Login | Forgot password | Register

X

What is OpenID?

OpenID is an Internet-wide identity system that allows you to sign in to many websites with a single account.

With OpenID, your ID becomes a URL (e.g. http://username.myopenid.com/). You can get a free OpenID for example from myopenid.com.

For more information visit the official OpenID site.

20 Posts in 11 Topics by 11 members

Jump to:

General questions and discussion

If this is your first visit, you can browse all messages below without needing to register.

Before posting on this forum, you will need to register. You will then receive an e-mail to confirm that your account has been activated.

Forum » General questions and discussion » PM emissions from quarries

Page: 1 Go to End
Author Topic: PM emissions from quarries 3131 Views
  • Carlo
    avatar
    Community Member
    9 posts

    PM emissions from quarries Link to this post

    I open this discussion after the email from Julien Vincent (CITEPA, FR).
    .
    Julien Vincent (CITEPA, FR) writes:
    .
    My colleague Julien JABOT is responsible from sectors emitting PM. He is currently working on PM emissions from quarries as the default French EF we use has not been updated for a long time now. Comparing to the EE4
    A/EMEP GB EF, we overestimate PM emissions from this sector.
    EEA/EMEP GB provides the following default emission factors (page 2A7a):
    * TSP : 0.07 g/Mg mineral
    * PM10:0.04 g/Mg mineral
    * PM2.5: 0.004 g/Mg mineral
    We wanted to use these emission factors, to be consistent with the last version of the GB. However, we would need more information to justify this choice.
    1. Do you have more details about the source of these emission factors? Do you know if the document cited in reference is available and where we can find it? The reference is:
    Visschedijk A.J.H., Pacyna J., Pulles T., Zandveld P. and Denier van der Gon H. (2004), Coordinated European Particulate Matter Emission Inventory Program (CEPMEIP), in: P. Dilara et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the PM emission inventories scientific workshop, Lago Maggiore, Italy, 18 October 2004, EUR 21302 EN, JRC, pp 163-174.
    2. Another question we have concerns the resuspension of particles. How does it have to be taken into account for this sector? We assume that it has a big influence on EF considered. This question can be extended to the perimeter to be considered (i.e. emissions from NRMM and trucks on tracks, etc.)
    3. Finally, would you have or know EF according to the type of mineral extracted or to the type of abatement technique applied?
    .
    Kuenen, J.J.P (Jeroen) emailed the following answer:
    .
    Regarding the CEPMEIP reference you may find more information on http://www.tno.nl/downloads/CEPMEIP.pdf.
    There is a study undertaken by TNO some years ago (before I was working there, so I can't give you the details personally) to look into PM2.5 especially for inclusion in the Guidebook. The link above provides some more background, although I believe there is (unfortunately) no official report or publication from this study.
    Given that this is a rather broad category, obviously there can be a lot of variation in the emission factors between the different emission sources included in this source category. In the Guidebook we have tried to take a value from this study which is more or less representative as an average. The information is available in some more detail in the link I provided - see the Annex where EFs are given for TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 for 4 typical technologies representing the typical range in Europe (from low to high control technologies).
    .
    For the resuspension issue, at the moment this is not taken into account in the reporting requirements nor is it taken into account in the Guidebook. I think that several studies will have more information on this, but I don't have this available.
    .
    I hope this helps you - if you need more information please let me know and I can ask the authors of that study.
    .
    Carlo Trozzi emailed the following answer:
    .
    I have a lot of experience on that and I think the better methodologies was the US EPA AP42 ones. The problem is very complicated as you have:
    1) emissions from explosives use
    2) emissions from crushing
    3) emissions from handling of materials and piles
    4) emissions from wind erosion
    .
    You have the following chapters:
    * 13.3 Explosives Detonation (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s03.pdf)
    => useful for evaluate the emissions from use of explosives
    * 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s09.pdf)
    => useful for evaluate the emissions from coal mining
    * 11.19.2 Crushed Stone Processing and Pulverized Mineral Processing (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s1902.pdf)
    => useful for evaluate the emissions from crushing of stone
    * 13.2.4 Aggregate Handling And Storage Piles (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s0204.pdf)
    => useful for evaluate the emissions from handling of crushed material
    * 13.2.5 Industrial Wind Erosion (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s0205.pdf)
    => useful for evaluate the emissions from wind erosion of piles
    .
    Julien Vincent (CITEPA, FR) finally asks:
    .
    To open a discussion to know if other countries have work on this subject and if they have any feedback on the subject.

    3131 Views
Go to Top

Currently Online: There is nobody online.

Welcome to our latest member: TonykVor