Manufacturer- and Utility-Level Mass-Balance Method) 25 If data for estimating emissions from lifecycle stages are unavailable, emission can be estimated by tracking 26 overall consumption and disposal of SF& for all utilities and manufacturers. Beginning with the equation for Tier 27 3a, installation, use, and disposal emissions are aggregated into the category of utility emissions. The equation 28 presented in Tier 3a is thus simplified to: 29 EQUATION 3.15 30 Total Emissions = ^Manufacturer Emissions + ZUtility Emissions 31 Using this approach, equipment manufacturer emissions are estimated as for Tier 3a. 32 Emissions from each utility are equal to the sum of emissions from all utilities. Each utility's emissions can be 33 calculated through the following seven steps: 34 1. Determine the net decrease in the amount of SF& stored in containers over the reporting year; 35 2. Add the amount of SF6 purchased from producers/distributors and equipment manufacturing, including 36 the amount of SF& contained in purchased equipment; 37 3. Subtract the amount of SF& returned to suppliers; 38 4. Add any SF& returned after recycling; 39 5. Subtract any SF6 sent to recycling firms, sold to other entities, or destroyed by the utility or 40 installation; 41 6. Add the nameplate capacity of retired equipment; and 42 7. Subtract the nameplate capacity of new equipment. 30 Nameplate capacity - The “nameplate capacity" is the quantity of SF6 required to fill a piece of equipment so that it will function properly. It may also be referred to as the “charge" and is generally indicated by the nameplate of the equipment. The “total nameplate capacity" of all the equipment in a country or facility is the sum of the proper, full charges of all the equipment in use in that country or facility. -123- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Tier 3C (Country-level mass-balance method) 2 In some cases, it may be impractical for countries to obtain emissions data from all equipment manufacturers 3 and utilities, or such data may be incomplete. In this case, a national level estimate can be developed based on 4 annual national sales of SF& into the electrical sector (current and historical), equipment imports and exports, 5 SF6 destruction, and, if possible, country-specific equipment lifetime assumptions. The basic equation is: 6 Equation 3.16 7 Emissions = Annual Sales - (Net Increase in Nameplate Capacity) - (SF& Destroyed) 8 Annual sales are equal to new SF6 for filling or refilling electrical equipment, both in bulk and in equipment itself. 9 Net increase in nameplate capacity can be calculated through the following steps: 10 1. ) Collect data on the nameplate capacity of new equipment, including both equipment that is filled in the 11 factory before shipment and equipment that is filled after installation. 12 2. ) Subtract the nameplate capacity of retiring equipment, including both equipment that is filled in the 13 factory before shipment and equipment that is filled after installation. 14 3. ) It is good practice that SF6 destroyed include the quantity of SF& destroyed from all electrical 15 equipment. 16 Tier 2A (Life-Cycle Emission Factor Approach) 17 If only limited data are available on annual sales of SF& to equipment manufacturers and utilities, emissions can 18 be estimated for each stage of the lifecycle of the equipment, using emission factors that are unique to each 19 stage. Good practice is to use the following equation: 20 Equation 3.17 21 Total emissions = Manufacturing emissions + Installation emissions + Use emissions + Disposal 22 emissions 23 Manufacturing emissions are estimated by using emission factors based on the amount of SF6 purchased by 24 equipment manufacturers, or the nameplate capacity of new equipment charged. 25 Similarly, equipment installation emissions are estimated using either purchase-based or nameplate-based 26 emission factors. This will require data on either the amount of SF6 purchased by utilities for new equipment or 27 the nameplate capacity of new equipment charged by utilities (not equipment manufacturers). In some cases, 28 the nameplate capacity of new equipment may be known, but not the fractions of this capacity filled by 29 manufacturers versus utilities. Under these circumstances, a single “Manufacturing/lnstallation Emission Factor" 30 can be multiplied by the total nameplate capacity of new equipment 31 Equipment use emissions are estimated by multiplying the total nameplate capacity of installed equipment by a 32 “Use Emission Factor". 33 Finally, equipment disposal emissions are estimated by multiplying the nameplate capacity of retiring equipment 34 by the assumed fraction of SF6 left in equipment at the end of its life. If SF6 is being recovered, good practice is 35 to adjust the resulting estimate to reflect recovery, by multiplying by (I— the recovery factor). 36 Tier 2B - IPCC Default Emission Factors 37 If countries only have information on the total charges of installed and retiring equipment, the emission factors 38 can be applied at a national level, as described in the IPCC Guidelines: 39 Equation 3.18 40 Emissions of SF6 in year t = [ I % of the total charge of SF& contained in the existing stock of 41 equipment in year t] + [70% of the quantity in equipment manufactured in year t - 30] 42 The first term of the equation estimates leakage as a fixed percentage of the total charge (i.e., 1%). Good 43 practice is that the existing stock of equipment in each year includes all equipment installed in that year in 44 addition to previously installed equipment that is still in use. The second term calculates emissions from retired 45 equipment, and assumes that equipment has a lifetime of 30 years. It also assumes that all of the remaining 46 charge (a default value of 70% of the original charge of retired equipment remains) is emitted. Recent 47 experience indicates that this assumption likely overestimates emissions. Thus, countries using this approach 124- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 are encouraged to review the applicability of the emissions factors in the equation (particularly the 70% 2 assumption) and use country-specific emission factors if appropriate 3 Tier I - Potential Approach 4 The simplest estimation method in the iPCC Guidelines estimates potential emissions of SF6 from all uses by 5 equating emissions to total consumption of SF6: 6 Equation 3.18 7 Potential SF& emission = Production + [Imports - Exports] - Destruction 8 Countries will need to determine how much of the total SF& is sold to utilities and equipment manufacturers. 9 This can be done directly (by obtaining data on such sales) or indirectly (by obtaining data on sales for other 10 uses). The direct approach uses the following equation: Equation 3.19 12 SF6 emissions from Electrical Equipment = Sales of SF& to equipment manufacturers + Sales 13 of SF& to utilities + [SF6 in imported equipment — SF& in exported equipment] 14 The indirect approach is as follows: 15 Equation 20 16 SF& emissions = Production + [Imports - Exports] - Destruction - Consumption by 17 other SF6 uses (i.e. Mg smelting, semiconductor manufacturing, adiabatic uses) 18 Both equations implicitly assume that all SF$ sold into the electrical sector replaces released gas, when in fact 19 some of that SF6 may be used to fill a net increase in the nameplate capacity of installed equipment or to 20 replace destroyed gas. Good practice considers estimates using the Tier I method an upper bound. 21 Choice of emission factors 22 Because of the variability of emissions rates from region to region, countries using the Tier 2 method are 23 encouraged to develop and use their own emissions factors. Surveying a representative sample of equipment 24 manufacturers and utilities within the country is an effective way to develop such factors. 25 Tier 2A 26 To develop emission factors for the Tier 2a method, it is good practice that representative manufacturers and 27 utilities track emissions by life cycle stage, essentially using the Tier 3a approach at their facilities for one year. 28 For example, good practice is that total emissions from the survey of manufacturers are summed and then 29 divided by the surveyed facilities' new equipment capacity. This emission factor can then be applied to the 30 manufacturing sector as a whole, using national new equipment capacity. 31 Tier 2B 32 For developing emission factors for the Tier 2b method, it is good practice that surveyed utilities track their 33 total consumption of SF& for refilling of equipment, the total nameplate capacity of their equipment, the 34 quantity of SF6 recovered from retiring equipment, and the nameplate capacity of their retiring equipment. It is 35 good practice to sum emissions from the servicing and disposal of equipment across surveyed utilities. The 36 resulting total emissions estimates for servicing and disposal are then be divided by the surveyed utilities' total 37 installed equipment capacity or by their total retiring equipment capacity, respectively, to calculate emissions 38 factors for use and for disposal. 39 The iPCC Guidelines do not provide default emission factors for each lifecycle stage, but recommended factors 40 have been developed for some regions based on recent research. These factors are shown in Table 3-10. -125- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I Table 3-10: D efault Emission Factors For Tier 2 Phase Manufacturing Installation Use Retired Equipment Region <1996 1996- <1996 1996- <1996 1996- Lifetime Remaining Recovery Europe 0.15 0.06 - 0.06 - - - - - Japan 0.35 0.35 ------Global - - 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.02 30 years (0.95) - Source: Will be supplied 2 3 Choice of activity data 4 The guidance given below for the Tier 3 methods applies to the same parameters when they are used in the 5 Tier 2 and Tier I methods. The only unique requirement for the Tier 2 method is the total nameplate capacity 6 of equipment. Nameplate capacity may be estimated either by surveying utilities directly, or by surveying 7 equipment manufacturers regarding their sales of equipment over the lifetime of the equipment (e g., for the 8 last 30 years). 9 Tier 3a (Emissions by Life Cycle Stage) 10 Since Tier 3a does not rely on emissions factors, the quality of the estimate depends on the accuracy and 11 completeness of surveyed activity data. The data should be available directly from individual manufacturers, or 12 through manufacturer associations. 13 Equipment Manufacturing: Good practice is that a survey of all equipment manufacturers collect, at a 14 minimum, data on the movement of SF& through the production and assembly phase, and include handling 15 emissions of the gas after delivery to manufacturing sites. The survey request enough information to provide a 16 full accounting of SF& consumption and losses during the production phase. Annual mass balance tables can be 17 used to estimate how much SF& gas is lost due to emission releases and what fraction this is of nominal SF$ 18 content of total electrical equipment produced. 19 If survey data are not available for all manufacturers, alternative methods can be considered - e g., based on 20 extrapolation of production capacity. Good practice is to use survey data and only supplement it with 21 extrapolative approaches where survey data is not available. 22 Equipment Installation: It is good practice that all utilities and other users of electrical equipment track and 23 record the nameplate capacity of the equipment that is filled. Utilities also track the amount of SF$ that is used 24 to fill equipment by weighing cylinders before and after filling operations. Good practice is also to track31 any 25 SF6 that is already in the shipped equipment (i.e., to maintain a slight positive pressure during shipment). It is 26 good practice to include both quantities in the total gas used32. If filling is performed by the equipment 27 manufacturer rather than by the utility, then it is good practice that the equipment manufacturer provides this 28 information to the utility. Where there are gaps and omissions in the survey, it is possible to use estimates of 29 SF6 stock additions and default emission rates for installation and set-up procedures. 30 Equipment Use: It is good practice to calculate the quantity of SF$ used to refill equipment by weighing 31 cylinders before and after filling operations. 32 Equipment Disposal: The quantity of SF& recovered from equipment may be calculated by weighing 33 recovery cylinders before and after recovery operations. 31 The quantity already in shipped equipment may be calculated by multiplying the internal volume of the equipment by the density of the SF6 at the shipment pressure, or by multiplying the nameplate capacity of the equipment by the ratio of the shipping pressure to the nameplate pressure, in absolute terms (e g., Pa or psia). 32ln theory, equipment that arrives at the utility already completely filled does not need to be included in this calculation, because the quantity of SF6 inside the equipment will be identical to the nameplate capacity, and the two will simply cancel. However, utilities are encouraged to track the total nameplate capacity of the equipment they install, because this quantity is useful for calculating emissions using the Tier 3 and Tier 2 methods and for understanding emissions during equipment use. -126- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I Tier 3B (Manufacturer- and Utility-Level Mass-Balance Method) 2 Equipment Manufacturers’. Same as for Tier 3a, above. 3 Utilities: To collect the information necessary to use the Tier 2b method, a survey of all utilities is required. 4 Good practice is to survey Industrial sites, military installations, and other non-utility sites that use significant 5 amounts of SF$ in electrical equipment. Some, but not all, of the above information may also be obtained from 6 equipment manufacturers. 7 If the utility does not perform all of its own installation, maintenance, and disposal of equipment, it is good 8 practice that persons who provide these services provide data related to them to the utility (e.g., the quantity 9 of gas used to refill equipment, if this gas did not come from the utility's own inventory). A full accounting of 10 SF6 emissions associated with handling and filling losses needs to be collected. This can be based on annual mass II balance tables that include the amount of SF6 already contained in the equipment when shipped to the site. The 12 responsible party for tracking SF& handling and filling operations needs to be identified, since this can vary from 13 site to site. 14 Tier 3C (Country-level mass-balance method) 15 Annua/ Sales: Chemical manufacturers should be able to supply the most complete data. If information 16 from chemical manufacturers is not available, it is good practice to contact both equipment manufacturers and 17 utilities to ensure complete data on SF& used to fill both new and existing equipment. 18 Nameplate Capacity of New and Retiring Equipment: Nameplate capacity can be 19 estimated using one of the following sources: (I) information from equipment manufacturers/importers on the 20 total nameplate capacity of the equipment they manufacture or import and export, (2) information from 21 utilities on the total nameplate capacity of the equipment they purchase and install each year, or (3) information 22 from chemical manufacturers/importers on their sales of SF& to equipment manufacturers. The first two 23 sources are preferable to the third, because gas sales to new equipment manufacturers will differ to some 24 extent from the nameplate capacity of new equipment. It is good practice that data on both new and retiring 25 equipment include the nameplate capacity of imported equipment and exclude the nameplate capacity of 26 exported equipment. 27 In the case of retiring equipment, capacity or sales information should be historical, coming from the year when 28 the current year's retiring equipment was built The default value for the lifetime of electrical equipment is 30 29 years. If information on the total nameplate capacity of retiring equipment is not available, it can be estimated 30 from new nameplate capacity, using the estimated annual growth rate of equipment capacity. It is good practice 31 to consider the estimated growth rate with both the number of pieces of equipment sold each year and the 32 average nameplate capacity of the equipment.^ 33 The following equation can be used to estimate retiring nameplate capacity, if this information is not available 34 directly: 35 Equation 3.21 36 Retiring N ameplate Capacity = N ew N ameplate Capacity /( I + g )l 37 WHEREL = EQUIPMENT LIFETIME, AND G = RATE OF GROWTH 38 According to a 1997 survey, the average annual growth rate of SF& (Detailed Information will be supplied)sales 39 to equipment manufacturers between 1991 and 1996 was 6.7%, while the average rate of growth between 40 1986 and 1996 was 5.3% (Science and Policy Associates, 1997). In the absence of country-specific information, 41 it is good practice to use a default factor of 6%. 42 Quantity Destroyed: The amount of SF6 destroyed can be estimated using information from electrical 43 equipment manufacturers, utilities, chemical manufacturers, or destruction facilities. It is necessary to ensure 44 that the quantities of SF6 reported as destroyed do not include quantities from sources other than electrical 45 equipment. 33 33 While the number of pieces of equipment sold each year has generally grown, the average nameplate capacity has generally declined. -127- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I Completeness 2 Completeness for this source requires accounting for emissions both at utility facilities and during the 3 manufacture of electrical equipment. Where Tier 3 methods are used, completeness requires that all SF6 users 4 (manufacturers and utilities) be identified. 5 In the manufacturing sector, this requires assessing emissions from: 6 • GIS and circuit breaker manufacturers; 7 • Manufacturers of high voltage gas-insulated transmission lines, substations (mini-stations) and transformers; 8 • Minor SF6 users, including medium voltage equipment manufacturers and equipment remake 9 manufacturers; and 10 • Sulphur hexafluoride moving from producers and distributors to manufacturing facilities. I I • In the utility sector, this requires accounting for all SF6 losses associated with: 12 • New electrical equipment erections; 13 • Leakage, refill and maintenance; and 14 • Disposal of discarded electrical equipment must be accounted for. 15 It is good practice to make efforts identifying and including industrial, military, and small-utility applications 16 when considered to contribute substantially to the total of this source. 17 Developing a consistent time series 18 When estimating base year and time series emissions, it is necessary to consider SF& emissions associated with 19 manufacturing and all installed equipment at utilities for the years of interest Developing an accurate base year 20 estimate for installed equipment thus requires information on the capacity and performance of equipment 21 installed for 20 to 30 years preceding the years of interest. 22 On the manufacturing side, if historical data for developing base year emissions for 1990/1995 are not available, 23 the top-down method calibrated to more accurate account balances for current years may be applied. Since SF6 24 handling practices of equipment manufacturers may have changed substantially since 1995 (e.g. more gas is 25 recovered), it is not good practice to apply current loss rates to base year estimates. Aggregate loss rates 26 determined from global and regional sales and emission analyses may assist in providing an unbiased estimate for 27 earlier years. It is good practice to carry out recalculation according to the guidance provided in Chapter 7 - 28 Methodological Choice and Recalculation, and all assumption are to be documented clearly. 29 In the utility sector, if historical data for the period 1970-1995 are unavailable, good practice is to base 30 estimates also on the top-down method, and then calibrate as discussed above. Average leakage rates for new 31 equipment, and refill and maintenance practices all decreased from 1970 to 1995.^4 |% js good practice to take 32 care in not applying directly current (post-1 995) overall loss rates to historical years. Aggregate loss rates can 33 be used in this case as well. 34 Uncertainty assesment 35 When using Tier 3 methods, the resulting emission estimates are likely to be relatively more accurate than Tier 36 2 and Tier I. If surveys are incomplete or only top-down consumption data are available, the associated 37 uncertainty will be greater. Particular sources of uncertainty in the Tier 3 estimates include: 38 • SF6 exported by equipment manufacturers (either in equipment or separately in containers); 39 • SF6 imported by foreign equipment manufacturers (either in equipment or in containers); 40 • SF6 returned to foreign recycling facilities; and. 41 • Lifetime of the equipment. 42 The uncertainty in the default emission factors recommended for Tier 2 are shown in Table 3-11. 3-4 Standards for leakage from GIS are now I %, but were as much as 3% prior to 1980. In addition, maintenance intervals have increased, from 3-5 years to 8 years for circuit breakers and about 12 years for GIS. 128- Government/ expert review Do not cite or quote Table 3-11 Uncertainties for D efault Emission Factors Phase Manufacturing Installation Use Retired Equipment Region <1996 1996- <1996 1996- <1996 1996- Lifetime Remaining Recovery Europe ±30% ±30% - ±30% - - - - - Japan ±30% ±30% ------Global Larger Larger ±30% ±30% ±40% ±50% ±33% ±5% 30±l0yr l± 0.5% 0.2± 5±2% 2± 1 % . 95±5% 0.2% Source: Will be supplied 1 3.5.1.2 Reporting and documentation 2 The supporting information necessary to ensure transparency in reported emissions estimates is shown in 3 Table 3-12. Table 3-12 Good Practice Reporting Information by Tier Data Tier Tier Tier 3c Tier Tier Tier 1 3a 3b 2a 2b Annual sales of SF6 to equipment manufacturers and utilities X X Nameplate capacity of new equipment X X X X Nameplate capacity of existing equipment X X Nameplate capacity of retiring equipment X X X X X SF6 destroyed X X X X SF6 in inventory at beginning of year X X SF* in inventory at end of year X X SFt purchased by facility X X SF6 sold or returned by facility X X SF6 sent off-site for recycling X X SF6 returned to site after recycling X X SF6 used to fill new equipment X SF6 used to service equipment X SF6 recovered from retiring equipment X Emission/recovery factors X X Documentation for factors, if country-specific X X Production of SF6 X Consumption of SF6 by other uses X Imports of SF6 X Exports of SF6 X Source: Will be supplied 4 5 Confidentiality issues may arise where there are limited numbers of manufacturers or utilities. In these cases, 6 aggregated reporting for the total electrical equipment sector, or even total national SF& applications, may be 7 necessary. If survey responses can not be released as public information, third party review of survey data may 8 be necessary to support data verification efforts. -129- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 3.5.1.3 Inventory quality assurance/quality control 2 (QA/QC) 3 It is good practice to supplement the general QA/QC related to data processing, handling, and reporting, as 4 outlined in Chapter 8 - Quality Assurance and Quality Control, with source-specific procedures discussed 5 below. 6 Compare the emission estimate using different approaches 7 Sum the facility-level data used as part of a bottom-up method and cross-check the data against national level 8 emissions calculated using IPCC defaults (Tier 2b method) or potential emissions estimated using national 9 production data (Tier I method). The Tier l method can set an upper bound on the emissions that could be 10 expected from the sum of the individual plants. 11 Review Facility-Level Activity Data 12 In all instances where site-specific activity data are obtained through surveys, compare the activity data between 13 sites (adjusting for relative size or capacity) to identify significant outliers. Investigate any outliers to determine 14 if the differences can be explained or if there is an error in the reported activity. 15 Compare national SF6 production, adjusted for imports and exports, to the aggregated national SF6 activity 16 data for this source. This total national usage can be considered an upper bound on SF6 emissions 17 Verify Emissions Estimates 18 For large countries, it may be possible to conduct an independent cross-check of national total SF6 emissions 19 estimates with top-down estimates derived from local atmospheric concentration measurements, provided that 20 the inverse model calculation of emissions can be done with reasonable precision. 21 Compare effective emission factors (loss rates) with values reported by other countries in the region, or with 22 defaults published in the scientific literature that are calibrated to global total atmospheric concentrations. 23 Transparent reporting, as outlined above, is essential for making international comparisons. 24 3.5.1.4 References 25 Sales of Sulphur Hexafuoride (SF6) by End-Use Applications, Science & Policy Associates (Washington, D.C., 26 1997). -130- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote Figure 3.7: Decision Tree for S F 4 Equipment Production and Use Box 3a Estimate emissions w using Tier 3a "life cycle" approach Box 3b NO Estimate emissions >—^ using Tier 3b "Manufacturer-Utility" approach Conduct survey of Box 3c facilities that use Estimate emissions SFe. Determine if using Tier 3c life cycle data are "Country Mass- needed. Balance" approach Box 1 Box 2a Box 2b Estimate emissions Estimate emissions Estimate emissions using the Tier 1 using the Tier 2a using the Tier 2b IPCC "Potential Emissions" "Life-Cycle "Emission Factor" approach Emissions" approach approach NOTE: (0 A key source category is one that is prioritized within the national inventory system because its estimate has a significant influence on a country's total inventory of direct greenhouse gases in terms of the absolute level of emissions, the trend in emissions, nr both fsee Chanter 7 - Melhndnloninal Choice and Recalculation). -131- Government / expert review Do not dte or quote I 3.5.2 Other uses 2 It is good practice to supplement the general QA/QC related to data processing, handling, and reporting, as 3 outlined in Chapter 8, with source-specific procedures discussed below. 4 Compare the emission estimate using different approaches 5 Compare total national potential SF6 emissions (minus the amount allocated to the electrical equipment use 6 category) to the estimated SF& emissions from other uses. The potential national emissions can be used as an 7 upper bound on emissions. 8 Check activity data 9 Compare the activity data submitted by different producers and distributors, and, adjusting for relative size or 10 capacity of the companies, identify significant outliers. Investigate any outliers to determine if the differences can I I be explained or if there is an error in the reported activity. 12 Compare emissions with other countries 13 Compare the emissions from other SF& end-uses included in the national inventory with information submitted 14 by other similar countries. For each source, compare emissions per capita or per unit of GDP with other 15 countries. If national figures appear to be relatively very high or very small, a justification should be provided. 16 3.5.2.1 Methodological issues 17 Choice of method 18 The good practice method is to use top-down import, export and consumption data from national SF6 19 producers and distributors, disaggregated by major type of SF& application (see Figure 3.8). Acquiring this data 20 will entail a survey of all SF& producers and distributors to identify total net SF& consumption. Once the data 21 are obtained, the amount of SF& consumed by applications in this category should be estimated. 22 In many of the miscellaneous applications identified above, SF& is emitted within two years of consumption (e.g., 23 tracers and in medical applications). Good practice in calculating SF& emissions from these “semi-prompt ” 24 emissive applications is to use the following formula, as outlined in the iPCC Guidelines. 25 EQUATION 3.22 26 Emissions in year t = [50% x Amount sold in year t] + [50% x Amount sold in year t - I] 27 This equation is similar to the equation for halocarbon emissions where an average delay of one year is 28 assumed. 29 If, as a result of an initial survey, applications with distinctive delayed emissions appear significant, then good 30 practice is to have a sizeable contribution, then good practice is to use a source-specific emission calculation, 31 taking into account the delay in emissions. For two delayed emission applications the following formulas are 32 recommended (based on experience in Germany): 33 • Adiabatic property applications: For car tires, a delay in emissions of 3 years is assumed (Source: Will be 34 supplied). For other applications such as shoes and tennis balls, the same delay time may be used: 35 Equation 3.23 36 Emissions in year t = Sales in year t — 3 37 • Double-glazed soundproof windows: Approximately 33% of the total amount of SF& purchased is released 38 during assembly (filling of the double glass window). Of the remaining stock contained inside the window, 39 an annual leakage rate of 1% is assumed (including glass breakage). Thus, about 78% of initial stock are left 40 at the end of its 25-year lifetime (Source: Will be supplied). The application of SF6 in windows began in 41 1975, so disposal is not yet occurring. Emissions from this source can be calculated using the following 42 decision tree: -132- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Equation 3.24 2 Assembly emissions = 50% x Window capacity 3 4 Equation 3.25 5 Leakage emissions in year t = 1% x Existing stock in the window 6 7 Equation 3.26 8 Disposal emissions = Amount left in window at end of lifetime x [I - Recovery factor] 9 Use in military applications and for particle accelerators could also lead to delayed emissions. If no specific 10 information is available for these sources, good practice is to treat them as the as semi-prompt emissions. 11 Choice of emission factors 12 The emission factors required for these estimates can be found in the iPCC Guidelines. If countries use regional 13 or country-specific data, this should be clearly documented. 14 Choice of activity data 15 The activity data for these sources should be consistent with the data used in the calculation of SF& emissions 16 from other sources (e.g., electrical equipment) to ensure that the estimate is complete and there is no double 17 counting. is Completeness 19 Data per application on import, export and consumption from national SF& producers and distributors will 20 suffice, provided that (a) all SF6 producers and distributors are identified, (b) domestic consumers only 21 purchase SF6 from national suppliers, and (c) imports and exports in products (e.g. sport attributes) are 22 negligible. It is good practice to check regularly for additional distributors to ensure that no SF& is imported 23 directly (in bulk) by end-users and that identified products containing SF$ are not imported in sizeable amounts. 24 Developing a consistent time series 25 For base year estimates, data may be needed for a few years prior to the base year one year for semi-prompt 26 emissions and more years for delayed emission applications. Emissions of SF6 from other sources than electrical 27 equipment should be calculated using the same method for every year in the time series. Where data are 28 unavailable to support a more rigorous method for all years in the time series, these gaps should be 29 recalculated according to the guidance provided in Chapter 7 - Methodological Choice and Recalculation. 30 Uncertainty assessment 31 If the survey of domestic sales per application by national SF& producers and distributors is complete, then the 32 accuracy of annual apparent consumption data will be high. The uncertainty in emission estimates will be 33 similarly small when the uses are all semi-prompt emissions. In case of delayed emission applications the 34 uncertainties are: 35 • Default delay times in adiabatic property applications: 3± I year, and 36 • Defaults for soundproof windows: 50± 10% filling emissions and I ±0.5% leakage/breach emissions. 37 3.5.2.2 Reporting and documentation 38 For transparency, it is recommended that both actual and potential emissions from the other uses be reported 39 separately from other SF6 emissions. In addition, providing information on the specific applications that are 40 included in this category is useful for comparing (estimates of) national practices with other countries, 41 regionally, or globally. In addition, the methods applied and data sources should be documented. For delayed 42 emission sources, annual emissions, delay times and emission factors per type of source should be reported. -133- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 3.5.2.3 Inventory quality assurance/quality control 2 (QA/QC) 3 The type of sources included in the national inventory as well as their size expressed as emissions per capita or 4 per unit of GDP should be compared with information submitted by other similar countries, as a check of 5 comparability. If national figures appear to be relatively very high or very small, a justification should be 6 provided. 7 Figure 3.8: Decision Tree for Other Uses of S F * SF6 usedX^^ ^ in sources not N Report "Not already covered in Occurring" \pther chapters?/ Survey all SF6 producers/distributors to identify total net SFe consumption for other sources /TDo anyX. Use IPCC of the other \ methodology only for uses have delayed emissions from semi emissions? > prompt sources \(i.e., >2yrs)x x/ Are X. Box 2 Box 1 ^ any of the Use aggregate good Use IPCC delayed uses ► practice method for methodology for key sources of delayed emission emissions from semi- \ SF6? / sources prompt sources for all other sources Obtain source-specific survey data on delayed emissions (e g., leak rates) Box 3 Use a source-specific emission calculation, taking into account the delay in emissions -134- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 3.5.3 Production of SF6 2 3.5.3.1 Methodological issues 3 The iPCC Guidelines do not provide a default emission factor for inadvertent losses during production and 4 handling of SF6. Although these emissions are likely to be small, they may be large for some countries with 5 production facilities. 6 Choice of method 7 It is good practice to choose the method according the decision tree in Figure 3.9. The number of major new 8 SF6 producers is quite small: globally about 6 companies produce SF6 with about 10 production facilities world- 9 wide (Source: Will be supplied). The number of smaller producers may grow in the near future, particularly in 10 the Economies in Transition and in China. Thus, a survey of national producers should not be difficult to 11 compile. These producers should provide an estimate of their total emissions. 12 Emissions of SF6 may occur during production as well as handling of new gas at the site. Based on German 13 experience, a default emission factor of 0.2% of the total quantity of SF& produced is suggested (Source: Will be 14 supplied). 15 Recycling of old gas may be done by the producers of new gas or by other recycling firms. Emissions may occur 16 during handling and purification of old gas and handling of recycled gas. Specific emission factors are not 17 available. Thus, the default factor for new production (0.2%) should be used. is Uncertainty Assessment 19 Experience in the US indicates that production emissions can be negligible, e g. when scrubbers capture the SF6 20 gas released (Source: Will be supplied). Estimated uncertainty range for the emission factor is therefore 21 0.2±0.2%. 22 Completeness 23 For some countries identifying smaller producers and, in particular, recycling firms may be a difficult task. 24 However, initial estimates of their emissions will show whether these sources provide a sizeable contribution 25 to total national emissions. 26 3.5.3.2 Reporting and documentation 27 Confidentiality issues may arise where there are limited numbers of manufacturers. In these cases more 28 aggregate reporting of total national SF$ applications may be necessary. If survey responses cannot be released 29 as public information, third party review of survey data may be necessary to support data verification efforts. 30 3.5.3.3 Inventory quality assurance/quality control 31 (QA/QC) 32 It is good practice to supplement the general QA/QC related to data processing, handling, and reporting, as 33 outlined in Chapter 8 - Quality Assurance and Quality Control, with source-specific procedures discussed 34 below. 35 Compare the emission estimate using different approaches 36 Compare the estimate based on aggregated producer-level data to an estimate based on national production data 37 and the suggested default emission factor of 0.2%. Investigate significant discrepancies in co-operation with the 38 producers to determine if there are unexplained differences. -135- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I Figure 3.9 Decision Tree for S F * Production Are N. Z there any x. SFe manufacturers' in the / Occurring country?// Compile a list of all Sti manufacturers >Z Are / detailed x Box 2 data available Sum plant-specific emissions ^estimates?/ plants Is this Collect a key emissions source? data from plants Box 1 Estimate emissions from SF6 plants 2 -136- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I 3.6 RFC, HFC, SF6 EMISSIONS FROM 2 SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 3 3.6.1.1 Methodological issues 4 The semiconductor industry currently emits fluorocarbons (CF4, C2F6, C3F8, C4F8, CHF3), nitrogen trifluoride 5 (NF3), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) from its manufacturing process 35. These gases, collectively referred to as 6 fluorinated compounds (FCs), are used in two important steps of semiconductor manufacturing: (I) plasma 7 etching thin films and (2) cleaning chemical vapour deposition (CVD) tool chambers. In addition, a fraction of 8 the fluorocarbons used in the production process are converted into CF4. 9 Choice of method 10 Emissions vary according to the number of FC-using process steps involved in manufacturing different types of 11 semiconductors, the gases used, the process (or more roughly, process type [CVD or etch]) used, the brand of 12 process tool used, and the implementation of atmospheric emission reduction technology. 13 The Revised 1996 iPCC Guidelines do not provide specific guidance on how to estimate greenhouse gas emissions 14 from semiconductor manufacturing. However, using the basic methodological principles outlined in the IPCC 15 Guidelines for other sources, three alternative methods for estimating FC emissions are described below. The 16 use of the terminology in this section corresponds to the increasing data requirements and sophistication of 17 the emission estimation process. The choice of methods will depend on data availability and is outlined in the 18 decision tree (see Figure 3.10). 19 Continuous emissions monitoring is currently viewed as neither a technically nor economically viable means to 20 estimate emissions from this industry. Thus, all three methods are based on gas sales/purchases data and a 21 series of parameters that affect emissions. The most rigorous method, Tier 2a requires company-specific values 22 for the parameters rather than defaults. Tier 2b uses company-specific data on the share of gas used in etching 23 versus cleaning, and the use of emission control technology, but relies on default values for the other 24 parameters. Tier I uses the same equational form as Tier 2, with default values for all parameters. 25 Tier 2A: Process-Specific Parameters 26 This method is appropriate where company-specific or plant-specific values are available for the following 27 parameters: the fraction of purchased gas remaining in the shipping container after use (heel); the fraction of 28 the gas used or destroyed in the semiconductor manufacturing process; and the fraction of the gas converted 29 to CF4 during semi-conductor manufacture. 30 Emissions resulting from the use of a specific FC (FQ) consist of emissions of FQ itself p/us emissions of CF4 31 created as a by-product during the use of FQ The following calculation should be repeated for each gas for 32 each process type: 33 Equation 3.27 34 Emissions of FQ = (I - h) ^ [FQ,p U " Q.p) U • ach)]> p 35 Where 36 p = Process type (etching or CVD chamber cleaning) 37 FCjp = kg of gas i used in process type p (CF4, C2F6, C3F8 , C4F8 , CHF3, NF3 SF6) 38 H = Fraction of gas remaining in shipping container (heel) after use 39 Cj p = Use rate (fraction destroyed or transformed) for each gas i and process type p (in kys) 35Although NF3 does not currently have a global warming potential [GWP] recognized by IPCC, NF3 emissions are discussed in this chapter. Molina et al have estimated a GWP-100 of 8,000; atmospheric lifetime of 740 years (Molina, Wooldridge and Molina, Atmospheric Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 22, No. 13, 1995). -137- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 a = Fraction of gas volume used in processes with emission control technologies (company-or 2 plant-specific) 3 d| = Fraction of gas destroyed by the emission control technology 4 5 Equation 3.28 6 By-product Emissions of CF4 = (I -h) ^ [BjpxFQp(l - ad2)], P 7 Where: 8 Bjp = Fraction of gas i transformed into CF4 for each process type 9 dj — Fraction of CF4 by-product destroyed by the emission control technology 10 A company or plant may have enough data available to estimate emission and emission factors for disaggregated 11 subsets of its processes or tools, permitting it to estimate emissions more precisely than it could by 12 distinguishing only between process types. For purposes of transparency and comparability, such factors should 13 be well documented (See Choice of Emission Factor). 14 Tier 2B: Process-Type-Specific Parameters 15 This method also uses the equations 3.27 and 3.28. Instead of company-specific data, however, industry-wide 16 generic default values are used for any or all of the following: the fraction of the gas remaining in the shipping 17 container (h); the fraction of the gas used per process type (FCip); and the fraction of the gas converted into 18 CF4 in the process type. Defaults are also presented for the fraction of the gas destroyed by the emissions 19 control technology (d, and d%), and the amount of CF4 created per kg of FQ used in each process type (B;). 20 Company or plant-specific emission factors may be substituted for default values when available. Like the Tier 21 2a, Tier 2b method, it requires company-specific (or equivalent aggregated) data on the relative quantities of 22 each gas used in etching versus cleaning processes. The equations account for the plant-specific use of emission- 23 control devices, but do not account for differences among individual processes or tools or among 24 manufacturing plants in their mix of processes and tools. Thus, Tier 2b estimates will be less accurate than Tier 25 2a estimates. 26 Tier I: Default 27 Tier I is the least accurate estimation method. It should be used only in cases where company-specific data are 28 not available. This method calculates emissions for each FC used on the basis of gas sales or purchase data. It 29 requires industry-wide generic default values for the fraction of the purchased gas remaining in the shipping 30 container after use; the fraction of the gas used or destroyed in the semiconductor manufacturing process; and 31 kg of CF4 created per kg of FQ used in semiconductor manufacture As is the case with Tier 2, emissions are 32 equal to the sum of emissions from the gas FQ used in the production process plus the emissions of by- 33 product emissions of CF4 resulting from use of the gas FQ , as shown in equations 3 and 4. 34 Equation 3.29 35 Emissions of FQ = (I - h)[FQ (I - Q)] 36 Where: 37 FQ = Sales/purchases of gas i in kg (CF4, CjF^ C3F8 , C4F8 , CHF3, NF3 SF6) 38 h = Fraction of gas remaining in shipping container (heel) after use 39 C, = Use rate of gas (fraction destroyed or transformed in process 40 Equation 3.30 41 Emissions of CF4 = (I - h)(B; x FQ) 42 Where: 43 Bj = kg CF4 created per kg of gas (I) used in each process type. 44 -138- Government/ expert review Do not cite or quote I This method does not account for differences among process types (etching versus cleaning), individual 2 processes, or tools. It also does not account for the possible use of atmospheric emission-control devices. 3 Choice of emission factors 4 As discussed above, emissions factors -based on semiconductor manufacture are not adequate to account for 5 all of the factors that influence emissions. Data for each of the following parameters are necessary to prepare a 6 rigorous estimate: 7 • the number of FC-using process steps involved in manufacturing different types of semiconductors; 8 • the gases used; 9 • the process type (CVD or etch) used; 10 • the brand of process tool used; and 11 • implementation of atmospheric emission reduction technology. 12 Company-specific values for each of the emission parameters are required for the Tier 2a method. While the 13 use of both Tier 2 methods ensures greater comparability and consistency, only the Tier 2a method accounts 14 for the variability in product mix and in production processes found across the semiconductor industry. Since 15 semiconductor companies and plants often collect this data, it should be possible to develop values for these 16 emission parameters. Similarly, for both Tier 2, data should be available from manufacturers regarding the share 17 of each gas going to etching versus cleaning processes, and the presence of emission control technology. 18 Default values have been developed for the parameters used in Tier I and in Tier 2b methods which reflect the 19 literature and expert judgement (See Table 6.1). Given the difficulty in representing the diverse production 20 conditions within the semiconductor industry, default emission parameters are inherendy uncertain. 21 Table 3-12: D efault Emission Factors cf4 c2f« CHF j C,Fa c4fs NF, SF, Tier 1 C, (gas use rate) B NA NA NA Tier 2b Etch c, CVD q NA NA Etch B CVD B d Source: Will be supplied 22 Where: 23 Cj - Gas emission rate 24 B = By-product transformation NA = Not applicable 25 D = Fraction of gas destroyed by the emission control technology 26 Default Values for Other Parameters 10 27 Where: 28 h = Fraction of gas remaining in shipping container (heel) 29 -139- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I Choice of activity data 2 Activity data for this industry consists of data on gas sales, purchases, or use. For the more data-intensive Tier 3 2a method, gas purchase data at the company or plant level are necessary. For the Tier 2b and Tier I methods, 4 it is preferable that company level gas purchase data are used. Where purchase data are not available, sales data 5 may be available from the gas manufacturers or distributors. Sales data should include only the share of each gas 6 that is sold to the semiconductor industry. It may be necessary to make assumptions about this share if the data 7 are not available from gas manufacturers or distributors. 8 Completeness 9 Complete accounting of emissions from the semiconductor industry should be achievable in most countries 10 because there are a limited number of companies and plants. There are four issues related to completeness 11 that should be addressed: 12 • Other By-products: A number of transformation by-products are generated as the result of FC use for 13 chamber cleaning and etching. With the exception of CF4, however, FC by-product concentrations are 14 assumed to be negligible. Inventory managers should re-evaluate this assumption if new gases are adopted 15 by the industry. 16 • New Chemicals: Completeness will be an issue in the future as the industry evaluates and adopts new 17 chemical processes to improve its products. Industry-wide efforts to reduce FC emissions are also 18 accelerating the review of new chemicals. Consequently, good practice for this industry is to incorporate a 19 mechanism that accounts for greenhouse gases not currently listed in the IPCC Second Assessment Report 20 (e g., NF] CgFg, HFEs). These new gases may produce considerable amounts of high GWP by-products. 21 • Other Sources: A small amount of FCs may be released during gas handling (e g., distribution) and by 22 sources such as research and development (e g., university) scale plants and tool suppliers. These emissions 23 are not believed to be significant (e g., less than I % of this industry's total emissions). 24 • Other Products or Processes in the electronics industry that are known to use FCs in emissive 25 applications include: manufacture of flat panel displays and hard disk drives reliability testing (inert liquids); 26 coolants 36 (direct evaporative cooling for electric and electronic apparatuses and indirect coolants in 27 closed circuit of electric and electronic apparatuses); vapour phase reflow soldering; and precision 28 cleaning 37. 29 Developing a consistent time series 30 Use of FCs by the semiconductor industry began in the late 1970s and accelerated significantly beginning in the 31 early 1990s. Determining a base year emissions level may present difficulties because few data are available for 32 emissions occurring before 1995. If historical emissions estimates were based on simple assumptions (e g., use 33 = emissions), then these estimates could be improved by applying the methods described above. If historical 34 data are not available to permit use of a Tier 2 method, then the Tier I method using default emission 35 parameters can be used retrospectively. Both Tier I and Tier 2 could then be applied simultaneously for the 36 years in which more data become available to provide a comparison or benchmark. This should be done 37 according to the guidance provided in Chapter 7 — Methodological Choice and Recalculation. 38 In order to ensure a consistent emission record over time, a country should recalculate FC emissions for all 39 years reported whenever emission calculation procedures are changed, (e g., if a country changes from the use 40 of default values to actual values determined at the plant level). If plant-specific data are not available for all 41 years in the time series, the inventory preparer will need to consider how current plant data can be used to 42 recalculate emissions for these years. It may be possible to apply current plant-specific emission parameters to 43 sales data from previous years, provided that plant operations have not changed substantially. Such a 44 recalculation is required to ensure that any changes in emission trends are real and not an artefact of changes in 45 procedure. 36 Emissions from “hard disc drives reliability testing" and “coolants" are to be accounted for in Chapter 3.7.7 - other application sub-sector. 37 Emissions from precision cleaning are to be accounted for in chapter 3.7.2 — Solvent sub-sector. -140- Government/ expert review Do not cite or quote I Uncertainty assessment 2 Use of the Tier 2a method will result in the most accurate inventory. Given the limited number of sources and 3 the close monitoring of production processes at the plant level, collection of data for use in Tier 2b or Tier 2a 4 methods is technically feasible. The Tier I method has the greatest level of uncertainty. 5 3.6.1.2 Reporting and documentation 6 Explicit reporting on emissions in this industry would improve the transparency and comparability of emissions. 7 For example, under Table 2F of the IPCC reporting tables an additional line should be added for semiconductor 8 manufacturing emissions. As a number of FCs gases are emitted by this industry, reporting by individual gas 9 species rather than by chemical type would also improve the transparency and usefulness of this data. Efforts to 10 increase transparency should take into account the protection of confidential business information related to 11 specific gas use. Country-level aggregation of gas-specific emissions data should protect this information in 12 countries with three or more manufacturers. Table 3-13 shows the supporting information necessary for full 13 transparency in reported emissions estimates. 14 Table 3-13 Information N ecessary for Full Transparency of Estimates of Emissions from Semiconductor Manufacturing Data Tier 1 Tier 2b Tier 2a Emissions of each FC (rather than aggregated for all FCs) X X X Sales/purchases of each FC X Mass of each FC used in each process or process type X X Fraction of each FC used in processes with emission control technologies X X Use rate for each FC for each process or process type (This and following information is X necessary only if default value is not used) Fraction of each FC transformed into CF4 for each process or process type X Fraction of gas remaining in shipping container X Fraction of each FC destroyed by emission control technology X Fraction of CF4 by-product destroyed by emission control technology X Source: Will be supplied 15 16 Good practice for Tier 2a is to document the development of company-specific emission factors, and to explain 17 the deviation from the generic default values. Given confidentiality concerns, countries may wish to aggregate 18 this information across manufacturers. In cases where manufacturers in a country have reported different 19 emission or conversion factors for a given FC and process or process type, countries may provide the range of 20 factors reported and used. 21 Until NF3 is listed by the IPCC, emissions should be reported separately and not included in total emissions 22 calculations. 23 3.6.1.3 Inventory quality assurance/quality control 24 (QA/QC) 25 Good practice includes the verification of the data measured or calculated and an estimation of the uncertainty of 26 individual measurements and calculations. Due to the highly competitive nature of the semiconductor industry, 27 provisions for handling confidential business information (CBI) should be incorporated into the verification 28 process. Methodologies used should be documented, and a periodic audit of the measurement and calculation 29 of data should be considered. A QA audit of the processes and procedures should also be considered. -141- Government Figure Chapter NOTE: country's - 3 A key 7 source / - Methodological total expert 3.10: inventory category review of is Choice Decision one direct that and greenhouse is Recalculation). prioritized gases Tree within in the terms national for of -142 the inventory absolute Semiconductors system level of because emissions, its estimate the trend has in a Manufacturing emissions, significant or influence Do both not (see on cite or quote Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 3.7 EMISSIONS OF SUBSTITUTES FOR 2 OZONE DEPLETING SUSBSTANCES 3 (ODS SUBSTITUTES) 4 OVERVIEW 5 This chapter provides good practice guidance on seven sources of emissions of substitutes for ozone depleting 6 substances (ODS). Each of the following uses is discussed in a separate section: 7 • Aerosols and metered dose inhalers; 8 • Solvent uses; 9 • Foams; 10 • Stationary refrigeration; 11 • Mobile air conditioning; 12 • Fire protection; and 13 • Other applications. 14 Methodological issues is Choice of method 16 The Revised 1996 iPCC Guidelines describe two Tiers for estimating emissions from the use of ODS substitutes: 17 the advanced or actual method (Tier 2), and the basic or potential method (Tier I).38 The actual method (Tier 18 2) accounts for the time lag between consumption and emissions of ODS substitutes, whereas the potential 19 method assumes that emissions occur during the year in which the chemical is produced or sold into a 20 particular end-use sector. 21 While the Tier I method requires less data, it may produce very inaccurate estimates over the short term 22 because, for many long-lived sources such as refrigerators, chemicals are emitted over a period of several years. 23 The greater the length of the time over which the chemical is released, the greater the possible inaccuracy of 24 the potential method. If, as is the case in most countries, equipment sales are increasing each year, the total 25 amount of chemical stored in end-use equipment must also be increasing. Therefore, the potential method is 26 likely to overstate emissions 27 Good practice is to use the Tier 2 actual method for all sources. Consistency requires that countries make every 28 attempt to apply actual methodologies across the whole spectrum of ODS substitute emission sources. If a 29 country Is unable to implement actual methods for all sub-sectors, they should also calculate and report 30 potential estimates for all sectors to allow summing of total emissions. Actual and potential emission estimates 31 should not be summed together. 32 The generalised decision tree in Figure 3.11 describes the process for choosing between Tier 2 and Tier I,for 33 each end-use. The ‘key source ’ question appears in this decision tree rather than in the decision trees for each 34 end-use. As discussed in Chapter 7 - Methodological Choice and Recalculation, the determination of which 35 sources are ‘key ’ is done at the source category (in this case “ODS Substitutes’*). Because one or two end uses 36 may be responsible for the majority of ODS substitute emissions, it is good practice to begin with this decision 37 tree when choosing a method for each individual end-use. 38 The good practice guidance in this Section deals with variations of the Tier 2 method, rather than implementing 39 the potential method. Each sub-section discusses how to apply these methods to specific ODS sub-sectors, 40 reviews existing data sources, and identifies gaps therein. For further guidance on implementing the Tier I 41 method, countries can refer to Section 2.17.3 of the iPCC Guidelines 38 Decision 2/CP.3 affirms that actual emissions should be used for the reporting of emissions to the UNFCCC, and that Parties should make every effort to develop the necessary sources of data. -143- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I In general, it is good practice to develop appropriate country data for the Tier 2 method when the emissions 2 from the ODS replacement source categories are a significant component of the national inventory. This may 3 require a country-specific model. More detailed decision trees are included in each sub-sector to assist in the 4 further identification of data needs and selection of Tier 2 approach. 5 Countries implementing the Tier 2 method will need to determine whether to use bottom-up or top-down 6 approaches. The bottom-up approach takes into account the time lag between consumption and emissions 7 explicitly through emission factors. The top-down approach takes the time lag into account implicitly, by 8 tracking the amount of virgin chemical consumed in a year that replaces emissions from the previous year. 9 Tier 2A - The Bottom-Up Approach 10 The bottom-up method is based on an inventory of the number of products and-uses where ODS substitutes 11 are consumed and emitted. This approach estimates the number of equipment units that use these chemicals, 12 average chemical charges, average service life, emission rates, recycling, disposal, and other pertinent 13 parameters. Annual emissions are then estimated as a function of these parameters through the life of the units. 14 Since equipment units vary significantly in the amount of chemical used, service life, and emission rates, the 15 characterisation of this equipment can be a resource intensive task. The longer-lived the end-use equipment, 16 and the more diverse the types of equipment within a particular application, the more complex the bottom-up 17 approach has to be in order to account for emissions. 39 The bottom up approach can provide an accurate 18 estimate of emissions if detailed equipment and end-use data are available: 19 Equation 3.30 20 Total Emissions of Each PFC/HFC = Equipment Assembly Emissions + Equipment Operation 21 Emissions + Equipment Disposal Emissions 22 Assembly emissions occur as fugitives when equipment is filled or refilled with chemical. Emissions from 23 equipment also occur during operation as leaks, or intentional releases. Finally, when the equipment life ends 24 and it is disposed[ the remaining charge of MFC or RFC escapes to the atmosphere, is recycled, or possibly 25 destroyed. 26 The need to update equipment inventories on an annual basis can be a major implementation challenge for 27 countries with limited resources. The bottom-up method does not require annual chemical consumption data, 28 however, although it could be used as a quality assurance check if available. 29 Tier 2B - The Top-Down Approach 30 The top-down approach also estimates emissions from assembly, operation, and disposal, but does not rely on 31 emission factors. Instead, the method uses measured consumption (i.e., sales) of each chemical in the country 32 or facility being considered. The general equation is as follows 40: 33 Equation 3.31 34 Emissions = Annual sales of new gas - [Total charge of new equipment - Original total 35 CHARGE OF RETIRING EQUIPMENT] 36 Industry purchases new chemical from manufacturers to replace leakage (i.e., emissions) from the current 37 equipment stock, or to make a net change in the size of the total charge of the equipment stock. 41 The total 38 charge of new equipment minus the original total charge of retiring equipment represents the net change to 39 charge of the equipment stock. Where the net change is positive, some of the new chemical is being used to 40 satisfy the increase in the total charge, and therefore cannot be said to replace emissions from the previous 41 year. 39 Because approximately twenty different MFC and RFC chemicals could potentially be used as substitutes to ozone-depleting substances, and emissions sources are numerous and extremely diversified, implementing the bottom-up method involves dealing with high volumes of data and levels of complexity. 40 Boundary conditions: If there is no net change in the total equipment charge, then annual sales are equal to emissions. If the net change in the total equipment charge is equal to annual sales, then emissions are zero. 41 Industry also requires new chemical to replace destroyed gas and for stockpiles. Terms can be added to the general equation to account for these uses; these terms are not included here for simplicity. -144- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I Using this approach, it is not necessary to know the total amount of each chemical in equipment stock in order 2 to calculate emissions. One only needs to know the total charges of the new and retiring equipment This 3 approach is most directly applicable to the refrigeration and mobile air conditioning, and fire protection sub 4 sectors. Further elaboration and modification of this approach is provided in each sub-sector section. 5 Choice of emission factors 6 The type of emission factor required depends on the Tier 2 approach implemented. 7 Tier 2A - The Bottom-Up Approach 8 For the bottom-up approach, specific emission factors are required to estimate emission rates from the major 9 equipment types and sectors, good practice emission factors should be based on a country-specific study of the 10 equipment units in stock to determine their remaining service lives, average charges, leak rates, disposal II quantities, and recovery practices. The IPCC Guidelines include default values for some of these parameters, but 12 these are not country-specific. The expert group provides additional default values for some sub-sectors. 13 A common theme is that management of the disposal of equipment at the end of its service life can have a 14 profound effect on the total emissions; the chemical remaining in systems (called the “bank”) can be up to 90% 15 of the original quantity used. Specific issues related to emission factors are discussed in the sub-sector sections. 16 Tier 2B - The Top-Down Approach 17 As discussed above, the top-down approach generally relies on chemical sales data and does not use 18 equipment-based emission factors. Where there are exceptions to this rule, good practice guidance is provided 19 in each sub-sector section (e g., fugitive emissions during the filling of equipment with MFCs and PFCs). 20 Choice of activity data 21 Tier 2A - The Bottom-Up Approach 22 The bottom-up approach requires an inventory of existing HFC/PFC-containing units (i.e., the “bank”). Some 23 countries may have data published in trade magazines or technical reports. However, it is more likely that a 24 study will be necessary to estimate the inventory of existing units or chemicals. Expert panels can also facilitate 25 the generation of this information. Countries may also decide to conduct annual studies to update their 26 inventories of sector units. An alternative to this may be to calculate or estimate production growth for each 27 one of the sectors under consideration. Data need to reflect new units that are introduced each year, and old 28 or dysfunctional units that are retired. 29 Tier 2b - The Top-Down Approach 30 Activity data for the top-down approach are focused on chemical deployment rather the sources of emissions. 31 For certain end-uses, such as fire protection and foams, global models are being developed that allocate 32 accurately known production data into end-uses in specific regions. The activity data from these models will be 33 particularly useful for countries with significant imports of chemical and equipment. For the sales-based 34 approach, data on national chemical use are more easily obtained than data for the national inventory of 35 equipment responsible for emissions. Data on the total annual sales should be obtained from the gas 36 manufacturers or importers. The best source of data on the total charge of new equipment is likely to be the 37 equipment manufacturers or the trade associations that represent them. For the total charge of retiring 38 equipment, one must know or estimate (I) equipment lifetime, and (2) either (a) the historical sales of 39 equipment and the equipment ’s historical average charge size, or (b) the growth rate of such sales and charge 40 sizes. 41 Countries that import all or the majority of new chemical consumed are likely to encounter different issues of 42 data availability than countries with significant domestic chemical production. If the majority of chemicals are 43 imported, either in bulk or in equipment and products, some form of import data will be necessary for 44 calculating emissions. Ideally, customs officials should track and make available chemical import statistics. For 45 some products, such as foams and aerosols, it may not be possible for customs officials to track the type of 46 chemical in the product (e g., CFCs vs. MFCs in aerosols), or the presence of the product in the imported 47 equipment (e g., closed cell foams in automobile seats). It such cases, it may be necessary to collect or estimate 48 data with the assistance of major distributors and end-users. 49 50 145- Government/ expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Completeness 2 Completeness, in terms of the total quantity that could potentially be emitted, is covered by the fact that 3 activity data for the top-down approach are recorded in terms of the quantity of chemical used. Completeness 4 is an important issue for countries that use the Tier 2 bottom-up equipment-based method. 5 A fraction of new chemical production escapes to the atmosphere during production of each substance. 6 Fugitive emissions from production are not accounted for in either of the Tier 2 methods (or the Tier I 7 method). Countries with domestic chemical production should include fugitive emissions in their inventories. 8 The recommended approach is to apply an emission factor to chemical production, or to assume a fixed 9 (additional) percentage of chemical sales were emitted during production. 10 Developing a consistent time series 11 Countries that have done potential (Tier I) estimates in the past are encouraged to develop the capacity to do 12 Tier 2 estimates in the future. Actual and potential estimates should not be included in the same time series, so 13 countries should recalculate historical emissions with the actual method, if they change approaches. If data are 14 unavailable, countries should reconcile the two methods to ensure consistency, using the guidance on 15 recalculation provided in Chapter 7 - Methodological Choice and Recalculation, and should and documenting 16 the approach to ensure transparency. 17 Emission factors generally come from historical data on other chemicals (e.g., CFCs) used in established 18 markets and need to be adapted to new chemicals (ODS substitutes) in start-of-life markets. National data on 19 base year deployment is now available (or can be calculated with known uncertainty). 20 Uncertainty Assessment 21 Over the long term (over 20 years), it is highly accurate to assume that emissions of ODS substitutes within a 22 country are equal to total consumption. For a given year, however, the quantification of uncertainty is much 23 more difficult, due to the large number of different sources, and the diversity of emission patterns. For the top- 24 down Tier 2 method, the overall uncertainty will be directly related to quality and completeness of chemical 25 sales and import data. For the bottom-up Tier 2 method, the uncertainty will reflect the completeness of the 26 equipment survey, and the appropriateness of the emission functions developed to characterise emissions. 27 Reporting and documentation 28 As discussed above, countries should prepare and report actual emission estimates for as many sub-sectors as 29 possible. For those sub-sectors where it is not possible to prepare actual emission estimates, countries should 30 prepare and report potential emissions estimates. Countries reporting an actual/potential hybrid approach 31 should include a set of potential estimates for each source so that total ODS substitute emissions can be 32 calculated. As noted above, actual and potential estimates should not be summed together. 33 The balance between preservation of confidentiality and transparency of the data needs to be carefully 34 addressed. Careful aggregation may solve some problems but will require that results are validated by another 35 means (e g., third party audit). Where data have been aggregated to preserve the confidentiality of proprietary 36 information, qualitative explanations should be provided to indicate the method and approach for aggregation. 37 Inventory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) 38 It is good practice to supplement the general QA/QC related to data processing, handling, and reporting, as 39 outlined in Chapter 8, with source-specific procedures discussed below. 40 Compare the emission estimate using different approaches 41 Use the Tier I potential emissions method as an upper bound check on the Tier 2 actual estimates. 42 Compare bottom-up estimates with the top-down Tier 2 approach, since bottom-up emission factors have the 43 highest associated uncertainty. This technique will also minimize the possibility that certain end-uses are not 44 accounted for in the bottom-up approach. 45 Check national activity data 46 For the Tier 2a (bottom-up) method, evaluate the QA/QC procedures associated with estimating equipment 47 and product inventories to ensure that they meet the general procedures outlined in the QA/QC plan and that -146- Government/ expert review Do not cite or quote I representative sampling procedures were used. This is particularly important for the ODS substitutes 2 subsectors because of the large populations of equipment and products. 3 For the Tier 2b (top-down) method, evaluate and reference QA/QC procedures conducted by the 4 organizations responsible for producing chemical deployment information. Sales data may come from gas 5 manufacturers, importers, distributors, or trade associations. If the QC associated with the secondary data is 6 inadequate, then the inventory agency must establish its own QC checks on the secondary data, reassess the 7 uncertainty of the emissions estimates derived from the data, and/or reconsider how the data are used. 8 Check emission factors 9 Emission factors used for the Tier 2a (bottom-up) method should be based on country-specific studies. 10 Compare these factors with the default values. Determine if the country-specific values are reasonable, given II similarities or differences between the national source category and the source represented by the defaults. 12 Explain and document any differences between country specific factors and default factors. -147- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Figure 3.11: Generalised Decision Tree for all Ozone 2 Depleting Substitutes Are X. Z ODS X substitutes Report used in any not occurring 1 applications? yZ Are x. yZ Are yZ data X. yZ Is this X. // production X, /available for Tier Z\ 'source or sub and import/export actual emissions from sector a key data available for X use of each Z source category? .each MFC and y X hfc /pfc?/ X (See note I) / X PFC? X Obtain Obtain the production and necessary data import data for for the Tier 2 each HFC/PFC method Box 2 Box 1 / Are the \ Use default Tier 2 Use the Tier 1 country-specific emission factors for potential emission emission factors each individual approach < available? > substance for which there are ’activity' data Box 3 Use country-specific Tier 2 emission factors for each individual substance for which there are ’activity' data NOTE: (0 A key source category is one that is prioritized within the national inventory system because its estimate has a significant influence on a country's total inventory of direct greenhouse gases in terms of the absolute level of emissions, the trend in emissions, or both (see Chapter 7 - Methodological Choice and Recalculation). 3 Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I 3.7.1 Aerosols Sub-sector 2 3.7.1.1 Methodological issues 3 MFCs and PFCs are used as propellants and solvents in aerosol containers. Emissions from aerosols usually 4 occur shortly after production, on average six months after sale. During the use of aerosols, 100% of the 5 chemical is emitted (Gamlen et al., 1986; USA EPA, 1992a). The 5 main sources are as follows: 6 1. ) Metered Dose Inhalers (MDIs); 7 2.) Personal Care Products (e g., hair care, deodorant, shaving cream); 8 3. ) Household Products (e.g., air-fresheners, oven and fabric cleaners); 9 4. ) Industrial Products (e.g., special cleaning sprays, lubricants, pipe-freezers); and 10 5. ) Other General Products (e.g., silly string, tire inflators, claxons). 11 The MFCs currently used as propellants are MFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-I52a. The substance 12 HFC-43-l0mee and a PFC - perfluorohexane - are used as solvents in industrial aerosol products. 42 13 Choice of method 14 Aerosol emissions are considered “prompt" because all of the initial charge escapes within the first year or two 15 after sale. Therefore, to estimate emissions it is necessary to know the total amount of aerosol initially charged 16 in product containers prior to sale. Emissions of each individual aerosol in year r can be calculated according to 17 the iPCC Guidelines as follows: 18 Equation 3.32 19 Emissions of MFCs in year t = [(quantity of HFC/PFC contained in aerosol products sold 20 IN YEAR T) X (EF)] + [(QUANTITY OF HFC/PFC CONTAINED IN AEROSOL PRODUCTS SOLD IN YEAR 21 ______(T-I)j X (1-EF)]______22 This equation should be applied to each chemical individually. Total carbon equivalent emissions are equal to 23 the sum of carbon equivalent emissions of each chemical. 24 Since the lifetime of the product is assumed to be two years, any amount not emitted during the first year must 25 by definition be emitted during the second and final year. In reality, most emissions occur within the first year 26 of product purchase, but this calculation accounts for the lag period from time of purchase to time of use.43 A 27 decision tree for estimating actual emissions is included in Figure 3.12. The data collection process is described 28 below. 29 Choice of emission factors 30 It is good practice to use a default emission factor of 50% of the initial charge/year for the broad spectrum of 31 aerosol products. This means that half the chemical charge escapes with the first year and the remaining charge 32 escapes during the second year (Gamlen, et al., 1986). Countries should use alternative emission factors only 33 when empirical evidence is available for the majority of aerosol products. The development of country-specific 34 emission factors should be documented thoroughly. General aerosol and MDI manufacturers may be able to 35 provide data on process losses. 42 HFC-43-IOmee is used solely as a solvent, but is counted as an aerosol when delivered through aerosol canisters. 43 For short-lived sources such as MDIs and aerosol products, the estimate of potential emissions is equivalent to using and emission factor of 100%. This will produce a result similar to the actual approach if there is no substantial growth in aerosol sales. —149 — Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I Choice of activity data 2 The activity data required are the total quantity of each relevant chemical contained in all aerosol products 3 consumed within a country (both domestic sales and imports). For countries that import 100% of aerosol 4 products, activity data are equal to imports. 5 Activity data for this sector can be collected using either a bottom-up or a top-down approach, depending on 6 the availability and quality of the data. The bottom-up approach requires data on the number of aerosol 7 products sold and imported (i.e., number of individual metered dose inhalers, hair care products, tire inflators 8 etc.), and the average charge per container. The top-down approach involves collecting aerosol and MDI 9 chemical sales data directly from chemical manufacturers. In many cases, a mix of bottom-up and top-down data 10 may be necessary. 11 • Domestic Aerosol Production: For countries with domestic production, general aerosol and MDI 12 manufacturers can provide data on the quantity of aerosol products produced for consumption in the 13 country, the number of aerosols exported, the average charge per aerosol, and the type of propellant or 14 solvent used (i.e., which MFC or RFC). Total use of domestically produced aerosol products in each year 15 can then be calculated as the number of aerosol products sold domestically in a given year times the charge 16 of HFC or RFC in each product. 17 If bottom-up data are not available, domestic chemical producers can provide data on the amount of MFCs sold 18 to domestic manufacturers of metered dose inhalers, and aggregate sales data to producers of other aerosols 19 (categories 2, 3, 4 and 5 above). If domestic aerosol and MDI manufacturers import MFCs, information may also 20 be sought from chemical exporters, although they may not be able to provide data on exports destined for 21 individual countries because of confidential business concerns. Customs officials and chemical distributors are 22 another possible source for chemical import data. 23 • Imported Aerosol Production: Most countries will have significant imports of general aerosol products. 24 Data on imports of HFC-containing general aerosols may be difficult to collect because official import 25 statistics for aerosol products do not typically differentiate HFC-containing aerosols from others. When 26 usable import statistics are unavailable from customs agencies, data may be available from product 27 distributors and specific end-users. For example, in the case of MDIs, a limited number of pharmaceutical 28 companies typically import products, and these companies can be surveyed to obtain the required 29 information. 30 Completeness 31 Completeness depends on the availability of activity data. Countries without domestic solvent production may 32 need to use expert judgement in estimating activity data, because import statistics are likely to be incomplete. 33 Developing a consistent time series 34 Emissions from aerosols should be calculated using the same method and data sources for every year in the 35 time series. Where consistent data are unavailable for all years in the time series, any gaps should be 36 recalculated according to the guidance provided in Chapter 7 - Methodological Choice and Recalculation. 37 Uncertainty assessment 38 The use of MFCs in the general aerosol sector is larger than in the MDI sector. Data from HFC manufacturers 39 and importers of sales into the general aerosol sector are, at the present time, not well defined other than for 40 HFC-134a on a global scale. These data can be improved through additional data collection activities. The 41 diffuse nature of the general aerosol sector means that the acquisition of reliable bottom-up data requires 42 specific study on a country basis through local industry experts. 43 There are several sources of reliable data for the MDI sector, leading to a high level of confidence in the data 44 reported. However, in reporting for a single country, the absence of reliable data for the general aerosol sector 45 could mean that emission data could be over or under estimated by a factor of three. 46 3.7.1.2 Reporting and documentation 47 The emissions inventory for metered dose inhalers should be reported separately from the emissions inventory 48 for other aerosols. Countries should document the emission factor used. If a country-specific emission factor 49 rather than the default factor is used, its development should be documented. Detailed activity data should be 50 reported to the extent that it does not disclose confidential business information. Where some data are -150- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 confidential, qualitative information should be provided on the types of aerosol products consumed, imported, 2 and produced within the country. It is likely that the type of MFC used as a propellant or solvent and the sales 3 of MDIs and general aerosols into individual countries could be viewed as confidential. The emissions inventory 4 for MDIs should be separately reported, since the most reliable data exist for that sector. 44 s 3.7.1.3 Inventory quality assurance/quality control (QA 6 /QC) 7 Both bottom-up and top-down data should be used as a check on the emission estimate. Data used to calculate 8 emissions from year t-l should be consistent with data used in the previous year's inventory estimate, so the 9 two-year total sums to 100%. If this is not the case, then the reason for inconsistency should be reported. 10 Collection of the data described in the section on data collection above should provide adequate quality control. 11 To allow independent assessment of the level of quality of the data reporting, the number of manufacturers of 12 aerosols plus end users should be quantified. 44 Quantification of use data for individual general aerosol sectors will enable more reliable future projections to be developed and emission reduction strategies to be considered. -151- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Figure 3.12: Decision Tree for Actual Emissions (Tier 2) from 2 the Aerosol Sub-Sector Box 1 Does x. Are x. Calculate emission of each the country \ sales data X. substance in each end- produce aerosol ^ available from ^ use, using bottom-up sales products and metered manufacturers of aerosol data from aerosol product dose inhalers x. products and / and MDI manufacturers, \ (MDIs)? // X. MDIs? // for each product category In each year, for each Box 2 individual substance, Calculate emissions obtain data from MFC of each substance producers and importers using top-down for gas sales into MDIs data and other aerosol ^ Are aerosol x product and MDI import statistics available? Box 3 Calculate emissions from Box 4 imported products for Calculate emissions from each chemical using imported products using aerosol product import data from major end- data users or distributors of products Add together emissions from imported and domestically produced products (if applicable) (Box 1 or Box 2) + (Box 3 or Box 4) 3 4 5 -152- Government/ expert review Do not cite or quote 1 3.7.2 Solvents Sub-sector 2 3.7.2.1 Methodological issues 3 MFCs and PFCs are used as solvents in four main areas as follows: 4 I.) Precision Cleaning; 5 2.) Electronics Cleaning; 6 3.) Metal Cleaning; and 7 4.) Deposition applications. 8 The use of MFCs as solvents is still in its infancy. Solvents that have been or may be used include HFC43-I0mee, 9 perfluorohexane (a RFC) and others that were not listed in the IPCC Second Assessment Report, including 10 HFC-365mfc.45 11 Choice of method 12 As is the case in the aerosol sector, emissions from solvent applications generally are considered “prompt ” 13 emissions because 100% of the chemical is emitted within two years. To estimate emissions it is necessary to 14 know the total amount of chemical in solvent products sold each year. Emissions of MFCs and PFCs from 15 solvent use in year t can be calculated according to the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines as follows. 16 Equation 3.33 17 Emissions in year t = (quantity of solvents sold in year t) x (EF) + [quantity of solvents sold 18 in year (t- I)] x (I — EF) 19 As with aerosols, the equation should be applied to each chemical individually. Depending on the disaggregation 20 in available data, moreover, the equation may also be applied to different equipment classes. Total carbon 21 equivalent emissions are equal to the sum of carbon equivalent emissions of each chemical. 22 The emission factor EF represents the fraction of chemical emitted from solvents in year c. The product lifetime 23 is assumed to be two years, and thus any amount not emitted during the first year must by definition be 24 emitted during the second and final year. A decision tree for estimating actual emissions is included in Figure 25 3.13. The data collection process is described below. 26 Choice of emission factors 27 Good practice is to use a default emission factor of 50% of the initial charge/year for solvent applications. In 28 certain applications with new equipment, it is possible that much lower loss rates will be achieved and that 29 emissions will occur over a period of more than two years. Alternative emission factors can be developed in 30 such situations, using bottom-up data on the use of such equipment and empirical evidence regarding 31 alternative emission factors. 46 Such country-specific emission factors should be documented thoroughly. 32 Modifications for the recovery and recycling of solvents are not recommended. While HFC and PFC solvents 33 may be recovered and recycled several times during their use due to their high costs, in most emissive end uses 34 the chemical will be released on average six months after sale. 35 Choice of activity data 36 The activity data for this end-use are equal to the quantity of each relevant chemical sold as solvent in a 37 particular year. As with aerosols, both domestic and imported solvent quantities must be collected. The 45 The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines provide “Reporting Instructions" only for greenhouse gases with global warming potentials listed in the Second Assessment Report. 46 As guidance, for sales to new equipment, approximately 10-20% will be emitted with the rest of the gas banked. In subsequent years sales are for servicing volumes and can be considered 100% emitted. -153- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 required data can be collected using either top-down or bottom-up methods, depending on the character of 2 the national solvent industry. In most countries, the end-users will be extremely diverse and a top-down 3 approach is recommended. 4 Top-down data: 5 Top-down data are equal to the amount of chemical solvent sold or imported annually into a country. 6 Domestic solvent sales should be available directly from chemical manufacturers. Because solvents are only 7 produced in a few countries, most countries will import some or all of their consumption. Data on imported 8 solvents can be collected from the exporting manufacturers, although information on exports to individual 9 countries may be considered confidential. Alternatively, import statistics from customs agencies or the 10 distributors of imported solvents can be used. Solvent import data are generally more easily obtained than 11 aerosol import data because solvent is usually imported in bulk rather than small containers. 12 If specific emission factors are developed for particular types of equipment, it will be necessary to disaggregate 13 the consumption data into these equipment classes. In general, this will require a bottom-up approach. 14 Bottom-up Data: 15 Bottom-up activity data includes the number of pieces of equipment or canisters containing solvent and their 16 charge. The bottom-up approach is suitable where large corporations consume most of the solvent sold, 17 because it should possible to obtain detailed solvent end-use data from a few large entities. The bottom-up 18 approach may also be most appropriate when equipment-specific emission factors are available. 19 Completeness 20 Completeness depends on the availability of activity data. Countries without domestic solvent production may 21 need to use expert judgement in estimating activity data, because import statistics are likely to be incomplete. 22 Developing a consistent time series 23 Emissions from foams should be calculated using the same method and data sources for every year in the time 24 series. Where consistent data are unavailable for all years in the time series, any gaps should be recalculated 25 according to the guidance provided in Chapter 7 - Methodological Choice and Recalculation. 26 Uncertainty Assessment 27 The default assumption that all solvent is emitted within two years is widely accepted and should not lead to a 28 significant error. Similarly, the activity data should be reliable because of the small number of chemical 29 manufacturers, the high cost of the gas leading to little stockpiling, and the 100% emissive nature of the use in 30 most applications. 31 3.7.2.2 Reporting and documentation 32 Countries should report the emission factor used, and the empirical basis for any country-specific factors. For 33 activity data, chemical sales and imports should be reported, unless there are confidentiality concerns due to 34 the limited number and location of manufacturers. (At present, for example, there may be only one producer 35 of each compound.) Where there are less than three manufacturers of specific chemicals used as solvents, 36 reporting could be aggregated into the aerosol section, because both are considered 100% emissive applications. 37 In this case, to preserve confidentiality, emissions of individual gases should not be specified and emissions 38 should be reported in CO% equivalent tonnes. 39 3.7.2.3 Inventory quality assurance/quality control 40 (QA/QC) 41 For accurate quality control/assurance both top-down and end-use data should be compiled. To allow 42 independent assessment of the level of quality of the data reporting, the number of manufacturers and 43 distributors plus end users interviewed should be quantified. 44 When applying emission factors and activity data specific to various solvent applications, the activity data should 45 be obtained at the same level of detail —154 — Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Figure 3 13: Decision Tree for Actual Emissions (Tier 2) from 2 the Solvents Sub-Sector X Are X ODS Report substitutes used not occurring' as solvents in the country? Box 1 >X Do \ In each year, for each a small \ Is there individual substance, number of large any domestic obtain data from companies dominate solvent HFC/PFC producers and solvent production? importers for gas sales to Xsconsumption?X^ solvent producers each individual Calculate emissions substance, of each HFC/PFC obtain solvent import using top-down data customs officials or sales and solvent distributors import data >X Are X. equipment \ X^ and solvent Xs consumption data available X. directly from X. companies?^X Box 3 / Are X. ^X^ emission \ Calculate emissions of ^ factors and activity ^ each HFC/PFC in each end-use, using bottom-up data available for newer sales data, new ^equipment with lower/ \ leak rates? emissions factors where available, and default factors for the remainder Box 2 Calculate emissions of each HFC/PFC in each end-use, using bottom-up sales data and default emission factors 3 -155- Government/expert review Do not ate or quote I Foams Sub-sector 2 3.7.3.1 Methodological issues 3 Increasingly, MFCs are being used as replacements for CFCs and HCFCs in foam applications such as insulating, 4 cushioning, and packaging. Compounds that may be used include HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFC-152a. For 5 open-cell foams, emissions of MFCs used as blowing agents are likely to occur during the manufacturing process. 6 In closed-cell foams, emissions occur over a longer time period (i.e., 20 years). 7 Choice of method 8 The Revised 1996 iPCC Guidelines recommend calculating emissions from open-cell foams separately from 9 emissions from closed-cell foams: 10 Open-Cell Foams: Since MFCs and PFCs used for open-cell foam blowing are released immediately, all of the 11 emissions will occur in the country of manufacture. Emissions are calculated according to the following equation, 12 as presented in the IPCC Guidelines." 47 13 Equation 3.34 14 Emissions from open -cell foams = Total annual MFCs and PFCs used in manufacturing 15 OPEN-CELL FOAMS 16 Closed-Cell Foams: Emissions from closed-cell foams occur at three distinct points: 17 1. ) First Year Losses from Foam Manufacture and Installation: These emissions occur where the product 18 is manufactured. 19 2. ) Annual Losses (in-situ losses from foam use): Closed-cell foams will lose a fraction of their initial 20 charge each year until decommissioning. These emissions occur where the product is used. 21 3. ) Decommissioning Losses: Emissions upon decommissioning also occur where the product is used. 22 Section 2.17.4.3 of the Revised 1996 iPCC Guidelines presents an equation for calculating emissions from the 23 foams sector that accounts for the first two emission points. In order to prepare a complete estimate of 24 emissions from this source, it is good practice to add a third term to the equation to account for 25 decommissioning losses and chemical destruction, where data are available. Thus, the recommended equation 26 is: 27 Equation 3.35 28 Emissions from closed -cell foams - [(Total MFCs and PFCs used in manufacturing new 29 CLOSED-CELL FOAMS IN YEAR T) X (FIRST-YEAR LOSS EMISSION FACTOR)] 30 + [(Original HFC or PFC charge blown into closed -cell foam manufacturing between 31 YEAR T AND YEAR T-N) X (ANNUAL LOSS EMISSION FACTOR)] 32 + [D ecommissioning losses - HFC or PFC destroyed ], 33 Where: 34 n = Product lifetime of closed-cell foams; and 35 Decommissioning losses = the remaining chemical at the end of service life 36 This equation should be applied to each chemical and major foam application individually. Total carbon 37 equivalent emissions are equal to the sum of carbon equivalent emissions of each combination of chemical type 38 and foam application. 39 To implement this approach it is necessary to collect current and historical data on annual chemical sales to the 40 foams industry for the period up to and including the average lifetime of closed-cell foams (e g., the most recent 41 twenty years). If it is not possible to collect data for potential losses upon decommissioning, it should be 42 assumed that all chemical not emitted in manufacturing is emitted over the lifetime of the foam. 4,7 For these applications, actual emissions of each chemical are equal to potential emissions. 156- Government/expert review Do not cite or quote 1 A modification of this approach is to use activity data provide by a global model that allocates accurately known 2 production data to the different foam applications in various regions around the world. These data can then be 3 used with the disaggregated emission function parameters provided in Table 7.5. 4 Choice of emission factors 5 As in other sub-sectors, the first choice for emission functions is to develop and use peer-reviewed and well 6 documented country-specific data based on field research. As noted previously, if no information is available for 7 decommissioning losses, then the emission functions used for first-year and annual losses should account for all 8 chemical consumption. -48 9 If country-specific data are not available, default assumptions can be used. Figure 6 presents state-of-the-art 10 good practice emission function assumptions for the most important current closed-cell foam applications. Use 11 of these factors will require data on chemical sales and the bank of chemical in equipment for these applications. 12 If only aggregated data chemical sales data for closed-cell foams are available and information on specific foam 13 types cannot be obtained, the general default emission functions listed in the IPCC Guidelines should be used.-49 14 These general default emission factors are shown in Table 3-14. 15 Table 3-14: D efault Emission Functions for Closed -Cell Foams Emission Factor Default Values Product Lifetime n = 20 years First Year Losses 10% of the original HFC or RFC charge/year, although the recommended value drops to 5% if significant recycling takes place during manufacturing. Annual Losses 4.5% of the original HFC or RFC charge/year Source: Gamlen, et al. (1986) 16 17 Use of these default emission functions will result in 90% of the initial charge being emitted over twenty years 18 of annual use, after the initial 10% during the first year. 19 Choice of activity data 20 Two types of activity data are needed in order to prepare the emissions estimates: the amount of chemical 21 used in foam manufacturing in a country, and the amount of chemical contained in foams used in the country. 22 Data collection issues related to these two areas differ. 23 • Chemical Used in Foam Manufacture: The amount of bulk chemicals used in the foam blowing industry 24 should include both domestically produced and imported MFCs and PFCs. Domestic chemical sales data 25 into the foam industry should be available directly from chemical manufacturers. As with other ODS 26 substitute sources, imported chemical data may be available from customs officials or chemical distributors. 27 For open-celled foams, all emissions will occur during manufacture. Thus, it is necessary to determine the share 28 of chemical associated with the manufacture of open-celled foams. This data can be determined through an end- 29 use survey, or approximated by reviewing similar end-use data gathered on CFCs and HCFCs. 30 • Chemical Emitted During the Lifetime of Closed-Cell Foams: Annual and decommissioning losses 31 associated with closed-cell foams should be calculated for all the foam in use in the country. This will 32 require consideration of the import and export of products containing closed-cell foams, which can be 33 quite complicated. 48 49 48 It has also been noted that decommissioning may not necessarily involve total loss of blowing agent at that point, either because of a level of secondary use or because the item has been discarded intact (e g. many refrigerators). These could be considered as some of the end-of-life management options available to nations, but are clearly less effective than proper destruction or recovery technologies. In summary, future emission models should focus proper attention to end-of-life issues. 49 No emission factors are provided for open-cell foams because all emissions occur during the first year. 157- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I Countries that export closed-cell foams should subtract these volumes from their calculations of annual and 2 decommissioning losses, since the emissions will occur in the importing country. Data on the chemical charge 3 of exported closed-cell foams may be available from large manufacturers. 4 Countries that import products containing closed-cell foams, in contrast, should include estimates of emissions 5 from these imported products for completeness. Since import statistics for closed-cell foam products are 6 extremely difficult to collect Until better data are available, countries whose emissions occur only from 7 imported closed-cell foams may need to use expert judgement in estimating this data. Until better data are 8 available, countries that do not produce foams, whose emissions occur only from imported closed-cell foams, 9 may need to note that emissions are occurring, but not estimated for this sub-source. 10 In the future, countries may be able to use international HFC/PFC production and consumption data sets to II develop estimates of chemical contained in imported closed-cell foams. For example, the Alternative 12 Fluorocarbon Environmental Assessment Study (AFEAS) statistics-gathering process compiled global activity 13 data up until 1997 data for HFC-134a in the foam sector. 50 Although the global data are relatively well 14 understood, regional breakdowns are not presently available. Efforts are underway to develop such 15 breakdowns, however, and also to develop recommended methods for allocating global or regional data to 16 individual countries. 17 Completeness 18 Fifteen foam applications and four potential chemicals used as blowing agents (HFC-I34a, MFC-152a, 19 HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc) have been identified in the foam sub-sector. For completeness, countries should 20 determine whether the blowing agents are used in each application, which suggests 60 theoretically possible 21 combinations (see Figure 7). In practice this list reduces to 32 realistic potential chemical/application 22 combinations, although there are some potential regional variations. It should also be noted that, at this stage, 23 the method does not address the potential use of blends and, in reality, it would be difficult to assign different 24 emission factors to such systems. The main problem with the potential use of blends will be one of activity 25 monitoring. 26 Developing a consistent time series 27 A country must maintain a consistent method in assessing its emissions year-on-year. If, for example, no system 28 is established to monitor actual decommissioning at the outset of the inventory process, it will be very difficult 29 to gain data retrospectively if a change from 'default' to 'actual* data is considered. This decision should 30 therefore be the subject of careful consideration at the outset of the reporting process. Any recalculation of 31 estimates should be done according to the guidance provided in Chapter 7 - Methodological Choice and 32 Recalculation. 33 Uncertainty Assessment 34 Current sales data indicate that the global estimates are accurate to within 10%, regional estimates are in the 35 30-40% range, and the uncertainty of country specific top-down information may be more than 50% (Source: 36 Will be supplied). The application of emission factors will add to the uncertainties although it should be noted 37 that the calculation of the total emissions for a year will be only partially dependent on the accuracy of 38 assumptions for new consumption in that year. The remainder of the emissions will arise from installed foams 39 and from those de-commissioned in that year. Since de-commissioning will be the trigger for the majority of 40 emissions in many cases, the product life assumptions may introduce the greatest degrees of uncertainty in the 41 default emissions calculations. It is therefore very important that countries keep records of their inventory of 42 HFC containing products and some mechanism for monitoring actual decommissioning if possible. 43 3.7.3.2 Reporting and documentation 44 Emissions factors should be reported, along with documentation for the development of country-specific data. 45 Chemical sales to the foam blowing industry should be reported in a manner that preserves confidential 46 business information. Most confidentiality issues arising from any data collection process relate to the most 47 highly concentrated activities. To deal with this, emissions from foams could be reported as a single number, 48 provided that the development of the number was auditable under suitable terms of confidentiality. Of course, 50 HFC-134a is the most commonly used HFC for foam blowing. AFEAS data can found at http://www.afeas.org . —158 — Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 a declaration of consolidated emissions from manufacture (first year), use (product life) and decommissioning 2 (end-of-life) will always be preferable to allow continued focus on improvements being made in each of these 3 areas. If, in the future, countries use the global and regional data sets, they should report the results of how 4 they allocated emissions to the country level. s 3.7.3.3 Inventory quality assurance/quality control 6 (QA/QC) 7 One of the key concerns will be to ensure that the preservation of the integrity of regional and global data will 8 be maintained by the summation of individual country declarations and a major part of the QA/QC review 9 process will need to concern itself with this cross reference. -159- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Figure 3.14: Decision Tree for Actual Em ssions (Tier 2) from 2 the Foams Sub-Sector Perform an end-use survey to determine foam applications used in the country z^ Are / ODS X. ;ubstitutes used in the Report sfoam sector in the/ not occurring' \ country? Z^ / Are x Collect or Tier 2 activity estimate data available from national global model? activity data Are X. Box 3 / Can x, .z detailed x. Calculate emissions by activity data Z country-specific \ substance and foam type, be disaggregated emission parameters using national data, by foam available by foam type? disaggregated country- X types? > \ (e.g., product life, z specific parameters, and the X. first year Z/ Tier 2 equation, incorporating Xlosses)/ end of life data if available Box 1 Box 2 Calculate emissions by Calculate emissions by substance, using national substance and foam type, data, general default using national data, parameters, and the Tier disaggregated default 2 equation, incorporating parameters, and the Tier end of life data if 2 equation, incorporating available end of life data if available 3 — 160 — Government / expert review Do not cite or quote Table 3-15 D efault Emission Functions Table (D erived from existing CFC/HFC information accumulated through national /international research ) HFC-I34a Applications Product Life First Year Annual Loss X Loss X Polyurethane - Integral Skin* 12-15 95 2.5 Polyurethane-Continuous Panel 50 years 10 0.5 Polyurethane - Discontinuous 50 years 12.5 0.5 Panel Polyurethane - Appliance 15-20 years 7.5 0.5 Polyurethane — Injected 15 years 12.5 0.5 One Component Foam (OCF)* 50 years 95 2.5 25 3 Extruded Polystyrene/ 50 years 40 Polyethylene (XPS/PE)* *HFC-152a Applications 3 Source: Will be supplied Table 3-16 D efault Emission Functions Table (D erived from existing CFC/HFC information accumulated through national /international RESEARCH) HFC-24Sa/HFC-365mfc Product Life First Year Loss X Annual Applications Loss X Polyurethane -- Continuous Panel SOyears 7.5 0.5 Polyurethane - Discontinuous Panel 50 years 10 0.5 Polyurethane - Appliance 1 5 years 4 0.25 Polyurethane - Injected 1 5 years 10 0.5 Polyurethane - Continuous Block 1 5 years 40 0.75 Polyurethane — Discontinuous Block 1 5 years 45 0.75 50 years 10 1 Polyurethane - Continuous Laminate 25 years 10 1 Polyurethane - Spray 50 years 25 1.5 Phenolic - Discontinuous Block 1 5 years 45 0.75 Phenolic - Discontinuous Laminate 50 years 10 Source: Will be supplied 1 -161- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Table 3-17 Use of ODS Substitutes In the Foam Blowing 2 Industry Foam Product Emissions by Gas - OOP Replacements Subsectors MFC Foam Blowing Agent Alternates HFC-134a MFC-152a HFC-245fa HFC-365mfc Flexible Foam X X X X Flexible Molded Foam X X X X Integral Skin Foam □ □ X X Continuous Panel □ X □ □ Discontinuous Panel n X n n Appliance Foam 0 X 0 0 Injected Foam D X 0 □ Continuous Block X X □ D Discontinuous Block X X □ D Continuous Laminate X X n n Spray Foam X X □ □ One Component Foam 0 □ X X Extruded Polystyrene/Polyethylene □ 0 X X Phenolic Block X X □ 0 Phenolic Laminate X X □ 0 x - no anticipated use 3 FI - current and/or anticipated use 4 -162- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 3.7.3 Stationary Refrigeration Sub - 2 SECTOR 3 3.7.4.1 Methodological issues 4 MFCs and PFCs are used as replacements for CFCs and HCFCs in refrigeration and stationary air conditioning 5 equipment Examples of refrigeration equipment include household refrigerators, retail food refrigeration, 6 commercial and residential air conditioning, and cold storage warehouses. 7 Choice of method 8 The Tier 2 approach in the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines is based on calculating emissions from assembly, 9 operation, and disposal of stationary refrigeration equipment. The general equation is shown below: 10 Equation 3.36 11 Total Emissions = Assembly Emissions + Operation Emissions + D isposal Emissions 12 • Assembly emissions include the emissions associated with product manufacturing, even if the products are 13 eventually exported. 14 • Operation emissions include annual leakage from equipment stock in use as well as servicing emissions, 15 including servicing emissions. This calculation should include all equipment units in the country, regardless 16 of where they were manufactured. 17 • Disposal emissions include the amount of refrigerant released from scrapped systems. As with operation 18 emissions, they should include all equipment units in the country where they were manufactured. 19 • Good practice is to implement a top-down Tier 2 approach, using annual sales of refrigerant. The alternative 20 approach, using bottom-up equipment data and multiple emission factors, is much more data intensive and 21 is unlikely to improve accuracy. The decision tree in Figure 7.5 and the table of emission factors in Table 22 7.8 describe the top-down and bottom-up approaches and the recommended improvements to the default 23 data in the Tier 2 method. 24 Top-Down Approach (Sales-based) 25 For the sales-based approach, the three emission stages are combined into the following simplified equation: 26 Equation 3.37 27 Emissions = [Annual Sales of N ew Refrigerant ] - [Refrigerant Used to Charge N ew 28 Equipment ] + [Refrigerant Originally Used to Charge Retiring Equipment ] 29 In each country there is a stock of existing refrigeration equipment, which contains an existing stock of 30 refrigerant chemical (bank). Therefore, annual sales of new chemical refrigerant must be used for one of two 31 purposes: 32 • To increase the size of the existing chemical stock (bank) in use; or 33 • To replace that fraction of last year's stock of chemical that was emitted to the atmosphere (through leaks, 34 disposal, etc ). 35 The difference between the quantity the total gas sold and the quantity of that gas used to increase the size of 36 the chemical stock equals the amount of chemical emitted to the atmosphere. The increase in the size of the 37 chemical stock is equal to the difference between the total charges of the new and retiring equipment. 38 By using data on current and historical sales of gas, rather than emission factors referenced from literature, the 39 equation reflects assembly, operation, and disposal emissions at the time and place where they occur. Default 40 emission factors are likely to be inaccurate because emissions rates may vary considerably from country to 41 country and even within a single country. 42 This equation can be applied either to individual types of equipment, or more generally to all air conditioning 43 and refrigeration equipment in a country, depending on the level of disaggregation of available data. If V - § -7 tpfo} t -163- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 disaggregated data are available, emission estimates developed for each type of equipment and chemical are 2 summed to determine total emissions for sector. 3 Bottom-Up Approach 4 Implementing the bottom-up Tier 2 approach requires an estimation of the amount of refrigerant in the stock 5 of equipment, and emission factors to represent equipment various types of leakage (i.e., assembly, operation, 6 and disposal emissions): 7 For assembly emissions, the following equation should be used: 8 Equation 3.38: 9 Assembly Emissions = (Total HFC/PFC Charged in Y ear t) x (k /100) 10 The variable k is an emission factor that represents the percentage of initial charge that is released during I I assembly. 12 Operation emissions are calculated from the total bank of HFCs/PFCs contained in equipment presently in use. 13 The following equation should be used: 14 Equation 3.39 15 Operation Emissions = (Amount of HFC/PFC Stock in Y ear t) x (a /I00) 16 The variable x represents the annual leak rate as a percentage of total charge. Since different types of 17 refrigeration equipment will leak at different rates, good practice is to disaggregate data into homogeneous 18 classes (i.e., by age or size) and develop values of x specific to different types of equipment. 19 To calculate disposal emissions, it is necessary to know the average lifetime (/?) of equipment and the initial 20 charge n years ago. Disposal emissions can then be calculated according to the following equation: 21 Equation 3.40 22 Disposal emissions = (HFC/PFC Charged in Year t-n) x (y/100) x (100-z/100) 23 The variable /is the percentage of the initial charge remaining in the equipment at the time of disposal. 24 The variable z represents the recovery efficiency at the time of disposal. If any chemical is recycled during 25 disposal, the percentage should be subtracted from the total. If there is no recycling, this term will be zero. 26 Choice of emission factors 27 Top-Down Approach (Sales-based) 28 Because this approach is based on chemical sales and not equipment leak rates, it does not require the use of 29 emission factors. 30 Bottom-Up Approach 31 Good practice for choosing bottom-up emission factors is to use country-specific data, based on information 32 provided by equipment manufacturers, service providers, and disposal companies. When country-specific data 33 are unavailable, countries should use the default emission functions shown in Table 7.8, which summarises best 34 estimates of equipment charge, lifetime, and emission factors. These default recommendations reflect the 35 current state of knowledge about the industry, and are provided as ranges rather than point estimates. 36 Countries should choose from the range according to country-specific conditions, and document the reasons 37 for their choices. If bottom-up data cannot be broken down into the equipment classes in Table 3-19, the good 38 practice recommendation is to use expert judgement to estimate the relative share of each type of equipment, 39 and choose default emission factors appropriate to the most common types of equipment. 40 Choice of activity data 41 Simple Top-Down Approach (Sales-based) 42 The top-down approach requires three pieces of data: annual chemical sales, the portion of new chemical sales 43 used to charge new equipment, and the amount of chemical originally used to charge equipment that is retiring 44 during the current year. -164- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Annual sales include sales of new refrigerant (chemical) both in bulk and in equipment. Countries that 2 manufacture refrigerant chemical should estimate sales data using information provided by chemical 3 manufacturers. Data on imported chemical should be collected from customs statistics, importers, or 4 distributors. 5 The total charge of new equipment and the original total charge of retiring equipment should include the 6 charges of equipment before shipment and after installation. These data can be estimated using either: 7 • Information from equipment manufacturers/importers on the total charge of the equipment they 8 manufacture or import; or 9 • Information from chemical manufacturers/importers on their sales to equipment manufacturers. 10 The first source may be preferable to the second because some new equipment may not be charged by the 11 equipment manufacturers, while some of the refrigerant sold to equipment manufacturers may not be used to 12 fill new equipment (e.g., because it is used to service existing equipment). Both new equipment and retiring 13 equipment charge data should include refrigerant contained in imported equipment and exclude refrigerant 14 contained in exported equipment. 15 Determining the total charge of retiring equipment requires historical data on capacity or sales for the year in 16 which the current year's retiring equipment was built (i.e. n years ago). That year is determined by subtracting 17 the lifetime of the equipment from the current year. Information on equipment lifetimes can be gathered from 18 equipment manufacturers and users. Default values for the lifetimes of seven different types of equipment are 19 provided in Table 7.8. The default product lifetime value for air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment as a 20 whole, for use when data for specific types of equipment are not available, is 10-15 years. 21 Completeness 22 Completeness for the top-down method is achievable if data for new refrigerant, and refrigerant in equipment 23 being retired in the current year are available. For the bottom-up method, completeness depends on a 24 thorough accounting of the existing equipment stock, which may involve tracking large amounts of data. 25 Developing a consistent time series 26 Emissions from stationary refrigeration should be calculated using the same method and data sources for every 27 year in the time series. Where consistent data are unavailable for the more rigorous method for any years in 28 the time series, these gaps should be recalculated according to the guidance provided in Chapter 7 - 29 Methodological Choice and Recalculation. 30 Uncertainty Assessment 31 Figure 10 presents emission factor ranges that highlight the uncertainty associated with this sector. Generally, 32 bottom-up actual methods that rely on emission factors have more uncertainty than top-down methods that 33 use chemical sales data. Uncertainty is difficult to quantify formally, however, because the methods involve 34 extensive expert judgement. 35 3.7.4.2 Reporting and documentation 36 The supporting information necessary to ensure transparency in reported emissions estimates is shown in 37 Table 3-18 -165- Government / expert review Do not dte or quote I Table 3-18 Recommended D ocumentation for Stationary Refrigeration Good Practice Reporting Information Tier 2 Tier 2 by Method (Top-Down) (Bottom-Up) Total annual sales of new refrigerant X Total charge of new equipment X X Original total charge of retiring equipment X X Total charge of entire equipment stock X Lifetime of equipment X X Documentation for lifetime, if country-specific X X Emission/recovery factors X Documentation for factors, if country-specific X Source: Will be supplied 2 3 3.7.4.3 Inventory quality assurance/quality control 4 (QA/QC) 5 Implementing both the bottom-up approach and the simplified top-down approach will enable a cross-check of 6 the final emission estimate. It is particularly important to check the accuracy of emission factors used in the 7 bottom-up method with top-down data, since emission factors are likely to have the highest associated 8 uncertainty. This technique will also minimise the possibility that certain end-uses will not be accounted for. 9 By using the simple top-down approach as a cross-check, a built-in quality control is achieved. This is similar to 10 the Reference Approach calculation in the Energy Sector. The combination uses the simple top-down approach 11 as a cross-check of a more detailed technology and application-based method. — 166 — Government/expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Figure 3.15. Decision Tree for Actual Emissions 2 (Tier 2) from the Refrigeration SubSector Box 1 >x Are x. ,x annual X^ sales data available for the top -down sales based x-approach? .X Calculate yX Can X. emissions yX Are data \ Collect data sales data using a available for the for the be disaggregated default bottom-up emission sales-based by equipment lifetime .factor approach? approach < type? > assumption for all equipment BOX 4 Calculate emissions Collect historical and using disaggregated current data on product lifetime number of units assumptions for (including new and each equipment type retiring units), average charge size, and average leak rates. BOX 3 -X Are \ Develop emission X Are x X country- x functions for each type of activity data specific emission refrigeration equipment, disaggregated factors available using disaggregated by equipment for equipment country-specific type? X types? X parameters B0X1 Develop an emission Develop emission function and choose functions for each general default type of refrigeration parameters to equipment, using represent all disaggregated refrigeration equipment default parameters 4 5 -167- Government / expert review Do notate or quote I Table 3-19 Best estimates (expert judgment ) for Charge , Lifetime and Emission Factors for Stationary Refrigeration Equipment Charge (kg) Lifetimes Application Emission Factors (X of Initial charge/year) (Eldw,.) (/ears) Factor in Equation (n) (k) 00 (z) Initial Lifetime End-of-Llfe Emission Emlsslo Emission n (recovery efficiency) Domestic 0.2 < e < 0.05 < c < 0.5 12 < t < 15 0.1 < e <0.5 70% of remainder Refrigeration 1 Stand-alone 0J> < e < 70 < r < 80% of commercial 0.2 < c < 6 8 < t < 12 1 < e < 10 3 remainder applications Medium & Large 05 -168- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 3.7.4 Mobile Air-conditioning Sub-sector 2 3.7.5.1 Methodological Issues 3 The automotive industry has used MFC-134a for mobile air-conditioning (MAC) in new vehicles since 1995. 4 Mobile air conditioning provides cooling for passengers in cars, trucks, and buses. In addition, some trucks cool 5 their cargo area with an automotive system (compressor mounted to the engine) using HFC-134a. 6 In the past, the procedure for mobile air-conditioning systems has been to release the refrigerant to the 7 atmosphere during service. The requirement for new refrigerant can be greatly reduced by implementing a 8 refrigerant recovery/recycling program when servicing MACs. 9 Choice of Method 10 The general Tier 2 approach for estimating emissions from all types of refrigeration and air conditioning units is 11 outlined in the Revised 1996 iPCC Guidelines (Section 2.17.4.2), and also in the good practice description for 12 stationary refrigeration. The general equation for Tier 2 is as follows :51 13 Equation 3.40 14 Annual Emissions of MFC-1 34a = “First-Fill" Emissions + Operation Emissions + D isposal 15 Emissions - Intentional D estruction 16 first-fill emissions include emissions of refrigerant released during the filling of all MAC units (potential future 17 emissions) at the time of assembly by a vehicle manufacturer or the aftermarket A/C system installer, in a 18 country, even if the vehicles are eventually exported. Operation emissions include the annual leakage from all 19 MACs in use in a country, including servicing emissions, regardless of where they were manufactured. Disposal 20 emissions include the amount of refrigerant released from scrapped MAC systems. 21 Top-down Approach 22 The top-down Tier 2 approach is the most accurate method because it uses more robust and reliable data and 23 reguirejewgr^assumptions, requires fewer assumptions. It is also less data intensive. The top-down approach 24 estimates emissions by using chemical sales data to calculate the share of total MFC-134a sales used by the 25 mobile air conditioning industry to replace refrigerant leaked to the atmosphere (car manufacturers, 26 aftermarket installers and service companies) . This value, when added to “first-fill” and disposal emissions, is 27 equal to total annual emissions. The top-down equation is presented at the end of this section in its complete 28 form. Below, the equation is broken out into its constituent parts. 29 first-fill emissions are calculated by using an emission factor (£/} to represent the fraction of MFC-134a (e g., 30 0.005) that escapes as fugitive emissions (assembly process loss) during equipment first fill: 31 Equation 3.41 32 First-Fill Emissions = (Ef) x (Annual Virgin MFC-134a for First-Fill of New MAC Units) 33 Any new MFC-134a that did not escape as fugitives during first-fill, and did not go into new MAC units, must 34 therefore be used for servicing existing units that leaked during operation in the previous year. Thus, operation 35 emissions can be calculated according to following equation: 36 Equation 3.42 37 Operation Emissions = (Total Annual Virgin MFC-1 34a Sold to the MACs Industry ) - 38 (Total Annual Virgin MFC-1 34a for First-Fill of N ew MAC Units ) - (First-Fill Emissions ) 39 Recycled and recovered refrigerant is implicitly accounted for in this equation because it reduces the amount of 40 total virgin material needed in the country or region .52 51 For the purpose of this sub-sector, “first-fill” emissions are equivalent to the term“assembly" emissions as used in the stationary refrigeration sub-sector. -169 Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Emissions occurring after the final service of air conditioning units are equal to the total amount of HFC-I34a 2 present in vehicles scrapped during the year, after subtracting any destruction. As a boundary condition, this 3 equation would continue to estimate (vintage) emissions into the future even if no new MFC-134a were 4 introduced into the MACs sector: 5 Equation 3.43 6 D isposal Emissions = [(Annual Scrap Rate of Vehicles with MACs Using HFC-1 34a ) x 7 (N umber of Vehicles with MACs Using HFC-1 34a ) x (Average HFC-1 34a Charge /Vehicle )] - 8 D estruction 9 As noted previously, no recovered and recycled MFC-134a captured during service or salvage, should be 10 included in this equation, because it reduced the amount of virgin (new) MFC-134a needed in the country, and 11 thus reduced emissions implicitly. Subtracting recovered and recycled HFC -134a at this point would lead to an 12 underestimation of emissions. 13 Bottom-up Approach: 14 The Tier 2 method can also be implemented from the bottom-up, by estimating number of mobile air 15 conditioning units in the country, the average charge per vehicle, and applying emission factors that represent 16 leak rates. The first-fill equation is similar to the top-down approach: 17 Equation 3.44 18 First-Fill Emissions = (Total HFC-1 34a Charged in Y eart ) x (k /I00) 19 The variable k is comparable to the variable EF used in the top-down approach because it represents the 20 percentage of initial charge that is released during assembly. 21 Equation 3.45 22 Operation Emissions = (Amount of HFC-1 34a Stock in Y ear t) x (a / 100) 23 The emission factor x represents the annual emissions rate as a percentage of total charge. This equation 24 should be applied for different types of MACs, because leak rates depend on the age and type of vehicles. Older 25 MAC units are likely to have higher leak rates than new units. The total HFC-134a in the vehicle bank should 26 include a// systems in operation in the country. A recovery/recycling program for vehicle service and scrap will 27 substantially reduce the requirement for new refrigerant. 28 To calculate disposal emissions, it is necessary to know the average lifetime (n) of vehicles, and the initial charge 29 n years ago. Disposal emissions can then be calculated according to the following equation: 30 Equation 3.46 31 Disposal emission = (HFC-134a Charged in Year t-n) x (y/100) x (IOO-z/100) 32 The variable / is the percentage of the initial charge remaining in MAC units at the time of disposal, and z equals 33 the recovery efficiency at the time of disposal. If any refrigerant is recycled during disposal, the percentage 34 should be subtracted from the total. If there is no recycling, this term will be zero. 35 Choice of Emission Factors 36 Top-Down Approach 37 The top-down approach only requires an emission factor for first-fill emissions. Good practice is to use a factor 38 of 0.5% (0.005) (Source: Will be supplied) if measured data are unavailable. Use of alternate assumptions should 39 be fully documented. 52 52 Countries or regions that perform recycling during service and recovery at vehicle scrap would benefit significandy from reduced total emissions. Recycling at service and recovery at scrap can reduce total emissions by an estimated 60%. -170 Government/expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Bottom-Up Approach 2 Countries using the bottom-up approach should make every effort to develop current country-specific values 3 for the parameters x, n, k, y and z If country-specific values are used, they must be fully documented. If 4 country-specific factors are unavailable, the default values presented in the iPCC Guidelines (Section 2.17.4.2) 5 should be used. These values are shown in Table 3-20. 6 Verification of Emissions 7 The “Top-Down ” and “Bottom-Up ” results should agree within 10%. 8 Table 3-20 Recommended Emission Parameters for the Bottom -up Approach Bottom-up Emission Parameters Recommended Default Values Average vehicle lifetime (n) 12 years MAC system emission rate (x) 10-20% First-Fill emission rate (k) 0.5% Typical remaining charge (y) 40% Fraction Recovered 53 (z) 0% Source: Will be supplied 9 10 The MAC system emissions rate (x) is highly dependent on the presence of recovery and recycling program. If a 11 country has such a program, the low end of the range (i.e., 10%) is appropriate. Without a program, the value 12 may be closer to 20%. The choice of system emission rate is tied to the choice of the fraction recovered (z). If 13 a country has a recovery and recycling program, it is likely to reduce both, during service and at the end of the 14 vehicle air-conditioning system lifetime. Consequently, this country should use a recycling rate value greater 15 than zero for z. Similarly, a country without a recovery/recycling program should choose a higher value for x 16 and a value of 0% for z. 17 Choice of Activity Data 18 Top-Down Approach 19 Under the top-down approach, activity data include the amount of HFC-134a sold to the MAC industry, the 20 amount used for first-fill, the variables needed to determine the amount of HFC-134a in scrapped vehicles, and 21 the amount of HFC-134a destroyed (if any). Data collection issues related to each term are discussed below. 22 • Total Virgin HFC-134a includes only newly-produced refrigerant sold to MAC end-users. End-users 23 include automobile manufacturers, aftermarket system installers, and repair shops that charge systems with 24 refrigerant prior to sale. HFC-134a present in a refrigerant distributors' inventory, and refrigerant not sold 25 for use in the mobile air-conditioning systems, should not be included in the current year's estimate. If 26 there are a large number of end-users, countries should obtain sales data directly from chemical 27 manufacturers and refrigerant distributor’s. Data on imported virgin chemical should be available from 28 customs officials, or importers and distributors. 29 • Total First Fill HFC-134a is the sum of all first refrigerant charges in new MACs by the original equipment 30 manufacturers (OEM) or by aftermarket MACs installers. For countries with domestic automobile 31 industries, automobile manufacturers should be able to supply this data. Additional data should be available 32 from installers of aftermarket air conditioning units.54 53 The fraction recovered by a recovery/recycling program is a function of the efficiency of the recovery equipment, the skill of the technician (amount of potential HFC-134a recovered/recycled) and the program effectiveness (fraction of service operations adopting the program). 54 When new automobiles are shipped, the refrigerant is considered to be in a container, (i.e., the mobile A/C system), and does not produce emissions. -171- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I • Disposal Emissions: If the actual number of scrapped vehicles containing MFC-134a is unknown, it should 2 be estimated on the basis of the Vehicle Scrap Rate, which is the rate at which vehicles are taken out of 3 service in the country or region. If possible, scrap rates should be disaggregated by model year, and the 4 average scrap rate for the model years in which MACs were charged with HFC-134a should be applied. ” If 5 the vehicle scrap rate can not be obtained from vehicle registration statistics, the recommended default 6 value is 8 % of the total fleet. 7 The total number of registered vehicles in the country should be obtained from official government statistics. 8 The share of the total fleet equipped with MACs can be obtained from vehicle manufacturers and importers. 9 The penetration of HFC-134a into the MACs market should be estimated on the basis of industry expert 10 judgement I I • The Average HFC-i34a Charge is the weighted average of refrigerant charge in vehicles in the country. 12 The default value in the iPCC Guidelines is 0.8 kg per vehicle. 13 • HFC-i34a destruction is not widely practised at the present time. However, if a country has data on this 14 practice, it should be included in the equation and documented to ensure that emissions are not 15 overestimated. 16 Default parameters are shown below, in Table 3-21: 17 Table 3.21 D efault IPCC Emission Parameters for the Top -D own Approach Top-Down Emissions Parameters Default Values Average HFC-134a Charge 0.80 kg per vehicle Vehicle Scrap Rate 8% Refrigerant released during new vehicle “First Fill” EF = 0.5% of average system charge Source: Will be supplied 18 19 Bottom-Up Approach 20 • The bottom-up approach requires data on the amount of HFC-134a charged per year, the stock of HFC- 21 134a in all MACs each year, and the amount remaining at the end of the MACs lifetime. 22 • The total HFC-i34a used for first-filling of new MAC units is the same value needed for the top-down 23 approach, and can be obtained from vehicle manufacturers, and aftermarket MAC installers. 24 • The stock of HFC-i 34a in operating vehicles during the year is equal to the number of vehicles in the total 25 fleet using HFC-134a multiplied by the average charge per vehicle. This information should be available 26 from annual data supplied by automobile manufacturers for the last n years. The default value of 0.8 27 kg/vehicle, recommended for the top-down approach, can be used for the bottom-up approach as well, if 28 fleet-specific data aren't available. 29 • The amount of HFC- i34a originally that was charged into MAC units n years ago should include units 30 produced and charged domestically, as well as imported units. As with the total charge, determining original 31 charges requires historical data on first-fill. Given that HFCs have only been used extensively in MACs in 32 recent years, however, it is not necessary to go more than a few years back at this time to obtain the 33 required data. 34 Completeness 35 For the top-down approach, it is not necessary to account for imported automobiles or imported air 36 conditioning units because they are essentially “containers". Emissions from first-fill are accounted for in the 37 country of manufacture. Once imported, however, emissions from imported vehicles are accounted for by the 38 importing country based on the refrigerant used to service them, and by their “post-service emissions" 39 estimated from total vehicle registrations (which include imports). Similarly, it is not necessary to report 40 exports as a separate class of systems because they are accounted for in the equation. Only processing 41 emissions from first filling (0.5 % of system charge) are charged to the country or region of manufacture in the 42 equation, and all future emissions are accounted for by the importing country or region. 43 For the bottom-up approach, completeness will depend on the coverage of automobile activity data, particularly 44 import data and data on after-market MAC units in operation. -172- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Developing a consistent time series 2 Emissions from mobile air-conditioning should be calculated using the same method and data sources for every 3 year in the time series. Where consistent data are unavailable for the same method for any years in the time 4 series, these gaps should be recalculated according to the guidance provided in Chapter 7 - Methodological 5 Choice and Recalculation. 6 UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT 7 Uncertainty in the bottom-up approach will be considerably higher than that of the top-down approach, 8 because there are no internal checks to ensure that all of the accounting is complete. The top-down method 9 provides an upper bound, and thus the likelihood is low that the true value will exceed the top-down estimate. io 3.7.5.2 Reporting and Documentation I I The background data in Table 3-22 should be collected and reported: 12 For the bottom-up method, it is important the countries report on the method of accounting for recovery of 13 HFC-134a during service (i.e., choice of value x). The linkage with the value for fraction recovered (z) should 14 be clearly documented. -173- Government / expert review Do not ate or quote Table 3-22 Recommended D ocumentation for Mobile Air Conditioning Data Source Data to be Reported Top- Botto down m-up Government Statistics Number of scrapped vehicles X X Car registrations in the country X X Refrigerant Distributors All virgin MFC-134a sold to end users in the MACS market X Vehicle Manufacturers All virgin MFC-134a purchased directly from refrigerant producers X (Including imported MFC-134a) All refrigerant used for "First Fill" of new HFC-134a A/C systems (rfor X X the bottom-up method) Weighted average MFC-134a A/C system charge X X Vehicles sold and the percentage equipped with HFC-I34a A/C systems X X Vehicle Importers The total number of vehicles imported and the percentage equipped X X with MFC-134a air-conditioning systems. After-market System All virgin MFC-134a used for “First Fill" of new systems, (rfor the X X Manufacturers bottom up method.) Number of MFC-134a A/C systems sold in the country or region X X Manufacturers and Actual process emissions if they differ significantly from the default X X installers of new systems emissions. Other Information for Fraction of MFC-134a recovered during disposal (a) X the Bottom-Up Method Annual leakage rate for existing systems (x) X Average vehicle lifetime (n) X Initial Charge of systems in year t-n X Amount of MFC-134a in systems at time of disposal (y) X Initial charge of A/C systems in year t-n X Source: Will be supplied -174- Government/ expert review Do not ate or quote 1 Figure] 16: Decision Tree for Actual Emissions (Tier 2) from 2 the Mobile Air Conditioning Sub-Sector -Z Are X. data available for the top- down sales based v approach? > // Are data Collect data Calculate available for the for the emissions the top- bottom-up emission sales-based down sales-based .factor approach? approach approach Collect historical and current data on number and type of vehicles (including new and scrapped vehicles), average charge size, and average leak rates. y' Are X. Are X. Calculate emissions of 'activity dataX / country- X. from vehicle class and disaggregated ^ specific bottom-up Xs age, using country- by vehicle class emission factors available specific bottom-up and age? v for vehicle class and / emission factors - sum X^age categories?/^ to get national total Calculate national emissions using default bottom-up emission factors 3 4 -175- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote Equation 3.47 (Section I): HFC-I34a Used by the Service Industry to Replace HFC-134a Emitted by Serviced Vehicles (Annual Total Annual (0.995) (Total Annual Virgin | Emissions of Virgin HFC-134a HFC-134a for First Fill of j HFC-134a) Sold to MACS New A/C Units) j Industry j (Vehicle (Total A/C (Average i (Annual Annual Vehcile HFC-134a I Destruction of Scrap Rate) R134a Fleet) Charge) j I HFC-134a | From MACs j Systems) (Section II): Post-Service Emissions (Section III): Intentional Destruction Government / expert review Do not ate or quote i 3.7.5 Fire Protection Sub -sector 2 3.7.6.1 Methodological issues 3 There are two general types of fire protection equipment that use halons, and their partial substitutes MFCs 4 and PFCs: portable (streaming) equipment, and fixed (flooding) equipment. MFCs and PFCs are mainly used as 5 substitutes for halons in flooding equipment. 6 Choice of method 7 Fire protection equipment is designed to release most of its initial charge during use. Emissions can also occur 8 during filling, when the equipment is idle, and during disposal. The method in the Revised 1996 iPCC Guidelines 9 calculates emissions as a function of the MFCs and PFCs charged into new equipment during the year: 10 Equation 3.48 11 Emissions of HFCs or PFCs in year t = (HFCs/PFCs used to Charge N ew Fire Protection 12 Equipment ) x (Emission Factor in percent ) 13 The emission factor represents the fraction of newly charged MFCs and PFCs released during the year. In 14 reality, MFCs and PFCs are emitted over a period longer than one year, so this emission factor also represents 15 emissions from equipment charged during previous years. Choosing an annual production-based emission factor 16 to reflect a multi-year emission process can lead to considerable uncertainty .55 17 Good practice is to model emissions based on a top-down approach similar to that use by the Montreal 18 Protocol Halons Technical Options Committee for estimating emissions of halons. However, until this model 19 becomes available for use with ODS substitutes, the IPCC equation should be modified to account for 20 equipment filled with HFCs and PFCs during previous years. With this modification, the equation is comparable 21 to the top-down Tier 2 approach outlined for stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning :56 22 Equation 3.49 23 Emissions = Annual Sales of HFC s/PFCs for Fire Protection - [HFCs/PFCs used to 24 Charge N ew Fire Protection Equipment - HFCs/PFCs Originally Used to Charge 25 Retiring Fire Protection Equipment ] 26 The difference between the annual quantity of each HFC/PFC sold into the fire protection industry, and the 27 change in size of the total the stock of each HFC/PFC, equals the amount of chemical emitted to the 28 atmosphere. The change in stock of each HFC/PFC is equal to the difference between the total charges of the 29 new and retiring equipment 30 This equation should be applied to each individual HFC and PFC used in fire protection equipment Total 31 carbon equivalent emissions are equal to the sum of carbon equivalent emissions of all HFCs and PFCs. 32 Tracking of exports/imports of fire suppression equipment that uses HFCs or PFCs is essential to ensure that 33 the modified equation yields accurate emissions estimates. 34 A bottom-up Tier 2 approach is not suitable for the fire protection sub-sector because the required activity 35 data do not exist for most countries. Existing customs codes and government statistics do not differentiate 36 between equipment containing ODS substitutes and other compounds. For example, although a fire protection 37 unit would be accounted for, at present there is no specific procedure to differentiate and account for those 38 that use an ODS substitute vs. another type of chemical. 55 The emissions rate as a function of the equipment base is more important than the emission rate as a function of production., as experienced with halons, when production ceased the emissions rate did not cease but continued to follow a consistent pattern based on the equipment base. 56 The sales-based approach as applied to the fire protection sub-sector is essentially the same approach for the stationary refrigeration sub-sector. -177- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I Choice of emission factors 2 The top-down Tier 2 approach does not require emission factors. If activity data for previous years are 3 unavailable and an emission factor is required, the default emission factors recommended in the iPCC Guidelines 4 and shown in Table 3-23 should be used: 5 Table 3-23: D efault IPCC Emission Parameters for the Bottom -up Approach Equipment Type Percent of HF.Cs/PFCs Installed Streaming (Portable) 5% Flooding (Fixed) 5% Source: Will be supplied 6 Choice of activity data 7 Activity data for the top-down method focus on chemical deployment rather than sources of emissions. For the 8 recommended approach, all of the following types of data are required. If the default emission factor approach 9 is used, only the second type of data is required: 10 • Annual sales and imports of each HFC and PFC to the fire protection industry: Domestic sales data can be 11 obtained from HFC and PFC producers. Customs officials and chemical distributors should be able to 12 provide imported chemical data. 13 • Amount of each HFC and PFC used to charge new fire protection equipment: These data can be estimated 14 using information from fire protection equipment manufacturers/importers on the total charge of the 15 equipment they manufacture/import. 16 • Amount of each HFC and PFC originally used to charge retiring fire protection equipment: Fire protection 17 equipment manufacturers/importers can supply data average product lifetimes, and the initial charge of 18 retiring equipment Equipment lifetimes can be long, however, possibly up to 35 years, and ODS substitutes 19 have only recently been introduced to the industry. Consequently, at present there may be only a minimal 20 amount of HFCs and PFCs contained in retiring equipment 21 A top-down model for estimating global halon emissions was developed in 1991, based on the magnitude of the 22 ha/ons contained in equipment and the supply that would be available from recovery and recycle .57 In the 23 future, a similar model could be developed to determine the share of global HFC and PFC production sold to 24 the fire protection industry, and subsequently allocate this production to global regions .58 Such a model could 25 assist countries experiencing difficulty obtaining national HFC/PFC data for the fire protection industry data. 26 For demonstrative purposes, Table 3-24 provides preliminary production, allocation and 'use' factors for such a 27 model. Further work by a fire protection expert group will be required to achieve consensus on the 28 appropriate factors for each region. Once fully developed, it will be important to initiate some means of annual 29 or biennial review to ensure that trends are properly accounted for. In this manner countries would then have 30 confidence in using regional factors as a basis for national reporting. 31 Completeness 32 Countries should ensure that all HFCs and PFCs used in the fire protection industry are included in the 33 estimate. If chemical sales and imports data are complete, the final estimate should be complete as well. 57 The model was published in the 1992 Report of the Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) of the Montreal Protocol and widely accepted at that time. 58 The expert group recommended that the model include ten regions as follows: North America, Europe, Japan, Australia/New Zealand, Indian sub-continent. Northeast Asia, ASEAN, Africa including Turkey, Central and South America, and countries with economies in transition (CEITs). -178- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Aggregate global production will always equal aggregate global emissions plus the aggregate total of ODS 2 substitutes contained in equipment For countries that use a global model in the future, estimates will be 3 complete if the global and regional data are allocated accurately. 4 Developing a consistent time series 5 In some countries, historical activity data for MFCs and PFCs charged into new equipment may be difficult 6 because of the recent introduction of these substances. If countries use preliminary emission factors for these 7 years based historical data for halons, and then switch to the recommended chemical sales approach, they 8 should follow good practice in ensuring time series consistency. 9 Uncertainty Assessment 10 The Tier 2 top-down approach will be more accurate than the simplified emission factor approach because 11 emissions do not correlate well to a fixed percentage of annual production, and an emission factor cannot 12 properly account for emissions from older equipment. The accuracy of the top-down approach will depend on 13 the quality of chemical sales data. 14 A high degree of certainty could be expected for the global model because it will be based on known 15 production and provides for a complete material balance. At any time, Aggregate Global Production will always 16 equal Aggregate Global Emissions plus the Aggregate Total of ODS substitutes Contained in Equipment There 17 is more uncertainty in the regional and country-specific disaggregation of the data. is 3.7.6.2 Reporting and documentation 19 The balance between preservation of confidentiality and transparency of the data is an important issue, 20 especially in a low use sector such as fire protection. One major ODS substitute is manufactured by only one 21 producer, in quantities very much lower than ODS substitutes used in other sectors. Careful aggregation of 22 GWP weighted data may be a means to resolve this issue. 23 3.7.6.3 Inventory quality assurance/quality control 24 (QA/QC) 25 The potential for global validation of the quantity of chemicals used and their sources cannot be used to 26 substantiate individual country data. However, quality control can be addressed by cross checks using regional 27 and global data as country data is a subset of these. Agreement on factors, reached by a consensus on a regional 28 and global basis, will maintain the integrity of the overall model. -179 Government/expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Figure 3.17: Decision tree for Emissions of ODS Substitutes 2 from Fire Suppression y/ Is a \ -/global modeiX Allocate the Calculate available for production emissions using obtaining regionally- data to specific types data from the allocated data for of equipment? global model the fire protection Box 1 X. industry? /^ y/ Are x. >/ annual data x. y/ available for bulk x. /chemical sales, the quantityX /of chemical used to charge newx Calculate emissions using the equipment (current and historical), recommended Tier 2 x and the quantity of chemical approach N. contained in imported y/ Box 2 x. or exported y/ X. equipment? / Collect the data Are data available for from fire protection MFCs and PFCs used equipment to fill new equipment? manufacturers and importers Calculate emissions using the Tier 2 emission factor approach Box 3 3 4 -180- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote Table 3.24 G lobal Model - D efault Parameters for Total Flooding H alocarbons Total Flooding Halocarbons North Europe Article 5 and Japan CEIT Regional use Factors America (1) Australia 1994 (B) 1994 (B) 1994 (B) 1994 (B) 1994 (B) % Allocation of CEFIC HC-TF Production 37.5% 22.5% 15.0% 5.0% 20.0% % Allocation of CEIT HC-TF Production 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% % Allocation of Art 5(1) HC-TF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Production Annual % of Bank Used for Service 2.5% 2.5% 0.5% 2.5% 5.0% % of Supply Available Used for Testing 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Annual % of Bank of Equipment Life 0 to 69.0% 69.0% 69.0% 69.0% 69.0% lOyrs Annual % of Bank of Equipment Life 10 to 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 25 yrs Annual % of Bank of Equipment Life 25 to 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 35 yrs Check to ensure total equals 1 1 1 1 1 1 Estimated Recovery Rate 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 40.0% Source: Will be supplied -181- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 3.7.6 Other Applications Sub -sector 2 3.7.1.1 Methodological issues 3 MFCs and PFCs represent a large range of gases whose properties make them attractive for a variety of niche 4 applications not covered in other reporting sectors. These include electronics testing, heat transfer, dielectric 5 fluid, medical applications and potentially many new applications not yet developed. There are also some 6 historical uses of PFCs, as well as emerging use of MFCs, in these applications. These applications have leakage 7 rates ranging from 100% emissive in year of application to around 1% per annum. e Choice of method 9 The end-users for these niche applications will be extremely diverse. As a result, investigating each of these 10 applications separately may not be feasible. Instead, it is recommended that these other miscellaneous 11 applications be divided into highly emissive applications similar to solvents and aerosols, and less emissive 12 contained applications similar to closed-cell foams and refrigerators. The breakdown of annual gas consumption 13 going to either category should be determined by a survey of end-use applications. 14 The following default split of usage is suggested: 15 • Emissive = X% of total consumption 16 • Contained = (100-X%) of total consumption 17 Modelling of these two circumstances are considered in turn. 18 Emissive Applications: It is recommended that a top-down method be used, similar to the methods 19 described for aerosols and solvents. During use of fluids in these applications, 100% of the chemical is emitted 20 on average six months after sale. In other words, as with aerosol uses, emissions in year t can be calculated 21 according to the equation for solvents and aerosols as follows: 22 Equation 3.50 23 Emissions of MFCs and PFCs in year t = [quantity of MFCs and PFCs sold in year t x (EF)] + 24 [quantity of MFCs and PFCs sold in year (t-l) x (I-EF)] 25 The emission factor (EF) represents that fraction of chemical emitted during the first year of sale. By definition, 26 emissions over two years must equal 100%. This equation should be applied to each chemical individually. Total 27 carbon equivalent emissions are equal to the sum of carbon equivalent emissions of each chemical. 28 Contained Applications: Certain applications have much lower loss rates. Where bottom-up data 29 are available, a separate emissions model will be required to adjust for this lower leakage rate. Where no data 30 exist, a bottom-up model with default emission factors should be used. Thus, the equation for annual emissions 31 is as follows: 32 Equation 3.51 33 Emissions = Product Manufacturing emissions + Product Life emissions + Product 34 D isposal Emissions , 35 Where: 36 Product Manufacturing emissions = Annual sales x Manufacturing Emission Factor 37 Product Life emissions = Bank x Leakage Rate 38 Product Disposal emissions = Annual Sales x Disposal Emission Factor 39 Choice of emission factors 40 Emissive Applications: In the absence of empirical end-use data, good practice is to use the default 41 emission factor of 50%. This means that half of the initial charge is emitted during the first year, and the 42 remainder is emitted during the second year. If alternative emission factors are used, they should be fully 43 documented. -182 Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 Contained Applications: The best practice is to obtain data directly from the end-use sectors. If it is 2 impossible to obtain such data, default values are presented below in Table 3-25. These defaults have a low 3 annual leakage rate, and a long equipment life, as should be expected from contained applications period. 4 Table 3-25 D efault IPCC Emission Parameters for the Contained Applications Emissions Parameter Default Value Manufacturing emission factor 1 % of Annual Sales Leakage rate 2% of Annual Sales Disposal emission factor 5% of Annual Sales Equipment lifetime 15 years Source: Will be supplied 5 6 Choice of activity data 7 The value for total sales going to other uses should be obtained directly from chemical MFC and PFC producers 8 and importers. Data on the import of MFCs and PFCs can be collected from distributors. Most countries will 9 import a significant amount of these substances because they are produced in only a limited number of 10 countries. Data can also be collected from end-users but this will be difficult The fraction of sales going to 11 emissive uses, as opposed to contained uses, should be determined by a survey of end uses. 12 For contained applications, it is also necessary to determine the size of the bank of fluid accumulated. The best 13 practice is to use data directly from end-use sectors to determine the size of the bank. If it is impossible to 14 obtain such data, it is good practice to use a default value of 10 times annual sales. Thus, annual emissions of 15 contained applications will average around 26% of annual chemical sales to contained applications, compared to 16 the emissive applications where 100% of annual sales are lost. 17 Completeness 18 Completeness will be difficult to achieve because there is no fixed list of other sources. Countries should 19 investigate all possible end-uses by obtaining qualitative information from chemical manufacturers and importers 20 about other industries that purchase MFCs and PFCs. 21 Developing a consistent time series 22 Emissions of ODS substitutes from other application should be calculated using the same method and data 23 sources for every year in the time series. Where consistent data are unavailable for the same method for any 24 years in the time series, these gaps should be recalculated according to the guidance provided in Chapter 7 - 25 Methodological Choice and Recalculation. 26 Uncertainty Assessment 27 Because there are a small number of chemical manufacturers, and the high cost of the gas provides an incentive 28 for keeping records, the activity data should be reasonably accurate. There is more uncertainty in determining 29 the breakdown between emissive and contained applications, particularly when no end-use survey is performed. 30 For emissive applications, the default emission factor of 50%/year applied over two years will be most accurate 31 if gas sales are relatively constant. Emissions factors for contained applications have a higher uncertainty, 32 although data from end-use sectors is likely to be more accurate than defaults. 33 3.7.1.2 Reporting and documentation 34 Countries should report total emissions from these other sources, and qualitatively list the types of uses 35 included in this category if available. The fraction of chemical used in emissive versus contained applications 36 should also be reported, along with any country-specific emission factors. There may be confidentiality issues 37 due to the limited number and location of chemical manufacturers that will affect the level of transparency. In 38 this case, to preserve confidentiality, it may be necessary to avoid specifying emissions of individual gases, and 39 reports should be as aggregated tonnes of carbon equivalent emissions, weighted by global warming potential. -183- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 3.7.1.3 Inventory quality assurance/quality control 2 (QA/QC) 3 For accurate quality control/assurance it is recommended that both top-down and end-use data be complied. 4 To allow independent assessment of the level of quality of the data reporting, the number of manufacturers and 5 distributors plus end users interviewed should be quantified. 6 -184- Government / expert review Do not ate or quote 1 Figure 3. I 8.Decision Tree for Actual Emissions (Tier 2) from 2 the Other Uses Sub-Sector Are x Perform an the types of end-use 'other* uses in the survey of other country known applications using < already? MFCs and PFCs For each year, obtain data from chemical manufacturers and importers for sales of each MFC and PFC into other applications Separate activity data into emissive and contained applications Calculate emissions from emissive applications, using the recommended equation / Are \ // country- X Calculate emissions from specific emission contained applications, factors available for using the country-specific . contained emission factors - xapplications?V sum contained and emissive emissions. Calculate emissions from contained applications, using default emission factors - sum contained and emissive emissions 3 4 -185- Government/ expert review Do not cite or quote I 3.8 ESTIMATION OF HFC-23 EMISSIONS 2 FROM HCFC-22 MANUFACTURE 3 3.8.1. 1 Methodological issues 4 Trifluoromethane (HFC-23 or CHF3) is generated as a by-product during the manufacture of 5 chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-2259 or CHCIF%) and emitted through the plant condenser vent. There are a 6 small number of HCFC-22 production plants globally, and thus, with a discreet number of sources of HFC-23 7 emissions. 8 Choice of method 9 The choice of good practice method will depend on national circumstances. The decision tree (see Figure 3.19) 10 describes good practice in adapting the methods in the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines to these country-specific 11 circumstances. 12 The iPCC Guidelines (Section 2.16.1) present two broad approaches to estimating HFC-23 emissions from 13 HCFC-22 plants. The Tier 2 method is based on measurement of the concentration and flow-rate from the 14 condenser vent at individual plants. The product of HFC-23 concentration multiplied by the volumetric flow- 15 rate gives the mass rate of HFC-23 emissions. The Tier I method is relatively simple, involving the application 16 of a default emissions factor to the quantity of HCFC-22 produced. This method can be applied at the plant 17 level or the national level. In cases where there are Tier 2 data available for some plants, the Tier I method can 18 be applied to the remainder to ensure complete coverage. Regardless of the method, emissions abated should 19 be subtracted from the gross estimate to arrive at a net value. 20 It is good practice to use the Tier 2 method if possible. Direct measurement is significantly more accurate than 21 Tier I because it reflects the conditions specific to each manufacturing facility. In most cases, the data necessary 22 to prepare Tier 2 estimates should be available because facilities operating to good business practice perform 23 regular or periodic sampling of the final process vent or within the process itself as part of routine operations. 24 For facilities using abatement techniques such as HFC-23 destruction, verification of the abatement efficiency is 25 also done routinely. The Tier I method should be used only in rare cases where plant-specific data are 26 unavailable. 27 Box 3 28 Plant Measurement Frequency 29 The accuracy and precision of the estimates of annual HFC-23 emissions are directly correlated 30 with the number of samples and the frequency of sample collection. Since production processes 31 are not completely static, the greater the process variability, the more frequently plants need to 32 measure. As a general rule, sampling and analysis should be repeated whenever a plant makes any 33 significant process changes. Before choosing a sampling frequency, the plant should set a goal for 34 accuracy and use statistical tools to determine sample size necessary to achieve the goal. For 35 example, a study of HCFC-22 producers indicates that sampling once per day is sufficient to 36 achieve an extremely accurate annual estimate.1 This accuracy goal should then be revised, if 37 necessary, to take into account the available resources. 38 //?77, Cadmus. “Performance Standards for Determining Emissions of HFC-23 from the Production of 39 HCFC-22". draft final report prepared for USEPA, February 1998. 40 Choice of emission factors 41 There are several measurement options within Tier 2 method relating to the location and frequency of the 42 sampling. In general, direct measurement of the emissions of HFC-23 provides the highest accuracy. 43 Continuous or frequent measurement of parameters within the production process area itself is almost as 44 accurate. In both cases, the frequency of measurement must be high enough to represent the variability in the 45 process (e g., across the life of the catalyst). Issues related to measurement frequency are summarised in Box 3. 59 HCFC-22 is used as a refrigerant in several different applications, as a blend component in foam blowing, and as a chemical feedstock for manufacturing synthetic polymers. -186- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote I In cases where plant-specific measurements or sampling are not available and Tier I methods are used, the 2 emission factor of 4% (tonnes of HFC-23 produced per tonne of HCFC-22 manufactured) presented in the 3 IPCC Guidelines should be used, assuming no abatement methods. 4 Choice of activity data 5 In the case of using the Tier I method, production data should be obtained directly from producers. There are 6 several ways producers may determine their production levels, including shipment weights, measuring volume- 7 times-density, using flow meters, etc. These data should account for all HCFC-22 production for the year, 8 whether for sale or for use internally as feedstock, and the plant should describe how the HCFC-22 production 9 rate is determined. In some circumstances, producers may consider plant production data to be confidential. 10 For national-level activity data, submission of HCFC-22 production data is already required under the Montreal II Protocol. 12 Completeness 13 It should be possible to obtain complete sampling data because there are only a small number of HCFC-22 14 plants in each country, and it is standard practice for each plant operator to monitor emissions. Review of plant 15 data indicates that at properly run manufacturing facilities, fugitive emissions of HFC-23 (e g., valves, water 16 scrubbers, and caustic washes) are insignificant (Source: Will be supplied). If information is available that 17 indicates fugitive emissions are significant, they should be reported and well documented. 18 Developing a consistent time series 19 Emission of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 production should be estimated using the same method for the whole time 20 series. If data for any years in the time series are unavailable for the Tier 2 method, these gaps should be filled 21 according to the guidance provided in Chapter 7 - Methodological Choice and Recalculation. 22 Uncertainty assessment 23 The Tier 2 method is significantly more accurate than the Tier I default method. An error of approximately 24 50% could be considered for Tier I method based upon knowledge of the variability in emissions from different 25 manufacturing facilities. Regular Tier 2 sampling of the vent stream can achieve an accuracy of I -2% at a 95% 26 confidence level in HFC-23 emissions: 27 • Tier I uncertainties were identified through expert judgement. Tier 2 uncertainties are based upon 28 empirical measurement. 29 • Areas of potential co-variance are not identifiable. There is an area of potential misunderstanding through 30 the use of published HCFC-22 production data to estimate HFC-23 emissions and relating such data to 31 atmospheric measurements. 32 3.8.1.2 Reporting and documentation 33 To provide for completely transparent reporting, emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 production should be 34 reported as a separate item, rather than included with other HFC emissions. Documentation should also 35 include: 36 • Methodological description; 37 • Number of HCFC-22 plants; 38 • HCFC-22 production (if multiple producers); 39 • Presence of abatement technology, and 40 • Emission factors. 41 Confidentiality 42 • The use of Tier 2 method would mean that the plant emissions of HFC-23 are reported separately 43 from the production of HCFC-22. By de-coupling the HFC-23 emissions and HCFC-22 production, the 44 emission data on HFC-23 cannot be considered to be of commercial confidence as it does not reveal the 45 levels of production of HCFC-22 without detailed and confidential knowledge of the individual 46 manufacturing facility. -187- Government/expert review Do not cite or quote I • The use of Tier I method would enable the production of HCFC-22 to be calculated from 2 published emissions of HFC-23 if there were less than three producers. This could be considered 3 confidential business information for the manufacturing facility concerned. In such cases, steps should be 4 taken to protect confidentiality through, for example, the aggregation of all HFC emissions. For 5 transparency reasons, whenever there is aggregation, a qualitative discussion of HCFC-22 production 6 should be included. 7 3.8. 1.3 Inventory quality assurance/quality control 8 (QA/QC) 9 It is good practice to supplement the general QA/QC related to data processing, handling, and reporting, as 10 outlined in Chapter 8 , with source-specific procedures discussed below. 11 Compare the emission estimate using different approaches 12 • Compare reported plant emissions estimates against those determined using the Tier I default factor and 13 production data. If only national production data are available, compare aggregated plant emissions to a 14 national default estimate. If significant differences are found in the comparison, answer the following 15 questions: 16 1. Are there inaccuracies associated with any of the individual plant estimates (e.g., an extreme outlier 17 may be accounting for an unreasonable quantity of emissions)? 18 2. Are the plant-specific emission factors significantly different from one another? 19 3. Are the plant-specific production rates consistent with published national level production rates? 20 4. Is there any other explanation for a significant difference, such as the effect of controls, the manner in 21 which production is reported or possibly undocumented assumptions? 22 Check Direct Emission Measurements 23 • Confirm that internationally recognised, standard methods were used for plant measurements. If the 24 measurement practices fail this criterion, then evaluate the use of these emissions data should be carefully 25 evaluated. It is also possible that, where a high standard of measurement and QA/QC is in place at sites, 26 the uncertainty of the emissions estimates may be revised downwards. 27 • Evaluate each plant's QA/QC process to assess if the number of samples and the frequency of sample 28 collection is appropriate given the variability in the process itself. 29 • Where possible, verify all measured and calculated data through comparison with other systems of 30 measurement or calculation. For example, emissions measurement within the process itself can be verified 31 periodically with measurement of the vent stream. Verify abatement system utilisation and efficiency. 32 • With a periodic external audit of the plant measurement techniques and results, it is also possible to 33 compare implied emission factors across plants and account for major differences. 34 Verify national emissions 35 • While it is not feasible to verify a single country ’s estimate, an overall global crosscheck of estimated 36 emissions could be carried out through the measurement of HFC-23 atmospheric levels. Because there are 37 a small number of facilities, this will serve as an order-of-magnitude check for emissions from the industry 38 world-wide, which in turn can be compared to national estimates. 39 40 3.8. 1.4 References 41 Research Triangle Institute (RTI). "The Reduction of HFC-23 Emissions from the Production of HCFC-22," final 42 report. Prepared for Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division, U S. Environmental Protection Agency (July 43 1996). 44 Research Triangle Institute (RTI). "Verification of Emission Estimates of HFC-23 from the Production of HCFC- 45 22: Emissions from 1990 through 1996." Prepared for the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division, U S. 46 Environmental Protection Agency (February 1998). -188- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote 1 RTI, Cadmus. “Performance Standards for Determining Emissions of HFC-23 from the Production of HCFC- 2 22", draft final report prepared for USEPA, (February, 1998). 3 UNFCCC Secretariat "Methodological Issues Identified While Processing Second National Communications" 4 (UNFCCC/SBSTA/1998/7) 5 -189- Government / expert review Do not cite or quote Figure 3.19 Decision Tree for HFC-23 Emissions from HCFC-22 Production there any HCFC22 Report production in the Not Occurring' \ country? > Are \ Are \ // plant-level \ this ' plant-level x Collect national HFC23 measurement a key HCFC-22 HCFC-22 . data available? . source? production data production data X available? / Collect Box 1 Calculate plant-level Calculate plant- Calculate national plant-level HFC23 level emissions emissions using emissions using measurement using the the plant-level data data Tier 1 emission Tier 1 emission factor factor Box 3a X is it \ Box 2a Does any x Aggregate possible to Aggregate HFC23 destruction plant-level document any plant-level take place? emissions HFC23 emissions destruction?^ Box 2b Box 3b Aggregate Aggregate plant-level plant-level emissions, adjusting emissions, adjusting for HFC23 for HFC23 destruction destruction Reduction of the emissions of MFCs, PFCs and SF6 in the European Union Final report drs. H. Heijnes drs. M. van Brummelen dr. K. Blok April 1999 Commissioned by the European Commission, DGXI M717 ECOFYS, P.O. Box 8408, NL-3503 RK Utrecht, Netherlands, tel. +31.30.2913400 -191- FOREWORD Herewith we present the report on the reduction options of the emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SFg in the European Union. This report is a Revised Ver sion of the report of October 1998. In this Revised Version, recent comments from industry and DG XI have been taken into account. In this revised report also reference is being made to emission projections given in a recent report for the European Commission (DG III) by March Consulting Group (Sep tember 1998). Main focus of the study is the description of potential reduction measures of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 in the European Union. It aims at giving a framework to deal with emission reduction options in a structured way. Given the rela tively small size of the study, only preliminary emission estimates, emission projections and breakdowns could be given. Despite this preliminary charac ter some robust conclusions can already be drawn on some of the reduction options. The work for this study was mainly carried out in the first half of 1998. In the meantime, more information has become available. We are grateful for the useful comments provided for the update of the report. Other comments con cerning the data in this study and the white spots that we inevitably left, are welcome and can be a useful input for follow-up research that is under way at present. The authors ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFC's. PFCs and SFf in the EU SUMMARY Background Within the activities to develop the Commission ’ Communication on a Post- Kyoto Climate Strategy analysis is made to identify the least-cost package of specific policies and measures for meeting the Community ’s proposed quan titative reduction for 6 (groups of) greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Proto col for the period 2008-2012. Work is already in progress for 3 of the 6 gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O). This needs to be complemented by an analysis of the costs of options to reduce emissions of the remaining group of 3 gases (HFCs, PFCs and SFg, hereafter also indicated as "halogenated gases") to identify cost-effective and effective policies. Aim of this study The aim of this work is to make a preliminary assessment of the options and costs of controlling the three gases HFCs, PFCs and SF6 as well as the barri ers for implementing reduction policies for these gases. This report provides a first estimate of the development of the EU wide use and emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SFg in 2005 and 2010 (compared to 1990/1995) with existing (current) national and Community policies, presents existing estimates of the (capital and operating) costs and associated emission reductions (in 2010) of options to control HFC, PFC and SFe emissions in the EU 15, and identifies and elaborates on the barriers for implementing the identified emission reduction options. Emission sources In this study the following emission sources are distinguished: Table 1 Emission sources HFC PFC SFe • HFC production/ han • Primary aluminium • Electricity distribution dling production • Magnesium production • HCFC-22 production • Semiconductor • Semiconductor • Refrigeration (Indus manufacturing manufacturing trial, Commercial, • Other • Noise isolating win Transport, House dows holds, Stationary • Tyres airco, Heat pumps) • Other • Mobile airco • Foam • Solvents • Aerosols, Fire extin guishing, Other -193 ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFC's. PFCs and SF* in the EU Process emissions are responsible for a large part of emissions in countries locating these production processes: HFC-23 emissions during HCFC-22 production, PFC emissions from primary aluminium production, SF6 emis sions from magnesium production In the future, other emission sources become relatively more important, due to achieved emission reduction in those production processes on the one hand, and increasing demand for certain applications on the other (c.f. sta tionary and mobile airco, specific applications for SF6). Emission data supplied by member states Within the framework of the setting of the Community targets for the extra greenhouse gases resulting from the Kyoto protocol, emission estimates and projections on halogenated gases have been collected from Member States and discussed during the Expert Group meeting of February 24, 1998. Table 2 gives emission estimates based on these reported data from member states. Note that the emission data in this table give a preliminary break down based on a number of assumptions. Further improvement of these es timates is necessary. Some remarks should be made with regard to these estimates. First, so far no national data have been collected from Greece, Ireland, Lux embourg, Portugal and Spain. Other countries like Austria, Belgium and Denmark do not (or only partly) give emission projections for the years 2000 and 2010. Second, comparability of data is insufficient. Most countries, among them Austria, Belgium and Finland report potential emissions, referring to emis sions that could occur if all halocarbons used were emitted into the atmos phere. Other countries provide actual emissions, differing from potential emissions because there may be a time lag between use and emission and emission could be avoided by emission prevention. Countries reporting partly actual emissions are Germany (actual emissions for 1990/1995, potential for 2000/2010) and The Netherlands. There are several methodologies for esti mating actual emissions (see for example RTVM 1995, app. 5-1). Within the scope of this study it is not possible to go into more detail concerning these methodologies and resulting emission estimates. Here only ranges in emission projections are presented. Another aspect of comparability is whether emission projections refer to the situation with or without control. For example, scenario's for the years 2000 and 2010 for The Netherlands do not include (additional) emission control. On the other hand, Germany reports scenario's with measures. Third, there are several uncertainties concerning the emission data. It is not clear whether national reported data include all possible emission sources (for example certain specific applications of PFC and SF6) and to what extend these gases are used in those applications. -194- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFC's. PFCs and SF« in the EU Also projections concerning future emissions and availability of reduction measures probably differ among countries. Besides, different mixes of HFCs with different average GWP values are assumed. Table 2 Preliminary emission data set for cost calculations, emission projec tions for 2010, EU-15, Mt C02-equivalents (business as usual) Total halogenated gases 1* 2010: 82 Mt HFC s2) PFCs sf6 2010: 65Mt 2010: 5 Mt 2010: 12 Mt HCFC-22 production Aluminium production Electricity distribution 2010:10 Mt 2010: 5 Mt 2010: 6 Mt Refrigeration Other Other4* 2010:25 Mt 2010: pm 2010: 6 Mt of which:3* Industrial: 1 Mt Commercial: 11 Mt Transport 3 Mt Stationary airco: 1 Mt Mobile airco: 8 Mt Households: 0.2 Mt Foam 2010: 25 Mt5* Other 2010: 5 Mt6* 1) Source: Expert Group 1998a. First country comments included (Expert Group 1998b). 2) Conservative (low) estimate of MFC emissions per emission source deducted from the emission ranges in table 2.1, par. 2.2. 3) Own preliminary estimation of distribution emissions refrigeration, based on emission rates per application and estimations of numbers of installations. 4) Assumption: of which 3 Mt related to noise isolating windows. 5) Emissions might be lower as it could be argued that emissions from the foam bank will not yet have reached this level in the year 2010. 6) This should be considered as a minimum figure. -195- 170 110 150 200 1000 >100 -eq.) 2 C0 50 70 70 50-100 (ECU/t cost ? ? 2 16 25 0.40 0-100 0-50 Marginal <0 - 2 EU- C0 1 1 3 ? 8 5 9 11 25 8.8 9.9 0.2 2.4 0.67 (Mt Maximum 15 potential reduction eq.) EU in -eq.) the 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 8 5 11 11 11 10 in 25 25 0.2 r C0 SF Estimated EU-15 2010 (Mt emissions and options PFCs ? 90% 80% 90% 80% 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Marginal reduction emission MFC's. abatement of potentials emissions reduction reduction reduction modifications modifications optimisations the of reduction Incineration Measure Leakage Process Leakage Recollection Recycling Leakage Process Process Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives and Reduction cost general refrigeration Marginal refrigeration airco refrigeration production other refrigeration airco 3 ECOFYS Industrial MFC HCFC-22 Commercial Refrigeration Source Table Stationary Household Mobile Foam Transport Solvents, 196 ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFC's. PFCs and SF« in the EU Abatement options HFCs, PFCs, SF6 The report gives an inventory of abatement options, cost and emission re duction potentials, for all emission sources distinguished in table 1. These abatement options are ranked by type of technology, using the follow ing categories: A. Reduction and prevention of leakage during use (by better installa tions/materials, preventive maintenance) and during installation, mainte nance, refill B. Recycling/reuse of discarded agents C. Application of alternative agents D. Development of modified (components of) installations, using less or no HFCs, PFCs, SF6 E. Miscellaneous (e g. incineration) Table 3 summarises the abatement options, reduction potentials and cost. Note that this table gives typical figures but that in fact (wider) ranges are possible depending on size of equipment and local circumstances. Note that the effects on energy cost and energy-related CC>2-emissions are not included in the figures in this table. Total abatement cost In table 4 total abatement cost for the EU-15 are summarised. Two variants have been indicated: i) maximum use of alternatives and ii) maximum leakage reduction. Where results for those variants differ - and that is mainly the case within refrigeration - cost and emission reduction of both variants have been indicated (i/ii). Table 0.3 shows that maximum substitution of HFCs by al ternatives results in higher reduction and lower cost than in case of maximum leakage control. If measures above 100 ECU/tonne COz-eq are excluded (for commercial re frigeration and stationary airco), total abatement cost will be 1000/3400 min ECU and emission reduction 62/58 Mt COi-eq. Table 4 Summary of total abatement cost estimate for 2010, EU-15 Cost (min ECU) Reduction (Mt) HFC 4200/5500 63/48 RFC 24 4 SFe 8 7 Total 4200/5500 74/69 This first rough estimate of total abatement cost and emission reduction for the EU-15 in 2010 shows that with maximum application of abatement meas ures mentioned in this report an emission reduction of about 85% of total emissions in EU 15 for these three gases together can be reached for about 5000 min ECU. Considering the measures included in this report, HFC reduction accounts for 85% of emission reduction and 99% of abatement cost. Also relative cost are largest for HFC emission reduction, with average abatement cost of 60-90 -197- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFC's. PFCs and SFg in the EU ECU/t COz-eq (or 20 ECU/t COz-eq. when measures > 100 ECU/1 COz-eq. are excluded). For PFC and SF@ average abatement cost are about 1-6 ECU/t COz-eq Conclusions It should be noted that these results have a preliminary character and that further elaboration is necessary. However some conclusions may be drawn at this stage: There is a substantial potential for reducing emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6. There are a number of low-cost options, including emission reduction at HCFC-22 manufacturing (HFC-23 incineration) and at primary alu minium production (process modifications) and leakage reduction and recycling of SF6. Recommendations Further development of the emission data set and check of by national ex perts of emissions per application is needed. Differences in data and method ologies between countries should be identified. Furthermore, more data on measures and cost are needed to complete and check the information cur rently available. A workshop with main stake holders and experts may accel erate the information gathering (and reviewing) process. This report can be considered as a basis for further elaboration in the direc tions mentioned above. With a more detailed and consistent emission data set for EU-15 countries and with further completed and differentiated cost data, these first rough cost estimates can be refined. -198- 100 > -eq.) 2 C0 100 - 50 (ECU/t cost 1 ? 0 ? 2 5.6 0.04 0.04 0-100 0-50 Marginal <0 - 2 EU- C0 3 6 1.5 5.4 2.3 4.3 (Mt potential Maximum 15 reduction reduction eq.) EU in the 3 3 3 5 6 6 in Pm Pm Pm COz-eq.) SFg Estimated EU-15 2010 (Mt emissions and % % % % PFCs 90% 50% 75% 90% 85% 100 100 100 100 Marginal emission reduction MFC's. of alter mod. process reduction red., emissions reduction modifications modifications process the of Recycling pm Leakage Leakage Leakage modifications Recycling natives, Process Process optimisations Alternatives Measure Alternatives, Reduction voltage industry industry mid) production production: uses (and substances Other/new Magnesium Semiconductor Tyres Windows All High ECOFYS SFe switches RFC Semiconductor Aluminium Source 199 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Aim of this study ...... 1 1.3 project approach ...... 2 2. EMISSIONS OF MFC, RFC AND SFs IN THE EU...... 4 2.1 Data supplied by member states...... 4 2.2 Emissions in 1990/1995 and projections ...... 5 3. MFCS...... 9 3.1 introduction ...... 9 3.2 Emissions HFC-23 during production of HCFC-22...... 10 3.2.1 Emissions...... 10 3.2.2 Current national or EU policies ...... 10 3.2.3 Measures...... 11 3.3 Industrial Refrigeration...... 13 3.3.1 Emissions...... 13 3.3.2 Current national or EU policies ...... 13 3.3.3 Measures...... 15 3.4 Commercial refrigeration ...... 17 3.4.1 Emissions...... 17 3.4.2 Current national or EU policies ...... 17 3.4.3 Measures...... 17 3.5 Transport refrigeration ...... 19 3.5.1 Emissions...... 19 3.5.2 Current national or EU policies ...... 19 3.5.3 Measures...... 19 3.6 Mobile air-conditioning ...... 20 3.6.1 Emissions ...... 20 3.6.2 Current national or EU policies ...... 20 3.6.3 Measures...... 20 3.7 Household refrigeration ...... 22 -200- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFg in the EU 7. BARRIERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION...... 45 8. FIRST CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 49 9. REFERENCES...... 50 -201- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF* in the EU 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND Within the activities to develop the Commission ’ Communication on a Post- Kyoto Climate Strategy analysis is made to identify the least-cost package of specific policies and measures for meeting the Community ’s proposed quan titative reduction for 6 (groups of) greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Proto col for the period 2008-2012. Work is already in progress for 3 of the 6 gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O). This needs to be complemented by an analysis of the costs of options to reduce emissions of the remaining group of 3 gases (HFCs, PFCs and SF6, hereafter also indicated as "halogenated gases") to identify cost-effective and effective policies. In addition, the barriers for im plementing such policies for the 3 gases need to be elaborated, preferably in dialogue with industry representatives. 1.2 AIM OF THIS STUDY The aim of this work is to assess the options and costs of controlling the three gases HFCs, PFCs and SF6 as well as the barriers for implementing re duction policies for these gases. With help of this information the EC will be able to design a cost-effective climate strategy covering all gases. Objectives To reach the overall aim, the project can be split up into 5 separate objec tives: 1. Provide an estimate of the development of the EU wide use and emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SFg in 2005 and 2010 (compared to 1990/1995) with existing (current) national and Community policies. This will be done by making use of existing estimates by the Member States and emission in ventory experts; 2. Collect the best existing estimates of the (capital and operating) costs and associated emission limitations / reductions (in 2010) of options to control HFC, PFC and SFe emissions in the EU 15. The degree of reliability of the figures will be indicated; furthermore, it will be ensured that the cost esti mates are comparable with cost estimates provided for the other 3 gases in a companion study. The inventory will be carried out by applying the same methodology that is also harnessed for the project "Economic evaluation of the quantitative objectives for climate change", where Ecofys will make similar inventories for methane and nitrous oxide. 3. Rank these options on the basis of their cost-efficiency (cost per ton CO2 equivalent abated) in EU-wide cost-functions; 4. Identify and elaborate on the barriers for implementing the identified emis sion limitations / reductions options by means of different instruments (such as negotiated agreements, standards, taxes) or barriers due to a lack of available alternatives to HFCs, PFCs and SFe. Furthermore, it will be -202- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU identified which policies and measures could be meaningfully implemented at the EU level. An overview will be given of the extend to which the con crete policies and measures can contribute to achieve the EU’s Climate objective (post-Kyoto); 5. Incorporate comments from member states and stakeholders on draft re ports; it is assumed that the Commission will assist in identifying these parties and generating these comments. 1.3 PROJECT APPROACH Emission data In this study the following emission sources are distinguished: MFC PFC sf6 • MFC production/ han • Primary aluminium • Electricity distribution dling production • Magnesium production • HCFC-22 production e Semiconductor • Semiconductor • Refrigeration (Indus manufacturing manufacturing trial, Commercial, • Other • Noise isolating win Transport, House dows holds, Stationary • Tyres airco, Heat pumps) • Other • Mobile airco • Foam • Solvents • Aerosols, Fire extin guishing, Other This split up is made with regard to cost calculations of abatement options mentioned in this report. In chapter 2, national emissions as reported by member states are given (Ex pert Group 1998, fax 19-2-98). Categorisation of abatement options HFCs, PFCs, SF6 The following types of abatement options are distinguished. A. Reduction and prevention of leakage during use (by better installa tions/materials, preventive maintenance) and during installation, mainte nance, refill B. Recycling/reuse of discarded agents C. Application of alternative agents D. Development of modified (components of) installations, using less or no HFCs, PFCs, SF6 E. Miscellaneous (e g. incineration) This categorisation is followed for all emission sources distinguished in this report. If applicable, for each type of abatement option cost indications are given. Chapter 6 contains an overview of the potential abatement measures per application and cost indications (in ECU/kt C02-eq abated) -203- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFr in the EU Structure of the report Chapter 2 gives an indication of total emissions in the European Union and the share of most important applications in those emissions. Also some reser vations are made concerning existing emission inventories used in this study. In the following chapters 3 to 5, most important applications of respectively HFC, PFC and SFg are described. For each application, currently available information is given on 1) emission trends in the EU 15, 2) current national and international policies, 3) an overview of emission abatement options and a description of measures selected in the abatement database. Chapter 6 gives an overview of selected abatement options with their mar ginal cost and relative contribution to the EU GHG emission reduction goals. Chapter 7 of this report contains suggestions concerning types of policy in struments that can be used to lower (e g. price- and technology-) barriers to implement the abatement options that are mentioned in this report. Examples of policy instruments are: legislative standards concerning leakage control, bans of certain substances, negotiated agreements, financial instruments (taxes, subsidies, refund systems). Finally, Chapter 8 gives some first conclusions and recommendations. -204 ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU 2. EMISSIONS OF MFC, RFC AND SF, IN THE EU 2.1 DATA SUPPLIED BY MEMBER STATES Within the framework of the setting of the Community targets for the extra greenhouse gases resulting from the Kyoto protocol, emission estimates and projections on halogenated gases have been collected from Member States and discussed during the Expert Group meeting of February 24, 1998. Some remarks should be made with regard to these estimates. First, so far no national data have been collected from Greece, Ireland, Lux embourg, Portugal and Spain. Other countries like Austria, Belgium and Denmark do not (or partly) give emission projections for the years 2000 and 2010. Second, comparability of data is insufficient Most countries, among them Austria, Belgium and Finland report potential emissions, referring to emis sions that could occur if all halocarbons used were emitted into the atmos phere. Other countries provide actual emissions, differing from potential emissions because there may be a time lag between use and emission and emission could be avoided by emission prevention. Countries reporting partly actual emissions are Germany (actual emissions for 1990/1995, potential for 2000/2010) and The Netherlands. There are several methodologies for estimating actual emissions (see for ex ample RJVM 1995, app. 5-1). Within the scope of this study it is not possible to go into more detail concerning these methodologies and resulting emission estimates. Here only ranges in emission projections will be mentioned, if pos sible. Another aspect of comparability is whether emission projections refer to control or no control. For example, scenario's for the years 2000 and 2010 for The Netherlands do not include (additional) emission control. On the other hand, Germany reports scenario's with measures. Third, there are several uncertainties concerning the emission data. It is not clear whether national reported data include all possible emission sources (for example certain specific applications of PFC and SF@) and to what extend these gases are used in those applications. Also projections concerning future emissions and availability of reduction measures probably differ among countries. Besides, different mixes of HFCs with different average GWP (Global Warming Potentials) values are as sumed. Below, emission estimates and projections are given for the EU, based on re ported data from member states and completed with data from other sources and own estimates. The data set thus obtained forms the starting point for the -205- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFg in the EU cost calculations in this study. However, when better emission data become available, cost calculations can be applied to those new figures. 2.2 EMISSIONS IN 1990/1995 AND PROJECTIONS According to the data provided by the Member States, total emissions of the halogenated gases HFCs, PFCs and SFe in the European Union (EU-15) amount to about 60 Mt C02-equivalents, this is about 1-2% of total EU-15 emissions of CO2, CH4 and N20 in 1990. Emissions of halogenated gases of 60 Mt C02-equivalents include rough es timates for the countries Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain based on the reported data from the other 11 countries (Expert Group 1998, table 2). Given reported data from 11 member states, largest contribution to total fluorocarbon emissions in 1995 comes from HFCs (64%), then SF6 (25%) and third PFCs (11%). In 2010, total reported fluorocarbon emissions are about 82 Mtonne C02- equivalent, an increase of about 20-40% compared to emissions of 60 Mtonne in 1995. When breaking down these figures, it appears that the share of HFCs rises to 79% and the shares of SFe and PFCs decrease to 15% and 6%. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 summarize the available emission data. Figures in table 2.1 are based on country reports (Expert Group 1998, table 2). In addition to the totals as reported by the Member States, a breakdown of total emission data for the major emission sources is given (table 2.2), for current emissions and projected emissions in 2010. To give a rough idea of main emission sources, in this table HFC emissions are divided in emissions from HCFC-22 production, refrigeration, foam and other. PFC emissions are divided in emissions from aluminium production and other sources, SF$ emis sions are divided in emissions from use of SF6 in electricity distribution and other sources. Data on the individual emission sources are based on several - contradicting - literature sources. Therefore ranges are indicated to illustrate the uncertainty of existing emission estimates and the breakdown of emis sions. The following remarks are added to these figures. HCFC-22 production HCFC-22 production is estimated to be between 53 kt [Solvay 1997] and 80 kt in 1995 [Expert Group 1997]. Assuming an emission rate without control of 2-4%, total HFC-23 emissions in 1995 amount to about 12-37 Mtonne C02-equivalent, assuming no abatement. If abatement is assumed, emissions may be lower. When considering current abatement initiatives, abatement of HFC-23 emis sions from HCFC-22 production is already applied in France and Spain. In The Netherlands and UK, emission abatement is planned for in the near fu ture. Therefore, current emissions with control reported by member states will be lower. -206- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFg in the EU The new EU regulation will most likely affect the total HCFC-22 production in 2010. March Consulting Group 1998 (p. 33) gives an HFC emission for HCFC-22 production in 2010 of 9.7 Mt C02-eq Refrigeration Demand for (H)(C)FCs in 1993 was estimated as 64.5 kt (HCFC-22: 34 kt, CFC-12: 27 kt, CFC-115 3.5 kt [Elf Atochem 1996]). Equating use/sales with emissions, and a substitution rate by HFCs of 100% maximum future emissions would amount to 97 Mt C02-eq However, the substitution rate in 1995 is still rather limited. March Consulting Group 1998 (p. 33) gives an HFC emission for refrigera tion in 1995 of 4.3 Mt C02-eq. Assuming the 2010 use/sales level of refrigerants equal to 1993 and a substi tution rate by HFCs of 100%, maximum future emissions would amount to 97 Mt C02-eq. However, emissions from refrigeration are likely to be signifi cantly lower as a results of the ongoing shift in the sector to other substances and more efficient technology with lower refrigerant charge. On the other hand, projections of future emission growth depend on assumptions regard ing the increasing use of applications like (mobile) airco. Therefore, a pre liminary range is given of 0-100 Mt Mt C02-eq March Consulting Group 1998 (p. 33) gives an HFC emission for refrigera tion in 2010 of 28.2 Mt C02-eq. Foam In this report it is assumed that in 1995 no substitution of CFCs and HCFCs by HFCs has taken place yet. Industry assumes for the demand of HFC for rigid foam a range of 0 to 40 kt in 2020 [Elf Atochem 1996]. Taking into account a GWP of 800 and 0% re covery, maximum emissions could be calculated as 32 Mt C02-equivalents (in 2020). March Consulting Group 1998 (p. 33) gives an HFC emission for foam in 2010 of 13.6 Mt C02-eq Other HFC emission sources Industry gives the following HFC emission estimates for the year 2020. Esti mates for 2010 are not given. Therefore in this report we use these 2020 emissions for the year 2010. Aerosol emission estimates for 2020 vary between 5-10 kt HFC or 7-13 Mt C02-eq. [Elf Atochem 1996]), and 18-27 kt HFC or 25-38 Mt C02-eq , [Ex pert Group 1997]. Solvent emissions in 2020 vary between 1-3 kt HFC, which is 1-4 Mt C02- eq., depending on GWP value assumed: a GWP of 1500 [Elf Atochem 1996] or 4000 [Expert Group 1997]. Emissions from fire extinguishers are estimated to be 1 Mt in 2020 [Elf Ato chem 1996]. Adding these figures, total Other HFC emission estimates for the year 2020 vary between 9 - 43 Mt C02-equivalent. -207- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFm in the EU March Consulting Group 1998 (p. 33) gives a total of Other HFC emissions of 14 Mt C02-eq.: HFC emissions from aerosols in 2010 of 11.8 Mt COz-eq (general aerosols 7 and MDIs 4.8 Mt COz-eq.), solvents 2.0 Mt COz-eq. and fire extinguishers 0.2 Mt COz-eq Aluminium production Based on average emission factors given by the European Aluminium Asso ciation [EAA, 1997] the emissions from primary aluminium production (without control) can be estimated as about 9 Mt COz-eq. in 1995 and 7 Mt COz-eq. in 2010. Electricity distribution Using estimates based on Olivier [1998], SFg emissions in 1995 are about 5 Mt COz-eq. Assuming improved leakage prevention due to new switches that will be installed after the year 2000, emissions will decrease. Table 0.1 Emissions 1995 and 2010 in EU-15, in Mt C02-equivalents, Member State estimates Total halogenated gases 1' 1995: 58 Mt 2010: 82 Mt HFCs1) PFCs1) SF«" 1995: 37 Mt 1995: 7 Mt 1995:14 Mt 2010: 65 Mt 2010: 5 Mt 2010:12 Mt 1) Source: Expert Group 1998a. First country comments included (Expert Group 1998b). Table 0.2 Emissions 1995 and 2010 in EU-15, in Mt C02-equivalents, estimates based on other sources. MFCs PFCs SF6 HCFC-22 production Aluminium production Electricity distribution 1995: 12-37 Mt 1995: 9 Mt 1995: 5 Mt 2010:10 Mt 2010: 7 Mt 2010: 5 Mt Refrigeration Other Other 1995: 4.3 Mt1) 1995: ? 1995: ? 2010: 0-100 Mt2) 2010:? 2010: ? Foam 1995: 0 Mt 2010: 0-32 Mt Other 1995: ? Mt 2010: 9-43 Mt 1) Source: March Consulting Group 1998, p. 33. 2) Subject to (amongst others) (H)CFC substitution rate. March Consulting Group 1998 (p.33) gives HFC emissions of 28,2 Mt (business-as-usual scenario 2010). -208- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFs in the EU 3) Subject to (amongst others) (H)CFC substitution rate. March Consulting Group 1998 (p.33) gives MFC emissions of 13.6 Mt 4) March Consulting Group 1998 (p.33) gives MFC emissions of 14 Mt. -209- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFr in the EU 3. MFCS 3.1 INTRODUCTION According to the data reported by Member States, HFC emissions in 1995 contributed for about 64% to total HFC-, PFC- and SFe emissions (in CO2- eq.) in EU-15. Large contributor in 1995 in the EU-15 was HCFC-22 pro duction (HFC-23 emissions as by-product). Other emission sources distinguished in this study are: HFC production and handling, Refrigeration, Mobile airco, Solvents, Foam, and "Other" (Aero sols, Fire extinguishing). Emissions related with production and handling of fluorocarbons are not further elaborated upon in this report, as few data production and emissions in the EU are available (Olivier [1998] assumes an emission factor of 0.5% of total production). Within the category 'Refrigeration', the following applications are specified: Industrial, Commercial, Transport, Stationary air-conditioning, Household refrigeration and Heat pumps. The distinction between these applications is necessary as there is a large variation in emission trends, abatement options, implementation rates and costs among the specific applications. -210- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF* in the EU 3.2 EMISSIONS HFC-23 DURING PRODUCTION OF HCFC-22 3.2.1 Emissions In 1995 there where the following HCFC-22 producing countries: France, It aly, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Spain and UK. Annual emission of HFC- 23 as by product of the HCFC production amount to about 2% to 4% of HCFC-22 production [Expert Group 1997, App. A.7.3]. HFC-23 has a Global warming potential of 11700 which is relatively high compared to other HFCs whose Global Warming Potentials mainly vary be tween 1000-3000 and do not exceed 6800. Current and potential applications of HCFC-22 are: Aerosol propellants: as alternative aerosol propellant instead of CFC-11 Foam blowing: as alternative in polyurethane foams to replace CFC-11, as alternative in phenolic insulation board to replace CFC-11 and CFC-113, and as alternative in blowing polyolefin foams, polystyrene, extruded boardstock and billet to replace CFC-12. Refrigeration: alternative for CFC-11, CFC-12 and R-502 in most cooling systems, air-conditioning, heat pumps, also used in blends (R-401A/B, R- 402A/B) to replace CFCs in various cooling systems [RTVM 1995]. Feedstock, as raw material in the production of other chemicals and products. In some countries HCFC producers have already taken measures to reduce HCFC emissions or are planning to do so. For example, France, Germany and Spain already reduced their emissions by incineration of flue gasses [Elf Atochem 1996]. Similar initiatives are developed in the Netherlands, UK and Italy [Du Pont 1998]. 3.2.2 Current national or EU policies According to the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs have to be phased out by the year 2030. New EU regulation on ozone depleting substances is due to be adopted later this year (Common position adopted 22 February 5748/99). Under this regu lation, most HCFC uses will be phased out between 2000 and 2004, with the last phase-out date 1 January 2010. HCFC production for non-feedstock ap plications will also be phased out starting with a 65% cut by 1 January 2008 compared to the 1997 level. This will most likely affect the total HCFC-22 production even if feedstock uses is exempted from the bans in the regula tion. In the USA, additional restrictions have been formulated (use of HCFC is not allowed when alternatives are available). -211- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU 3.2.3 Measures HFC-23 emissions related to HCFC-22 production can be prevented or re duced in two ways: i) during production, and ii) restricting the use of HCFC- 22. Restriction of the use of HCFC-22 is discussed in the next paragraphs re garding other applications of HFCs. This paragraph concerns HCFC-22 pro duction related emissions. Table 0.1 gives an overview of reduction measures at the production stage. -212 ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU Table 0.1 Reduction measures emissions HCFC-22 production. Name of measure Reduction Remarks Data source 8. Recycling Recycling of HFC-23 from flue gases ? research for RIVM 1996, p.32 of HCFC-22 production cost-effective way E. Miscellaneous Incineration 50-90% In NL: 50-90% Expert Group reduction in 1997; 1998-2003. UBA-FW 97- In GER: incin 072, p. 125; eration; small Du Pont, 1998 part recycled. In UK: project aiming at more than 90% reduc tion. The reduction measure included in the calculations in this report is incinera tion. Ad. E Incineration Incineration of flue gasses reduces emissions about up to 90%. Estimation of annual investment and operational cost: Dfl. 10,000/ton HFC-23 [Du Pont 1998], which is equivalent to about 0.40 ECU/t COz-eq -213- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFg in the EU INDUSTRIAL REFRIGERATION Emissions Industrial refrigeration includes three applications: a. process refrigeration: integrated part of the production process b. industry refrigeration: freezing of products c. storage refrigeration: conservation of products Most large installations use ammonia as refrigerant. Installations in the Food and Beverages sector use partly fluorinated, partly other refrigerants. Smaller installations for a large part contain chemical cooling agents, including HCFC-22 [Novem/Ecofys 1997b; Prospect 1997]. Industrial refrigeration systems can be classified according to refrigerant content: • small installations (3-30 kg) • medium size (30-300) • large installations (>300kg) Current national or EU policies Relevant is the phasing out of CFCs and HCFCs conform the Montreal Pro tocol, inducing the retrofit or replacement of installations containing CFC-12 or HCFC-22. In the current EU regulation (3093/94), HCFCs are banned from 1 January 2000, in equipment produced after 31 December 1999, in public and distri bution cold stores and warehouses, and for equipment of 150 kW and over, shaft input. In the new EU regulation (Common position 5748/99), the use of HCFCs is banned: from 1 January 2001, in all refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment produced after 31 December 2000 with the exception of fixed air-conditioning equipment, with a cooling capacity of less than 100 kW, where the use of hydrochlorofluorocar- bons shall be prohibited from 1 January 2003 in equipment produced after 31 December 2002 and for reversible air-conditioning/heat pump systems where the use of hydrochloroftuorocarbons shall be prohibited from 1 January 2004 in all equipment produced after 31 December 2003. Some countries (like Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria) have faster phasing out schemes than the Montreal Protocol [Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p. 18]. This induced the search for alterna tives, both HFCs and other refrigerants. ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU In The Netherlands, technical requirements for refrigeration equipment and maintenance are included in a directive on leakage control refrigerators, the so called RLK 1994. This directive applies for refrigeration equipment, air- conditioning and heat pumps with a capacity of more than 500 Watt [Sta- atscourant 243, p 12-16, 16-12-1994]. In addition, persons and companies handling refrigeration systems and refrig erants should hold an official certificate, assigned by STEK, a foundation es pecially set up for this purpose [Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p. 18]. In the UK, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Industry made a declaration of intent with respect to among others system handling and professional stan dards, leakage reduction and improvement of information [Expert Group 1997, App. A.7.2], -215- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFg in the EU 3.3.3 Measures Table 0.2 summarises reduction options for industrial refrigeration. Table 0.2 Reduction measures industrial refrigeration Name of measure Marginal Remarks Data source reduction A. Leakage Reduction of leakage Average re Improved Novem/Ecofys duction of maintenance, 1997b, p.25 leakage from technical and 15% to 5% material im provements C. Alternatives Ammonia as cooling agent (smaller 100% current trend: Novem/Ecofys installations) "down scaling": 1997b, p.23/24 use of ammo nia for smaller installations Water as refrigerant 100% Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p.24; Hydrocarbons 100% Prospect 1997, p. 20 D. Process modifications Installation of indirect and compact 90-95% Reduction by Novem/Ecofys systems use of harm 1997b, p. 26; less transport mediums, such as ice crystals, brine, CO2 Due to large differences in size of installations for industrial refrigeration, this study distinguishes between i) large installations (> 300 kg) and ii) small and medium installations (3-300 kg). It is assumed that large installations all use ammonia as refrigerant. For small and medium installations, the following abatement options are rele vant: A. Leakage reduction C. Alternatives D. Process modifications Ad A. Leakage Due to regulation with respect to leakage in The Netherlands (STEK, RLK), the annual emissions due to leakage decreased substantially, depending on age and type of installation (Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p.21-24). In this study it is assumed that for existing small and medium installations regulation concerning control and maintenance reduces leakage from 15% to 5% for existing installations, a marginal reduction of 66%. All new installa tions are assumed to have an average annual leakage of 5%. -216- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU Rough estimate of cost of leakage reduction for a refrigerant system: fl. 5000 concerning replacement of parts of the installation and labour cost (No- vem/Ecofys 1997b, p.36). Ad C. Alternatives: Main alternative refrigerants are ammonia and hydrocarbons. The use of hydrocarbons is said to be cost-effective as they use less refriger ant, are more energy efficient and are compatible with most compressor oils and materials. Main disadvantage is their flammability, which can give rise to significant costs, especially during production of the installations (Prospect 1997 p. 23-24). Additional cost of installations using ammonia are about 20-30% higher than the smaller installations using H(C)FC. Despite these initial additional costs, on the long term the use of ammonia as refrigerant will probably be cheaper than chemical refrigeration, due to the lower price of ammonia compared to H(C)FCs and lower energy use of am monia cooled installations. Besides, price differences may level out due to increasing demand for ammo nia installations. Ad. D. Process modifications The use of indirect and compact systems reduces the quantity of refrigerant with 90-95%. -217- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFg in the EU 3.4 COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION 3.4.1 Emissions Commercial refrigeration concerns refrigeration systems in supermarkets and the hotel and catering industry. Up to now mainly direct systems are used, containing chemical refrigerants (including HCFC-22). Part of those (smaller) installations have been retrofit ted from CFC-12 and/or HCFC-22 to HFC-134a. Natural cooling agents are scarcely used so far, due to safety conditions. 3.4.2 Current national or EU policies See par. 0 3.4.3 Measures Table 0.3 gives an overview of emission abatement options and alternatives for commercial refrigeration. Table 0.3 Reduction measures Commercial refrigeration Name of measure Reduction Remarks Data source A. Leakage Reduction of leakage 80% reduction Improved Novem/Ecofys of leakage (de maintenance 1997b p.25 crease leakage (RLK), technical from 15% to and material 3%) improvements B. Alternatives Propane/butane as cooling agent 100% Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p.26 Ammonia as cooling agent 100% Prospect 1997 p.23-24; Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p.26 CO2 as cooling agent 100% Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p.26 D. Modifications Installation of indirect and com 90-95% Reduction by NOVEM/Ecofys pact systems use of harmless 1997b, p. 26 transport medi ums, such as ice crystals, brine, CO2 -218- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFg in the EU The following 3 abatement options for an average installation for commercial refrigeration are distinguished: A. Leakage reduction B. Alternatives C. Modifications Ad A. Leakage With regulation with respect to leakage, the annual emission in existing commercial refrigeration is assumed to decrease from 15% to 3% of the re frigerant in the installation, a marginal emission reduction of 80%. The percentages mentioned above are averages: installations installed before the early 90's still had emission percentages of 40%, annual leakage of new installations are about 3%. Assumption additional investment costs: fl. 5.000 [Novem/Ecofys 1997b], Ad C. Alternatives: Alternative refrigerants in commercial refrigeration are ammonia, CO%, pro pane/butane. Assumption additional cost of ammonia installation: fl. 10.000 [Novem/Ecofys 1997b]. It is expected that in The Netherlands and other countries in the next 5 to 7 years 60-65% of all new installations in supermarkets will contain ammonia. Ad D. Modifications: The use of indirect and compact systems reduces the quantity of refrigerant with 90-95% In this study it is assumed that replacement of a direct installation takes place after amortisation of the old installation, reducing the amount of refrigerant from 30 kg to 3 kg. Costs of this measure concern additional investment costs (if compact and in direct installation is more expensive than direct installation) and cost savings in terms of reduced amount of refrigerant and/or energy use. -219- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFr in the EU 3.5 TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION 3.5.1 Emissions About 99% of cooling agents in transport refrigeration are chemical refriger ants [Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p. 24]. 3.5.2 Current national or EU policies See par. 0 3.5.3 Measures Table 0.4 shows abatement options for Transport refrigeration. Table 0.4 Reduction measures Transport refrigeration Name of measure Reduction Data source A. Leakage Replacement copper piping by steel, im Decrease leakage NOVEM/Ecofys proved maintenance from 30-50% to 7% 1997b, p. 28 is possible C. Alternatives Replacement chemical refrigerant by hy 100% NOVEM/Ecofys drocarbons 1997b p.28 The following abatement options for HFC emissions in transport refrigeration are distinguished: A. Leakage reduction C. Alternatives Ad A Leakage Due to regulation with respect to leakage the yearly average emissions due to leakage are assumed to decrease from 40% to 7%, a reduction of about 80%. New installations in transport refrigeration have leakage percentages of 7%. Ad C Alternatives: Alternative refrigerant mentioned in literature in transport cooling are hydro carbons. -220- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU 3.6 MOBILE AIR-CONDITIONING 3.6.1 Emissions Car airco's contain 0.8 to 0.9 kg refrigerant, new cars with HFC-134a, older cars with (regenerated) CFC-12 or HFC-blends. 3.6.2 Current national or EU policies See par. 0 3.6.3 Measures Table 0.5 shows emission reduction measures for mobile airco's. Table 0.5 Reduction measures Mobile air-conditioning Name of measure Reduction Remarks Data source A. Leakage Decreasing leakage by using re 50%? already applied Novem/Ecofys frigerant as lubricant for com in some types of 1997b pressors cars Courses, certificates for tapping ? Novem/Ecofys refrigerants from car wrecks 1997b p.32 C. Alternatives CO2 as cooling agent 100% testing phase: Novem/Ecofys efficiency at 1997b p.32 least equal to CFC-12 airco's Hydrocarbons as cooling agents 100% not yet accepted Novem/Ecofys due to safety 1997b p.32 regulations D. Modifications Indirect system (eventually using reduction use of development in Novem/Ecofys propane/butane as refrigerant) refrigerant at next two years 1997b p.32 and brine as transport medium least 10-15% Assumption in database: emission reduction for mobile air-conditioning con sist of the following abatement options for an average installation: A. Leakage reduction C. Alternatives D. Modifications Ad A. Leakage Estimates about yearly emissions due to leakage vary between 10-50%. Decrease in leakage of 50% possible due to modification, improved mainte nance and tapping agent from car wrecks. -221- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU Measure in database (assumption): "Decrease leakage 30% to 10% due to maintenance and better removal in discard phase". Ad C. Alternatives: Alternative agents mentioned in literature are ammonia, hydrocarbons, CO2, propane/butane, oxygen, electricity. Assumption in database: use of hydrocarbons as alternative agent. Ad D Modifications: Measure. Indirect systems to reduce the quantity of agent: from 0.8 kg to 0.7 kg agent. Costs: 10% more expensive than current airco's. 222- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFg in the EU 3.7 HOUSEHOLD REFRIGERATION 3.7.1 Emissions The amount of refrigerant in household refrigeration (about 0,5 kW) is about 0.1 kg. At least in Germany, Scandinavia and The Netherlands, sales of new appliances containing propane/butane are clearly dominating. However this is not evident for the EU as a whole. Older appliances use CFC-12 and HFC- 134a. Annual leakage are relatively low: 1% of refrigerant. 3.7.2 Current national or EU policies See par. 0 3.7.3 Measures Table 0.6 gives reduction measures for household refrigeration. Table 0.6 Reduction measures Household refrigeration Name of measure Reduction Remarks Data source B. Recycling/reuse Structure for recollection and re ? Already common Novem/Ecofys moval of refrigerants from discarded practice in Neth 1997b p.33 household appliances erlands C. Alternatives Propane/butane as cooling agent 100% Netherlands: Novem/Ecofys 90?% of new ap 1997b p.34 pliances with propane/buthane Germany: (>?)90% Ammonia as cooling agent 100% Novem/Ecofys 1997b p.26 Assumption database: emission reduction consist of the following 2 abate ment options: B. Recycling C. Alternatives Due to high labour costs in combination with relatively low leakage percent age, retrofit of existing refrigerators is not considered as an option. Ad B. Recycling Recollection and recycling for CFCs and HFCs in old refrigerators. Ad C. Alternatives: Alternative agent is propane/butane, with no additional cost. Measure in database: use of propane/butane as alternative agent, for new re frigerators, without additional cost. -223- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFg in the EU 3.8 LARGE STATIONARY AIR-CONDITIONING 3.8.1 Emissions In The Netherlands, more than half of all stationairy airco's still contain CFCs. Besides, HCFCs and HFCs are used. Residential use of air-conditioning, ventilation and heat pumps in The Neth erlands is expected to rise by 10% within the next 10 years (Verac 1998). Leakage are very small, so up to now expensive regenerated CFCs can be used for refill. 3.8.2 Current national or EU policies In The Netherlands, for air-conditioning systems with a capacity above 500 Watt leakage are controlled by the RLK directive (see par. 3.3.2). 3.8.3 Measures Table 0.7 gives an overview of emission reduction options for stationary airco. Table 0.7 Reduction measures stationary air-conditioning (Offices) Name of measure Reduction Remarks Data source C. Alternatives Ammonia as cooling agent 100% NOVEM/Ecofys 1997b p.29. D. Modifications Installation of indirect and compact 90-95% Quantity of NOVEM/Ecofys systems cooling agent is 1997b, p. 29 reduced by use of harmless transport medi ums, such as ice crystals, brine In this study the following abatement options for stationary airco are consid ered: C. Alternatives D. Modifications As current leakage are relatively limited (less than 2%), no additional meas ure concerning leakage reduction is assumed. Ad C. Alternatives: One of the alternative refrigerants for stationary airco is ammonia. Ad D. Modifications: Measure: Indirect and compact systems to reduce the quantity of agent. 224- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU 3.9 HEAT PUMPS Many abatement options for refrigerators also apply to heat pumps of similar capacity. Incentive programs NOVEM and EEA are directed to the development and use of natural mediums and the adjustment of installations [Novem/Ecofys 1997 b p.41]. — 225 — ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFg in the EU 3.10 FOAM 3.10.1 Emissions Before the Montreal Protocol, CFCs (CFC-11 and CFC-12) were used as blowing agents for both open foams (cushioning and packaging) and closed foams (insulation foams). HCFCs are the major current alternative for foam blowing as transitional sub stance (as long as use of HCFCs is allowed). Most important zero-ODP alternatives for blowing agents are CO2, hydro carbons and HFCs (HFC-152a, HFC-134a). About 30% of polyurethane foams for the construction industry in the European Union was blown with hydrocarbons in 1996. European H(C)FC producers mention liquid HFCs (245, 356 and 365) as most effective future alternatives [Prospect 1997, p.35]. Moreover, alternative materials and technologies exists. Examples are vac uum panels for domestic refrigeration. Emissions take place during foam blowing, use and when foams are dis carded. The following variables are relevant for estimating emissions: emis sion rates, former (H)CFC markets and the share of (H)CFCs used for foam blowing, the rate of substitution of (H)CFCs by HFCs, and the mix of HFCs used with their GWP-values. Estimations about emission rates of handling losses during production and servicing vary between 5% and 10% of production [BRUFMA 1997, fax 10- 3-97; A-Gas 1997, fax 6-3-97] Different estimations of emissions during use of foams are given: 0% (when foam is completely covered in the application), 10-15% [EPFA 1996, fax 29- 11-96] or 40-45% [Expert Group 1997, p. 89]. The residual part will be emitted in the discard phase or recovered. Maximum emissions (emission = use) occur when no recovery takes place. On the other hand, assuming full recovery and 10% emissions during life time, emissions will be 15% of the used blowing agent. Sales of CFC and H(C)FC in the EU have been - according to McCullogh & Midgley [ICI 1997] - 353 kt in 1986, 219 kt in 1990, 190 kt in 1992 and 120 kt in 1995. Share of H(C)FC for foam blowing was 42.1% in 1992 according to ECFCTC (European fluorocarbon technical committee). Estimations of average GWP values to calculate emissions in CO2- equivalents vary between 1300 [ICI 1997, fax 13-02-97] and 800 [Elf ATOCHEM 1997, fax 4-11-97; Solvay group 1997, fax 3-1-97], the latter GWP value being valid for HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc whose use is cur -226- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU rently planned, while HFC-236, -245ca and -143a are NOT planned for foam blowing [Solvay group 1997, fax 3-1-97], In this report it is assumed that in 1995 no substitution of CFCs and HCFCs by HFCs has taken place yet. Industry assumes for the demand of HFC for rigid foam a range of 0 to 40 kt in 2020 [Elf Atochem 1996], Taking into account a GWP of 800 and 0% re covery, maximum emissions could be calculated as 32 Mt COi-equivalents (in 2020). 3.10.2 Current national or EU policies In the new EU regulation (Common position 5748/99), the use of HCFCs is banned: - from 1 January 2000, for the production of integral skin foams for use in safety applications and polyethylene rigid insulating foams; - from 1 January 2002 for the production of extruded polystyrene rigid insu lating foams, except where used for insulated transport; - from 1 January 2003, for the production of polyurethane foams for appli ances, of polyurethane flexible faced laminate foams and of polyurethane sandwich panels, except where these latter two are used for insulated trans port; - from 1 January 2004, for the production of all foams, including polyure thane spray and block foams. Some Member States have legislation aiming at an earlier phase out: Sweden already phased out the use of HCFCs, Denmark, Germany, Austria and Fin land will phase out the use of HCFCs between now and 2002 at the latest. 3.10.3 Measures Table 0.8 gives an overview of emission reduction options for closed foam. Table 0.8 Reduction options closed foam Name of measure Reduction Remarks Data source C. Alternatives CO2, hydrocarbons as alternative 100% Use of CO2 may Prospect 1997, blowing agents lead to a loss in p.34 energy efficiency of about 5% or more, but this can be compensated by increasing thickness of the material in some cases. Vacuum panels as alternative 100% 20% lower energy Prospect 1997, material in domestic refrigeration consumption, 25% p.39 increase in inter nal volume, higher cost -227 ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFr in the EU Other insulation materials: e g. 100% fibreboard, mineral fibre, cellular glass New technologies/substances: 100% Ecofys 1996, p.45; aerogels, alginsulate process Prospect 1997, p.53. E. Miscellaneous Incineration Prospect 1997, p.36 Ad C. Alternatives Alternative blowing agents Use of hydrocarbons and CO2 may increase product cost by increasing thick ness of the material in order to compensate for the loss in energy efficiency (energy efficiency loss about 5% or more for hydrocarbons, CO2 as well as HFC-134a). Use of hydrocarbons in addition require a one-time capital in vestment in safety equipment. Long-term operating costs however are gener ally lower. However, cost increases represent only a small percentage of the total price of most products [Prospect 1997, p. 34-35], Alternative insulation products There are various - proven - alternative insulation products. Some of them are more costly (like vacuum panels), others are as expensive as foams, or even less expensive if energy savings are reckoned with [Ecofys 1996, p.46]. Ad E. Incineration As recycling and reuse is not yet considered as a technically feasible option by the foam sector [Prospect 1997, p. 36], incineration is the last option in the discard phase of foams. 228- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU 3.11 SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS HFC/PFC 3.11.1 Emissions This paragraph deals with the use of HFCs and PFCs as solvents, for etching and as isolation medium. These HFCs and PFCs are substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-113 and 1,1,1 -trichloorethaan, of which production is prohibited from respectively 1995 and 1996. After 2000, PFCs are mainly used for etching; For other applications (ex cluding the aluminium industry) a decrease of use is expected. HFCs are used for a.o. precision cleaning and new applications in space avia tion and the computer sector. 3.11.2 Measures Table 0.9 Reduction measures HFCs, PFCs for specific applications Name of measure Reduction Remarks Data source B. Recycfing/reuse Development of collection and re ? Suppliers of sub Novem/Ecofys use of PFCs and HFCs stances are de 1997, p.48 veloping recollec tion systems. Ini tiatives in semi conductor indus try (US, Japan, Europe) con cerning reduction of RFC, SFe emissions C. Alternatives Oxygenated organic solvents (es 100% Novem/Ecofys ters, alcohol, ketones) 1997. p.47 Other solvents (terpenes, benzo- 100% Novem/Ecofys fluorids) 1997, p.47 Cleaning with hydrocarbons such 100% Novem/Ecofys as petroleum 1997, p.47 Cleaning processes on water basis 100% p.47 D. Modifications Alternative processes to avoid use 100% cleaning with air, Novem/Ecofys of CFCs in cleaning processes nitrogen (high 1997, p.47 pressure); no cleaning Application in closed systems 100% Novem/Ecofys 1997, p.47/48 Optimisation of processes ? reduction proc Novem/Ecofys essing time 1997, p.48 Optimisation installations by pro ? Novem/Ecofys ducer 1997, p.48 E. Miscellaneous Incineration of rest products ? Novem/Ecofys 1997, p.48 -229- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of HFCs. PFCs and SFfi in the EU Ad B Recvcling/reuse Recycling of HFCs is already technically possible. Within two years, the quantity of HFCs recollected will be sufficient to make it also economically feasible. Cost of recycling are 10-15 ECU/kg, about 8-12 ECU/t C02-eq [Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p. 48]. Ad C Alternatives In a number of cases alternatives are available. Cost of using alternatives are assumed to be below 0 ECU/t C02-eq. [Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p. 48]. Ad D. Process modifications Cost of process optimisation are assumed to be below 0 ECU/t C02. Cost of application of closed systems will be about 1 ECU/t C02-eq. [No vem/Ecofys 1997b, p. 48] Ad E Miscellaneous Cost of incineration of PFCs have been estimated to be about 100-150 ECU/t C02-eq [Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p. 48]. 230- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU 4. PFCS Potential sources of PFC emissions are mainly: production of primary alu minium by electrolysis (CF4, C2p6), the use of CF4 in the semiconductor in dustry, incineration plants, the production of fluorine gas, steel mills and ce ment works. Largest contributor is the primary aluminium industry which is treated below. The other applications of PFCs have been described in para graph 0. 4.1 PRIMARY ALUMINIUM PRODUCTION 4.1.1 Emissions Currently, the primary aluminium industry is responsible for a large part of PFC emissions in the EU. Emissions consist mainly of CF4 and for a smaller part of C2F6. Global warming potentials of these two gasses are respectively 6500 and 9200 tonne C02-equivalent per tonne gas emitted. • Table 0.1, gives an overview of primary aluminium production in EU and in some EU Member States. Data are given for the year 1995, in terms of both production and production capacity (between brackets), in kt Al/year. Also an indication is given of future developments of production. Table 0.1 Aluminium Industry in Europe, annual primary aluminium production and production capacity in 1995 kt Al/year in 1995 % of EU production France 355 (430) 17% Germany 575 (603) 27% Greece 131 (160) 6% Italy 178(178) 8% Netherlands 216(273) 10% Spain 362 (362) 17% Sweden 94 (98) 4% UK 238 (246) 11% EU 2149 (2350) 100% Source: European Aluminium Association 1997, Position paper, fax dcL 18- 02-97, included in: Expert Group 1997, Annex HFC industry comments. PFC emissions from primary aluminium production are related to the "anode effect", forming CF4 and C2F6 (ratio CFVC2F6 approximately 10%). In the past, according to EAA emission factors already decreased from about 2 kg CF4 before 1985 to 0.75 kg CF4 in 1990-1995 (for C2F6 from 0.13 kg to 0.09 kg per tonne aluminium). 231- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU A EAA survey carried out in 1994 found an average emission factor for CF4 in the EU of 0.55 kg/t A1 [EAA 1996]. 4.1.2 Current national or EU policies National aluminium industries in EU countries already reached some emission reduction within the framework of agreements with national governments and own initiatives. 4.1.3 Measures Table 0.2 gives reduction measures in the primary aluminium production. Table 0.2 Reduction measures primary aluminium production Name of measure Reduction Remarks Data source D. Modifications Optimisation oven de 50-90% Measure not pri Ecofys 1997, p.9; sign, process optimisa marily for PFC re EAA 1997 tion duction New electrolytic proc 100% Large-scale appli Ecofys 1997, p.10 ess? cation not before the year 2010 Emission reduction is achieved by optimisation of the oven design and proc ess optimisation. An example of another future option is the introduction of new electrolytic processes with an electricity saving potential of 35% [Novem 1994, p.90]. However, this technology is expected not to be in operation on short term. Therefore, we do not take this second option into account in this study. D. Process modifications Modifications and adjustments of the production process will further reduce the CF4 and CzFg emissions with 50-90%, resulting in an emission factor up to 0.07 kg CFVt A1 for new plants. Based on information from Pechiney [Ecofys 1997], investment cost for process modifications amount to about Dfl. 150000 per oven. Expected emission reduction is 85%, a reduction of the emission factor from 1.2 - 0.2 kg CFVt Al, with an aluminium production per oven of about 0.35 kt (175000 tonnes Al in about 500 ovens). This is equivalent to annual marginal costs of 5.6 ECU/t COz-equivalent. -232 ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the ELI 5. SF6 5.1 INTRODUCTION SF6 (sulphurhexafluorid) is being applied in electrical appliances for about 30 years. It is non-flammable and inert. Its GWP is 23900. Nowadays, SF6 is being used in high and mid-voltage switches, semiconduc tor manufacturing, insulating windows, in tyres and in laboratories. Its use for noise insulating windows and tyres is mainly reported by Germany. Its is un known whether these applications are important in other EU countries. Other potential applications are use of SFe in sport shoes and tennis balls. Besides, SF6 emissions results from magnesium production. 5.2 HIGH (AND MID-)VOLTAGE SWITCHES 5.2.1 Emissions Until 2010 emissions will slightly rise due to an increase in the use of switches. Between 2010 and 2020, the first generation switches containing SF6 will be removed. At least in some countries (The Netherlands, Germany) SF6 from replaced switches is recollected and reused. This generation, installed in the seventies, has an annual leakage percentage of 2%. From 2020, when all first-generation switches containing SF6 have been removed, all new switches that are being installed, have annual leakage of 0.4%. 5.2.2 Current national or EU policies The international norm DEC 694 (by the International Electronical Commis sion) defines maximum leakage standards of 3% for appliances older than 1979 and 1% for other appliances [Novem/Ecofys 1997, p.51]. In Germany, in 1996, the energy companies (VDEW and ZVEI) have obliged themselves to recollection and reuse of SF6 from replaced switches in a "Statement on the use of SF6 in electronic switches in Germany" [Oko- Recherche 1996]. 233 ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF«% in the EU 5.2.3 Measures Table 0.1 Reduction measures SF6 emissions high (and mid-)voltage switches Name of measure Reduction Remarks Data source A. Leakage Reduction of leakage installations Annual reduc Leakage: 2% in Oko-Recherche tion from 2% switches from p. 23. to 0.4% 70's, 0.4- 0.5% in new genera tion switches B. Recycling/reuse Recycling of SFq from discarded 100% Solvay/Dilo in Oko-Recherche switches Germany p. 23. C. Alternatives Use of liquid resin, air or oil in mid 100% No reliable al Novem/Ecofys, voltage switches ternatives for P high voltage switches D. Modifications Improved pumps for handling SFe 5% or 15-20% Novem/Ecofys, during testing and regeneration p.53 Development of more compact Annual reduc already limited Novem/Ecofys, switches tion from 2% quantity of leak p.54 to 0.4% (see age during use also A. of switches Leakages) Emission reduction in this study consist of the following abatement options: A. leakage reduction and modifications B. recycling of SFe from discarded switches A. Leakage and D. Modifications The annual leakage percentage is assumed to decrease from 2% to 0.4%. In this reduction percentage is included the annual emission reduction by use of new switches and the reduction of losses during installation and repair of switches (which is said to be 5% to 15% but will be much lower if calculated on an annual basis). Abatement costs are estimated to be about 1 ECU/tonne CCh-eq. [Holec 1998]. B. Recycling of SF* from discarded switches Recycling of SF6 is done for example in Germany by Solvay (producer of SF6), as part of recycling of own process gasses. Costs of SF6 recycling are estimated to be about 0.04 ECU/tonne COz-eq abated (including testing and transport) [C.N. Smidt 1998]. -234- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EL) 5.3 MAGNESIUM PRODUCTION 5.3.1 Emissions SF6 is being used as insulation gas during melting of magnesium. Other mag nesium production processes use S02 or salt. In Germany for example, about 40% of the magnesium production uses SF6. In Germany, the demand for magnesium is expected to rise (due to increased use in weight reduction of steel components in car manufacturing, e g. 3 1. car; half of the magnesium production in Germany is processed in the car manufacturing). Emission factors per tonne of produced magnesium vary from 0.25 kg (new installations in 1996) to 11 kg. As average emission factor, Norsk Hydro mentioned 4 kg per tonne, other studies give 2.5 as emission factor [Oko- Recherche, p.41]. Despite an ongoing increase of magnesium demand, total SF6 emissions are expected to fall between 1995 and 2005 due to a reduction of the emission factor on the one hand and the transition to using $02 for magnesium production on the other. 5.3.2 Measures Table 0.2 Reduction measures SF6 emissions from magnesium production Name of measure Reduction Remarks Data source C. Alternatives Argon as alternative 100% Cook 1995 p.5 S02 as alternative for SFe during 100% Oko-Recherche magnesium production 1996 D. Modifications Reduction of emission factor during 90% from 2.5 to 0.25 Oko-Recherche magnesium production kg per tonne 1996 Magnesium pro duced, a reduc tion of 90%. A. Leakage Reduction of emission factor during production: from 2.5 to 0.25 kg per tonne magnesium produced, a reduction of 90%. C. Alternatives $02 or argon as alternative. No information was available on additional cost. -235- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF„ in the EU 5.4 OTHER APPLICATIONS 5.4.1 Emissions Although the use of SFe in the electricity sector is an important emission source in all countries, in some countries other applications are also impor tant. For example at least in Germany SF6 is applied in tyres and in noise in sulation glass. Noise-isolating windows SF6 emissions from use in insulation windows take place in three ways: dur ing filling (50% of its content), leakage during life time (1% per year) and emissions due to discard (100% of the 75% of emissions that remain at the end of its life time) [Oko-Recherche 1996]. Until 1995, the use of isolating windows in new houses in Germany in creased. From 2000, isolation windows, which life time lies between 20-30 years, will be replaced, causing an increase in SF6 emissions related to discard if no recollection and recycling measures are taken. In The Netherlands, use is limited to extreme cases of noise isolation, e g. around Schiphol (Amsterdam airport). However, due to increasing noise hin drance and related regulation, use is increasing. Car tyres In Germany SFe is used for stabilisation purposes in the more expensive care types. After SF6 in windows, it is the second largest SF6 emission source in Germany. Use doubled between 1987 and 1995. Use is assumed to halve between 1995 and 2000 and then stabilize [Oko- Recherche 1996]. With an average life time of 3 years, this means that emis sions will decrease in the period 1998-2003. Semiconductor manufacturing Compared to the other SF6 emission sources, SF6 emissions from the semi conductor manufacturing are very small and will further decrease due to sys tems for recollecting flue gasses during the production process. Other applications Although not verified in all cases, other applications are for example: electron microscopes, rontgen test materials and appliances, tracer gas, aeroplane ra dars, aluminium cleaning and sport shoes. -236- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the ELI 5.4.2 Measures Table 0.3 Reduction measures SF6 emissions from other applications Name of measure Reduction Remarks Data source B. Recycling/reuse Recollection and recycling system 100% Currently such Glaverned 1998 for discarded tyres systems do not exist. Recollection and recycling system 100% of Oko-Recherche of discarded windows the 75% of 1996 emissions that re main at the end of its life time Recycling of SF6 from discarded ? e g. development Novem/Ecofys products by Solvay of re 1997, p.54 cycling system for SFe in insula tion glass Recollection of flue gasses during 100% semiconductor manufacturing C. Alternatives Moulding resin as alternative in in 100% Some producers Oko-Recherche sulating windows in Germany al p. 33 ready turned to the use of moulding resin in asymmetric glass constructions. D. Modifications E. Miscellaneous No use of SFe in tyres 100% no costs (cost Oko-Recherche reduction of 80- p. 34 120 DM per set) Stop use SFe for non-essential ap ? p.54 plications (car tyres, sport shoes, etc.) Emission reduction for these other applications of SF6 consist of the follow ing abatement options: A. Leakage B. Recycling C. Alternatives D. Modifications A. Leakage Windows During filling of the glass, 50% is emitted. Emission reduction is technically an option, but - despite the high price of SF6 - too costly due to small scale use (at least in The Netherlands) of SFg in noise isolation glass. -237- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF* in the EU No measures concerning SF6 leakage from windows during life time (1% per year) are currently applied or intended as cost are estimated to exceed Dfl. 50/kg [Glavemed 1998]. B Recycling Windows In Germany, no recycling system exists. Glass including SF6 is being used in The Netherlands for the past 20 years and therefore there is no need for recy cling on a large scale yet. However, N.C. Smidt (Solvay) is developing a re cycling concept for SF6 in switches [C.N. Smidt 1998; Novem/Ecofys 1997, p.82] which might also apply to SF6 in windows. Measure in database: recollection and recycling system of discarded windows (100% of the 75% of emissions that remain at the end of its life time). C. Alternatives Windows Alternative with similar noise insulating properties is krypton. Disadvantage of krypton is its slightly radioactive property. In some states in Germany its use is forbidden [Glavemed 1998] Tyres Measure: refrain from application of SFg in tyres. Cost: none (additional cost ofSFs addition to tyres 80-120 DM). D Modifications Windows Another options for noise isolation is modification of the frame, for example by use of moulding resin [Glavemed 1998]. Some producers in Germany al ready turned to the use of moulding resin in asymmetric glass constructions, increasing costs by 30-40% [Oko-Recherche 1996, p. 33]. Semiconductor industry Emissions can be reduced to zero when applying recollection of flue gasses during production. For all abatement options mentioned above, it is assumed that abatement costs will be in the cost range of 0 - 100 ECU/tonne COi-eq abated [No vem/Ecofys 1997, p.54]. 238 ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU 6. EU EMISSION REDUCTION POTENTIALS AND ABATEMENT COST This chapter gives an overview of all abatement options (categories) with their marginal cost and maximum total reduction potentials within EU-15 for 100% implementation. These reduction potentials are based on the emission data set (business as usual scenario) presented in Table 0.1 below. Note that the emission data in this table give a preliminary breakdown based on a number of assumptions. Further improvement of these estimates is neces sary. Table 0.1 Preliminary emission data set for cost calculations, emission projections and breakdown EU-15 in 2010, Ml C02-equivalents (business as usual) Total halogenated gases^ 2010: 82 Mt HFCs2) PFCs SF6 2010:65 Mt 2010: 5 Mt 2010:12 Mt HCFC-22 production Aluminium production Electricity distribution 2010:10 Mt 2010: 5 Mt 2010:6 Mt Refrigeration Other Other4* 2010:25 Mt 2010: pm 2010: 6 Mt of which:3* Industrial: 1 Mt Commercial: 11 Mt Transport: 3 Mt Stationary airco: 1 Mt Mobile airco: 8 Mt Households: 0.2 Mt Foam 2010:25 Mt5) Other 2010: 5 Mt6) 1) Source: Expert Group 1998a. First country comments included (Expert Group 1998b). 2) Conservative (low) estimate of MFC emissions per emission source deducted from the emission ranges in table 2.1, par. 2.2. 3) Own preliminary estimation of distribution emissions refrigeration, based on emis sion rates per application and estimations of numbers of installations. 4) Assumption: of which 3 Mt related to noise isolating windows. 5) Emissions might be lower as it could be argued that emissions from the foam bank might not yet have reached this level in the year 2010. 6) This should be considered as a minimum figure. -239- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF* in the EU Table 0.2 presents emission reduction and cost data for each abatement op tion separately. It gives the maximum reduction, regardless of reduction al ready assumed in the scenario's for some countries for some options, and re gardless of interactions between alternative measures (e g. leakage reduction and alternative refrigerants). Therefore, marginal cost might be higher in some cases. In some sectors/countries measures have already been taken (mostly as own initiative of these sectors and/or with subsidies from governments). This is the case for (at least in some countries): - HCFC-22 production (HFC-23) - Aluminium production (PFC) - Electricity sector (SF6) Partly these reductions have already been incorporated in the emission figures reported by the individual countries. No data on abatement options and cost are available for the following emis sion sources: - HFC emissions during handling (production and packaging ofHFCs) - magnesium production - fire extinguishing Note that Table 0.2 gives typical figures but that in fact wider ranges are pos sible depending on size of equipment and local circumstances. The effects on energy cost and energy-related COz-emissions are not in cluded in the figures in this table. 240 5 b| 4) 150 170*) >100 iio* 200 1000 -eq.) 2 C0 100 51 51 31 - TO TO 50 50 (ECU/t cost * * 31 9 d 25 ? ? 16 23P 0.40 0-50 0-100"* Marginal <0 - 2 EU- C0 1 3 1 8 5 9 ? 11 25 8.8 9.9 0.2 2.4 0.67 (Mt 15 potential Maximum reduction eq.) in EU -eq.) 2 1 1 1 1 3 8 5 3 11 the 10 11 11 25 25 0.2 5 C0 in Estimated EU-1 2010 (Mt emissions SF« and ? options PFCs 90% 80% 80% 90% 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Marginal reduction emission MFCs. of abatement * 1 emissions potentials potentials reduction reduction reduction modifications optimisations modifications the of Recollection'* Process Process Process Leakage Alternatives Incineration Leakage Alternatives Leakage Process Alternatives Recycling Alternatives Alternatives Measure Alternatives reduction and Reduction cost general refrigeration refrigeration airco refrigeration production Marginal other refrigeration airco 0.2 Foam Stationary Household Mobile Solvents, Industrial Transport Commercial MFC HCFC-22 Refrigeration ECOFYS Source Table 241 100 > -eq.) 2 C0 -100 50 (ECU/t (ECU/t cost 1 ? 0 ? 2 5.6 0.04 0.04 0-100 0-50 Marginal <0 - 2 EU- C0 3 6 1.5 5.4 4.3 2.3 (Mt 15 reduction reduction Maximum potential eq.) in EU -eq.) 2 5 6 3 3 6 3 the pm pm pm C0 in Estimated EU-15 2010 (Mt emissions SF« and PFCs PFCs 90% 85% 90% 50% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% Marginal reduction emission MFCs. of alterna process mod. reduction emissions emissions red., reduction modifications modifications the process process of Leakage modifications Measure Process Recycling Leakage Process optimisations Leakage Recycling pm Alternatives, Alternatives tives, Reduction voltage * industry industry lU mid) production production: uses (and substances e ECOFYS High RFC Magnesium Semiconductor Semiconductor Semiconductor SF Source switches Aluminium Other/new Tyres Windows All 242 ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU Notes: 1) Another option that has been mentioned is recycling of HFC-23. How ever, as the market for HFC-23 is limited, this option may economically not be attractive [Du Pont 1998]. 2) Cost of recycling used refrigerants given by industry vary between 1.6 to 2.7 ECU/t C02-eq. [Hotar 1998; Gasco 1998]. 3) As at this moment only data are available concerning leakage reduction and switch to other refrigerants for refrigeration systems of about 100 kW, for large industrial systems absolute (investment) costs have been multiplied by factor 4 compared to the 100 kW system (working hypothe sis). However, cost per tonne C02-eq. for industrial refrigeration are lower due to larger absolute emission reduction. Process modifications (compact and indirect systems) are expected to be especially adequate abatement options for larger industrial installations with cost expected to be in the range of 0 - 20 ECU/t C02-eq. However, specific cost data are not available yet. 4) As installations for commercial refrigeration diverge from small to large, these cost indications per tonne C02-eq. may also vary for different sizes of installations. At this moment only cost data are available for installa tions of 100 kW (investments of about 2500 ECU for leakage reduction and 5000 ECU for retrofit to ammonia). For this moment it has been as sumed that additional investment cost of compact installations lie in the same range (2500 ECU). 5) For transport refrigeration the same cost have been assumed as for com mercial refrigeration. However, due to higher initial leakage percentages, resulting cost per tonne C02-eq are lower. 6) For retrofit of stationary airco to ammonia the same cost have been as sumed as for commercial refrigeration. However, due to very low initial leakage percentages, cost per tonne C02-eq are substantially higher. 7) It has been assumed that all new domestic refrigerators already use pro pane/butane as refrigerants, with eventual cost shifted on to the consumer. Regarding existing refrigerants containing H(C)FC's, cost of recollection and sound processing of discarded refrigerators, cost have been assumed to be about 20 ECU per refrigerator (average charge in refrigerators 0.1 kg, and GWP for HFC-134a is 1300). 8 ) Cost of application of closed systems will be in the range 0-100 ECU/ t C02-eq. [Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p.48]. Here: assumption 50 ECU/ t C02- eq. Concerning other applications ofHFCs (solvents etc ), cost indications amount to 8-12 ECU/t C02-eq. [Novem/Ecofys 1997b, p.48] 9) Alternative blowing agents such as hydrocarbons and C02 may rise prod uct cost by increasing thickness of the material in order to compensate for the loss in energy efficiency. Regarding alternative products, there are various - proven - alternative insulation products. Some of them are more costly, others are as expensive as foams, or even less expensive if energy savings are reckoned with [Ecofys 1996, p.46]. Assumption: cost lOECU/t C02-eq. 10) This category includes other uses of SF&, aerosols etc. Applications are partly 'necessary", such as asthma sprays for which no reduction options are available, partly 'non-necessary', for which for example bans on further -243- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU development could be imposed. If no investments have been made yet, this can be considered as a zero-cost 'measure'. In Table 0.3, total abatement cost for the EU-15 are summarised. Two vari ants have been indicated: i) maximum use of alternatives and ii) maximum leakage reduction. Where results for those variants differ - and that is mainly the case within refrigeration - cost and emission reduction of both variants have been indicated (i/ii). Table 0.3 shows that maximum substitution of HFCs by alternatives results in higher reduction and lower cost than in case of maximum leakage control. If measures above 100 ECU/tonne COi-eq. are excluded (for commercial re frigeration and stationary airco), total abatement cost will be 1000/3400 min ECU and emission reduction 62/58 Mt COz-eq. Table 0.3 Summary of total abatement cost estimate for 2010, EU-15 Cost (min ECU) Reduction (Mt) MFC 4190/5496 63/48 RFC 24 4 sf6 8 7 Total 4222/5528 74/69 The abatement cost estimates presented in Table 0.3 result from a first exer cise and a rough indication of the extent of the EU-wide abatement cost. -244- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU 7. BARRIERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION This chapter gives a first inventory of the barriers for implementing the iden tified emission reduction options limitations mentioned in this report. Table 0.1 summarises some of the most important emission reduction options (column 1-3), indicates potential barriers that may prevent this introduction (column 4) and suggests in which ways these barriers can be reduced by the government, on a national level or EU-wide (column 5). The indication of the policy options for a certain technical abatement option is related to the oc- curing barriers for development or implementation of those options. For ex ample, the implementation of certification systems - to guarantee optimal maintenance in order to reduce leakages from refrigeration - can be encour aged by (national) regulation. -245- new with finance to recycling MFC concerning and agreements agreements agreements (national) new system options on Negotiated Negotiated Refund Negotiated producers/intermediaries Regulation products recollection Regulation; Regulation Tax Policy all al EU us trans all on not control regula HFC23 product and certifica in recycling recycling produced are country. of substances, Recollection and new and place current or recycled imposed recycled in to same users producers with for data be trans-national systems are the due goods price of and in to no collection certification between states control has demand compete difficult of certain located to concerning of and are producers Barrier Institutional. member Costs/market: has MFCs Market: system Confidentiality Costs system systems ers port Institutional/Juridical: tion countries Juridical: as ways tion re re be (cf. be sol rec recy to of of of plants; plants; plants; handling handling and EU HFC23 users systems users leakage systems system the Netherlands). a recycling in recycling from and and installations of The of of SF« of recollected prevent emissions refrigerators in measure/instrument 6 of recollection recollection of and refrigerants. SF leakage RLK producers and producers of and PFCs Maintenance Implementation Description STEK, duce switches Development Development SFe Recycling ollection cling creating creating tween vents tween frigerants PFCs MFCs. re of (MFC) industry industry MFCs, (HFC23) of commercial emissions (MFC) refrigeration (MFCs) the and sector reduction of the Industrial Sector/application Semiconductor Electricity Household Refrigeration (PFC/SFe) Semiconductor (PFC/SFe) HCFC-22-production frigeration Reduction concerning Barriers 0.1 Leakage prevention/reduction Recycling/reuse Option ECOFYS Table 246 of of cer use, use associ alterna for emissions of on techniques Information Information Information energy selection technological fluorocarbons use of of of (ban GHG agreements agreements emissions fossil case both refrigerants to by with funding refrigeration GHG applications) reduce Regulation Negotiated R&D related Regulation Regulation Negotiated best stimulation dissemination. Stimulation dissemination Subsidies Stimulation development Case and ated certain to tain tives. to on on not the op lack may from stan other is enter plants devel by have refriger applica economi good end) for equipment client; SFe small all be include the HFC23 refrigerants further the information recycling existing information in to to at good at for be of used investments. alternatives of of becomes regulations alternative to natural all it order Not technology (besides, Lack of mainly Lack therefore in : has costly systems Safety show that considered use atmosphere is : additional and to qualitatively adaptation company so on the recollection are feasible. adapted time small Technology: processes Technology: Cost; requires prises install oped cally Cost: be Institutional Institutional alternatives, is enter switches dards of cost-effective ants Juridical alternative tions/situations tions for the from emis plants g. existing existing e factors). introduc SFe EU alternative alternative new of of of of and process the that in of use use reuse emission processes, SF« low and and and adaptation switches and other development reduction have process. (assuming by of PFCs Further Introduction Further plants already sions AlCOa Introduction refrigerants. solvents tion Recollection discarded MFCs. of voltage production mid) emissions the aluminium (SFe) (and of Primary Solvents High Refrigeration switches Reduction modifica Process tions Alternatives ECOFYS 247 ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFg in the EU Miscellaneous Incineration HFC emis HCFC-22-production Full incineration of flue gasses Cost of incineration Regulation sions Negotiated agreements Subsidies 'Non-necessary' use of production of tyres, sport Preventing development and fur Definition of 'necessary Regulation (eg. ban on RFC, SF6 shoes, tennis balls etc. ther introduction of products using 'non-necessary' products) SFe for non-nescessary applica tions ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFb in the EU 8. FIRST CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Main emission sources Process emissions are responsible for large part of emissions in countries lo cating these production processes: HFC23 emissions during HCFC-22 pro duction, PFC emissions from primary aluminium production, SF6 emissions from magnesium production. In the future, other emission sources become relatively more important, due to achieved emission reduction in those production processes, and an in creasing demand for certain applications (c.f. stationary and mobile airco, specific applications for SF6). Cost and emission reduction A first rough estimate of total abatement cost and emission reduction for the EU-15 in 2010 shows that with maximum application of abatement measures mentioned in this report a emission reduction of about 85% of total emissions in EU 15 for these three gases together can be reached for about 5000 min ECU. Considering the measures included in this report, HFC reduction accounts for 85% of emission reduction and 99% of abatement cost. Also relative cost are largest for HFC emission reduction, with average abatement cost of 60-90 ECU/t COz-eq. (or 20 ECU/t CC>2-eq. when meas ures > 100 ECU/ t COz-eq are excluded). For PFC and SFe average abate ment cost are about 1-6 ECU/t COz-eq. Conclusions It should be noted that these results have a preliminary character and that further elaboration is necessary. However some conclusions may be drawn at this stage: There is a substantial potential for reducing emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SFg. There are a number of low-cost options, including emission reduction at HCFC-22 manufacturing (HFC-23 incineration) and at primary alu minium production (process modifications) and leakage reduction and recycling of SF6. Recommendations Further development of the emission data set and check of by national ex perts of emissions per application is needed. Differences in data and method ologies between countries should be identified. Furthermore, more data on measures and cost are needed to complete and check the information cur rently available. A workshop with main stake holders and experts may accel erate the information gathering (and reviewing) process. This report can be considered as a basis for further elaboration in the direc tions mentioned above. With a more detailed and consistent emission data set for EU-15 countries and with further completed and differentiated cost data, these first rough cost estimates can be refined. -249- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF* in the EU 9. REFERENCES Literature A-Gas 1997, Comments, included in "EU Common and coordinated policies and measures: Annex HFC industry comments", Expert Group, edited by G.J.M. Phylipsen, K. Blok, H Merkus, 1997. BRUFMA 1997, Comments, included in "EU Common and coordinated policies and measures: Annex HFC industry comments", Expert Group, ed ited by G.J.M. Phylipsen, K. Blok, H. Merkus, 1997. Cook, E, 1995, Lifetime comments: why climate policy-makers can't afford to overlook fully fluorinated compounds, in "Issues and Ideas", World Re sources Institute, Washington, Febr. 1995. Cristal Globe 1997, HFK uit schuimen (HFC in foams), ing. B. Veenendaal, Kesteren, juni/juli 1997. EAA 1996, Position paper, included in "EU Common and coordinated poli cies and measures: Annex HFC industry comments", Expert Group, edited by G.J.M. Phylipsen, K. Blok, H. Merkus, 1997. Ecofys 1996, Lange-termijn opties voor emissie-reductie van broeikasgassen (Long term options for emission reduction of greenhouse gases), drs. M. van Brummelen, ir. A. Struker, drs. D. de Jager and Dr. K. Blok, Utrecht, March 1996. Ecofys 1997, Emissiebeperkende maatregelen voor de industrie (Emission reducing measures for the industry), ir. A. Struker, Utrecht, June 1997. Elf Atochem 1996/1997, Comments, included in "EU Common and coordi nated policies and measures: Annex HFC industry comments", Expert Group, edited by G.J.M. Phylipsen, K. Blok, H. Merkus, 1997. EPF A 1996, Comments, included in "EU Common and coordinated policies and measures: Annex HFC industry comments", Expert Group, edited by G.J.M. Phylipsen, K. Blok, H. Merkus, 1997. Expert Group 1997, EU Common and co-ordinated policies and measures: Annex HFC industry comments, edited by G.J.M. Phylipsen, K. Blok, H. Merkus, 1997. Expert Group 1998a, Community target - adjustments for extra gases and sinks resulting from Kyoto Protocol, fax 19-2-98. -250- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SF« in the EU Expert Group 1998b, Comments to the letter "Burden sharing: data on greenhouse gas emissions and removal by sinks" of 19 January 1998. Hotar, 1998, information on CFC/HCFC and FC/HFC recycling, purification and drying units, Vienna, April 1998. ICI 1997, Comments, included in "EU Common and co-ordinated policies and measures: Annex HFC industry comments", Expert Group, edited by G.J.M. Phylipsen, K. Blok, H. Merkus, 1997. March Consulting Group 1998, “Opportunities to minimise emissions of hy drofluorocarbons (HFCs) from the European Union. Final report. ”, Sep tember 1998. Novem 1994, Long term Industrial energy efficiency improvement: Tech nology descriptions, NW&S report nr. 94076, R. Smit, J. de Beer, E. Wor rell, K. Blok, Utrecht, Oct. 1994. Novem/Ecofys 1997a, Verslag workshop \Het broeikaseffect en het gebruik van H(C)FK's, PFK's en SF& 10 juli 1997, Bilthoven, H. van der Steen, J. Hoekstra (Novem), M. van Brummelen (Ecofys), July 1997. Novem/Ecofys 1997b, Het broeikaseffect en het gebruik van HFK’s, PFK's en SF6 - een studie naar het gebruik, de emissie,reductiemogelijkheden en altematieven, J.J.D. van der Steen (Novem), M. van Brummelen (Ecofys), Utrecht, Sept. 1997. Oko-Recherche 1996, Aktuelle und kunftige Emissionen treibhauswirksamer fluorierter Verbindungen in Deutschland, Dr. W. Schwarz, dr. A. Leisewitz, Frankfurt/Main, Dec. 1996. Olivier 1998, EDGAR VO, Preliminary data, January 1998. Prospect 1997, Alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, draft report, Brussels, August 1997. RTVM 1995, Fluorocarbons and SF& Global emission inventory and options for control , report nr. 773001007, C. Kroeze, Bilthoven, Febr. 1995. RTVM 1996, Emissies van HFK's, PFK's, FIK's en SF6 in Nederland in 1990, 1994, 2000, 2005, 2010 en 2020, report nr. 773001008, A.J.C.M. Matthijsen, C. Kroeze, Bilthoven, April 1996. RTVM 1997, Greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands 1990-1996: Up dated methodology , report nr. 728001008, J. Spakman, J.G.J. Olivier, M.M.J. van Loon, Bilthoven, Dec. 1997. -251- ECOFYS Reduction of the emissions of MFCs. PFCs and SFr in the EU Solvay 1997, Comments, included in "EU Common and coordinated policies and measures: Annex HFC industry comments", Expert Group, edited by G.J.M. Phylipsen, K. Blok, H. Merkus, 1997. Staatscourant 1994, Regeling lekdichtheidsvoorschriften koelinstallaties 1994, nr. 243, 16-12-94, p. 12-16, Dec. 1994. Persons contacted Air Liquide, Erich, 10-03-98 C.N. Schmidt bv, Rigter, 08-03-98 DuPont, H. Benjamins, 10-03-98 EU, DGXI, M. Raquet, 3-03-98 Gasco, A. Bos, 10-03-98 Glavemed, Bouwmans/Mr. De Jong, 11-03-98 Elin Holec, Wouda, 08-03-98 NVKL, ing. Hoogkamer, 17-03-98 RIVM, J. Olivier, 25-03-98, 31-03-98 Transsolar, K. Schimmel, 10-03-98 Verac, H. de Soete, 24-03-98 -252- FAX 03 (5391) 1744