1.A.1 Energy Industries 2019

Category Title
NFR 1.A.1 Energy industries
SNAP 01 Combustion in energy and transformation industries
ISIC
Version Guidebook 2019
Coordinator
Carlo Trozzi
Contributing authors (including to earlier versions of this chapter)

Ole-Kenneth Nielsen, Marlene Plejdrup, Otto Rentz, Dagmar Oertel, Mike Woodfield and Robert
Stewart
EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 1

1.A.1 Energy industries
Contents
1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 3
2 Description of sources .................................................................................... 4
2.1 1.A.1.a Public electricity and heat production .......................................................................... 4
2.2 1.A.1.b Petroleum refining .......................................................................................................... 5
2.3 1.A.1.c Manufacture of solid fuel and other energy industries .............................................. 6
3 1.A.1.a Public electricity and heat production ............................................ 7
3.1 Techniques .................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Emissions ...................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Controls .......................................................................................................................................11
3.4 Methods ......................................................................................................................................12
4 1.A.1.b Petroleum refining ........................................................................... 38
4.1 Techniques ..................................................................................................................................38
4.2 Emissions ....................................................................................................................................38
4.3 Controls .......................................................................................................................................40
4.4 Methods ......................................................................................................................................40
5 1.A.1.c Manufacture of solid fuels and other energy industries ............. 53
5.1 Techniques ..................................................................................................................................53
5.2 Emissions ....................................................................................................................................53
5.3 Controls .......................................................................................................................................53
5.4 Methods ......................................................................................................................................54
6 Data quality ................................................................................................... 60
6.1 Completeness .............................................................................................................................60
6.2 Avoiding double counting with other sectors .........................................................................60
6.3 Verification ..................................................................................................................................60
6.4 Developing a consistent time series and recalculation .........................................................63
6.5 Uncertainty assessment ............................................................................................................63
6.6 Inventory quality assurance/quality control QA/QC ..............................................................64
6.7 Mapping ......................................................................................................................................64
6.8 Reporting and documentation .................................................................................................64
7 Glossary .......................................................................................................... 65
8 References ..................................................................................................... 66
9 Point of enquiry............................................................................................. 69
Annex A Summary of combustion plant and NFR codes........................... 70
Annex B Further details on emissions and controls.................................. 72
Annex C Sulphur content in fuels ................................................................ 80
Annex D Emission factors derived from emission limit values ................ 81
Annex E Calculation of emission factors from concentrations ................... 85
Annex F Emission factors from older versions of the Guidebook............... 91

1 Overview
This chapter describes the methods and data needed to estimate emissions from NFR Sector 1.A.1
Energy industries. The activity covers combustion and conversion of fuels to produce energy, for
example electricity or heat from point sources:
 1.A.1.a — Public electricity and heat production

 1.A.1.b — Petroleum refining
 1.A.1.c — Manufacture of solid fuels
The information provided in this chapter is also appropriate for assessing stationary combustion
emissions within other NFR categories (for example industrial combustion — 1.A.2). Smaller scale
combustion (generally < 50 MWth) is considered in Chapter 1.A.4.
Emissions arising from storage and transport of fuels, combustion residues, abatement feedstock
and abatement residues are not included; these are in the fugitive emission NFR code 1.B. Guidance
for estimating emissions from waste combustion processes is not included here (see the separate
chapters concerning waste combustion — 6.C.a, 6.C.b, 6.C.c, and 6.C.e). However, if there is heat
recovery or power generation in the incineration process, the emission should be reported under
the appropriate 1.A.1 activity.
The range of activities relevant to Chapter 1.A is summarised in Section 2 below, information on
sectors which include combustion activities is provided in Appendix A.
The most important pollutants emitted to the atmosphere from the activities are summarised in
Table 1-1.
Table 1-1 Pollutants with potential for 1.A.1 combustion activities to be a key category
Source releases Substance

Activity
PM (Total suspended particulates
cadmium) and their compounds

Metals (excluding mercury and
Volatile organic compounds
Hydrogen chloride, fluoride
Mercury, Cadmium
Hydrogen sulphide
Oxides of nitrogen
Dioxins, PCB, HCB

Oxides of sulphur
Oxides of carbon
Black Carbon
Ammonia
(TSP))
PM2.5
PM10
PAH
Boilers and X X X X X X X X X X X X X
furnaces
Gas turbine X X X X X X X X
CI engine X X X X X X X X X X X
Refinery X X X X X X X X X X X X X
activities
Coke ovens X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

2 Description of sources
2.1 1.A.1.a Public electricity and heat production
This activity covers emissions from combustion plant as point sources. In general, this activity
addresses emission from larger combustion appliance (> 50 MWth). Within the European Union,
different criteria are applied for the reporting of emissions from combustion plants according to the
Industrial Emissions Directive - IED - 2010/75/EC) [EC-IED, 2010].
The emissions considered in this activity are released by a controlled combustion process (boiler
emissions, furnace emissions, emissions from gas turbines or stationary engines) and are mainly
characterised by the types of fuels used. Furthermore, a characterisation of the combustion sources
may be developed according to the size and type of plants as well as from primary or secondary
reduction measures. For example, solid, liquid or gaseous fuels are used and there are a range of
emission abatement measures (for example PM, SO2 and NOx control).
Emissions from autoproducers (public or private undertakings that generate electricity/heat wholly
or partly for their own use, as an activity that supports their primary activity) should be assigned to
the sector where they were generated and not under 1.A.1.a.
With the complexity of plant activities and inter-relationships, there may not always be a clear
separation between autoproducers and main activity producers. The most important issue is that all
facilities be accounted under the most appropriate category and in a complete and consistent
manner. For more information on autoproducers, please refer to IPCC 2006 Guidelines [IPCC, 2006]:
www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm .
A number of process schemes can be applied for the activities depending on the specific application,
typical process schemes are provided in Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3.
Figure 2-1 Process scheme for heat plant, adapted from IPCC Figure 2.2 in the energy
industries chapter
Fugitive
Emissions
Chapter 1.B.1
NMVOC, PM10
Fuel Combustion Heat

Figure 2-2 Process scheme for power plant, adapted from IPCC Figure 2.2 in the energy
industries chapter
Fugitive
Emissions
Chapter 1.B.1
NMVOC, PM10
Fuel Combustion Generator Electricity
Figure 2-3 Process scheme for combined power and heat plant, adapted from IPCC
Figure 2.2 in the energy industries chapter
Fugitive
Emissions
Chapter 1.B.1
NMVOC, PM10
Heat
Fuel Combustion Generator

Electricity
2.2 1.A.1.b Petroleum refining

This activity covers emissions released from production and combustion processes within a refinery.
Combustion processes include the heating of crude and petroleum products without contact
between flame and products. Combustion activities are generally similar to the activities described
in 1.A.1.a, but include fuels such as refinery gas. Production processes such as thermal cracking and
catalyst regenerator units as well as venting, flaring and fugitive emissions are covered in Chapters
relating to 1.B.2.

Figure 2-4 Process scheme for petroleum refinery, adapted from IPCC Figure 2.3 in the
energy industries chapter
Fugitive and
Process
Emissions
Chapter 1.B.2
Crude Oil Process Product
2.3 1.A.1.c Manufacture of solid fuel and other energy industries

Note that extraction of coal and initial treatment is covered in Chapter 1.B. Under 1.A.1.c the activity
covers coke production and emissions associated with combustion in the coke oven. Fugitive
emissions from (for example) extinction (quenching) and door leakage is covered in Chapter 1.B.
Most coke production is associated with iron and steel production.
Figure 2-5 Process scheme for coke ovens, adapted from IPCC Figure 2.3 in the energy
industries chapter
Fugitive and
Extinction
Emissions
Chapter 1.B.1 PAH,
NMVOC, PM, H2S,
NH3
Coal Process Product

3 1.A.1.a Public electricity and heat

production
3.1 Techniques
Details of technologies used in this activity for combustion of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels can be
found within the Best Available Techniques Reference Note (BREF) for energy installations [European
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (EIPPCB), 2015 ] and the US Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) emission factor handbook (USEPA, AP-42). In general, the size of an
installation under this NFR category will exceed 50 MWth; guidance on estimating emissions from
smaller appliances can be found within Chapter 1.A.4.
Some general details on technologies are provided here but despite the comparatively small number
of installations, there is a wide range of fuel types, combustion technologies and abatement
technologies in use.
3.1.1 Combustion of coal and other solid mineral fuels
Coal is largely burnt as a pulverised fuel with corner (tangential), wall or downfired furnaces. The dry
bottom boiler (DBB) has typical combustion temperatures of 900 up to 1 200 °C leading to dry ash
discharge from the combustion chamber due to combustion temperatures from. This type of boiler
is mainly used for the combustion of hard coal and brown coal/lignite and is applied all over Europe.
The wet bottom boiler (WBB) has typical combustion temperatures exceeding 1 400 °C which leads
to a liquid slag discharge from the combustion chamber. This type of boiler is used for hard coal with
a low content of volatiles and is mainly applied in Germany.
In fluidised bed combustion (FBC), the combustion of fuel takes place by injection of combustion air
through the bottom of the boiler into a turbulent bed. The typical relatively low emissions are
achieved by air staging, limestone addition and low combustion temperatures of about 750–950 °C.
FBC is in particular adapted to coals rich in ash. Only few large combustion plants are equipped with
the FBC technique; in the category of thermal capacities  300 MW mostly circulating fluidised bed
combustion (CFBC) is installed. Other types of furnace include grate firing (GF) technologies, but
these tend to be comparatively small units.
3.1.2 Combustion of biomass
The combustion of biomass (straw, wood, landfill gas, etc.) is increasingly relevant for countries to
meet the drive for renewable or sustainable energy sources. Co-firing is undertaken with other fuels
in many types of combustion plant, but plants burning only biomass tend to use FBC (mostly CFBC)
and grate-firing (GF) technologies.
3.1.3 Combustion of peat
The combustion of peat is relevant for several countries and is generally undertaken using milled
peat in FBC in modern facilities, but other technologies do exist.

3.1.4 Combustion of gas and oil
3.1.4.1.1 Boilers and furnaces
The technologies in use range from comparatively small package firetube boilers (capacities up to
about 20 MWth) to large water tube boilers of up to about 2 000 MWth capacity.
3.1.4.1.2 Gas turbines
Gas turbines are installed with a thermal capacity ranging from several hundred kW up to about
1 000 MWth. Gaseous fuels are mainly used, such as natural gas or in some instances, process gases
or gasification products. Liquid fuels are used, such as light distillates (e.g. naphtha, kerosene or gas
oil) but, in general, use of liquid fuels is limited to specific applications or as a standby fuel.
Gas turbines are aero-derivative designs (i.e. based on multiple shaft engines derived from aircraft
engine types) or industrial heavy-duty gas turbines (based on single shaft designs). Gas turbines for
electricity generation can be open (simple) cycle units but are often installed as a part of a combined
cycle gas turbine (CCGT). In a CCGT installation, a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) is used to
recover waste heat from the combustion gases providing steam to power a steam turbine which
drives an alternator providing more electricity. The net rated efficiency of a modern CCGT is in excess
of 50 %.
Gas turbines are often found in co-generation plant, the gas turbine directly coupled to an electricity
generator and the energy from hot exhaust gases recovered in a suitable HRSG (boiler) or used
directly (for example drying). Supplementary burners are commonly used to provide additional heat
input to the exhaust gases.
Integrated coal gasification combined cycle gas turbine (IGCC) plants use fuel gas derived from coal.
Note that for IGCC plants, the only emission relevant unit considered here is the gas turbine.
3.1.4.1.3 Stationary engines
Stationary engines are spark-ignition engines and compression-ignition engines (2- and 4-stroke)
with electrical outputs ranging from less than 100 kW to over 20 MW. Both types represent relevant
emission sources. Such units are common as island generators (away from a supply grid), small
combined heat and power CHP units, or for cogeneration and standby or emergency uses.
3.2 Emissions
The contributions of point source emissions released by combustion plants to the total emissions
reported by countries to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) can
be found in the emission databases hosted by the EMEP Centre on Emission Inventories and
projections (1)
The main pollutants are described below with further details provided (from the previous Guidebook
chapter) in Appendix B.
Note that the inventory methodologies for Greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methame
and nitrous oxide) are not included – refer to IPCC guidance [IPCC, 2006].
(1) Available here: http://www.ceip.at

3.2.1.1.1 Sulphur oxides
In the absence of flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) technology, the emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx)
are directly related to the sulphur content of the fuel. The sulphur content of refined natural gas is
negligible. The majority of SOx is sulphur dioxide (SO2) although small proportions of sulphur trioxide
(SO3) can arise.
3.2.1.1.2 Nitrogen oxides
Emissions of nitrogen oxides (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide — NOx) arise from nitrogen in the
fuel (mainly relevant to solid and liquid fuels) and from reaction of atmospheric nitrogen.
Combustion control can provide a high degree of NOx emission control (low NOx burner technology)
and this may be supplemented by use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or selective non-catalytic
reduction techniques (SNCR).
3.2.1.1.3 Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC)
Emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), e.g. olefins, ketones, aldehydes,
result from incomplete combustion. Furthermore, unreacted fuel compounds such as ethane (C2H6)
can be emitted. The relevance of NMVOC and CH4 emissions from boilers, which are often reported
together as VOC, is very low for large-sized combustion plants. VOC emissions tend to decrease as
the plant size increases (Rentz et al, 1993).
3.2.1.1.4 Carbon monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide (CO) appears always as an intermediate product of the combustion process and
in particular under sub-stoichiometric combustion conditions. However, the relevance of CO
released from combustion plants is not very high compared to CO 2. The formation mechanisms of
CO and VOC are similarly influenced by combustion conditions. Substantial emissions of CO can
occur if combustion conditions are poor.
3.2.1.1.5 Ammonia (NH3)
Emissions of ammonia (NH3) are not generally associated with a combustion process; emissions can
result from incomplete reaction of NH3 additive in NOx abatement systems — selective catalytic and
non-catalytic reduction (SCR and SNCR).
3.2.1.1.6 Particulate matter
Particulate matter (PM) emissions from large combustion installations (> 50 MW) burning solid fuels
are often lower than emissions from smaller plants (per unit of energy input); the physical and
chemical characteristics of the PM also differ. This is because different combustion and abatement
techniques are applied.
Combustion of fuels can generate solid residues which may be deposited within combustion
chambers (furnace bottom ash) within the furnace, boiler surfaces or ducting (fly ash) or on heat
exchanger surfaces (soot and fly ash). Coal and other fuels with significant ash content have the
highest potential to emit PM. Suspended ash material in exhaust gases may be retained by
particulate abatement or other emission abatement equipment (abatement residues). Material
which remains in the flue gases beyond the abatement equipment and passes to the atmosphere is
primary PM. Secondary PM is formed by chemical and physical processes after discharge to
atmosphere and is NOT considered here.

A number of factors influence the measurement and determination of primary PM emissions from
activities and, the quantity of PM determined in an emission measurement depends to a large extent
on the measurement conditions. This is particularly true of activities involving high temperature and
semi-volatile emission components – in such instances the PM emission may be partitioned between
a solid/aerosol phase and material which is gaseous at the sampling point but which can condense
in the atmosphere. The proportion of filterable and condensable material will vary depending on the
temperature of the flue gases and in sampling equipment.
A range of filterable PM measurement methods are applied around the world typically with filter
temperatures of 70-160°C (the temperature is set by the test method). Condensable fractions can
be determined directly by recovering condensed material from chilled impinger systems
downstream of a filter – note that this is condensation without dilution and can require additional
processing to remove sampling artefacts. Another approach for total PM includes dilution where
sampled flue or exhaust gases are mixed with ambient air (either using a dilution tunnel or dilution
sampling systems) and the filterable and condensable components are collected on a filter at lower
temperatures (but depending on the method this can be 15-52°C). The use of dilution methods,
however, may be limited due to practical constraints with weight and/or size of the equipment.
The PM emission factors (for TSP, PM10 and PM2.5) can represent the total primary PM emission, or
the filterable PM fraction. The basis of the emission factor is described (see individual emission
factor tables).
3.2.1.1.7 Black carbon (BC)
Combustion of fossil fuel and biomass is the main source of black carbon (BC) emission (Diehl et al.
2012). Black carbon is the term for a wide range of carbon containing compounds but is determined
by assessment of the optical properties of collected particulate matter. It covers large polycyclic
species, charred plants to highly graphitized soot. Other commonly used classifications include
elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC), which refer to carbon species that have been
classified chemically. EC and OC are always co-emitted, but in different proportions dependent upon
the fuel properties and the combustion conditions.
Using these classifications, BC and EC (as the more light absorbing / refractory species) are often
treated as equal. In reality, there may be small differences in the PM fraction of BC and EC resulting
from the different classification techniques used. Black Carbon was selected as the term identified
within the Gothenburg Protocol, with the requirement that Parties develop emission inventories and
projections for BC, and it is proposed that a similar requirement be included under the new NECD.
As such, in this guidebook emission factors are presented as BC.
Literature values of emission factors for BC are often derived by thermal chemical techniques
representative of EC. It is therefore important for inventory compilers to understand that the tier 1
BC emission factors presented in this guidance are assumed to be equal to the emission factors for
EC, and therefore some uncertainty is introduced. Where possible, appendices of full carbon
speciation are provided for key sources. Country-specific (higher tier) methods will be preferable
where this is feasible.
The same emission control techniques that limit the emission of PM will also reduce the emission of
BC. However, measurement data that address the abatement efficiencies for BC are limited. This
means that in general it is assumed that the BC emission can be reduced proportionally to the
filterable PM emission and, in particular, PM2.5 emission. Consequently, for inventory development,
the BC emission factors are expressed as percentage of the PM2.5 emission. It must be noted that

measurement of BC emissions is not a standardised technique and that particle number or surface
area may be relevant metrics. However, the approach adopted in the present chapter is to develop
a mass inventory based on the PM2.5 inventory.
3.2.1.1.8 Metals
Most of the heavy metals considered (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn and V) are normally released
as compounds (e.g. oxides, chlorides) in association with particulates. Only Hg and Se are at least
partly present in the vapour phase. The content of heavy metals in coal is normally several orders of
magnitude higher than in oil (except occasionally for Ni and V in heavy fuel oil) and in natural gas.
For natural gas emissions of mercury and arsenic are relevant. During the combustion of coal,
particles undergo complex changes which lead to vaporisation of volatile elements. The rate of
volatilisation of heavy metal compounds depends on fuel characteristics (e.g. concentrations in coal,
fraction of inorganic components, such as calcium) and on technology characteristics (e.g. type of
boiler, operation mode).
3.3 Controls
Details of relevant abatement technologies for combustion plant are described in the BREF note for
large combustion plant ( http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/); some further detail on NOx and
SO2 emission controls are also provided in Appendix B. Relevant abatement technologies for
selected pollutants are outlined below.
3.3.1 Sulphur oxides
There are in-furnace technologies which incorporate injection of an absorbent material (typically
lime) into the furnace. Use of such systems is quite common in FBC where the lime can be added to
the bed and high recirculation is possible.
Post combustion flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) processes are more common and are designed to
remove SO2 from the flue gas of combustion installations. Most processes, like the wet scrubbing
process (WS), the spray dryer absorption (SDA), the dry sorbent injection (DSI) and the Walther
process (WAP) are based on the reaction of the SO2 with an alkaline agent added as solid or as
suspension/solution of the agent in water to form the respective salts. In secondary reactions SO3,
fluorides and chlorides are also removed. In the case of some processes the SO 2 is recovered as
sulphur or sulphuric acid. Use of FGD processes can also reduce particulate and metal emissions.
The most common technologies are described below.
3.3.1.1.1 Lime/limestone wet scrubbing (WS)
The pollutants are removed from the flue gas by chemical reactions with alkaline slurry (suspension
of calcium compounds in water). The main product is gypsum. The WS process represents the main
technology used by FGD-equipped electrical capacity installed in European Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Facilities are in operation at combustion
units using hard coal, lignite and oil with sulphur contents from about 0.8 to more than 3.0 wt.%. The
SO2 reduction efficiency is > 90 %.

3.3.1.1.2 Spray dryer (semi-dry) absorption (SDA)
The SDA process removes the pollutant components from flue gas of fossil-fired combustion units
by injection of Ca(OH)2 slurry. The process forms a dry by-product requiring downstream collection
of PM. The SO2 reduction efficiency is > 90 %.
3.3.1.1.3 Dry sorbent injection (DSI)
The DSI process is based on a gas/solid reaction of the flue gas and a dry sorbent (typically lime, but
sodium hydrogen carbonate NaHCO3 is used in some smaller applications).
3.3.2 Nitrogen oxides
3.3.2.1.1 Primary measures
Primary measures minimise formation of NOx in the furnace or combustion chamber and include
low-NOx burners (LNB), staged air supply, flue gas recirculation, overfire air, reburn, water/steam
injection and related technology. These measures can be retrofitted to existing boilers to achieve
varying degrees of NOx reduction. Modern gas turbines can achieve very low NOx emissions by
application of dry low NOx (DLN) burner technology without secondary measures.
3.3.2.1.2 Secondary measures — DeNOx processes
The principal abatement measures are selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and selective
catalytic reduction (SCR). The reduction of nitrogen oxides in the flue gas is based on the selective
reaction of NOx. The SNCR process involves injection of ammonia or urea near the furnace. Emission
reduction with SNCR can be limited (up to 50 %) and is lower than with SCR. An SCR system is based
on selective reactions with injected additives in the presence of a catalyst. The additives used are
mostly ammonia (gaseous and in solution) but also urea. The NO x reduction efficiency can be
between 70 and 90 %.
3.3.3 Particulate matter
The main technology in use is electrostatic precipitation (EP); however fabric filters (FF) are also used.
Removal of particulate also reduces emissions of most heavy metals as these are mainly in the
particulate phase. Both modern EP and FF can represent Best Available Techniques (BAT), but note
that EP performance can vary widely between older and modern equipment. FGD can also be an
effective PM abatement device; DSI and SDA systems often incorporate FF for sorbent and PM
removal, Wet scrubbing systems can also achieve BAT achievable emission levels for PM.
Multicyclone devices can be found on smaller, older combustion units or as an initial treatment
stage.
3.4 Methods
3.4.1 Choice of method
Figure 3-1 presents the procedure to select the methods for estimating process emissions from
combustion in energy and transformation industries. The basic concept is:
 if detailed information is available, use it;

 if the source category is a key source, a Tier 2 or better method must be applied and detailed
input data must be collected. The decision tree directs the user in such cases to the Tier 2
method, since it is expected that it is easier to obtain the necessary input data for this approach

than to collect facility-level data needed for a Tier 3 estimate. However, the inventory compiler
should be aware that, because the number of sources may be comparatively small, in many
instances the data required for a Tier 3 approach may be only a little more difficult to obtain
than at Tier 2;
 detailed process modelling is not explicitly included in this decision tree. However, detailed
modelling will usually be done at facility level and results of such modelling could be seen as
‘facility data’ (Tier 3) in the decision tree.
Figure 3-1 Decision tree for combustion in energy transformation industries
Start
Are all single Yes Use Tier 3

sources in the source
Facility data
category Measured
only
/reported?
No
Yes Use measurements Tier

Is specific fuel
3 approach and
use data available
combine with country
for the source
specific EFs from Tier 2.
No
Can modelled fuel

Is a detailed Yes consumption be reconciled Yes
Use model Tier 3
estimation model with national fuel statistics
approach
available? from independent
sources?
No
No
Yes Get Use Tier 2

technology stratified technology specific
Key source?
activity data activity data
and EFs and EFs
No
Apply Tier 1
default EFs

3.4.2 Tier 1 default approach
3.4.2.1 Algorithm
The Tier 1 approach for process emissions from combustion uses the general equation:
E pollutant  AR fuelconsumption  EFpollutant (1)
Epollutant annual emission of pollutant
EFpollutant emission factor of pollutant
ARfuel consumption activity rate by fuel consumption
This equation is applied at the national level, using annual national total fuel use (disaggregated by
fuel type). Information on fuel consumption suitable for estimating emissions using the simpler
estimation methodology is widely available from UN statistical yearbooks or national statistics.
The Tier 1 emission factors assume an average or typical technology and abatement
implementation.
In cases where specific combustion technology and abatement techniques are to be taken into
account, a Tier 1 method is not applicable and a Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach must be used. Some
further detail on NOx and SO2 emission controls and abatement efficiency are provided in
Appendix B.
3.4.2.2 Default Tier 1 emission factors (EF)
The Tier 1 default emission factors derived from available data and information have been
developed for key fuel groups (Table 3-1) and are given in Table 3-2 to Table 3-7.
Table 3-1 Tier 1 fuel classifications
Tier 1 Fuel type Associated fuel types
Hard coal Coking coal, other bituminous coal, sub-bituminous coal, coke, manufactured
‘patent’ fuel
Brown coal Lignite, oil shale, manufactured ‘patent’ fuel, peat
Gaseous fuels Natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied petroleum gas, refinery gas (EFs for
refinery gas are available in section 4.2), gas works gas, coke oven gas, blast
furnace gas
Heavy fuel oil Residual fuel oil, refinery feedstock, petroleum coke, orimulsion, bitumen
Light oil Gas oil, kerosene, naphtha, shale oil
Biomass Wood, charcoal, vegetable (agricultural) waste

Note: The associated fuel types indicated in Table 3-2 are based on the emission characteristics and are not to
be used for categorising fuels into the main fuel groups (solid, liquid, gaseous, biomass) used for reporting.
The emission factors provided in Table 3-2 to Table 3-7 have been derived from available materials,
taking into account the results of an assessment of emission factors included in previous versions
of the Guidebook and elsewhere, including the newer information from the BREF document on Best
Available Techniques in Large Combustion Plants (European Commission, 2006). The emission
factors are grouped by major fuel types. In the absence of detail on types and relative use of types

of combustion or abatement technology, which will be different for each country, the proposed
factors represent a mean for the range of technologies in use with the 95 % figures a measure of the
range of emissions in the sector. The factors will represent a very wide range of combustion
technologies and emissions; they do not represent BAT or unabated emissions.
Note that NOx emission factors are expressed as NO2 and that PCDD/F emission factors are
presented as I-TEQ (NATO) toxic equivalents.
Emission factors for sulphur oxides are provided in the Tier 1 tables, but these assume no SO2
abatement and a defined fuel sulphur content. Where countries have no FGD and have knowledge
of fuel sulphur content then it is recommended that a sulphur oxides emission factor is calculated
from fuel sulphur content assuming 100 % conversion to SO2 and no retention in ash.
EF SO2 = [S] x 20,000 / CVNet
where:
EF SO2 is the SO2 emission factor (g/GJ)
[S] is sulphur content of the fuel (% w/w)
CVNet is fuel CV (GJ/tonne, net basis)
For emission factors for the combustion of waste, please refer to Chapters 6.C.a, 6.C.b and 6.C.c,
depending on the type of waste that is being combusted.
The BC emission factors presented in this Guidance are derived on the basis of EC and it is therefore
assumed that BC=EC.
Table 3-2 Tier 1 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a using hard coal
Tier 1 default emission factors

Code Name
NFR Source Category 1.A.1.a Public electricity and heat production
Fuel Hard Coal
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3
Pollutant Value Unit 95% confidence Reference
interval
Lower Upper
NOx 209 g/GJ 200 350 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
CO 8.7 g/GJ 6.15 15 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
NMVOC 1.0 g/GJ 0.6 2.4 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
SOx 820 g/GJ 330 5000 See Note
TSP 11.4 g/GJ 3 300 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
PM10 7.7 g/GJ 2 200 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
PM2.5 3.4 g/GJ 0.9 90 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
BC 2.2 % of PM2.5 0.27 8.08 See Note
Pb 7.3 mg/GJ 5.16 12 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
Cd 0.9 mg/GJ 0.627 1.46 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
Hg 1.4 mg/GJ 1.02 2.38 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
As 7.1 mg/GJ 5.04 11.8 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
Cr 4.5 mg/GJ 3.2 7.46 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
Cu 7.8 mg/GJ 0.233 15.5 Expert judgement derived
from EMEP/EEA (2006)
Ni 4.9 mg/GJ 3.44 8.03 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
Se 23 mg/GJ 16 37.3 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1

Zn 19 mg/GJ 7.75 155 Expert judgement derived

PCB 3.3 ng WHO- 1.1 9.9 Grochowalski &
TEG/GJ Konieczyński, 2008
PCDD/F 10 ng I- 5 15 UNEP (2005); Coal fired
TEQ/GJ power boilers
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.7 µg/GJ 0.245 2.21 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 37 µg/GJ 3.7 370 Wenborn et al., 1999
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 29 µg/GJ 2.9 290 Wenborn et al., 1999
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.1 µg/GJ 0.591 2.36 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.1
HCB 6.7 µg/GJ 2.2 20.1 Grochowalski &
Konieczyński, 2008
Notes:
The default tier 1 emission factors are based on the tier 2 emission factors for dry bottom boilers. For conversion
of the US EPA data the heating value as provided in the reference has been used (26 MMBTU/ton). This has been
converted to NCV using a factor of 0.95. Furthermore, units have been converted using 1055.0559 J/BTU and
453.59237 g/lb.
The EFs for benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene are converted using the average NCV for other
bituminous coal of 24.1 GJ/ton from Energy Statistics Manual (OECD/IEA, 2005).
The factor for SOx assumes no SO2 abatement and is based on 1 % mass sulphur content using EF calculation
from subsection 3.4.2.2 of the present chapter; 95 % confidence intervals calculated using range from Table C-1
in Appendix C.
The BC share is derived as the average of data from Henry & Knapp (1980), Olmez et al. (1988), Watson et al.
(2001), Fisher et al. (1979), Griest & Tomkins (1984), Engelbrecht et al. (2002), Chow et al. (2004) and Speciate (US
EPA, 2011).
The TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors represent filterable PM emissions and are based on an ash content of
8.2%. Note that condensable PM emission factors are also provided in US EPA (1998), Chapter 1.1.
Table 3-3 Tier 1 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a using brown coal

Code Name
Fuel Brown Coal
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3, PCB, HCB
interval
Lower Upper
CO 8.7 g/GJ 6.72 60.5 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.7
TSP 11.7 g/GJ 1.2 117 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.7
PM2.5 3.2 g/GJ 1 32 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.7
BC 1 % of PM2.5 0.1 4 Kupiainen and Klimont, 2007
Pb 15 mg/GJ 10.6 24.7 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.7
Cd 1.8 mg/GJ 1.29 3 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.7
Cu 1.0 mg/GJ 0.2 5 EMEP/EEA (2006)
Se 45 mg/GJ 32.8 76.5 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.7
Zn 8.8 mg/GJ 0.504 16.8 EMEP/EEA (2006)

PCBs 3.3 ng WHO- 1.1 9.9 Grochowalski & Konieczyński, 2008

TEG/GJ
PCDD/F 10 ng I- 5 15 UNEP (2005); Coal fired power boilers
TEQ/GJ
HCB 6.7 µg/GJ 2.2 20.1 Grochowalski & Konieczyński, 2008
Notes:
The tier 1 default emission factors are based on the tier 2 emission factors for dry/wet bottom boilers.
For conversion of the US EPA data the heating value as provided in the reference has been used (6500 BTU/lb).
This has been converted to NCV using a factor of 0.95. Furthermore, units have been converted using 1055.0559
J/BTU, 2000 lb/ton and 453.59237 g/lb. The EFs for Cu and Zn are converted using the average NCV 11.9 GJ/Mg
from IPCC Guidelines (IPCC, 2006).
in Appendix C.
5%. Note that condensable PM emission factors are also provided in US EPA (1998), Chapter 1.7.
Table 3-4 Tier 1 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a using gaseous fuels

Code Name
Fuel Gaseous fuels
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3, PCBs, HCB
interval
Lower Upper
CO 39 g/GJ 20 60 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.4
SOx 0.281 g/GJ 0.169 0.393 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.4
TSP 0.89 g/GJ 0.445 1.34 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.4
PM10 0.89 g/GJ 0.445 1.34 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.4
PM2.5 0.89 g/GJ 0.445 1.34 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.4
BC 2.5 % of PM2.5 1 6.3 See Note
Pb 0.0015 mg/GJ 0.0005 0.0045 Nielsen et al., 2012
Cd 0.00025 mg/GJ 0.00008 0.00075 Nielsen et al., 2012
Hg 0.1 mg/GJ 0.01 1 Nielsen et al., 2010
As 0.12 mg/GJ 0.04 0.36 Nielsen et al., 2012
Cr 0.00076 mg/GJ 0.00025 0.00228 Nielsen et al., 2012
Cu 0.000076 mg/GJ 0.000025 0.000228 Nielsen et al., 2012
Ni 0.00051 mg/GJ 0.00017 0.00153 Nielsen et al., 2012
Se 0.0112 mg/GJ 0.00375 0.0337 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.4
Zn 0.0015 mg/GJ 0.0005 0.0045 Nielsen et al., 2012
PCDD/F 0.5 ng I- 0.25 0.75 UNEP (2005)
TEQ/GJ
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.56 µg/GJ 0.19 0.56 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.4 ("Less
than" value based on method
detection limits)

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.84 µg/GJ 0.28 0.84 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.4 ("Less
detection limits)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.84 µg/GJ 0.28 0.84 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.4 ("Less
detection limits)
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.84 µg/GJ 0.28 0.84 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.4 ("Less
detection limits)
Notes:
For conversion of the US EPA data the heating value as provided in the reference has been used (1.02 BTU/scf).
J/BTU and 453.59237 g/lb.
The factor for SOx is based on approximately 0.01 gm3 mass sulphur content. Emission factor for PCDD/F is stated
to be applicable light fuel oil and natural gas use in power station boilers but is based mainly on data from oil
combustion. UNEP also reports limited data for gas combustion of between 0.02 and 0.03 ng TEQ/GJ for natural
gas-fired boilers.
The BC emission factor is the average of the data available in England et al. (2004), Wien et al. (2004) and the
Speciate database (US EPA, 2011).
The TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors represent filterable PM emissions. Note that condensable PM emission
factors are also provided in US EPA (1998), Chapter 1.4.
Table 3-5 Tier 1 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a using heavy fuel oil

Code Name
Fuel Heavy Fuel Oil
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3, PCBs, Benzo(a)pyrene, HCB
interval
Lower Upper
PM10 25.2 g/GJ 1.5 150 US EPA (2010), chapter 1.3
BC 5.6 % of PM2.5 0.22 8.69 See Note
Pb 4.56 mg/GJ 2.28 9.11 US EPA (2010), chapter 1.3
Cu 5.31 mg/GJ 2.66 10.6 US EPA (2010), chapter 1.3
Ni 255 mg/GJ 127 510 US EPA (2010), chapter 1.3
Zn 87.8 mg/GJ 43.9 176 US EPA (2010), chapter 1.3
PCDD/F 2.5 ng I- 1.25 3.75 UNEP (2005); Heavy fuel
TEQ/GJ fired power boilers
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.5 µg/GJ 1.5 13.5 US EPA (2010), chapter 1.3
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.5 µg/GJ 1.5 13.5 US EPA (2010), chapter 1.3
Note:

For conversion of the US EPA data the heating value as provided in the reference has been used (150 MMBTU/103
gal). This has been converted to NCV using a factor of 0.95. Furthermore, units have been converted using
1055.0559 J/BTU and 453.59237 g/lb.
in Appendix C.
The BC emission factor is derived as the average of the data found in Olmez et al. (1988), England et al. (2007)
and the Speciate database (US EPA, 2011).
The TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors represent filterable PM emissions and are based on a sulphur content
of 1%. Note that condensable PM emission factors are also provided in US EPA (1998), Chapter 1.3.
Table 3-6 Tier 1 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a using gas oil

Code Name
Fuel Gas oil
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3, PCB, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Benzo(k)fluoranthene, HCB
interval
Lower Upper
CO 16.2 g/GJ 4 65 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.3
SOx 46.5 g/GJ 4.65 465 See Note
BC 33.5 % of PM2.5 28.9 38 Hildemann et al., 1981 &
Bond et al., 2006
Hg 1.36 mg/GJ 0.14 15 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.3
As 1.81 mg/GJ 0.18 20 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.3
Cr 1.36 mg/GJ 0.14 15 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.3
Cu 2.72 mg/GJ 0.27 30 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.3
Ni 1.36 mg/GJ 0.14 15 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.3
Se 6.79 mg/GJ 0.68 70 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.3
PCDD/F 0.5 ng I- 0.25 1 UNEP, 2005
TEQ/GJ
Note:
1055.0559 J/BTU and 453.59237 g/lb.
The factor for SOx assumes no SO2 abatement and is based on 0.1 % mass sulphur content.

Table 3-7 Tier 1 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a using biomass

Code Name
Fuel Biomass
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3
interval
Lower Upper
NOx 81 g/GJ 40 160 Nielsen et al., 2010
CO 90 g/GJ 45 180 Nielsen et al., 2010
TSP 172 g/GJ 86 344 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6
PM10 155 g/GJ 77 310 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6
PM2.5 133 g/GJ 66 266 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6
BC 3.3 % of PM2.5 1.6 6.6 See Note
Zn 181 mg/GJ 108 253 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6
PCB 3.5 µg/GJ 0.35 35 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6
PCDD/F 50 ng I- 25 75 UNEP (2005) (for clean
TEQ/GJ wood)
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.12 mg/GJ 0.671 1.57 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.043 mg/GJ 0.0215 0.0645 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0155 mg/GJ 0.00774 0.0232 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0374 mg/GJ 0.0187 0.0561 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6
HCB 5 µg/GJ 0.5 50 Bailey, 2001
Note: For conversion of the US EPA data units have been converted using 1055.0559 J/BTU and 453.59237 g/lb.
The BC emission factor is an average of the data in Dayton & Bursey (2001) and the Speciate database (US EPA,
2011).
The TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors represent filterable PM emissions. Note that a condensable PM
emission factor is also provided in US EPA (1998), Chapter 1.6.
3.4.2.3 Tier 1 activity data

Information on the use of energy and production of power, suitable for estimating emissions using
the Tier 1 simpler estimation methodology, is available from national statistics agencies or the
International Energy Agency (IEA).
Further guidance is provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,
volume 2 on Stationary Combustion
www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Stationary_Combustion.pdf
The activity rate and the emission factor have to be determined on the same level of aggregation
depending on the availability of data. The activity statistic should be determined within the
considered country or region by using adequate statistics. The activity should refer to the energy
input of the emission sources considered (net or inferior fuel consumption in [GJ]).

3.4.3 Tier 2 technology-specific approach
3.4.3.1 Algorithm
The Tier 2 approach is similar to the Tier 1 approach. To apply the Tier 2 approach, both the activity
data and the emission factors need to be applied according to a country’s fuel usage and installed
combustion technologies. These techniques may include:
 relative mix of fuels,

 types of combustion plant.
There are two approaches possible:
disaggregate the fuel use in the country to model the different combustion and abatement types
into the inventory by
a) defining the activity data using each of the identified process types (together called
‘technologies’ in the formulae below) separately, and
b) applying technology-specific emission factors for each process type:
E pollutant   AR
technologies
production,technology  EFtechnology,pollutant (2)
develop country-specific emission factors from the understanding of the relative contributions of
the different technologies within the national combustion plant portfolio (and relative fuel use)
and apply this country-specific emission factor for the national fuel use.
EFcountry, pollutant   Penetration technology  EFtechnology,pollutant

technologies (3)
E pollutant  AR production  EFcountry, pollutant
Both approaches are mathematically very similar or even identical. Using one or the other
approach depends mainly on the availability of data. If the activity data are indeed available, the
first approach seems to be more appropriate. If, however, no direct activity data are available,
penetration of different technologies within the industry could be estimated from data on
capacities, or other surrogate data that reflect relative sizes of facilities using the different
technologies.
3.4.3.2 Technology-specific emission factors

Applying a Tier 2 approach for the process emissions from public power and heat production,
technology-specific emission factors are needed. The main technology distinction is by combustion
unit type (boiler technologies, gas turbine, stationary engine) and fuel type. Note that factors for
smaller combustion units (< 50 MWth) are provided in Chapter 1.A.4, where available, size-based
factors for boilers are also provided for. Example factors are provided in this section; however, it
should be noted that these cannot address every fuel, combustion and abatement combination that
can exist. The number of sources in this activity is usually comparatively small and the inventory
compiler may wish to consider gathering data to allow a Tier 3 approach as a more robust
methodology. Knowledge of emission concentrations and emission limit values (ELVs) can allow a
first estimation of emission factors without detailed knowledge of plant combustion and abatement
technology.

Emission factors derived from the achievable emission levels values (AELs) as defined in the BREF
document are provided in subsection 6.3.1 for comparison. In addition, ELVs for selected emission
instruments are provided as emission factors in Appendix D.
Table 3-8 Technology-specific Tier 2 factors
Combustion technology Relevant fuels
Dry bottom boiler Coking coal, steam coal, sub-bituminous coal, brown coal, lignite,
wood, peat, coke, oven coke, residual oil, natural gas
Wet bottom boiler Coking coal, steam coal, sub-bituminous coal, brown coal, lignite,
Fluid bed boiler Hard coal, brown coal
Gas turbine Natural gas, gas oil, refinery gas, blast furnace gas
Stationary engine Natural gas, gas oil
This section provides a series of technology-specific pollutant emission factors for combustion; these
factors represent a wider range of fuels and combustion technologies than for Tier 1. They do not
represent specific combustion and abatement technologies (which would be needed in a Tier 3
approach), but do offer more disaggregation than Tier 1. Extension of Tier 2 to reflect emission
abatement is possible through use of factors derived from emission data.
The BC emission factors presented in this Guidance are derived on the basis of EC and it is therefore
assumed that BC=EC.

Table 3-9 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a, dry bottom boilers using
coking coal, steam coal and sub-bituminous coal
Tier 2 emission factors

Code Name
Fuel Coking Coal, Steam Coal & Sub-Bituminous Coal
SNAP (if applicable) 010101 Public power - Combustion plants >= 300 MW (boilers)
010102 Public power - Combustion plants >= 50 and < 300 MW (boilers)
Technologies/Practices Dry Bottom Boilers
Region or regional NA
conditions
Abatement technologies Abatement assumed except for SO2 EF
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3
interval
Lower Upper
BC 2.2 % of PM2.5 0.27 8.08 See Note
Cu 7.8 mg/GJ 0.233 15.5 Expert judgement derived from
EMEP/EEA (2006)
Zn 19 mg/GJ 7.75 155 Expert judgement derived from
EMEP/EEA (2006)
PCB 3.3 ng WHO- 1.1 9.9 Grochowalski & Konieczyński,
TEG/GJ 2008
PCDD/F 10 ng I-TEQ/GJ 5 15 UNEP (2005); Coal fired power
boilers
HCB 6.7 µg/GJ 2.2 20.1 Grochowalski & Konieczyński,
2008
Notes:
For conversion of the US EPA data the heating value as provided in the reference has been used (26 MMBTU/ton).
J/BTU and 453.59237 g/lb. The EFs for benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene are converted using the
average NCV for other bituminous coal of 24.1 GJ/ton from Energy Statistics Manual (OECD/IEA, 2005).
in Appendix C.

EPA, 2011).
8.2%. Note that condensable PM emission factors are also provided in US EPA (1998), Chapter 1.1.
Table 3-10 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a, wet and dry bottom boilers
using brown coal/lignite

Code Name
Fuel Brown Coal/Lignite
Technologies/Practices Wet and Dry Bottom Boilers
conditions
Abatement technologies NA
Not applicable
Not estimated BC, NH3
interval
Lower Upper
Cu 1.0 mg/GJ 0.2 5 EMEP/EEA (2006)
Zn 8.8 mg/GJ 0.504 16.8 EMEP/EEA (2006)
PCBs 3.3 ng WHO- 1.1 9.9 Grochowalski & Konieczyński,
TEG/GJ 2008
PCDD/F 10 ng I- 5 15 UNEP (2005); Coal fired power
TEQ/GJ boilers
2008
Notes:

in Appendix C.
The emission factors for PCBs, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene and HCB are based on data for hard
coal combustion in dry bottom boilers.
5%. Note that condensable PM emission factors are also provided in US EPA (1998), Chapter 1.7.
residual oil

Code Name
Fuel Residual Oil
010102 Public power - Combustion plants >= 50 and < 300 MW
(boilers)
conditions
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3, PCBs, Benzo(a)pyrene, HCB
interval
Lower Upper
PM10 25.2 g/GJ 1.5 150 US EPA (2010), chapter 1.3
BC 5.6 % of PM2.5 0.22 8.69 See Note
Ni 255 mg/GJ 127 510 US EPA (2010), chapter 1.3
PCDD/F 2.5 ng I- 1.25 3.75 UNEP (2005); Heavy fuel
TEQ/GJ fired power boilers
Benzon(b)fluoranthene 4.5 µg/GJ 1.5 13.5 US EPA (2010), chapter 1.3
Benzon(k)fluoranthene 4.5 µg/GJ 1.5 13.5 US EPA (2010), chapter 1.3
Note:
1055.0559 J/BTU and 453.59237 g/lb.

in Appendix C.
The TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors represent filterable PM emissions and are based on a sulphur content
of 1%. Note that condensable PM emission factors are also provided in US EPA (1998), Chapter 1.3.
natural gas

Code Name
Fuel Natural Gas
(boilers)
conditions
Abatement NA
technologies
Not applicable
interval
Lower Upper
PCDD/F 0.5 ng I- 0.25 0.75 UNEP (2005)
TEQ/GJ
("Less than" value based
on method detection
limits)
on method detection
limits)

on method detection
limits)
on method detection
limits)
Notes:
For conversion of the US EPA data the heating value as provided in the reference has been used (1.02 BTU/scf).
J/BTU and 453.59237 g/lb.
The factor for SOx is based on approximately 0.01 g/m3 mass sulphur content.
Emission factor for PCDD/F is stated to be applicable light fuel oil and natural gas use in power station boilers,
but is based mainly on data from oil combustion. UNEP also reports limited data for gas combustion of between
0.02 and 0.03 ng TEQ/GJ for natural gas-fired boilers.
Table 3-13 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a, dry bottom boilers using wood
waste

Code Name
Fuel Wood and wood waste (clean wood waste)
(boilers)
conditions
Abatement technologies Primary NOx abatement – no PM abatement
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3
interval
Lower Upper
TSP 172 g/GJ 86 344 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6
PM10 155 g/GJ 77 310 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6
PM2.5 133 g/GJ 66 266 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6
BC 3.3 % of PM2.5 1.6 6.6 See Note
Zn 181 mg/GJ 108 253 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6

PCB 3.5 µg/GJ 0.35 35 US EPA (2003), chapter 1.6

PCDD/F 50 ng I- 25 75 UNEP (2005) (for clean
TEQ/GJ wood)
HCB 5 µg/GJ 0.5 50 Bailey, 2001
Note: For conversion of the US EPA data units have been converted using 1055.0559 J/BTU and 453.59237 g/lb.
The BC emission factor is an average of the data in Dayton & Bursey (2001) and the Speciate database (US EPA,
2011).
The TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors represent filterable PM emissions. Note that a condensable PM
emission factor is also provided in US EPA (1998), Chapter 1.6.
Table 3-14 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a, wet bottom boilers using
coking coal, steam coal and sub-bituminous coal

Code Name
Fuel Coking Coal, Steam Coal & Sub-Bituminous Coal
Technologies/Practices Wet Bottom Boilers
conditions
Abatement technologies Abatement assumed except for SO2
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3
interval
Lower Upper
BC 2.2 % of PM2.5 0.27 8.08 See Note
EMEP/EEA (2006)
EMEP/EEA (2006)
PCB 3.3 ng WHO- 1.1 9.9 Grochowalski & Konieczyński,
TEQ/GJ 2008
boilers


2008
Note: For conversion of the US EPA data the heating value as provided in the reference has been used (26
MMBTU/ton). This has been converted to NCV using a factor of 0.95. Furthermore, units have been converted
using 1055.0559 J/BTU and 453.59237 g/lb. The EFs for benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene are
converted using the average NCV for other bituminous coal of 24.1 GJ/ton from Energy Statistics Manual
(OECD/IEA, 2005).
in Appendix C.
EPA, 2011).
The TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors provided in US EPA (1998) Chapter 1.1 represent filterable PM emissions
and are determined from fuel ash content. Note that condensable PM emission factors are also provided in US
EPA (1998), Chapter 1.1.
Table 3-15 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a, fluid bed boilers using hard
coal

Code Name
Fuel Hard Coal
Technologies/Practices Fluid Bed Boilers
conditions
Abatement technologies Abatement assumed except for SO2
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3

interval
Lower Upper
NOx 82.5 g/GJ 10 112 European Commission (2006)
BC 2.2 % of PM2.5 0.27 8.08 See Note
EMEP/EEA (2006)


EMEP/EEA (2006)
PCBs 3.3 ng WHO- 1.1 9.9 Grochowalski & Konieczyński,
TEQ/GJ 2008
boilers
2008
Note: For conversion of the US EPA data the heating value as provided in the reference has been used (26
MMBTU/ton). This has been converted to NCV using a factor of 0.95. Furthermore, units have been converted
using 1055.0559 J/BTU and 453.59237 g/lb. The EFs for benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene are
converted using the average NCV for other bituminous coal of 24.1 GJ/ton from Energy Statistics Manual
(OECD/IEA, 2005).
in Appendix C.
EPA, 2011).
The basis of the TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors could not be determined in the reference.
Table 3-16 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a, fluid bed boilers using brown
coal

Code Name
Fuel Brown Coal
(boilers)
Technologies/Practices Fluid Bed Boilers
conditions
Not applicable
Not estimated BC, NH3
interval
Lower Upper
NOx 60 g/GJ 35 85.2 European Commission
(2006)
CO 13 g/GJ 0.1 26 European Commission
(2006)
NMVOC 1 g/GJ 0.2 5 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.7


Cu 1.0 mg/GJ 0.08 0.78 Expert judgement derived
Zn 8.8 mg/GJ 0.5 16.8 Expert judgement derived
PCBs 3.3 ng WHO- 1.1 9.9 Grochowalski &
TEQ/GJ Konieczyński, 2008
PCDD/F 10 ng I- 5 15 UNEP (2005); Coal fired
TEQ/GJ power boilers
HCB 6.7 µg/GJ 2.2 20.1 Grochowalski &
Konieczyński, 2008
Note:
in Appendix C.
The emission factors for PCBs, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene and HCB are based on data for hard
coal combusted in FBB.
Table 3-17 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a, gas turbines using gaseous
fuels

Code Name
Fuel Gaseous Fuels
SNAP (if applicable) 010104 Public power - Gas turbines
Technologies/Practices Gas Turbines
conditions
Abatement NA
technologies
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3, PCB, PCDD/F, HCB
interval
Lower Upper
CO 4.8 g/GJ 1 70 Nielsen et al., 2010
NMVOC 1.6 g/GJ 0.5 7.6 Nielsen et al., 2010
SOx 0.281 g/GJ 0.169 0.393 See note
TSP 0.2 g/GJ 0.05 0.8 BUWAL, 2001
PM10 0.2 g/GJ 0.05 0.8 BUWAL, 2001
PM2.5 0.2 g/GJ 0.05 0.8 Assumed equal to PM2.5

BC 2.5 % of 1 6.3 See Note

PM2.5
on method detection
limits)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.58 µg/GJ 0.5 4.7 API, 1998
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.11 µg/GJ 0.4 3.3 API, 1998
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 8.36 µg/GJ 2.8 25.1 API, 1998
Notes:
It must be noted that the Hg content (and other heavy metals) of natural gas varies between gas fields. However,
the differences after natural gas processing is thought to be of minor importance. The US EPA (1998) provides an
emission factor of 0.1 mg/GJ. It is encouraged that countries obtain country specific data for the natural gas based
on the origin. The factor for SOx is based on approximately 0.01 g/m3 mass sulphur content. An SO2 emission
factor can also be calculated using the EF calculation from subsection 3.4.2.2 of the present chapter.
Table 3-18 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a, gas turbines using gas oil

Code Name
Fuel Gas Oil
SNAP (if applicable) 010104 Public power – gas turbines
Technologies/Practices Gas Turbines
conditions
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3, As, Cu, Ni, Se, Zn, PCB, PCDD/F, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,
HCB
interval
Lower Upper
BC 33.5 % of PM2.5 28.9 38 Hildemann et al., 1981 &
Bond et al., 2006
Pb 0.0069 mg/GJ 0.0007 0.069 Pulles et al. (2012)

Cd 0.0012 mg/GJ 0.0001 0.012 Pulles et al. (2012)

Hg 0.053 mg/GJ 0.005 0.53 Pulles et al. (2012)
As 0.0023 mg/GJ 0.0002 0.023 Pulles et al. (2012)
Cr 0.28 mg/GJ 0.23 0.30 Pulles et al. (2012)
Cu 0.17 mg/GJ 0.14 0.20 Pulles et al. (2012)
Ni 0.0023 mg/GJ 0.0002 0.023 Pulles et al. (2012)
Se 0.0023 mg/GJ 0.0002 0.023 Pulles et al. (2012)
Zn 0.44 mg/GJ 0.37 0.51 Pulles et al. (2012)
Note:
For conversion of the US EPA data the values have been converted to NCV using a factor of 0.95. Furthermore,
units have been converted using 1055.0559 J/BTU and 453.59237 g/lb.
The factor for SOx is based on 0.1 % mass sulphur content.
Due to lack of data the BC emission factor refers to gas oil fired boilers.The TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors
represent filterable PM emissions. Note that a condensable PM emission factor is also provided in US EPA (2000),
Chapter 3.1.

Table 3-19 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a, reciprocating engines using
gas oil

Code Name
Fuel Gas Oil
SNAP (if applicable) 010105 Public power - Stationary engines
Technologies/Practices Large stationary CI reciprocating engines
conditions
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3
interval
Lower Upper
BC 78 % of PM2.5 63 93 Hernandez et al., 2004
Zn 1.81 mg/GJ 0.18 18.1 US EPA (2010), chapter 1.3
PCDD/F 0.99 ng I- 0.1 10 Nielsen et al., 2010
TEQ/GJ
HCB 0.22 µg/GJ 0.022 2.2 Nielsen et al., 2010
PCBs 0.13 ng I- 0.013 1.3 Nielsen et al., 2010
TEQ/GJ
("Less than" value based on
method detection limits)
Notes:
For conversion of the US EPA data the values have been converted to NCV using a factor of 0.95. Furthermore,
units have been converted using 1055.0559 J/BTU and 453.59237 g/lb.
The factor for SOx assumes no SO2 abatement and is based on 0.1 % mass sulphur content using EF calculation
from subsection 3.4.2.2 of the present chapter.The TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors represent filterable PM
emissions. Note that a condensable PM emission factor is also provided in US EPA (1996), Chapter 3.4.

Table 3-20 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a, reciprocating engines using
natural gas

Code Name
Fuel Natural gas
SNAP (if applicable) 010105 Public power - Stationary engines
Technologies/Practices Stationary reciprocating Engines - gas-fired
conditions
Not applicable
interval
Lower Upper
NMVOC 89 g/GJ 45 135 Nielsen et al., 2010
SO2 0.5 g/GJ 0.1 1 BUWAL, 2001
TSP 2 g/GJ 1 3 BUWAL, 2001
PM10 2 g/GJ 1 3 BUWAL, 2001
PM2.5 2 g/GJ 1 3 BUWAL, 2001
Hg 0.1 mg/GJ 0.02 0.5 Nielsen et al., 2010
Se 0.2 mg/GJ 0.04 1 Nielsen et al., 2010
PCDD/F 0.57 ng I-TEQ/GJ 0.28 1.2 Nielsen et al., 2010
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.20 µg/GJ 0.24 6 Nielsen et al., 2010
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 9.00 µg/GJ 1.8 45 Nielsen et al., 2010
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.70 µg/GJ 0.34 8.5 Nielsen et al., 2010
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.80 µg/GJ 0.36 9 Nielsen et al., 2010
Notes:
SO2 emission factor can also be calculated using EF calculation from subsection 3.4.2.2 of the present chapter.

3.4.3.3 Abatement
A number of technologies exist that are aimed at reducing the emissions of specific pollutants. The
resulting emission can be calculated by applying an abated emission factor as given in the formula:
EFtechnology,abated  (1 abatement)  EFtechnology,unabated (5)
However, this approach requires knowledge of emissions for the unabated or ‘baseline’ technology
and abatement efficiency, which may be difficult to obtain.
Abatement performance is rarely expressed in terms of efficiency, but in terms of the achievable or
guaranteed emission concentration (for example to achieve compliance with an emission limit
value). Assessment of abatement performance is almost always determined by measurement of
emitted concentrations. To allow users to assess if the Tier 2 emission factors for technologies can
be reasonably applied to their country, subsection 6.3, Verification, of the present chapter provides
guidance on conversion of emission concentrations (measured concentrations or emission limit
values) into emission factors for selected fuels.
3.4.3.4 Activity data
Information on the production of power which is suitable for estimating emissions using the
simpler estimation methodology (Tier 1 and 2) is available from national statistics agencies or the
volume 2 on Stationary Combustion www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Stationary_Combustion.pdf.
For a Tier 2 approach these data need to be stratified according to technologies applied. Typical
sources for this data might be industrial or regulatory organisations within the country or from
specific questionnaires to the individual combustion installations.
3.4.4 Tier 3 use of facility-specific data
3.4.4.1 Algorithm
Where facility-level emission data of sufficient quality (see Chapter 3, Data collection, in part A) are
available, it is good practice to use these data. There are two possibilities:
 the facility reports cover all relevant combustion processes in the country;
 facility-level emission reports are not available for all relevant combustion processes in the
country.
If facility-level data are available covering all activities in the country, the implied emission factors
(reported emissions divided by the national fuel use) should be compared with the default emission
factor values or technology-specific emission factors. If the implied emission factors are outside the
95 % confidence intervals for the values given, it is good practice to explain the reasons for this in
the inventory report
Depending on the specific national circumstances and the coverage of the facility-level reports as
compared to the total combustion activity, the emission factor (EF) in this equation should be chosen
from the following possibilities, in decreasing order of preference:

 technology-specific emission factors, based on knowledge of the types of technologies

implemented at the facilities where facility-level emission reports are not available;
 the implied emission factor derived from the available emission reports:
E Facility, pollutant
EF  Facilities (7)
 Production
Facilities
Facility
 the default Tier 1 emission factor. This option should only be chosen if the facility-level emission
reports cover more than 90 % of the total national production.
Sources of emission factor guidance for facilities include the USEPA (USEPA, AP-42), BREF and
industry sector guidance (for example Eurelectric (The Union of the Electricity Industry), 2008).
Emission concentration data and ELVs can also be used by inventory compilers to develop emission
factors (Appendix E). The older versions of the Guidebook also provided a range of emission factors
which may be of use and these are provided at Appendix F.
3.4.4.2 Tier 3 use of facility data

Many combustion installations are major facilities and emission data for individual plants might be
available through a pollutant release and transfer registry (PRTR) or another national emission
reporting scheme. The electricity sector is developing guidance on estimating emissions (Eurelectric,
2008). When the quality of such data is assured by a well developed QA/QC system and the emission
reports have been verified by an independent auditing scheme, it is good practice to use such data.
If extrapolation is needed to cover all activity in the country either the implied emission factors for
the facilities that did report, or the emission factors as provided above could be used (see
subsection 3.4.3.2).

Since PRTR generally do not report activity data, such data in relation to the reported facility-level
emissions are sometimes difficult to find. A possible source of facility-level activity might be the
registries of emission trading systems.
In many countries national statistics offices collect production data on facility level, but these are in
many cases confidential. However, in several countries, national statistics offices are part of the
national emission inventory systems and the extrapolation, if needed, could be performed at the
statistics office, ensuring that confidentiality of production data is maintained.

4 1.A.1.b Petroleum refining

4.1 Techniques
Details of technologies used in this activity can be found within the Best Available Techniques
Reference Note (BREF) for refining installations (EIPPCB, 2015).
4.1.1 Process energy
Refineries require electrical and thermal energy in substantial quantities. Electrical and thermal
energy is typically generated by combined heat and power (CHP) or cogeneration facilities at the
refinery. Thermal energy can be provided directly (process furnaces on the production unit) or via
steam produced within the production unit or from a utilities facility. The technologies for production
of energy from combustion can be identical to those for 1.A.1.a, activities but in many instances the
difference will be that the fuels utilised will be refinery gaseous and liquid fuels. Where non-refinery
fuels are used in combustion processes the information provided in the 1.A.1.a activity can be
applied.
4.1.2 Production activities
Many production activities incorporate process furnaces to heat feedstock; these may use refinery
fuels and recover refinery by-products, and these will have associated combustion emissions.
Incineration and flaring of refinery by-products are other combustion activities (see Chapter 1.B.2.c).
In addition, process sources include bitumen blowing, blowdown systems, hydrogen plant, fluid
coking units, fluidised catalytic cracking (FCC) units and catalytic reforming units (see Chapter
1.B.2.a.iv).
4.2 Emissions

Most emissions arise from process furnaces, boilers, sulphur recovery units, FCC regenerators,
flares, incinerators and decoking units. In the absence of flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) technology,
the emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx) are directly related to the sulphur content of the fuel. The
majority of SOx is sulphur dioxide (SO2) although small proportions of sulphur trioxide (SO3) can
arise.

Emissions of nitrogen oxides (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide — NOx) arise primarily from
combustion and the FCC unit. Combustion control can provide a high degree of NO x emission control
(low NOx burner technology) and this may be supplemented by use of selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) or selective non catalytic reduction techniques (SNCR).

Emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) can result from combustion
activities (including flaring) and process discharges such as vents and blowdown systems. However,
many emission sources on refineries tend to be fugitive releases (See chapter 1.B.2a.iv).


Apart from combustion, flaring and incineration activities, the FCC and catalytic reforming units can
produce CO, but include CO boilers (thermal oxidisers) to control emissions.
4.2.1.1.5 Ammonia (NH3)

Emissions can result from incomplete reaction of NH3 additive in NOx abatement systems —
selective catalytic and non-catalytic reduction (SCR and SNCR). Regenerators for FCC units may emit
ammonia, but these emissions are eliminated by use of CO boilers. In addition, refrigeration systems
which use ammonia may have an associated emission.

Particulate matter (PM) emissions from refinery operations are associated with combustion
activities, and selected production units including coking units and fluid catalytic cracking units.
Note that PM emission factors in the Guidebook represent primary emissions from the activities and
not formation of secondary aerosol from chemical reaction in the atmosphere after release.
A number of factors influence the measurement and determination of primary PM emissions from
activities and, the quantity of PM determined in an emission measurement depends to a large extent
on the measurement conditions. This is particularly true of activities involving high temperature and
semi-volatile emission components – in such instances the PM emission may be partitioned between
a solid/aerosol phase and material which is gaseous at the sampling point but which can condense
in the atmosphere. The proportion of filterable and condensable material will vary depending on the
temperature of the flue gases and in sampling equipment.
A range of filterable PM measurement methods are applied around the world typically with filter
temperatures of 70-160°C (the temperature is set by the test method). Condensable fractions can
be determined directly by recovering condensed material from chilled impinger systems
downstream of a filter – note that this is condensation without dilution and can require additional
processing to remove sampling artefacts. Another approach for total PM includes dilution where
sampled flue or exhaust gases are mixed with ambient air (either using a dilution tunnel or dilution
sampling systems) and the filterable and condensable components are collected on a filter at lower
temperatures (but depending on the method this can be 15-52°C). The use of dilution methods for
routine measurements on refinery stacks, however, is limited due to practical constraints with
weight and/or size of the equipment.
The Guidebook identifies whether the PM emission factors (for TSP, PM10 and PM2.5) represent total
PM, filterable PM or whether the basis of the emission factor cannot be determined (see individual
emission factor tables).
4.2.1.1.7 Metals
According to the BREF, important heavy metals in crude oils are As, Hg, Ni, and V. Concawe (Concawe,
2015) also present methodologies for Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn with sources from combustion,
incineration of gaseous streams, FCC regenerators and fluid coking. Nickel and vanadium tend to be
enriched in residues from distillation.

4.3 Controls
Details of relevant abatement technologies are described in the BREF notes for refineries and large
combustion plant http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/. Relevant abatement technologies for
refinery combustion units are described in 1.A.1.a. In general, end of pipe treatment of FCC units
tends to be similar to the controls for combustion plant.
4.4 Methods
petroleum refining. The basic idea is:

method, since it is expected that it is more easy to obtain the necessary input data for this
approach than to collect facility-level data needed for a Tier 3 estimate;
 the alternative of applying a Tier 3 method using detailed process modelling is not explicitly
included in this decision tree. However, detailed modelling will always be done at facility level
and results of such modelling could be seen as ‘facility data’ in the decision tree.

Figure 4-1 Decision tree for combustion in petroleum refining
Start

Facility data
category Measured
only
/reported?
No

Is specific fuel
3 approach and
use data available
for the source
No
Can modelled fuel

Use model Tier 3
approach
sources?
No
No
Yes Get Use Tier 2

Key source?
and EFs and EFs
No
Apply Tier 1
default EFs
4.4.2.1 Algorithm
Epollutant annual emission of pollutant
EFpollutant emission factor of pollutant
ARfuel consumption activity rate by fuel consumption
This equation is applied at the national level, using annual national total fuel use (disaggregated by
fuel type). Information on fuel consumption suitable for estimating emissions using the simpler
estimation methodology is widely available from UN statistical yearbooks or national statistics.

The Tier 1 emission factors generally assume an average or typical technology and abatement
implementation. However, emission factors for this chapter reflect unabated emissions.
In cases where specific abatement techniques are to be taken into account, a Tier 1 method is not
applicable and a Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach must be used.
4.4.2.2 Default emission factors
The default emission factors for combustion activities at Tier 1 are based on fuel types including fuel
types common with the 1.A.1.a activity. As most combustion is in process furnaces without contact
with the material being heated, Tier 1 default factors for refinery combustion can often be drawn
from the 1.A.1.a Tier 1 default factors classifications (see Table 4-1).
Table 4-1 Tier 1 fuel classifications
Tier 1 fuel type Associated fuel types Location
Natural gas Natural gas See 1.A.l.a Tier 1
Heavy fuel oil Residual fuel oil, refinery feedstock, See 1.A.1.a Tier 1
petroleum coke
Other liquid fuels (a) Gas oil, kerosene, naphtha, natural gas (a) See 1.A.1.a Tier 1
liquids, liquefied petroleum gas,
orimulsion, bitumen, shale oil
(b) refinery gas (b) Table 4-2
The Tier 1 default emission factors for refinery gas as given in

Table 4-2 have been derived from emission factors published by USEPA (USEPA, 1998) and elsewhere
including factors incorporated by the industry sector (Concawe, 2015). In the absence of detail on
relative use of combustion or abatement technology, which will be different for each country, the
proposed factors represent a mean of unabated emissions for the range of combustion technologies
in use with the 95 % figures a measure of the range of unabated emissions in the sector.
An emission factor for sulphur oxides is provided in the Tier 1 table, but this is based on a range of
published factors, some of which represent very different sulphur levels in the fuels. Where countries
have knowledge of fuel sulphur content then it is recommended that a sulphur oxides emission
factor is calculated from fuel sulphur content.

Table 4-2 Tier 1 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.b, refinery gas

Code Name
NFR Source Category 1.A.1.b Petroleum refining
Fuel Refinery Gas
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3, PCDD/F, HCB
interval
Lower Upper
NOx 63 g/GJ 31.5 84.4 US EPA (1998), chapter 1.4
CO 12.1 g/GJ 7.3 17 Concawe (2015)
BC 18.4 % of PM2.5 5.2 36.3 US EPA, 2011
Pb 1.61 mg/GJ 1.2 2.1 Concawe Report 9/16
Cd 2.19 mg/GJ 0.6 3.8 Concawe Report 9/16
Hg 0.372 mg/GJ 0.2 0.5 Concawe Report 9/16
As 0.352 mg/GJ 0.3 0.4 Concawe Report 9/16
Cr 6.69 mg/GJ 0.3 13.1 Concawe Report 9/16
Cu 3.29 mg/GJ 2.4 4.2 Concawe Report 9/16
Ni 7.37 mg/GJ 1.6 13.1 Concawe Report 9/16
Se 1.56 mg/GJ 1.1 2.0 Concawe Report 9/16
Zn 17.0 mg/GJ 12.0 22.0 Concawe Report 9/16
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.669 µg/GJ 0.223 2.01 API (1998, 2002)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.14 µg/GJ 0.379 3.41 API (1998, 2002)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.631 µg/GJ 0.21 1.89 API (1998, 2002)
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.631 µg/GJ 0.21 1.89 API (1998, 2002)
Note:
The factor for SOx is based on approximately 0.01 gm3 mass sulphur content. SO2 emission factor can also be
calculated using EF calculation from subsection 3.4.2.2 of the present chapter.
These PM factors represent filterable PM emissions only (excluding any condensable fraction).
If a Tier 1 approach is adopted for the process emissions (Chapter 1.B.2.a.iv), combustion emissions
are already covered and should not be reported again in Chapter 1.A.1.b since this would lead to
double counting.
4.4.2.3 Tier 1 activity data

Information on the use of energy, suitable for estimating emissions using the Tier 1 simpler
estimation methodology, is available from national statistics agencies or the International Energy
Agency (IEA).

4.4.3 Tier 2 technology-specific approach
4.4.3.1 Algorithm
The Tier 2 approach is similar to the Tier 1 approach. To apply the Tier 2 approach, both the activity
data and the emission factors need to be applied according to a country’s installed combustion and
abatement technologies. These techniques may include:
 types of refinery;
 capacities of refineries;
 implementation of abatement technologies in the country.
There are two approaches possible:
disaggregate the fuel use in the country to model the different combustion and abatement types
into the inventory by
o defining the activity data using each of the identified process types (together called
‘technologies’ in the formulae below) separately, and
o applying technology-specific emission factors for each process type:
E pollutant   AR
technologies
production,technology  EFtechnology,pollutant (2)
develop country-specific emission factors from the understanding of the relative contributions of
the different technologies within the national combustion plant portfolio (and relative fuel use)
and apply this country-specific emission factor for the national fuel use:
EFcountry, pollutant   Penetration technology  EFtechnology,pollutant

technologies (3)
E pollutant  AR production  EFcountry, pollutant
Both approaches are mathematically very similar or even identical. Using one or the other approach
depends mainly on the availability of data. If the activity data are indeed available, the first approach
seems to be more appropriate. If, however, no direct activity data are available, penetration of
different technologies within the industry could be estimated from data on capacities, or other
surrogate data that reflect relative sizes of facilities using the different technologies.
4.4.3.2 Technology-specific emission factors

Applying a Tier 2 approach for the process emissions from refineries, technology-specific emission
factors are needed. Examples are provided in this section. The BREF document for refineries is
available at http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/ and provides guidance on achievable emission
levels. Emission factors derived from the achievable emission levels values (AELs) as defined in the
BREF document are provided for comparison in subsection 6.3.1.
This section provides a series of technology-specific pollutant emission factors for combustion units
e.g. boilers and process heaters and furnaces; these factors represent a wider range of fuels and
combustion technologies than for Tier 1. They do not represent specific combustion technologies
but do offer more disaggregation than Tier 1. Many of the factors have been included in the industry

guidance for estimating facility releases for E-PRTR (Concawe, 2015) and represent unabated
emission factors.
Emission factors for sulphur oxides are provided in the Tier 2 tables. Where countries have
knowledge of fuel sulphur content and of abatement technologies then it is recommended that a
sulphur oxides emission factor is calculated from fuel sulphur content taking into account
abatement efficiency.
A methodology to calculate NOx emissions has been provided in Concawe, 2015 as the sector’s
recommended method for refineries to use for emission reporting. However, NOx formation is very
complex and depends on a number of parameters (for example hydrogen content, humidity, burner
intensity) which may not be available for a Tier 2 methodology.
Extension of Tier 2 to reflect emission abatement is possible through use of factors derived from
emission data. For emission factors specific to gas turbines, please see 1.A.1.a, subsection 3.4.3.2,
Tier 2 emission factor tables, of the present chapter.
If LPG is used, the emission factors presented for natural gas should be used when estimating
emissions.
A summary of the Tier 2 factors is provided in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3 Tier 2 default factors
Technology Associated fuel types Location of Tier 2 factors
Process furnaces Residual oil Table 4-4
Gas oil Table 4-5
Refinery gas See Tier 1 (Table 4-2)
Natural gas Table 4-7
Gas turbines Various See Section 1.A.1.a
Gas engines Natural gas Table 4-7
Compression ignition engines Gas oil Table 4-8

Table 4-4 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.b, process furnaces using
residual oil

Code Name
Fuel Residual Oil (Refinery Fuel Oil)
SNAP (if applicable) 0103 Petroleum refining plants
Technologies/Practices Process Furnaces, Heaters and Boilers
conditions
Abatement NA
technologies
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, PCBs, HCB
interval
Lower Upper
CO 6 g/GJ 3.6 8.4 Concawe (2015)
TSP 20 g/GJ 12 28 Visschedijk et al (2004)
PM10 15 g/GJ 9 21 Visschedijk et al (2004)
PM2.5 9 g/GJ 5.4 12.6 Visschedijk et al (2004)
BC 5.6 % of PM2.5 0.22 8.69 See Note
Cr 14.8 mg/GJ 2.96 74 API (1998, 2002)
Cu 11.9 mg/GJ 2.38 59.5 API (1998, 2002)
Ni 773 mg/GJ 647 900 Concawe Report 9/16
Zn 49.3 mg/GJ 9.86 247 API (1998, 2002)
PCDD/F 2.5 ng I- 1.25 3.75 UNEP (2005); Heavy fuel fired power
TEQ/GJ boilers
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.7 µg/GJ 0.74 18.5 API (1998, 2002)
Note:
in Appendix C.
For benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(k)fluoranthene and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene all measurements reported by API (1998)
were below the detection limit. Using this the EFs would be 0.60, 0.20 and 1.3 µg/GJ respectively.
These PM factors represent filterable PM emissions.

Table 4-5 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.b, process furnaces, using gas oil

Code Name
Fuel Gas Oil
conditions
Abatement NA
technologies
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3, PCDD/F, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene,
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, PCBs, HCB

interval
Lower Upper
Sox 46.1 g/GJ 36.9 460 See Note
BC 33.5 % of 28.9 38 Hildemann et al., 1981 & Bond et al.,
PM2.5 2006
Note:
Based on 0.1 % mass sulphur content.

Table 4-6 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.b, process furnaces using
natural gas

Code Name
Fuel Natural Gas
conditions
Abatement NA
technologies
Not applicable
Not estimated NH3, PCDD/F, PCBs, HCB
interval
Lower Upper
BC 8.6 % of 4.3 17.2 Wien et al., 2004
PM2.5
on method detection
limits)
on method detection
limits)
on method detection
limits)
on method detection
limits)
Note:
The factor for SOx is based on approximately 0.01 g/m3 mass sulphur content. SO2 emission factor can also be
It must be noted that the Hg content (and other heavy metals) of natural gas varies between gas fields. However,
the differences after natural gas processing is thought to be of minor importance. The US EPA (1998) provides an

emission factor of 0.1 mg/GJ. It is encouraged that countries obtain country specific data for the natural gas based
on the origin.
Table 4-7 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.b, stationary engines using
natural gas

Code Name
Fuel Natural Gas
SNAP (if applicable) 010305 Petroleum refining - Stationary engines
Technologies/Practices 4-stroke lean burn gas engines
conditions
Not applicable
interval
Lower Upper
NOx 405 g/GJ 200 810 US EPA (2000), chapter 3.2;
CO 266 g/GJ 130 530 US EPA (2000), chapter 3.2;
NMVOC 56 g/GJ 30 110 US EPA (2000), chapter 3.2;
SOx 0.281 g/GJ 0.169 0.393 US EPA (2000), chapter 3.2;
TSP 0.037 g/GJ 0.003 0.37 US EPA (2000), chapter 3.2;
PM10 0.037 g/GJ 0.003 0.37 US EPA (2000), chapter 3.2;
PM2.5 0.037 g/GJ 0.003 0.37 US EPA (2000), chapter 3.2;
Hg 0.1 mg/GJ 0.03 0.3 Nielsen et al., 2010
Se 0.2 mg/GJ 0.07 0.6 Nielsen et al., 2010
Benzo(a)pyrene 16.2 µg/GJ 5.4 48.6 API (1998)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 149 µg/GJ 50 447 API (1998)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 241 µg/GJ 80 723 API (1998)
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 54.5 µg/GJ 17.5 158 API (1998)
Notes:
It must be noted that the Hg content (and other heavy metals) of natural gas varies between gas fields. The US
EPA (1998) provides an emission factor of 0.1 mg/GJ. It is encouraged that countries obtain country specific data
for the natural gas based on the origin. Also the amount of lubricants oxidised during use can significantly
influence the emission factors of heavy metals.
The factor for SOx is based on approximately 0.01 gm3 mass sulphur content. SO2 emission factor can also be

Table 4-8 Tier 2 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.b, diesel engines using gas oil

Code Name
Fuel Gas Oil
SNAP (if applicable) 010305 Petroleum refining - Stationary engines
Technologies/Practices Reciprocating Engines (compression injection)
conditions
Not applicable
interval
Lower Upper
BC 78 % of PM2.5 63 93 Hernandez et al., 2004
PCDD/F 0.99 ng I- 0.1 10 Nielsen et al., 2010
TEQ/GJ
HCB 0.22 µg/GJ 0.022 2.2 Nielsen et al., 2010
PCBs 0.13 ng I- 0.013 1.3 Nielsen et al., 2010
TEQ/GJ
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.11 mg/GJ 0.04 0.33 API, 1998
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.49 mg/GJ 0.16 1.47 API, 1998
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.096 mg/GJ 0.032 0.288 API, 1998
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.18 mg/GJ 0.06 0.54 API, 1998
Notes:
The factor for SOx assumes no SO2 abatement and is based on 0.1 % mass sulphur content using EF calculation
from subsection 3.4.2.2 of the present chapter.
Emission factors for metals are based on factors for oil combustion in boilers.
These PM factors represent filterable PM emissions only (excluding any condensable fraction)
Information on the refinery production suitable for estimating emissions using the simpler
estimation methodology (Tier 1 and 2) may be available from national statistics agencies or the

For a Tier 2 approach these data need to be stratified according to technologies applied. Typical
sources for this data might be industrial or regulatory organisations within the country or from
specific questionnaires to the individual refineries.
4.4.4.1 Algorithm
 the facility reports cover all refinery processes in the country;

 facility-level emission reports are not available for all the refinery processes.
the inventory report.

 Production
Facilities
Facility
4.4.4.2 Tier 3 emission modelling and use of facility data

Refinery installations are major facilities and emission data for individual plants could be available
through a pollutant release and transfer registry (PRTR) or another national emission reporting
scheme, but possibly not for all pollutants. When the quality of such data is assured by a well
developed QA/QC system, it is good practice to use such data. Guidance on estimating refinery
emissions has been published by the industry sector [Concawe, 2015]. If extrapolation is needed to
cover all activity in the country, either the implied emission factors for the facilities that did report,
or the emission factors as provided above, could be used (see subsection 3.4.3.2 of the present
chapter).



5 1.A.1.c Manufacture of solid fuels

and other energy industries
5.1 Techniques
Coke manufacture is mainly associated with iron and steel manufacture and details of technologies
used in this activity can be found within the Best Available Techniques Reference Note (BREF) for
Iron and Steel production [EIPPCB, 2013] and within the USEPA guidance.
Coke manufacture is a batch process with production occurring in a coke oven which is a battery of
ovens. Coal is heated in a non-oxidising atmosphere (pyrolysis). The volatile components are driven
off to leave coke which is then pushed at high temperature from the oven into a rail car and taken
to a quench tower to stop oxidation in air. Heating is provided by combustion of a portion of the
evolved gases, following treatment to remove ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, tars and condensable
organic material. Coke manufacture with by-product recovery includes process units to recover
condensed organic material and other by-products. By-products are burnt in coke ovens which do
not have by-product recovery.
5.2 Emissions

Emissions arise from combustion of coke oven gas (COG). Gas is treated to removed H2S but residual
H2S is oxidised to form SO2.

Emissions of nitrogen oxides (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide — NOx) arise primarily from
combustion of COG.

Emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) can result from combustion
activities and process discharges such as vents and blowdown systems. However, many emission
sources tend to be fugitive releases.

Emissions arise from combustion activities and fugitive release of COG.

Particulate matter (PM) emissions arise from combustion activities on the coke oven and materials
handling.
5.3 Controls
Details- of relevant abatement technologies are described in the BREF note for iron and steel
production (http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/). Control of SO2 emission is by removal of H2S
and other sulphurous material from the fuel gas.

5.4 Methods
combustion in energy and transformation industries. The basic idea is:

method, since it is expected that it is more easy to obtain the necessary input data for this
approach than to collect facility-level data needed for a Tier 3 estimate;
 the alternative of applying a Tier 3 method using detailed process modelling is not explicitly
included in this decision tree. However, detailed modelling will always be done at facility level
and results of such modelling could be seen as ‘Facility data’ in the decision tree.
Figure 5-1 Decision tree for combustion in manufacture of solid fuels
Start

Facility data
category Measured
only
/reported?
No

Is specific fuel
3 approach and
use data available
for the source
No
Can modelled fuel

Use model Tier 3
approach
sources?
No
No
Yes Get Use Tier 2

Key source?
and EFs and EFs
No
Apply Tier 1
default EFs

5.4.2.1 Algorithm
where
Epollutant = annual emission of pollutant
EFpollutant = emission factor of pollutant
ARfuel consumption = activity rate by coal consumption, coke or iron production
This equation is applied at the national level, using annual national coal use (disaggregated by
industrial sector). Information on fuel consumption suitable for estimating emissions using the
simpler estimation methodology is widely available from UN statistical yearbooks or national
statistics.
The Tier 1 emission factors assume an average or typical technology and abatement
implementation.
In cases where specific abatement techniques are to be taken into account a Tier 1 method is not
applicable and a Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach must be used.
5.4.2.2 Default emission factors
The Tier 1 default emission factors for process and combustion emissions are given in

Table 5-1 and have been derived from emission factors provided in USEPA guidance. The factors are
based on coal use expressed in terms of net energy content. The factors include combustion and
process emissions from coke batteries, including combustion stacks and preheater. Emissions from
soaking, decarbonisation, charging, door and lid leaks, off-take leaks, quenching and pushing are
included in Chapter 1.B.1.b Fugitive emissions from solid fuels: solid fuel transformation. In the
absence of detail on relative use of coke oven types or abatement technology, which will be different
for each country, the proposed factors represent a mean for the range of technologies in use with
the 95 % figures a measure of the range of emissions in the sector.

Table 5-1 Tier 1 emission factors for source category 1.A.1.c

Code Name
NFR Source Category 1.A.1.c Manufacture of solid fuels and other energy industries
Fuel Coal
Not applicable PCBs, HCB
Not estimated NH3,BC,
interval
Lower Upper
NOx 21 g/GJ 11.5 42 See note
CO 6 g/GJ 3 12 See note
NMVOC 0.8 g/GJ 0.08 8.1 See note
SOx 91 g/GJ 60 120 See note
TSP 82 g/GJ 40 160 See note
PM10 79 g/GJ 40 160 See note
PM2.5 55 g/GJ 28 110 See note
Pb 28 mg/GJ 5.92 145 See note
Cd 1.6 mg/GJ 0.32 9 See note
Hg 30 mg/GJ 6 150 See note
As 11 mg/GJ 2.2 55 See note
Cr 5.7 mg/GJ 1.18 29.5 See note
Cu 25 mg/GJ 5 125 See note
Ni 5.2 mg/GJ 1.1 26 See note
Se 2.9 mg/GJ 0.6 15 See note
Zn 46 mg/GJ 9.4 235 See note
PCDD/F 26 ng I- 5.2 130 See note
TEQ/GJ
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.29 mg/GJ 0.066 1.65 See note
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.003 mg/GJ 0.0006 0.015 See note
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.001 mg/GJ 0.0002 0.005 See note
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.001 mg/GJ 0.0002 0.005 See note
Note:
The tier 1 emission factors are calculated as an average of the tier 2 emission factors. The tier 2 emission factors
have been converted using a NCV of 28.2 GJ/Mg.
5.4.2.3 Tier 1 Activity Data

Information on the use of energy, suitable for estimating emissions using the Tier 1 simpler
estimation methodology, is available from national statistics agencies or the International Energy
Agency (IEA).

5.4.3 Tier 2 approach
For a Tier 2 approach the emission factors are presented in terms of coal use with two technologies.
Note that emission factors can be converted to g/Mg coke produced by applying a conversion of
1 285 kg coal/Mg coke (from the Iron and Steel BREF range of 1220–1 350 kg coal/Mg coke).
The factors represent combustion and process emissions from coke batteries, including combustion
stacks and preheater. Emissions from soaking, decarbonisation, charging, door and lid leaks, off-
take leaks, quenching and pushing are included in Chapter 1.B.1.b Fugitive emissions from solid
fuels: solid fuel transformation.
Table 5-2 Tier 2 default emission factors for source category 1.A.1.c, coke manufacture with
by-product recovery

Code Name
Fuel Coal
SNAP (if applicable) 0104 Solid fuel transformation plants
Technologies/Practices Coke oven (byproduct recovery)
conditions
Not applicable PCB, Hg
Not estimated NH3, Hg
interval
Lower Upper
NOx 820 g/Mg Coal 530 1200 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
CO 340 g/Mg Coal 170 680 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
NMVOC 47 g/Mg Coal 24 94 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
SOx 420 g/Mg Coal 210 840 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
TSP 1914 g/Mg Coal 955 3830 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
PM10 1864 g/Mg Coal 932 3728 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
PM2.5 1176 g/Mg Coal 588 2352 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
BC 48 % of PM2.5 5 95 Bond et al. (2004)
Pb 2.2 mg/Mg Coal 1.1 4.4 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Cd 0.1 mg/Mg Coal 0.05 0.2 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
As 1.6 mg/Mg Coal 0.8 3.2 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Cr 3.6 mg/Mg Coal 1.8 7.2 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Cu 1.7 mg/Mg Coal 0.85 3.4 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Ni 0.9 mg/Mg Coal 0.45 1.8 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Se 1.8 mg/Mg Coal 0.9 3.6 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Zn 7.6 mg/Mg Coal 3.8 15.2 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
PCDD/F 738 ng I-TEQ/Mg 234 2335 UNEP (2005)
Coal
Benzo(a)pyrene 8.2 mg/Mg Coal 1.64 41 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.1 mg/Mg Coal 0.02 0.5 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.03 mg/Mg Coal 0.006 0.15 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.02 mg/Mg Coal 0.004 0.1 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Note:The basis of the TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors could not be determined in the reference (emission
factors for filterable and condensable PM are provided for a number of process activities but it is unclear which
have been incorporated in the Tier 2 emission factors).

Table 5-3 Tier 2 default emission factors for source category 1.A.1.c, coke manufacture
without by-product recovery

Code Name
Fuel Coal
SNAP (if applicable) 0104 Solid fuel transformation plants
Technologies/Practices Coke oven (without byproduct recovery)
conditions
Not applicable PCBs, HCB
Not estimated NMVOC, NH3, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-
cd)pyrene
interval
Lower Upper
NOx 360 g/Mg Coal 250 590 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
CO 25 g/Mg Coal 12.5 50 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
SOx 4700 g/Mg Coal 2350 9200 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
TSP 2700 g/Mg Coal 1350 5400 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
PM10 2618 g/Mg Coal 1309 5236 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
PM2.5 1913 g/Mg Coal 957 3826 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
BC 48 % of PM2.5 5 95 Bond et al. (2004)
Pb 1600 mg/Mg Coal 800 3200 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Cd 90 mg/Mg Coal 45 180 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Hg 1700 mg/Mg Coal 850 3400 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
As 630 mg/Mg Coal 315 1260 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Cr 320 mg/Mg Coal 160 640 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Cu 1400 mg/Mg Coal 700 2800 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Ni 290 mg/Mg Coal 145 580 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Se 160 mg/Mg Coal 80 320 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Zn 2600 mg/Mg Coal 1300 5200 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
PCDD/F 738 ng I-TEQ/Mg 234 2335 UNEP (2005)
Coal
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.5 mg/Mg Coal 0.1 2.5 US EPA (2008), chapter 12.2
Note:
The basis of the TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors could not be determined in the reference (emission factors
for filterable and condensable PM are provided for a number of process activities but it is unclear which have
been incorporated in the Tier 2 emission factors).
5.4.4.1 Algorithm
 the facility reports cover all relevant combustion processes in the country;
 facility-level emission reports are not available for all relevant combustion processes in the
country.

the inventory report.

 Production
Facilities
Facility
5.4.4.2 Tier 3: Use of facility data
Many coke ovens are (or are part of) major facilities, and emission data for individual plants might
be available through a pollutant release and transfer registry (PRTR) or another national emission
reporting scheme. When the quality of such data is assured by a well developed QA/QC system and
the emission reports have been verified by an independent auditing scheme, it is good practice to
use such data. If extrapolation is needed to cover all activity in the country either the implied
emission factors for the facilities that did report, or the emission factors as provided above could be
used (see subsection 3.4.3.2 of the present chapter).

6 Data quality
6.1 Completeness
No specific issues, but the separation of combustion emissions from other emissions associated with
the activities may potentially lead to exclusion of emissions.
6.2 Avoiding double counting with other sectors

In cases where it is possible to split the emissions, it is good practice to do so. However, care must
be taken that the emissions are not double counted (for example between combustion and process
emissions).
6.3 Verification
6.3.1 Best Available Technique (BAT) emission factors
Table 6-1 BAT-based emission factors for source category 1.A.1.a
Pollutant Fuel New or Boiler size Reference AEL concentration range, Emission factor,
type existing or O2 mg.m-3 at STP (0ºC, 101.3 g·GJ-1
[1] plant [2] technology, content, kPa) dry at reference O2 (net thermal
content input)
MWth %v/v dry Low High Low High
TSP coal new 50-100 6 5 20 1.8 7.2
coal new 100-300 6 5 20 1.8 7.2
coal new > 300 6 5 20 1.8 7.2
coal existing 50-100 6 5 30 1.8 10.9
coal existing 100-300 6 5 30 1.8 10.9
coal existing > 300 6 5 30 1.8 10.9
wood new 50-100 6 5 20 1.9 7.7
wood new 100-300 6 5 20 1.9 7.7
wood new > 300 6 5 20 1.9 7.7
wood existing 50-100 6 5 20 1.9 7.7
wood existing 100-300 6 5 20 1.9 7.7
wood existing > 300 6 5 20 1.9 7.7
oil new 50-100 3 5 20 1.4 5.7
oil new 100-300 3 5 20 1.4 5.7
oil new > 300 3 5 10 1.4 2.8
oil existing 50-100 3 5 30 1.4 8.5
oil existing 100-300 3 5 25 1.4 7.1
oil existing > 300 3 5 20 1.4 5.7
gas new GT 15 5 4.3

gas existing GT 15 5 4.3
NOx coal new 50-100 6 90 300 32.6 108.7

coal new 100-300 6 90 200 32.6 72.5
coal new > 300 6 50 150 18.1 54.3
coal existing 50-100 6 90 300 32.6 108.7
coal existing 100-300 6 90 200 32.6 72.5
coal existing > 300 6 50 200 18.1 72.5
wood new 50-100 6 150 250 57.9 96.4
wood new 100-300 6 150 200 57.9 77.1
wood new > 300 6 50 150 19.3 57.9

Pollutant Fuel New or Boiler size Reference AEL concentration range, Emission factor,
type existing or O2 mg.m-3 at STP (0ºC, 101.3 g·GJ-1
[1] plant [2] technology, content, kPa) dry at reference O2 (net thermal
content input)
MWth %v/v dry Low High Low High
wood existing 50-100 6 150 300 57.9 115.7
wood existing 100-300 6 150 250 57.9 96.4
wood existing > 300 6 50 200 19.3 77.1
oil new 50-100 3 150 300 42.4 84.9
oil new 100-300 3 50 150 14.1 42.4
oil new > 300 3 50 100 14.1 28.3
oil existing 50-100 3 150 450 42.4 127.3
oil existing 100-300 3 50 200 14.1 56.6
oil existing > 300 3 50 150 14.1 42.4
gas new > 50 3 50 100 14.2 28.3
gas existing > 50 3 50 100 14.2 28.3
gas new GT 15 20 50 17.2 43.0

gas existing GT 15 20 90 17.2 77.3
gas new Gas engine 15 20 75 17.2 64.4

gas existing Gas engine 15 20 100 17.2 85.9
SO2 coal new 50-100 6 150 400 54.3 144.9

coal new 100-300 6 100 200 36.2 72.5
coal new > 300 6 20 200 7.2 72.5
coal existing 50-100 6 150 400 54.3 144.9
coal existing 100-300 6 100 250 36.2 90.6
coal existing > 300 6 20 200 7.2 72.5
wood new 50-100 6 200 300 77.1 115.7
wood new 100-300 6 150 300 57.9 115.7
wood new > 300 6 50 200 19.3 77.1
wood existing 50-100 6 200 300 77.1 115.7
wood existing 100-300 6 150 300 57.9 115.7
wood existing > 300 6 50 200 19.3 77.1
oil new 50-100 3 100 350 28.3 99.0
oil new 100-300 3 100 200 28.3 56.6
oil new > 300 3 50 150 14.1 42.4
oil existing 50-100 3 100 350 28.3 99.0
oil existing 100-300 3 100 250 28.3 70.7
oil existing > 300 3 50 200 14.1 56.6
gas new GT 15 10 8.6

gas existing GT 15 10 8.6
Notes:
BAT-AELs are based on measurement of filterable PM.
Fuel is main classification only; limits may be for ‘solid fuels’ rather than coal or wood. Limits for gaseous fuels
are for natural gas and may not be applicable to derived fuels.
New and existing plants are as defined in IED (2010).
The refinery BREF provides somewhat wide-ranging views on BAT for refinery emissions. Table 6-2
provides a summary of the information presented. Note that, in the absence of detail about fuel gas
composition, the emission factors were derived from the emission concentrations assuming natural
gas. BAT emissions for energy processes are not presented.

Table 6-2 BAT-based emission factors for refinery processes
Process Pollutant Average Reference AEL concentration Emission factor,

unit period O2 range, mg.m-3 at STP g·GJ-1
content, (0ºC, 101.3 kPa) dry at (net thermal
reference O2 content input)
%v/v dry Low High Low High
daily 3 60 850 17 241
SO2 monthly 3 100 1200 28 340
Whole yearly 3 1000 1400 283 396
Refinery daily 3 70 200 20 57
NOx monthly 3 100 450 28 127
yearly 3 200 500 57 142
Cat cracker
CO - 3 50 100 14 28
CO boiler
NOx - 3 100 500 28 142
No CO
CO
boiler - 3 50 100 14 28
(O2 control) NOx - 3 300 600 85 170
NOx - 3 40 150 11 43
SCR/SNCR
TSP - 3 10 50 3 14
FGD/low S SO2 - 3 10 350 3 99
The BAT document for coke ovens indicates that use of desulphurised coke oven gas and low-NOx
techniques represent BAT in new or modern plant. Post-desulphurisation H2S levels of 500–
1 000 mg.m-3 of fuel are indicated. However, further information is needed to calculate an emission
factor; an estimated SO2 factor range of 60–120 g·GJ-1 has been calculated assuming a calorific value
of 16.2 MJ.m-3[DUKES, 2007].
Estimated BAT emission factors (assuming natural gas as the fuel) for NOx are 140–220 g·GJ-1.
6.3.2 Fuel sulphur content
For processes without SO2 abatement, the sulphur content of the fuel provides a means to calculate
the SO2 emission factor.
EFSO2 = [S] x 20,000
CV
where:
EFSO2 is the SO2 emission factor g·GJ-1
[S] is the percent sulphur (w/w)
CV is the net/inferior calorific value GJ.tonne-1
2 is the ratio of the RMM of SO2 to sulphur
This equation can be extended to include a factor for retention of SO2 in ash.
Liquid fuels in the EC are subject to sulphur limits (EC SCOLF, 1999/2005) as summarised in Table
6-3. The SO2 emission factors in Table 6-3 have been calculated assuming 100 % conversion of fuel
sulphur and applying UK net calorific values for fuel oils (DUKES, 2007).

Table 6-3 Sulphur emission factors from oil sulphur limits
Fuel oil Implementation Maximum SO2 emission Comment

date sulphur content factor, g·GJ
-1
Heavy fuel oil 1.1.2003 1% 485 Assumes net CV of

41.2 GJ.tonne-1
Gas oil Pre 1.1.2008 0.2 % 92 Assumes net CV of
Post 1.1.2008 0.1 % 46 43.4 GJ.tonne-1
6.3.3 Other emission factors
The Industrial Emissions Directive, Gothenburg protocol, USEPA emission factor handbook and
sector-specific emission factor guidance (Eurelectric and Concawe) provide additional means of
assessing the validity of the default emission factors and factors from other sources to a national
inventory.
Examples of emission factors derived from ELVs in the LCPD and Gothenburg protocol are provided
in Appendix D. The USEPA emission factors can be found at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42 .
6.3.4 Derivation of emission factors from emission concentrations for combustion processes
A methodology to develop emission factors from emission concentrations (for example

measurement reports and emission limit values) is provided in Appendix E.
6.4 Developing a consistent time series and recalculation

The emissions of non-CO2 emissions from fuel combustion change with time as facilities are
upgraded or replaced by less-polluting energy technology. The mix of technology used with each
fuel will change with time and this has implications for the choice of emission factor. This is probably
most relevant to the aggregated factors used in Tier 1 and Tier 2. Over time the Tier 1 emissions
estimates become less relevant.
For Tier 3 using facility level data, it might occur that a different selection of facility level data is
included in different years. This can lead to time series inconsistencies. Moreover, PRTR data are
generally available for specific years only. Splicing such recent reported data under the European
Pollutant Release and Transfer Registry (EPRTR)/ European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER) with
historical data could be used to get consistent time series. Splicing could be used for both the activity
data and the country-specific emission factors.
Unexpected discontinuities in time series can occur when specific facilities come into operation or
are closed in specific years. If this happens, it is good practice to clearly document such explanations
in the inventory archives.
6.5 Uncertainty assessment
6.5.1 Emission factor uncertainties
The uncertainty is partly the result of how emission factors are developed and applied. The
expanded statistical uncertainty is made up of: between plants variance, within plant (operating)
variance, and uncertainties associated with the measurement methodology used and the
aggregation of data.

Process measurements, from which emission factors are developed at individual facility level, are
subject to both systematic and random errors in the determination of mass concentration, mass
emission, size distribution, and analytical errors, etc.
In addition, bias may exist in emission factors arising from assumptions made about the abatement
used on ‘typical’ industrial installations. For example, emission factors ‘age’, the factors widely used
in the Guidebook and hence by many countries as default emission factors in their national
inventories become out of date. Recent measurement work suggests that they may overestimate
emissions from the industrial processes subject to more modern industrial emissions regulation.
They may, however, still be fully representative for older plant, small plant, or for poorer fuels.
6.5.2 Activity data uncertainties
The uncertainty in national fuel and production statistics can be difficult to establish, however;
reporting procedures have generally been in place for many years. Recent developments in emission
trading provide a ‘bottom-up’ and verified alternative to national statistics in some sectors.
The uncertainty for disaggregated sector-specific activity data can be high as such data may be
collected infrequently or rely on assumptions which may vary substantially with time.
The inventory compiler needs to understand how sector-specific activity data have been derived.
6.6 Inventory quality assurance/quality control QA/QC

Emissions from fuel combustion are largely associated with electricity production. It is good practice
to check whether the electricity production data are consistent with the reported fuel use.
6.7 Mapping
The facilities within 1.A.1 should be considered as point sources if plant-specific data are available.
Otherwise national emissions should be disaggregated on the basis of plant capacity, employment
or population statistics.
6.8 Reporting and documentation

No specific issues.

7 Glossary
Term Definition
Boiler any technical apparatus, in which fuels are oxidised in order to
generate steam.
Process heater or furnace any technical apparatus, in which fuels are oxidised in order to
generate heat for a process activity.
Coking coal (Nomenclature for Air subcategory of hard coal with a quality that allows the
Pollution of Fuels (NAPFUE) 101) production of a coke suitable for supporting a blast furnace
charge (Meijer, 1995).
Co-generation plant Simultaneous production of electricity and steam (or process
heating).
Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) gas turbine combined with a steam turbine. The boiler can also
be fuelled separately.
Hard coal refers to coal of a gross caloric value greater than 23 865 kJ/kg
on an ash-free but moist basis and with a mean random
reflectance (2) of vitrinite of at least 0.6. Hard coal comprises
the subcategories coking coal and steam coal (3) [Meijer, 1995].
Integrated coal gasification gas turbine fuelled by gas, which is a product of a coal
combined cycle gas turbine (IGCC) gasification process.
Lignite (NAPFUE 105) non-agglomerating coals with a gross caloric value less than
17 435 kJ/kg and containing more than 31 % volatile matter on
a dry mineral matter free basis.
Power plant installation or facility for electricity generation.
Stationary engines spark-ignition or compression-ignition engines (2- and 4-
stroke).
Steam coal (NAPFUE 102) subcategory of hard coal used for steam raising and space
heating purposes. Steam coal includes all anthracite and
bituminous coals not included under coking coal (Meijer, 1995).
Sub-bituminous coal non-agglomerating coals with a gross caloric value between
(NAPFUE 103) 17 435 and 23 865 kJ/kg containing more than 31 % volatile
matter on a dry mineral free matter basis (Meijer, 1995).
(2) Mean random reflectance: characteristic value, which stands for a defined coal composition (modular
component is e.g. vitrinite).
(3) The following coal classification codes cover those coals, which would fall into these subcategories (Meijer,
1995)
International classification codes 323, 333, 334, 423, 433, 435, 523, 533, 534, 535, 623, 633,
(UN, Geneva, 1995) 634, 635, 723, 733, 823
USA classification Class II group 2 ‘medium volatile bituminous’
British classification Class 202, 203, 204, 301, 302, 400, 500, 600
Polish classification Class 33, 34, 35.1, 35.2, 36, 37
Australian classification Class 4A, 4B, 5.

8 References
API, Air toxics emission factors for combustion sources using petroleum based fuels, Volume 1:
Development of emission factors using API/WSPA approach, No 348, Washington DC: American
Petroleum Institute, 1.8.1998.
API, Comparison of API and EPA toxic air pollutant emission factors for combustion sources, No 4720,
Washington DC: American Petroleum Institute, 1.9.2002.
Bailey, R.E., 2001: Global hexachlorobenzene emissions. Chemosphere, Volume 43, Issue 2, April
2001, Pages 167–182.
Bond, T.C., Streets, D.G., Yarber, K.F., Nelson, S.M., Woo, J-H & Klimont, Z., 2004: A Technology-based
10 Global Inventory of Black and Organic Carbon Emissions from Combustion. Journal of Geophysical
Research 11 109, D14203, doi:10.1029/2003JD003697.
Bond, T.C., Wehner, B., Plewka, A., Wiedensohler, A., Heintzenberg, J. & Charlson, R.J., 2006: Climate-
relevant properties of primary particulate emissions from oil and natural gas combustion.
Atmospheric Environment 40 (2006) 3574–3587.
BUWAL 2001: Massnahmen zur Reduktion der PM10-Emissionen. Umwelt-Materialen Nr. 136, Luft.
Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern (in German).
Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., Kuhns, H.D., Etyemezian, V., Lowenthal, D.H., Crow, D.J., Kohl, S.D.,
Engelbrecht, J.P. & Green, M.C., 2004: Source profiles for industrial, mobile, and area sources in the
Big Bend Regional Aerosol Visibility and Observational (BRAVO) Study. Chemosphere 54 (2), 185-
208.
CITEPA, CORINAIR Inventory-Default Emission Factors Handbook (second edition); CEC-DG XI (ed.),
1992.
Concawe, 2015, Air pollutant emission estimation methods for E-PRTR reporting by refineries, 2015
edition, CONCAWE Report 03/15, 2015, available at
https://www.concawe.eu//uploads/Modules/Publications/rpt_15-3.pdf
Concawe, 2016, Emission factors for metals from combustion of refinery fuel gas and residual fuel
oil, CONCAWE Report No. 09/16, 2016, available at https://www.concawe.eu/publication/emission-
factors-for-metals-from-combustion-of-refinery-fuel-gas-and-residual-fuel-oil/
CORINAIR, 1990, CORINAIR 90 Emission Inventory (Proposals) — working paper for the 19–20
September 1991 meeting — Annex 4: Definition of Large Point Sources.
Dayton, D.P. & Bursey, J.T., 2001: Source sampling fine particulate matter: Wood-fired industrial
boiler. Report No. EPA-600/R-01-106. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC.
Diehl, T., Heil, A., Chin, M., Pan, X., Streets, D., Schultz, M., and Kinne, S., 2012: Anthropogenic,
biomass burning, and volcanic emissions of black carbon, organic carbon, and SO2 from 1980 to
2010 for hindcast model experiments, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 12, 24895-24954.
DUKES 2007, Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2007, published by BERR and available here
http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukesa_1-a_3.xls

EC SCOLF 1999/2005, Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels Directive and 2005 Marine oil amendment.
EC-IED, 2010, Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and
control)
EC-LCPD, 2001, Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large
combustion plants.
EIPPCB, 2013, BAT Reference Document for Iron and Steel Production, EC-IED, 2010/75/EU European
IPPC Bureau, available at http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/.
EIPPCB, 2015, Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Refining of Mineral Oil
and Gas, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies, European IPPC Bureau, 2015, available at http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/
EIPPCB, 2006, IPPC BAT Reference Document for Large Combustion Plant, European IPPC Bureau,
2006, available at http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/
Engelbrecht, J.P., Swanepoel, L., Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G. & Egami, R.T., 2002: The comparison of
source contributions from residential coal and low-smoke fuels, using CMB modeling, in South Africa.
Environmental Science and Policy 5 (2), 157–167.
England, G.C., Wien, S., McGrath, T. & Hernandez, D., 2004: Development of Fine Particulate Emission
Factors and Speciation Profiles for Oil and Gas Fired Combustion Systems. Topical Report: Test
Results for a Combined Cycle Power Plant with Oxidation Catalyst and SCR at Site Echo; Prepared for
the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA; the Gas
Research Institute: Des Plains, IL; and the American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, 2004.
Eurelectric, 2008, European Wide Sector Specific Calculation Method for Reporting to the European
Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, VGB / EURELECTRIC Recommendations,VGB European
Working Group ‘E-PRTR’ January 2008, Ref: 2008–030-0105 (Confidential report).
Fisher, G.L., Chrisp, C.E. & Hayes, T.L., 1979: Carbonaceous particles in coal fly ash. In: Proceedings,
Carbonaceous Particles in the Atmosphere. March 20–22, 1978. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
University of California.
Griest, W.H. & Tomkins, B.A., 1984: Carbonaceous particles in coal combustion stack ash and their
interaction with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Science of the Total Environment 36, 209–214.
Grochowalski, A. & Konieczyński, J., 2008: PCDDs/PCDFs, dl-PCBs and HCB in the flue gas from coal
fired CFB boilers. Chemosphere 73 (2008) 97–103.
EMEP/EEA (2006), EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook, version 4 (2006 edition),

published by the European Environmental Agency, Technical report No 11/2006, available via
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/EMEPCORINAIR4/en/page002.html
Henry, W.M. & Knapp, K.T., 1980: Compound forms of fossil fuel fly ash emissions. Environmental
Science and Technology 14 (4), 450–456.
Hernandez, D., Nguyen, Q. & England, G.C., 2004: Development of Fine Particulate Emission Factors
and Speciation Profiles for Oil and Gas Fired Combustion Systems. Topical Report: Test Results for a
Diesel-Fired Compression Ignition Reciprocating Engine with a Diesel Particulate Filter at Site Foxtrot;
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA;

the Gas Research Institute: Des Plains, IL; and the American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC,
2004.
Hildemann, L.M., Markowski, G.R. & Cass, G.R., 1991: Chemical Composition of Emissions from Urban
Sources of Fine Organic Aerosol. Environmental Science & Technology 25(4), 744-759.
IPCC, 2006, UN IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, available at
Kupiainen, K. and Klimont, Z., 2007, Primary emissions of fine carbonaceous particles in Europe.
Atmospheric Environment 41 (10), 2156–2170
Meijer, Jeroen, Personal communication, IEA (International Energy Agency), Fax of 24.4.1995.
Nielsen, M., Nielsen, O.-K. & Thomsen, M. 2010: Emissions from decentralised CHP plants 2007 -
Energinet.dk Environmental project no. 07/1882. Project report 5 – Emission factors and emission
inventory for decentralised CHP production. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus
University. 113 pp. – NERI Technical report No. 786. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR786.pdf.
Nielsen, M., Nielsen, O-K. & Hoffmann, L., 2012: Improved inventory for heavy metal emissions from
stationary combustion plants – 1990-2009 (in prep.).
Olmez, I., Sheffield, A.E., Gordon, G.E., Houck, J.E., Pritchett, L.C., Cooper, J.A., Dzubay T.G. & Bennett,
R.L., 1988: Compositions of Particles from Selected Sources in Philadelphia for Receptor Modeling
Applications. JAPCA 38:1392-1402 (1988).
Pulles, T., van der Gon, H.D., Appelman, W. & Verheul, M. (2012): Emission factors for heavy metals
from diesel and petrol used in European vehicles. Atmospheric Environment 61 (2012) 641-651
Rentz et al, 1993, Rentz, O.; Holtmann, T.; Oertel, D.; Röll, C. et al, Konzeption zur Minderung der VOC-
Emissionen in Baden-Württemberg, Umweltministerium Baden-Württemberg (ed.), Heft 21;
Karlsruhe (Germany), 1993.
Rubenstein, G. 2003, Gas turbine PM emissions — Update. Sierra Research, June 2003 Paper to
ASME/IGTI Turbo-Expo, Atlanta 2003.
Stobbelaar, G., Reduction of Atmospheric Emissions under the terms of the North Sea Action
Programme, Report Lucht 102, Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, The
Netherlands, 1992.
Theloke, J, Kummer U, Nitter S, Geftler T, and Friedrich R, Überarbeitung der Schwermetallkapitel im

CORINAIR Guidebook zur Verbesserung der Emissionsinventare und der Berichterstattung im
Rahmen der Genfer Luftreinhaltekonvention, Report for Umweltbundesamt, April 2008.
TNO. Technical Paper to the OSPARCOM-HELCOM-UNECE Emission Inventory (1995). TNO-report,

TNO-MEP-R95/247
Umweltbundesamt, Germany, 1980, Umwelt- und Gesundheitskritierien für Quecksilber, UBA-

Berichte 5/80, Berlin 1980
UNEP 2005, Standardised toolkit for identification and quantification of dioxin and furan releases,
Edition 2.1, UNEP Chemicals, Geneva, December 2005.
USEPA AP-42 (and USEPA various dates), US-EPA (ed.), Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors;
Stationary Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition, available at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/

US-EPA (ed.), Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors for the NAPAP Emission Inventory, EPA/600/7-
87/015; 1987.
US EPA, 2011. SPECIATE database version 4.3, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA).
Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/speciate/
van der Most, P.F.J.; Veldt, C., Emission Factors Manual PARCOM-ATMOS, Emission factors for air
pollutants 1992, Final version; TNO and Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment,
Air and Energy Directorate Ministry of Transport and Water Management, The Netherlands,
Reference No 92–235, 1992.
Visschedijk, A.J.H., J. Pacyna, T. Pulles, P. Zandveld and H. Denier van der Gon, 2004, Cooordinated
European Particulate Matter Emission Inventory Program (CEPMEIP), 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.
Wenborn, M.J., Coleman, P.J., Passant, N.R., Lymberidi, E., Sully J. & Weir R.A., 1999: Speciated PAH
inventory for the UK. AEAT-3512/REMC/20459131/ISSUE 1
Wien, S., England, G. & Chang, M., 2004a: Development of Fine Particulate Emission Factors and
Speciation Profiles for Oil and Gas Fired Combustion Systems. Topical Report: Test Results for a Dual
Fuel-Fired Commercial Boiler at Site Delta; Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, National
Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA; the Gas Research Institute: Des Plains, IL; and the
American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, 2004.
Wien, S., England, G. & Chang, M., 2004b: Development of Fine Particulate Emission Factors and
Speciation Profiles for Oil and Gas Fired Combustion Systems. Topical Report: Test Results for a
Combined Cycle Power Plant with Supplementary Firing, Oxidation Catalyst and SCR at Site Bravo;
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA;
the Gas Research Institute: Des Plains, IL; and the American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC,
2004.
Wien, S., England, G., Chang, M., 2004c: Development of Fine Particulate Emission Factors and
Speciation Profiles for Oil and Gas Fired Combustion Systems. Topical Report: Test Results for a Gas-
Fired Process Heater with Selective Catalytic Reduction (Site Charlie); Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA; the Gas Research
Institute: Des Plains, IL; and the American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, 2004.
9 Point of enquiry
Enquiries concerning this chapter should be directed to the relevant leader(s) of the Task Force on
Emission Inventories and Projection’s expert panel on combustion and industry (TFEIP). Please refer
to the TFEIP website (www.tfeip-secretariat.org/) for the contact details of the current expert panel
leaders.

Annex A Summary of combustion

plant and NFR codes
Table A1: Combustion plant and sector codes
Combustion plants as point and area sources
NFR SNAP97 NOSE
CODE Codes CODE
Thermal Public District Industrial Commercia Residential Agricultur Gas Stationary
capacity power and heating combustion l and combustion e forestry turbin engines
[MWth ] cogeneratio and specific institutiona and es
n plants sector l fishing
combustio
n
1.A.1.a 01 01 01 101.01 x
1.A.1.a 01 02 01 101.01 x
1.A.1.b 01 03 01 101.01 x
1.A.1.c 01 04 01 101.01 ≥ 300 x
1.A.1.c 01 05 01 101.01 x
1.A.4.a 02 01 01 101.01 X
1.A.2.a-f 03 01 01 101.01 x
1.A.1.a 01 01 02 101.02 x
1.A.1.a 01 02 02 101.02 x
1.A.1.b 01 03 02 101.02 x
1.A.1.c 01 04 02 101.02 ≥ 50 x
1.A.1.c 01 05 02 101.02 and x
1.A.4.a 02 01 02 101.02 < 300 X
1.A.4.b.i 02 02 01 101.02 x
1.A.4.c.i 02 03 01 101.02 x
1.A.2.a-f 03 01 02 101.02 x
1.A.1.a 01 01 03 101.03 x
1.A.1.a 01 02 03 101.03 x
1.A.1.b 01 03 03 101.03 x
1.A.1.c 01 04 03 101.03 x
1.A.1.c 01 05 03 101.03 < 50 x
1.A.4.a 02 01 03 101.03 X
1.A.4.b.i 02 02 02 101.03 x
1.A.4.c.i 02 03 02 101.03 x
1.A.2.a-f 03 01 03 101.03 x
1.A.1.a 01 01 04 101.04 x
1.A.1.a 01 02 04 101.04 x
1.A.1.b 01 03 04 101.04 x
1.A.1.c 01 04 04 101.04 not x
1.A.1.c 01 05 04 101.04 relevant x
1.A.4.a 02 01 04 101.04 x
1.A.4.b.i 02 02 03 101.04 x
1.A.4.c.i 02 03 03 101.04 x
1.A.2.a-f 03 01 04 101.04 x
1.A.1.a 01 01 05 101.05 x
1.A.1.a 01 02 05 101.05 x
1.A.1.b 01 03 05 101.05 x

Combustion plants as point and area sources
NFR SNAP97 NOSE
CODE Codes CODE
Thermal Public District Industrial Commercia Residential Agricultur Gas Stationary
capacity power and heating combustion l and combustion e forestry turbin engines
[MWth ] cogeneratio and specific institutiona and es
n plants sector l fishing
combustio
n
1.A.1.c 01 04 05 101.05 not x
1.A.1.c 01 05 05 101.05 relevant x
1.A.4.a 02 01 05 101.05 x
1.A.4.b.i 02 02 04 101.05 x
1.A.4.c.i 02 03 04 101.05 x
1.A.2.a-f 03 01 05 101.05 x
Note:
x = indicates relevant combination.

Annex B Further details on emissions and

controls
Additional information taken from the 2006 Guidebook (Chapter B111) which may be relevant when
assessing pollutants and controls. Note that the Large Combustion Plant BREF provides a more
recent review of emissions and abatement technologies.
Emissions
The emissions are released through the stack. Fugitive emissions (from seals, etc.) can be neglected
for combustion plants.
The emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx) are directly related to the sulphur content of the fuel, which
for coal normally varies between 0.3 and 1.2 wt.-% (maf) (up to an extreme value of 4.5 wt.-%) and
for fuel oil (including heavy fuel oil) from 0.3 up to 3.0 wt.-%.
Sulphur appears in coal as pyritic sulphur (FeS2), organic sulphur, sulphur salts and elemental
sulphur. A major part of the sulphur in coal comes from pyritic and organic sulphur; both types are
responsible for SOx formation.
For nitric oxide (NO, together with NO2 normally expressed as nitrogen oxides NOx), three different
formation mechanisms are relevant:
 formation of ‘fuel-NO’ from the conversion of chemically-bound nitrogen in the fuel (NOfuel);
 formation of ‘thermal-NO’ from the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen coming from the
combustion air (NOthermal);
 formation of ‘prompt-NO’.
In the temperature range considered (up to 1 700 °C) the formation of ‘prompt-NO’ can be neglected.
The majority of NOx emissions from coal combustion (80 to more than 90 %) is formed from fuel
nitrogen. Depending on combustion temperatures, the portion of thermal- NOx formed is lower than
20 %. The content of nitrogen in solid fuels varies:
 for hard coal between 0.2 and 3.5 wt.-% (maf);

 for lignite between 0.4 and 2.5 wt.-% (maf);
 for coke between 0.6 and 1.55 wt.-% (maf);
 for peat between 0.7 and 3.4 wt.-% (maf);
 for wood between 0.1 and 0.3 wt.-% (maf); and
 for waste between 0.3 and 1.4 wt.-% (maf).
The content of nitrogen in liquid fuels varies for heavy fuel oil between 0.1 and 0.8 wt.-%, and for
fuel oil between 0.005 and 0.07 wt.-%. Natural gas contains no organically-bound nitrogen. The
content of molecular nitrogen in natural gas has no influence on the formation of fuel-NO; only
thermal-NO is formed.
Emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), e.g. olefins, ketones, aldehydes,
result from incomplete combustion. Furthermore, unreacted fuel compounds such as methane (CH4)
can be emitted. The relevance of NMVOC/CH4 emissions from boilers, which are often reported
together as VOC, is very low for large-sized combustion plants.

VOC emissions tend to decrease as the plant size increases. Carbon monoxide (CO) appears always
as an intermediate product of the combustion process and in particular under sub-stoichiometric
combustion conditions.
The formation mechanisms of CO, thermal-NO and VOC are similarly influenced by combustion
conditions.
Emissions of ammonia (NH3) are not caused by a combustion process; the emissions result from
incomplete reaction of NH3 additive in the denitrification process (slip of ammonia in SCR and SNCR
units).
Most of the heavy metals considered (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn, and V) are normally released
as compounds (e.g. oxides, chlorides) in association with particulates. Only Hg and Se are at least
partly present in the vapour phase. Less volatile elements tend to condense onto the surface of
smaller particles in the flue gas stream. Therefore, enrichment in the finest particle fractions is
observed. The content of heavy metals in coal is normally several orders of magnitude higher than
in oil (except occasionally for Ni and V in heavy fuel oil) and in natural gas. For natural gas only
emissions of mercury are relevant.
During the combustion of coal, particles undergo complex changes which lead to vaporisation of
volatile elements. The rate of volatilisation of heavy metal compounds depends on fuel
characteristics (e.g. concentrations in coal, fraction of inorganic components, such as calcium) and
on technology characteristics (e.g. type of boiler, operation mode).
From DBB, all heavy metals of concern are emitted as particulate matter, except Hg and Se.
Emissions from lignite-fired DBB are potentially lower than from hard coal, as the trace element
content in lignite and the combustion temperatures are lower. In WBB, the recirculation of fly ash is
a common operation mode, which creates an important increase in heavy metal concentrations in
the raw gas. Heavy metal emissions from FBC units are expected to be lower due to the lower
operating temperatures and a smaller fraction of fine particles. The addition of limestone in FBC
facilities might reduce the emission of some heavy metals, corresponding to an increased retention
of heavy metals in the bottom ash. This effect can be partially compensated by the increase in the
fraction of fine particulates in the flue gas leading to increased emissions from particulates highly
enriched by heavy metals. High concentrations of As poison denitrification catalysts. Therefore,
selected catalytic reduction plants (SCR) in a high-dust configuration may require special measures
(e.g. reduction of fly ash recirculation).
Controls
Relevant abatement technologies for SO2, NOx and heavy metals are outlined below. Abatement
techniques for gas turbines and stationary engines are treated separately. Average reduction
efficiencies and availabilities of abatement technologies for SOx and NOx are summarised in
Tables B1–B3.
Sulphur oxides: flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) processes
FGD processes are designed to remove SO2 from the flue gas of combustion installations. Most
processes, like the wet scrubbing process (WS), the spray dryer absorption (SDA), the dry sorbent
injection (DSI) and the Walther process (WAP) are based on the reaction of the SO2 with an alkaline
agent added as solid or as suspension/solution of the agent in water to form the respective salts. In
secondary reactions SO3, fluorides and chlorides are also removed. In the case of the DESONOX

process, the SO2 is catalytically oxidised to SO3 and reacts with water to form sulphuric acid. The
activated carbon process and the Wellman-Lord process remove the SO2 to produce a SO2 rich gas,
which may be further processed to sulphur or sulphuric acid.
The Large Combustion Plant BREF indicates that use of low sulphur fuel or co-firing with gas or other
low sulphur fuels are primary measures for SO2 control. Wet limestone scrubbing process (with
gypsum production) is the main FGD process applied to coal and oil-fired boilers but is rarely applied
in plant smaller than 100 MWth. Seawater scrubbing and SDA are listed as alternative possible FGD
techniques for new and retrofit boilers. DSI is also listed as possible for coal. Other techniques are
considered possible but rarely applied to new plant and would be plant-dependent for existing
boilers.
Nitrogen oxides: primary measures
Low NOx burner (LNB)
A characteristic of LNB is the staged air to fuel ratio at the burner. Three different technical
modifications are in use:
 air-staged LNB: an under-stoichiometric zone is created by a fuel-air mixture and primary air.
An internal recirculation zone occurs due to the swirl of primary air. A burn-out zone is created
due to secondary air fed by air nozzles arranged around the primary air nozzles
 air-staged LNB with flue gas recirculation (FGR): the basic function is similar to air-staged LNB.
The distances between the primary and secondary nozzles are greater; therefore, a flue gas
layer is formed. As a result, the residence time in the reducing atmosphere increases and the
oxygen concentration decreases;
 air-/fuel-staged LNB: an additional reduction zone around the primary zone is achieved by the
extremely over-stoichiometric addition of secondary fuel around the secondary flame.
LNB is operational with all fuels and all types of burners. The NOx reduction efficiency for coal-fired
boilers varies between 10 and 30 %.
Staged air supply (SAS)
Staged air means the creation of two divided combustion zones — a primary zone with a lack of
oxygen and a burn-out zone with excess air. SAS covers the low excess air (LEA), burners out of
service (BOOS) and biased burner firing (BBF) techniques:
 low excess air (LEA) means reduction of the oxygen content in the primary combustion zone of
the burners. When firing hard coal, experience has shown that the general limitations are fouling
and corrosion, caused by the reducing atmosphere and incomplete burn-out. When firing gas,
the reduction efficiency is limited by the CO formed. LEA is more suitable for lignite and often
used for retrofitting combustion plants. For oil-fired boilers a reduction efficiency of 20 % has
been achieved
 burners out of service (BOOS) means that the lower burner row(s) in the boiler operate under a
lack of oxygen (fuel rich); the upper burners are not in use. This technology is in particular
suitable for older installations, but the thermal capacity of the boiler decreases by about 15–
20 %
 biased burner firing (BBF) means that the lower burner rows in the boiler operate under a lack
of oxygen (fuel rich) and the upper burners with an excess of oxygen. The boiler efficiency is less
compared to BOOS and the NOx reduction is also lower. The NOx reduction efficiency for coal-
fired boilers varies between 10 and 40 %.

Overfire air (OFA)
All burner rows in the boiler operate with a lack of oxygen. The combustion air is partly (5–20 %)
injected through separate ports located above the top burner row in the boiler. OFA is operational
with most fuels and most types of boilers. For gas-fired boilers a reduction efficiency of 10–30 % and
for oil-fired boilers 10–40 % has been achieved. The NOx reduction efficiency for coal-fired boilers
varies between 10 and 40 %.
Flue gas recirculation (FGR)
The recirculation of flue gas into the combustion air is an efficient NOx abatement method for firing
modes with high combustion temperatures, such as wet bottom boilers and especially for gas- and
oil-fired boilers. The recirculated flue gas can be added to the secondary or primary air. In the first
case, the flame core is not affected and the only effect is a reduction of the flame temperature, which
is favourable for thermal-NOx abatement. The influence on dry bottom boilers is thus very limited,
considering the fact that about 80 % of the NOx formed originates from fuel-bound nitrogen; FGR
can be used as an additional measure. A more efficient method is the introduction of flue gas into
the primary air of an unstaged burner. High reduction efficiencies of FGR in the primary flow (15–
20 %) have been achieved in gas- and oil-fired boilers. The NOx reduction efficiency for coal-fired
boilers varies between 5 and 25 %.
Split primary flow (SPF or Reburn)
Split primary flow means fuel staging in the furnace. This technique involves injecting fuel into the
furnace above the main combustion zone, thereby producing a second sub-stoichiometric
combustion zone. In the primary zone of the boiler the main fuel is burnt under fuel-lean conditions.
This zone is followed by a secondary zone with a reducing atmosphere, into which the secondary
fuel is injected. Finally, secondary air is injected into the burn-out zone of the boiler. This reburning
technique can, in principle, be used for all types of fossil fuel-fired boilers and in combination with
low NOx combustion techniques for the primary fuels. When nitrogen is present in the reburning
fuel, a part of it will be converted into NOx in the burn-out zone. Therefore, use of natural gas
provides the largest potential reduction. Trials on large boilers indicate NOx reduction potentials of
50–70 %.
The Large Combustion Plant BREF lists similar measures for coal- and oil-fired boilers including:
 low excess air;

 air staging (OFA and similar measures);
 LNB;
 reburning.
Reburn is not relevant for natural gas-fired boilers.
Simultaneous processes for removal of nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides
Activated carbon process (AC)
The AC process is a dry process for simultaneous SO2 and NOx removal based on the adsorption of
the pollutants in a moving bed filter of activated carbon. The sulphur oxides undergo catalytic
oxidation with the moisture in the flue gas to form sulphuric acid. NO2 is completely reduced to N2;
NO reacts catalytically with the ammonia injected and forms N2 and H2O. The AC process has been
installed at four power plants in Germany (in two cases downstream of a SDA process). The sulphur

content in the fuel used should not exceed 2.3 wt.-%. The SO2 reduction efficiency is > 95 %, the NOx
reduction efficiency is > 70 %.
The DESONOX process/SNOX process (DESONOX)
The purification of the flue gas by the DESONOX process is based on the simultaneous catalytic
reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) to nitrogen (N2) and water (H2O) and on the catalytic oxidation of
sulphur dioxide (SO2) to sulphur trioxide (SO3). The by-product is sulphuric acid. The process has
been installed at one power plant in Germany, where hard coal is used with a sulphur content of
about 1 wt.-%. The concentration of catalyst toxics (mainly arsenic, but also chromium, selenium,
etc.) has to be taken into account. The SO2 reduction efficiency is up to 95 %, the NOx reduction
efficiency is also up to 95 %. The SNOX process works on the same basic principle as the DESONOX
process, with the main difference that reduction and oxidation take place in two separate reaction
towers. The SNOX process has been applied at one Danish power plant. No reduction efficiency has
been reported yet. The SNOX process is also known as a combination of the Topsøe WSA-2 process
and the SCR process.
Heavy metals: secondary measures
Heavy metal emissions are mainly reduced by dust control equipment. Particulate control systems,
which are used in coal-fired power plants, are cyclones, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators
(ESP), and fabric filters. In most power plants 99 % of the particulates are removed from the flue
gases by using ESP or fabric filters. The latter are more efficient in controlling fine particulate matter;
wet scrubbers and cyclones are less efficient. The reduction efficiency of ESP for most elements in
the solid state is > 99 %. Only for some higher volatile elements, such as Cd, Pb, Zn and Se, is the
reduction efficiency less, but it remains above 90 %. The reduction efficiency of an ESP for Hg
depends on the operating temperature of the ESP. A cold-side ESP operating at about 140 °C is
estimated to have an average Hg reduction efficiency of about 35 %.
The influence of FGD- and DeNOx-units on heavy metal emissions has been investigated mainly in
the frame of mass balance studies. WS-FGD-units remove a further fraction of particulate matter in
flue gas in addition to dust control. Particle-bound elements are removed by FGD-units with an
efficiency of about 90 %. In FGD-units, in particular WS-units, the gaseous compounds can
additionally condense on particulate matter, which are mainly removed in the prescrubber. With
regard to gaseous elements, various studies have shown reduction efficiencies of 30–50 % for Hg
and 60–75 % for Se. Lime contributes over 90 % of the input of As, Cd, Pb and Zn to the FGD.
The abatement of Hg emissions is influenced indirectly by DeNOx-units. A high dust SCRunit

improves Hg removal in a subsequent FGD-unit using a lime scrubbing system. The SCR-unit
increases the share of ionic mercury (HgCl2) to up to 95 %, which can be washed out in the
prescrubber of the FGD-unit. A study in the Netherlands found no influence of LNB on heavy metal
emissions.
Gas turbines
For gas turbines mainly NOx emissions are of most relevance. Primary measures for NOx reduction
are the following:
 dry controls (e.g. over-stoichiometric combustion in a dry low NOx burner; and
 wet controls (injection of water and/or steam) in order to regulate the combustion temperature.
Stationary engines

For spark-ignition engines the main pollutants emitted are NOx, CO and unburned hydrocarbons
(VOC). For diesel engines sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions have also to be considered. Emissions of
soot also contribute to emissions of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, but little
information is available.
Primary measures are installed to optimise combustion conditions (air ratio, reduced load, water
injection, exhaust-gas recirculation, optimised combustion chamber, etc.). Reduction efficiencies can
be given, e.g. for exhaust gas recirculation from 6.5 to 12 % and for internal exhaust gas recirculation
from 4 to 37 %. External exhaust gas recirculation (turbo-charged models) can have reductions of
NOx varying from 25 to 34 %. Secondary measures (NSCR, SCR) are installed if the emission
thresholds cannot be met by adjustments to the engine itself.
Table B1 FGD abatement measure efficiencies and availabilities
No. Type of Reduction Availability

secondary efficiency β[]
measure ηsec [ ]
1 WS 0.90 0.99
2 SDA 0.90 0.99
3 DSI 0.45 0.98
4 LIFAC 0.70 0.98
5 WL 0.97 0.99
6 WAP 0.88 0.99
7 AC 0.95 0.99
8 DESONOX 0.95 0.99

Notes:
WS – lime/limestone wet scrubbing
SDA – spray-dryer absorption
DSI – dry sorbent injection
LIFAC DSI system with additional water injection
WL – Wellman Lord process (regenerable FGD process)
WAP – Walther process
AC – activated carbon process (simultaneous FGD and DeNOx process)
DESONOX – combined FGD and DeNOx process.

Table B2 NOx primary abatement measure efficiencies
Reduction efficiency DBB η [ ] Reduction efficiency WBB η [ ]

Type of primary measure1) Hard coal Lignite Hard coal
range value3) range value3) range value3)
no measure 4)
0 0 0 0 0 0
LNB 0.10 - 0.30 0.20 0.10 - 0.30 0.20 0.10 - 0.30 0.20
SAS 0.10 - 0.40 0.30 0.10 - 0.40 0.30 0.10 - 0.40 0.30
OFA 0.10 - 0.40 0.30 0.10 - 0.35 0.25 0.10 - 0.35 0.25
FGR 0.05 - 0.15 0.10 0.05 - 0.20 0.15 0.10 - 0.25 0.20
LNB/SAS 0.20 - 0.60 0.45 0.20 - 0.60 0.40 0.20 - 0.60 0.45
LNB/OFA 0.20 - 0.60 0.45 0.20 - 0.55 0.40 0.20 - 0.60 0.45
LNB/FGR 0.15 - 0.40 0.30 0.15 - 0.45 0.30 0.20 - 0.50 0.35
SAS/OFA 0.20 - 0.65 0.50 0.20 - 0.60 0.40 0.20 - 0.60 0.40
SAS/FGR 0.15 - 0.50 0.40 0.15 - 0.50 0.40 0.20 - 0.55 0.45
OFA/FGR 0.15 - 0.50 0.40 0.15 - 0.50 0.35 0.20 - 0.50 0.40
LNB/SAS/OFA 0.30 - 0.75 0.60 0.30 - 0.75 0.60 0.30 - 0.75 0.60
LNB/SAS/FGR 0.25 - 0.65 0.50 0.25 - 0.70 0.50 0.30 - 0.70 0.55
LNB/OFA/FGR 0.25 - 0.65 0.50 0.25 - 0.65 0.50 0.30 - 0.65 0.50
old installation/optimised 0.15 0.15 0.15
old installation/retrofitted2) 0.50 0.50 0.50
new installation 2)
0.40 0.40 0.40
Note:
1) Selection from the DECOF database developed by and available at the Institute for Industrial Production
(IPP)
2) Recommended values, when no information concerning the type of primary measure is available
3) Default values used in the computer programme
4) No primary measures are installed. This case is mainly relevant for old installations.

Table B3 NOx secondary abatement measure efficiencies and availabilities
Type of Reduction
Availabilty
No. secondary efficiency
β []
measure η[]
1 SNCR 0.50 0.99
2 SCR 0.80 0.99
3 AC 0.70 0.99
4 DESONOX 0.95 0.99

Annex C Sulphur content in fuels
Fuel sulphur contents from the previous Guidebook (Chapter B111).
Table C-1 Sulphur content in fuels
Sulphur content of fuel

Type of fuel NAPFUE
value1) range unit
code
hc coking 101 0.4 – 6.2 wt.-% (maf)
hc steam 102 0.4 – 6.2 wt.-% (maf)
Coal hc sub-bituminous 103 0.4 – 6.2 wt.-% (maf)
bc broan coal/ligninte 105 0.4 – 6.2 wt.-% (maf)
bc briquettes 106 0.25 – 0.4510) wt.-% (maf)
hc coke oven 107 < 13) wt.-% (maf)
Coke bc coke oven 108 0.5 – 1 3) 4) wt.-% (maf)
Solid petroleum 110
wood 111 < 0.033) wt.-% (maf)
Biomass charcoal 112 < 0.033) wt.-% (maf)
peat 113
municipal 114
industrial 115
Waste
wood 116
agricultural 117
residual 203 0.3 5) – 3.5 6) wt.-%
Oil gas 204 0.3 8)
0.08 – 1.0 wt.-%
diesesl 205 0.38) wt.-%
Liquid kerosene 206
gasoline 208 wt.-%
motor < 0.059)
naphtha 210
black liquour 215
Gas2) natural 301 0.00757) g·m-3
liquified petroleum gas 303 -
coke oven 304 8 g·m-3
blast furnace 305 45·10-3 7) g·m-3
Gas coke oven and blast furnace 306
Gas
waste 307
refinery 308 ≤ 8 7) g·m-3
biogas 309
from gas works 311
Notes:
1) Recommended value
2) Only trace amounts
3) Marutzky 1989
4) Boelitz 1993
5) Mr. Hietamäki (Finland): personal communication
6) Referring to NL-handbook 1988/99/ the range is 2.0 – 3.5
7) NL-handbook 1988
8) 87/219 CEE 1987
9) as ~ 0
10) Davids 1986

Annex D Emission factors derived from

emission limit values
Table D1 TSP
Source Fuel New or Boiler size Reference AEL or ELV concentration, Emission factor[4],
[1] type existing or O2 mg.m-3 at STP (0ºC, 101.3 g·GJ-1
[2] plant [3] technology content, kPa) dry at reference O2 (net thermal
, MWth %v/v dry content input)
Low High Low High
BREF coal new 50-100 6 5 20 1.8 7.2
BREF coal new 100-300 6 5 20 1.8 7.2
BREF coal new > 300 6 5 20 1.8 7.2
LCPD coal new 50-500 6 100 36.2
LCPD coal new > 500 6 50 18.1
LCPD coal new 50-100 6 50 18.1
LCPD coal new > 100 6 30 10.9
BREF coal existing 50-100 6 5 30 1.8 10.9
BREF coal existing > 300 6 5 30 1.8 10.9
LCPD coal existing 50-500 6 100 36.2
LCPD coal existing > 500 6 50 18.1
BREF wood new 50-100 6 5 20 1.9 7.7
BREF wood new 100-300 6 5 20 1.9 7.7
BREF wood new > 300 6 5 20 1.9 7.7
BREF wood existing 50-100 6 5 20 1.9 7.7
BREF wood existing > 300 6 5 20 1.9 7.7
BREF oil new 50-100 3 5 20 1.4 5.7
BREF oil new 100-300 3 5 20 1.4 5.7
BREF oil new > 300 3 5 10 1.4 2.8
LCPD oil new > 50 3 50 14.1
LCPD oil new 50-100 6 50 17.0
LCPD oil new > 100 6 30 10.2
BREF oil existing 50-100 3 5 30 1.4 8.5
BREF oil existing > 300 3 5 20 1.4 5.7
LCPD oil existing > 50 3 50 14.1
LCPD gas new > 50 3 5 1.4
LCPD gas new > 50 3 5 1.4
LCPD gas existing > 50 3 5 1.4
Notes:
1) BREF denotes the large combustion plant BAT reference document, LCPD denotes Directive
2001/80/EC.
2) Fuel is main classification only, limits may be for ‘solid fuels’ rather than coal or wood. Limits for gaseous
fuels are for natural gas and may not be applicable to derived or other gaseous fuels.
3) Note that new and existing plant have specific meanings under LCPD.
4) Emission factors calculated from emission concentrations using USEPA methodology (See Appendix E
for details).

Table D2 Nitrogen oxides

Source Fuel New or Boiler size or Reference O2 AEL or ELV concentration, mg NO2.m-3 Emission factor [4], g·GJ-1
[1] type [2] existing technology, content, at STP (0ºC, 101.3 kPa) dry at (net thermal input)
plant [3] MWth %v/v dry reference O2 content
Low High Low High
BREF coal new 50-100 6 90 300 32.6 108.7
BREF coal new 100-300 6 90 200 32.6 72.5
BREF coal new > 300 6 50 150 18.1 54.3
LCPD coal new 50-500 6 600 217.4
LCPD coal new > 500 6 500 181.1
LCPD coal New 2016 > 500 6 200 72.5
Goburg coal new 50-100 6 400 144.9
Goburg coal new 100-300 6 300 108.7
Goburg coal new > 300 6 200 72.5
LCPD coal existing 50-500 6 600 217.4
LCPD coal Ex. 2016 > 500 6 200 72.5
Goburg coal existing > 50 6 650 235.5
BREF wood new 50-100 6 150 250 57.9 96.4
BREF wood new 100-300 6 150 200 57.9 77.1
BREF wood new > 300 6 50 150 19.3 57.9
LCPD wood new 50-100 6 400 154.3
LCPD wood new 100-500 6 300 115.7
LCPD wood new > 500 6 200 77.1
Goburg wood new 50-100 6 400 154.3
Goburg wood new 100-300 6 300 115.7
Goburg wood new > 300 6 200 77.1
Goburg wood existing > 50 6 650 250.7
BREF oil new 50-100 3 150 300 42.4 84.9
BREF oil new 100-300 3 50 150 14.1 42.4
BREF oil new > 300 3 50 100 14.1 28.3
LCPD oil new 50-100 3 400 113.2
LCPD oil new 100-300 3 200 56.6
LCPD oil new > 300 3 200 56.6
Goburg oil new 50-100 3 400 113.2
Goburg oil new 100-300 3 300 84.9
Goburg oil new > 300 3 200 56.6
LCPD oil existing 50-500 3 450 127.3
Goburg oil existing > 50 3 450 127.3
BREF gas new > 50 3 50 100 14.2 28.3
LCPD gas new 50-300 3 150 42.5
LCPD gas new > 300 3 100 28.3
Goburg gas new 50-300 3 150 42.5
Goburg gas new > 300 3 100 28.3
BREF gas existing > 50 3 50 100 14.2 28.3
LCPD gas existing 50-500 3 300 85.0
Goburg gas existing > 50 3 350 99.1
Notes :
2001/80/EC, Goburg denotes the Gothenburg protocol of 1999.
for details).

Table D3 Sulphur oxides/dioxide

Source Fuel type New or Boiler size or Reference O2 AEL or ELV concentration, mg.m-3 at Emission factor [4], g·GJ-1
[1] [2] existing technology, content, STP (0ºC, 101.3 kPa) dry at reference (net thermal input)
plant [3] MWth %v/v dry O2 content
Low High Low High
BREF coal new 50-100 6 150 400 54.3 144.9
BREF coal new 100-300 6 100 200 36.2 72.5
BREF coal new > 300 6 20 200 7.2 72.5
LCPD coal new 50-100 6 2000 724.5
LCPD coal new 100-500 6 400 2000 144.9 724.5
LCPD coal new > 500 6 400 144.9
Goburg coal new 50-100 6 850 307.9
Goburg coal new 100-300 6 200 850 72.5 307.9
Goburg coal new > 300 6 200 72.5
LCPD coal existing 50-100 6 2000 724.5 0.0
LCPD coal existing 100-500 6 400 2000 144.9 724.5
Goburg coal existing 50-100 6 2000 724.5
Goburg coal existing 100-500 6 400 2000 144.9 724.5
Goburg coal existing > 500 6 400 144.9 0.0
BREF wood new 50-100 6 200 300 77.1 115.7
BREF wood new 100-300 6 150 300 57.9 115.7
BREF wood new > 300 6 50 200 19.3 77.1
LCPD wood new 50-100 6 200 77.1
LCPD wood new 100-500 6 200 77.1
LCPD wood new > 500 6 200 77.1
Goburg wood new 50-100 6 850 327.8
Goburg wood new 100-300 6 200 850 77.1 327.8
Goburg wood new > 300 6 200 77.1
Goburg wood existing 50-100 6 2000 771.4
Goburg wood existing 100-500 6 400 2000 154.3 771.4
Goburg wood existing > 500 6 400 154.3
BREF oil new 50-100 3 100 350 28.3 99.0
BREF oil new 100-300 3 100 200 28.3 56.6
BREF oil new > 300 3 50 150 14.1 42.4
LCPD oil new 50-100 3 850 240.5
LCPD oil new 100-300 3 200 400 56.6 113.2
LCPD oil new > 300 3 200 56.6
Goburg oil new 50-100 3 850 240.5
Goburg oil new 100-300 3 200 850 56.6 240.5
Goburg oil new > 300 3 200 56.6
LCPD oil existing 50-300 3 1700 481.0
LCPD oil existing 300-500 3 400 1700 113.2 481.0
Goburg oil existing 50-300 3 1700 481.0
Goburg oil existing 300-500 3 400 1700 113.2 481.0
Goburg oil existing > 500 3 400 113.2
Goburg gas new > 50 3 35 9.9
LCPD gas new > 50 3 35 9.9
Goburg gas existing > 50 3 35 9.9
Notes :
for details).

Table D4 Gas turbines and stationary engines
Source Fuel New or Technology Reference Pollutant AEL or ELV concentration, Emission factor [4],
[1] type existing O2 content, mg.m-3 at STP (0ºC, 101.3 kPa) g·GJ-1
[2] plant [3] %v/v dry dry at reference O2 content (net thermal input)
Low High Low High
BREF gas new GT 15 TSP 5 4.3

BREF gas existing GT 15 TSP 5 4.3
BREF gas new GT 15 SO2 10 8.6
BREF gas existing GT 15 SO2 10 8.6
BREF gas new GT 15 NOx 20 50 17.2 43.0
LCPD gas new GT 15 NOx 50 75 43.0 64.4
LCPD oil new GT 15 NOx 120 103.0
Goburg gas new GT 15 NOx 50 75 43.0 64.4
Goburg oil new GT 15 NOx 120 103.0
BREF gas existing GT 15 NOx 20 90 17.2 77.3
Goburg gas existing GT 15 NOx 150 128.9
Goburg oil existing GT 15 NOx 200 171.7
BREF gas new Gas engine 15 NOx 20 75 17.2 64.4

Goburg gas new Gas engine 5 NOx 250 500 79.7 159.4
BREF gas existing Gas engine 15 NOx 20 100 17.2 85.9
Goburg gas new CI Engine 5 NOx 500 159.4

Goburg oil new CI Engine 5 NOx 500 600 159.3 191.1
Notes :
for details).

Annex E Calculation of emission factors from

concentrations
E.1 Emission factors for combustion activities

Standardisation of emission concentrations from combustion activities
Annual emissions, emission rates and emission limit values are generally expressed in terms of
pollutant mass (for example tonnes.year-1, kg.hr-1, mg.m-3). Note that a mass concentration is
meaningless unless the volume conditions are defined — typically for a combustion process the
conditions will be a dry volume, at STP (0 °C, 101.3 kPa) and normalised to a reference oxygen
concentration. Consumption of fuel requires a minimum theoretical (stoichiometric) quantity of air.
In practise, more air than the stoichiometric quantity is required to achieve combustion. The oxygen
content in exhaust gases from a combustion appliance is indicative of the amount of excess air and
air ingress in the combustion system. Normalisation to a reference oxygen content allows
comparison between technologies as it removes a diluting (or concentrating) effect of different levels
of excess air/air ingress on the pollutant concentration.
Common oxygen concentrations for emission normalisation are :
 oil- or gas-fired boilers — 3 % O2

 solid-fuel boilers — 6, 7 % O2
 wood-fired boilers — 6, 10, 11 or, 13 % O2
 incineration — 11 % O2
 gas turbines — 15 % O2
 stationary engines — 5, 15 % O2
 dryers — 17 % O2
Other normalisation oxygen concentrations are used including 0 % O2 which is commonly used in
testing of residential gas appliances. Concentrations can also be normalised using carbon dioxide
(although this is much less common).
Usually emission concentration data will be provided as mass concentrations at a specified oxygen
content. However, where emission data are provided in other forms the following equations may
help the user manipulate the date into a more useful form.
Some pollutants are measured and reported on a wet basis and may require standardisation to the
dry condition.
[X]d = [X]w . 100
(100-[H2O])
where:
[X]w is the measured concentration for a wet flue gas (ppm, mg.m-3, %v/v);
[X]d is the measured concentration for a dry flue gas (same units as the dry concentration);
[H2O] is the flue gas moisture content as % v/v on a wet basis.

Many pollutants are measured as volume (molar) concentrations. Conversion to a mass

concentration assumes ideal gas behaviour and is detailed below:
[X]m = [X]d . MW
22.4
where:
[X]d is the measured concentration in ppm (parts per million) by volume for a dry flue gas;
[X]m is the measured concentration in mg.m-3 by volume for a dry flue gas;
MW is the relative molecular mass of the pollutant (for example 64 for SO2);
22.4 is the volume occupied by 1 kgmole of an ideal gas at 0 °C, 101.3 kPa (m3);
Note that NOx emission concentrations and emission factors are defined in terms of NO2. Hence, the
relative molecular mass used for NOx is 46. VOC emission concentrations are often defined in terms
of carbon. Hence, the relative molecular mass used for VOC is 12, but this will often be modified
further for the calibration gas applied (for example MW for concentrations measured as propane
C3H8 ‘equivalents’ would be 3 x 12 = 36).
Normalisation to a reference O2 concentration is given by :
[X]ref = [X]m . (20.9-[ O2]ref)
(20.9-[O2]m)
where :
[X]ref is the standardised concentration of the pollutant at the reference O2 content;
[x]m is the measured concentration in mg.m-3 for a dry flue gas;
[O2]m is the measured O2 concentration in % on a dry basis;
[O2]ref is the reference O2 concentration in % on a dry basis (for example 3, 6 or 15 %).
This calculation is appropriate where pollutant and O2 concentrations are measured on a dry basis.
Calculation of emission factors
An emission factor relates the release of a pollutant to a process activity. For combustion processes,
emission factors are commonly described as the mass of pollutant released per unit of fuel burned.
An emission factor can be calculated in several ways; the approach adopted uses the standardised
pollutant emission concentrations and the specific theoretical (stoichiometric) volume of flue gas for
the relevant fuel. This approach avoids measurement of exhaust gas flow and fuel flows which can
have a high uncertainty and may not be practical at many combustion plant.
The approach requires knowledge of the fuel used, the pollutant concentration and the oxygen
concentration.
Fuel analysis, where available, allows calculation of the specific flue gas volume from the elemental
analysis. However, the US Environmental Protection Agency Method 19 provides flue gas volume for
common fuels. For other fuels (for example derived gases, landfill gas, unrefined natural gas or
waste-derived fuels) fuel analysis is advised to minimise uncertainty.

Fuel analysis route: the fuel analysis and combustion calculations are used to determine the
stoichiometric air requirement and dry flue gas volume per volume or mass of fuel. Note that it is
important to understand the analysis reporting conditions, particularly for solid fuels. The
calculations assume ideal gas behaviour. A dry flue gas volume is calculated for the reference O2
concentration used to normalise the pollutant emission concentration. A pollutant emission factor
(EF) can hence be calculated by multiplying the standardised pollutant concentration by the dry flue
gas volume at the same reference oxygen content.
Generally, the flue gas volumes generated from combustion of fuel can be calculated in accordance
with the following equations.
CXHY + (X+(Y/4)O2 = X CO2 + (Y/2) H2O
Note that some of the oxygen may be sourced from the fuel. For combustion in air, each cubic metre
of oxygen is associated with (79.1/20.9) cubic metres of nitrogen.
The dry flue gas volume at stoichiometric conditions (DFGV SC) per unit mass of fuel (or volume for
gaseous fuels) can be calculated and hence the dry flue gas volume at the normalised condition
(DFGVref) for the required reference oxygen content:
DFGVref = DFGVSC . (20.9/(20.9-[O2ref]))
A pollutant emission factor (EF) can hence be calculated by multiplying the standardised pollutant
concentration by the dry flue gas volume at the same reference oxygen content. For example at 15 %
oxygen:
EF = [X]15 % . DFGV15
Emission factors are reported in several ways and these are generally recalculated using physical or
other properties of the fuel.
For example, a thermal emission factor (as used in the Guidebook) can be derived by dividing the
emission factor calculated above by the calorific value of the fuel. For the Guidebook this is the net
(inferior) CV.
EFthermal = EF
CV
where:
EFthermal is the thermal emission factor expressed in units to suit the user (for example g GJ-1);
CV is the net calorific value of the fuel in appropriate units to suit the units of the emission factor.
USEPA Method 19: The USEPA provides stoichiometric dry flue gas volume for fuel oil. The USEPA
data can be found in USEPA Method 19 (US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60,
Appendix A). The USEPA ‘F-factor’ data are presented as the volume of dry flue gas at 20 °C
associated with the gross thermal input of the fuel. These USEPA conditions are not consistent with
the Guidebook (net calorific basis) or emission concentration reporting practise in Europe (dry gas
at STP — 0ºC, 101.3 kPa) and consequently some manipulation of the data is required. Calculations
assume an ideal gas.
The USEPA method can be obtained here www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method19.html and the

F-factors are provided below.

Fd1) Fw1) Fc1)

Fuel type
dscm/J dscf/10 Btu
6
wscm/J wscf/10 Btu6
scm/J scf/106 Btu
Coal
Anthracite2 2.71·10-7 10100 2.83·10-7 10540 0.530·10-7 1970
Bituminus 2
2.63·10 -7
9780 2.86·10 -7
10640 0.484·10-7 1800
Lignite 2.65·10-7 9860 3.21·10-7 11950 0.513·10-7 1910
Oil 3)
2.47·10 -7
9190 2.77·10 -7
10320 0.383·10 -7
1420
Gas
Natural 2.34·10-7 8710 2.85·10-7 10610 0.287·10-7 1040
Propane 2.34·10 -7
8710 2.74·10 -7
10200 0.321·10 -7
1190
Butane 2.34·10-7 8710 2.79·10-7 10390 0.337·10-7 1250
Wood 2.48·10-7 8710 - - 0.492·10-7 1830
Wood bark 2.58·10 -7
9240 - - 0.516·10 -7
1920
Municipal 2.57·10-7 9600 - - 0.488·10-7 1820
Solid waste - 9570
Notes:
1) determined at standard conditions: 20°C (68°F) and 760mmHg (29.92 in·Hg)
2) as classified according to ASTM D 388
3) Crude, residual or distillate
The Fd factors are used — these represent the dry stoichiometric flue gas volume per unit of energy
input. The Fw and Fc factors represent the wet flue gas volume and CO2 volumes respectively.
The USEPA dry flue gas volume at stoichiometric conditions are first recalculated to provide the flue
gas volume (DFGVref) for the required oxygen content at STP and for the net energy input.
Fd’ = Fd · (273/293) · ((CVgross)/CVnet))
Where :
Fd’ is the stoichiometric dry flue gas volume at STP per unit of net energy input – m3·J-1
Fd is the USEPA factor (20 °C and gross energy input)
273/293 Volume correction — ratio of temperatures in Kelvin
Note that it is the ratio between the fuels’ gross and net calorific values that is needed. Indicative
ratios are provided below based on UK data (DUKES 2007).
Fuel CVgross CVnet Unit Ratio gross/net

Power stn coal 26.2 24.9 GJ·tonne-1 1.05
Industrial coal 26.6 25.3 GJ·tonne-1 1.05
Wood 11.9 10 GJ·tonne-1 1.08
HFO 43.3 41.2 GJ·tonne-1 1.05
Gas oil 45.6 43.4 GJ·tonne-1 1.05
Natural gas 39.8 35.8 MJ·m-3 1.11
The dry flue gas volume at the normalised oxygen content can then be calculated:
Fdref = Fd’ · (20.9/(20.9-[O2ref]))

A pollutant emission factor (EFthermal) can then be calculated by multiplying the standardised
pollutant concentration by the dry flue gas volume at the same reference oxygen content. For
example at 15 % oxygen:
EFthermal = [X]15 % · Fd15 %
Emission factors are reported in several ways and these are generally recalculated using physical or
other properties of the fuel.
For example, a mass emission factor can be derived by multiplying the thermal emission factor
calculated above by the net calorific value of the fuel.
EF = EFthermal · CV
where:
EFthermal is the thermal emission factor expressed in units to suit the user (for example g GJ-1);
CV is the net calorific value of the fuel in appropriate units to suit the units of the emission factor.
Example figures for correlation of emission concentrations to emission factors from USEPA
Method 19 F factors are provided in Figures C1 and C2 below.
Figure E1 Emission factors — selected fuels and standardised concentrations up to

1 000 mg.m-3
Emission Factors and Concentrations
1000
900
800
700
Emission factor, g/GJ net
600
Coal (6% O2)
Wood (6% O2)
500
Oil, gas (3% O2)
Oil, gas (15% O2)
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Emission concentration, mg/m3 dry, STP (0'C, 101.3 kPa) at Reference O2

Figure E2 Emission factors — selected fuels and standardised concentrations up to

200 mg.m-3
200
180
160
140
Emission factors, g/GJ (net)
120
Coal (6% O2)
Wood (6% O2)
100
Oil, gas (3% O2)
Oil, gas (15% O2)
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Emissions concnetrations, mg/m3 dry at STP (0'C, 101.3kPa) at Reference O2

Annex F Emission factors from older versions of the Guidebook

Chapter B111
Table 24: NOx emission factors [g/GJ] for combustion plants
Thermal boiler capacity [MW] Thermal boiler capacity [MW]
>= 30032) >= 50 and < 30032)
Type of fuel NAPFUE Type of boiler43) Type of boiler Type of boiler
code DBB/boiler27) WBB FBC DBB/boiler27) WBB
CFBC
s coal hc coking 101 see table 25 see table 25 701) see table 25 see table 25
s coal hc steam 102 see table 25 see table 25 701) see table 25 see table 25
s coal hc sub-bitumious 103 see table 25 see table 25 701) see table 25 see table 25
s coal bc brown coal/lignite 105 see table 25 701) see table 25
s coal bc briquettes 106
s coke hc coke oven 107
s coke bc coke oven 108
s coke petroleum 110 3001)
s biomass wood 111 2001),15)
s biomass charcoal 112
s biomass peat 113 3001),28) 3001)
s waste municipal 114
s waste industrial 115
s waste wood 116
s waste agricultural 117
l oil residual 203 2101),29), 2601),28), 155 - 29619),20) 1501),29), 1701),29), 1901),30), 2101),30)
l oil gas 204 64 - 6821) 1001)
l oil diesel 205

l kerosene 206
l gasoline motor 208
l naphtha 210
l black liquor 215
g gas natural 301 1701), 48 - 33322) 23) 1251),25), 1501),26), 48 - 33322),23),24)
g gas liquified petroleum gas 303 88 - 33323),24) 88 - 33323),24)

g gas coke oven 304 1501), 88 - 33323) 24) 1101),25), 1301),26), 88 - 33323),24)
g gas blast furnace 305 951), 88 - 33323) 24) 651)25), 801),26), 88 - 33323),24)
g gas coke oven and blast furnace gas 306 88 - 33323),24) 88 - 33323),24)
g gas waste 307 88 - 33323),24) 88 - 33323),24)
g gas refinery 308 88 - 33323),24) 1401), 88 - 33323),24)
g gas biogas 309 88 - 33323),24) 88 - 33323),24)
g gas from gas works 311

Table 24: continued

Thermal boiler capacity [MW] no speci-
> 50 and < 300 32) < 5032) fication
Type of boiler Type of boiler Gas turbine Stationary engine CORINAIR 9044)
FBC GF DBB/boiler27) WBB FBC GF
PFBCCFBC PFBC CFBC AFBC SC CC CI SI
1501) 701) 1501) 1801),31), 2301),29) 701) 1501) 54544)
1501) 701) 1501) 1801),31), 2301),29) 701) 1501) 36.5 - 76144)
1501) 701) 1501) 1801),31), 2301),29) 701) 1501) 20.5 - 1,68344)
1501) 701) 1501) 1801),31), 2301),29) 701) 1501) 180 - 38044)
33.3 - 17544)
3001) 3001) 3001)

200 , 33 - 115 2001), 33 - 11515)
1) 15)
2001),15) 50 - 20044)
1601) 1001) 2301) 2801) 1601) 1001) 150 - 24044)

90 - 46316),17) 90 - 46316),17) 22044)
139 - 14018) 139 - 14018)
80 - 20044)
6)
88 16044)
1401),29), 1801),30) 25045) 1,090-1,20045) 24 - 37044)
801), 1001) 120 1),35) 1),33)1),34)
, 350 , 380 , 780 1),36)
100 - 1,20045) 50 - 26944)
100 - 70045), 30046) 6001),37),42), 1,2001),38)1,0001),40),42), 1,8001),39),42)
18044)
20 - 44044)
1001), 48 - 33322),23),24) 150 - 36045) 6001),37),42), 1,2001),38),42)1,0001),40),42), 1,8001),39),42) 22 - 35044)
4),41)
188 1874),41)
88 - 33323),24) 35 - 10044)
901),23),24) 70 - 57144)
88 - 33323),24) 6.7 - 33044)
88 - 33323),24)
88 - 33323),24) 35 - 32744)
1401),23),24) 150-15145) 35 - 14044)
88 - 33323),24) 6044)

Table 25: NOx emission factors [g/GJ] for coal combustion according to the model (see Annexes 4 and 5)
Thermal boiler capacity [MW]

>= 50 ¹)
Type of fuel coal mining country NAPFUE Hu [MJ/kg] Type of boiler
code (maf) DBB WBB
PM0²) PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM0 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4
         
s coal hc Australia (101) 34 568 454 312 312 227 703 562 387 422 281
Canada (101) 33 500 405 278 278 202 627 501 345 376 251
China (101) 32 413 331 227 227 165 512 409 281 307 205
Columbia (101) 32 535 428 394 394 214 662 529 364 397 265
Czech Republic (101) 34 483 387 266 266 193 598 479 329 359 239
France 101 35 374 299 205 205 149 463 370 254 278 185
Germany RAG 102 35 384 307 211 211 154 476 381 262 285 190
Germany others 101 30 495 396 272 272 198 613 490 337 368 245
CIS (101) 32 308 247 169 169 123 382 305 210 229 153
Hungary 101 34 401 320 220 220 160 496 397 273 298 198
India 103 30 551 441 303 303 220 682 545 375 409 273
South Africa (101) 32 569 456 313 313 228 705 504 388 423 282
USA (101) 34 563 450 310 310 225 697 558 383 418 279
Venezuela (101) 34 588 471 324 324 235 728 583 401 437 291
    
s coal bc Czech Republic 105 28 506 405 278 304 202
Germany
- Rheinisch Coal 105 27 325 260 179 195 130
- Middle Germany 105 25 504 403 277 302 202
- East Germany 105 26 539 431 296 323 215
Hungary-1 105 36 379 303 208 227 151
Hungary-2 103 28 379 304 209 228 152
Poland 105 25 531 425 292 319 213
Portugal 105 25 461 369 254 277 185
Turkey-2 103 27 725 580 399 435 290
1)
The emission factors [g/GJ] are given at full load operating modus.
2)
PM0 ... PM4 = most used combinations of primary
measures;  = reduction efficiencies [ ] PM0 - no primary measures
PM1 - one primary measure: LNB
PM2 - two primary measures: LNB/SAS
PM3 - two primary measures: LNB/OFA
PM4 - three primary measures: LNB/SAS/OFA

Table 26: NMVOC emission factors [g/GJ] for combustion plants

Thermal boiler capacity [MW] no speci-
Type of fuel NAPFUE >= 50 < 50 fication
code boiler GF boiler Gas turbine Stationary engine CORINAIR906)
5)
s coal hc coking 101 3 , 302) 502) 6001) 36)
s coal hc steam 102 35), 302) 502) 6001) 1 - 156)
5)
s coal hc sub-bituminous 103 3 , 302) 502) 6001) 1.5 - 156)
s coal bc brown coal/lignite 105 302),3) 502) 1.5 - 156)
s coal bc briquettes 106 1501)
s coke hc coke oven 107 121) 5 - 156)
s coke petroleum 110 1.56)
s biomass wood 111 802) 1005), 1501), 4004) 10 - 486)
s biomass peat 113 302),3) 302) 3 - 486)
s waste municipal 114 106)
s waste wood 116 40 - 486)
s waste agricultural 117 506)
l oil residual 203 102),3) 37) 507) 1.5 - 47.66)
l oil gas 204 52) 151) 52), 1.5 - 27) 1.5 - 1007), 1002) 1.5 - 9.36)
l oil diesel 205
l kerosene 206 36)
l naphtha 210 36)
l black liquor 215 36)
g gas natural 301 52) 52), 2.5 - 47) 2002) 2 - 46)
g gas liquified petroleum gas 303 2 - 2.66)
g gas coke oven 304 2.5 - 1676)
g gas blast furnace 305 1 - 2.56)
g gas coke oven and blast furnace gas 306
g gas waste 307 2.56)
g gas refinery 308 252) 2.57) 2.1 - 106)
g gas biogas 309 2.56)
1)
LIS 1977 /92/ 2) CORINAIR 1992 /80/ 3)
DBB only 4)
small consumers cf. /24/ 5)
power plants cf. /24/
6)
CORINAIR90 data of combustion plants as point sources with a thermal capacity of > 300, 50 - 300, < 50 MW
7)
CORINAIR90 data, point sources

Table 28: CO emission factors [g/GJ] for combustion plants
Type of combustion no speci-

Utility combustion Commercial comb. Industrial combustion fication
9)
Type of fuel NAPFUE DBB/WBB/ GF boiler GF DBB/WBB/ GF GT stat. E. CORINAIR90
code boilers1) stoker boiler1) stoker
spreader travell. spreader travelling
s coal hc coking 101 143) 1213) 1953) 9.72), 134) 812), 1154) 97.22) 159)
s coal hc steam 102 143) 1213) 1953) 9.72), 134) 1154) 9.72) 10 - 175.29)
s coal hc sub-bituminous 103 143) 1213) 1953) 9.72), 134) 812), 1154) 97.22) 12 - 246.99)
s coal bc brown coal/lignite 105 143) 1213) 1953) 162), 134) 1332), 1154) 1602) 9.6 - 64.49)
s coal bc briquettes 106
s coke hc coke oven 107 102 - 1219)
s coke petroleum 110 159)
s biomass wood 111 1,4733) 1993) 1,5043) 30 - 3009)
s biomass peat 113 30 - 1609)
s waste municipal 114 983),6) 193) 193)7), 963)7), 42 kg/Mg3),8) 309)
s waste wood 116 12 - 3009)
3),8)
s waste agricultural 117 58 kg/Mg 209)
l oil residual 203 153) 173) 153) 10 - 1510) 10010) 3 - 32.69)
l oil gas 204 153) 163) 123) 10 - 2010) 12 - 1,13010) 10 - 46.49)
20.611)
l oil diesel 205
l kerosene 206 129)
l naphtha 210 159)
l black liquor 215 11.1 - 3149)
g gas natural 301 193) 9.63) 173), 135) 10 - 2010), 323) 0.05 - 609)
g gas liquified petroleum gas 303 10 - 139)
g gas coke oven 304 0.03 - 1309)
g gas blast furnace 305 0.3 - 64.49)
g gas coke oven and blast furnace gas 306
g gas waste 307 0.1 - 25.59)
g gas refinery 308 1010) 2 - 159)
g gas biogas 309 139)

1)
DBB/WBB for coal combustion; boiler for other fuel combustion
2)
EPA 1987 /85/, CORINAIR 1992 /80/
3)
Radian 1990 /102/, IPCC 1994 /88/, without primary measure
4)
OECD 1989 /100/, CORINAIR 1992 /80/
5)
CORINAIR 1992 /80/, part 8
6)
grate firing without specification
7)
small combustion 19 g/GJ, mass burning 96 g/GJ
8)
open burning
9)
CORINAIR90 data of combustion plants as point sources with a thermal capacity of > 300, 50 - 300, < 50 MW
10)
CORINAIR90 data, point sources
11)
AP42 /115/

Chapter B111(S1)PMv1
Table 8.2a Emission factors for combustion processes burning hard coal
Fuel NAPFUE NFR Codes Activity description Activity detail Emission factor Notes
Hard coal TSP PM10 PM2.5
FF < 20 mg·Nm-3 6 6 5 CEPMEIP ‘BAT’
Scaled from CEPMEIP ESP factor. TSP scaled to a
ESP (or FF) < 50 mg·Nm -3
15 12 6
nominal 100 mg·Nm-3 limit
From CEPMEIP sub-bit coal ‘high efficiency ESP’,
ESP < 100 mg·Nm-3 30 25 12
Bituminous TSP scaled to a nominal 100 mg·Nm-3 limit
101 Various Electricity, CHP, heat
coal ESP Old/conventional CEPMEIP
140 70 17
< 500 mg·Nm-3
Unit with multicyclone 100 60 35 CEPMEIP
CEPMEIP (N.B. such a high emission
Unit, uncontrolled or cyclone 500 250 100
concentration would apply to few if any plant)
FF < 20 mg·Nm-3 6 6 5 CEPMEIP ‘BAT’
ESP (or FF) Scaled from CEPMEIP ESP factor (TSP scaled to a
15 12 6
< 50 mg·Nm-3 nominal 100 mg·Nm-3 limit)
ESP From CEPMEIP sub-bit coal ‘high efficiency ESP’,
30 25 12
< 100 mg·Nm-3 TSP scaled to a nominal 100 mg·Nm-3 limit
Sub-
Electricity, CHP, heat ESP Old/conventional CEPMEIP
bituminous 103 Various 140 70 17
plant < 500 mg·Nm-3
coal
Unit with multicyclone 100 60 35 CEPMEIP
CEPMEIP (the lower of the two TSP factors, the
800 g GJ-1 for small uncontrolled plant is such a
Unit, uncontrolled or cyclone 500 250 100
high emission concentration that would apply to
few if any plant)
Coke 107 1.A.1.b Oil refineries Coke is unlikely to be burned as primary fuel,
Uncontrolled 500 250 100
when co-fired use the factor for the principal fuel

Table 8.2b Emission factors for combustion processes burning brown coal
Fuel NAPFUE NFR Code Activity description Activity detail Emission factor Notes
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Brown coal 105 Various Electricity plant, CHP Modern FF < 20 mg·Nm-3 9 8 6 CEPMEIP ‘BAT’
plant, heat plant
High efficiency ESP (or FF) 40 30 14 CEPMEIP
Conventional large unit with 100 60 35 CEPMEIP

multicyclone
Peat 113 Various Electricity plant, CHP Modern abatement (FF) 9 8 6 CEPMEIP
plant, heat plant < 30 mg·Nm3
Efficient abatement, 20 15 10 TSP scaled from emission limit

< 50 mg·Nm3 of 50 mg·Nm-3
Efficient abatement, 40 30 20 TSP scaled from emission limit

< 100 mg·Nm3 of 100 mg·Nm-3
Conventional technology 120 40 20 CEPMEIP
Conventional smaller, 300 40 20 CEPMEIP

multicyclone

Table 8.2c Emission factors for combustion processes burning other solid fuels
TSP PM10 PM2.5
CEPMEIP (N.B. care should be taken using
this factor as waste burning is often
Effective emission control (BAT) 15 13 10
controlled under national/international
regulation to a more stringent specification)
Municipal Electricity plant, CHP
114 Various CEPMEIP (uncontrolled. optimised
solid waste plant, heating plant
combustion), (N.B. care should be taken
Conventional emission control 100 70 55 using this factor as waste burning is often
CEPMEIP (N.B. care should be taken using
this factor as waste burning is often
CEPMEIP (uncontrolled, optimised
Industrial Electricity, CHP, Conventional emission control 100 70 55 using this factor as waste burning is often
115 Various
waste heating plant controlled under national/international
CEPMEIP (uncontrolled, optimised
Older small uncontrolled 600 350 210 using this factor as waste burning is often

Table 8.2d Emission factors for combustion processes burning natural gas
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Burner with optimised CEPMEIP
0.1 0.1 0.1
Electricity, CHP and combustion
Natural gas 301 Various
heating plant Conventional installation 0.2 0.2 0.2 CEPMEIP
Conventional installation 0.9 0.9 0.9 USEPA filterable

Table 8.2e Emission factors for combustion of derived gases
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Clean fuel, efficient
0.1 0.1 0.1 CEPMEIP
combustion
Gas works Electricity, CHP and
311 Various Clean fuel, conventional
gas heating plant 0.2 0.2 0.2 CEPMEIP (conventional installation)
installation
Conventional installation 5 5 5 CEPMEIP (high PM due to fuel quality)
Other Electricity, CHP and 0.1 0.1 0.1 CEPMEIP
314 Various combustion
gaseous fuel heating plant
Conventional installation 5 5 5 CEPMEIP
0.1 0.1 0.1 CEPMEIP
Electricity, CHP combustion
Coke oven
304 Various heating plant, coke Clean fuel, conventional
gas 0.2 0.2 0.2 CEPMEIP (conventional installation)
ovens installation
0.1 0.1 0.1 CEPMEIP
Electricity, CHP and combustion
Blast furnace
305 Various heating plant, coke Clean fuel, conventional
gas 0.2 0.2 0.2 CEPMEIP (conventional installation)
ovens installation

Table 8.2f Emission factors for combustion of heavy fuel oil
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Low S fuel with optimised
3 3 2.5 CEPMEIP (about 10 mg·Nm-3 or BAT)
burner and abatement
Low S fuel, efficient
14 12 10 CEPMEIP (about 50 mg·Nm-3)
combustion
Low-medium S fuel,
20 15 9 CEPMEIP (about 70 mg·Nm-3)
Electricity, CHP and conventional installation
Residual fuel oil 203 Various
heating plant Low-medium S fuel, CEPMEIP (higher of two entries used. About
60 50 40
conventional installation 200 mg.N Nm-3)
CEPMEIP (lower of two entries for high S
used (higher entry 240 g GJ-1 for TSP). Very
High S fuel 210 190 130
high emission concentration (about
750 mg·Nm-3)
CEPMEIP. Bit. coal factors more
Petroleum coke 110 1.A.1.b Oil refineries Conventional, multicyclone 100 60 35
appropriate.

Table 8.2g Emission factors for combustion of other liquid fuels
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Electricity, CHP, Optimised burner 2 2 2 CEPMEIP
Gas/diesel oil 205 Various
heating plant Conventional burner 5 5 5 CEPMEIP
Naphtha 210 1.A.1.b Oil refineries All units 5 5 5 CEPMEIP
Liquefied Electricity, CHP, Optimised burner 0.1 0.1 0.1 CEPMEIP
303 Various
petroleum gas heating plant Conventional burner 5 5 5 CEPMEIP
Electricity, CHP, Optimised burner 0.1 0.1 0.1 CEPMEIP
Refinery gas 308 Various
Low S fuel, optimised burner 3 3 2.5 CEPMEIP
Low S fuel, efficient CEPMEIP for residual oil. (About 50 mg·Nm-
14 12 10
combustion 3
, LCPD limit for existing plant)
Low-medium S fuel,
20 15 9 CEPMEIP. (about 70 mg·Nm-3)
conventional installation
Electricity, CHP,
Other oil 224 Various CEPMEIP (highest of similar entries with TSP
heating plant Low-medium S fuel,
60 50 40 of 35, 40, 50 and 60 used. About 200 mg.N
conventional installation
Nm-3)
CEPMEIP, lower of two entries for high S
High S fuel 210 190 130 used. (This is a very high emission
concentration, about 750 mg.N Nm-3)

Table 8.2h Emission factors for combustion of biomass
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Modern unit with FF, TSP scaled from BAT benchmark, fractions
7 7 6
< 20 mg·Nm3 TSP applied based on bit. Coal
TSP scaled from emission concentration,
Electricity, CHP, Older unit, < 100 mg·Nm3 TSP 35 25 12
Wood 111 Various fractions based on bit. Coal
heating plant
Uncontrolled conventional
100 70 55 CEPMEIP (uncontrolled multicyclone)
installation
Conventional minimal control 160 150 150 CEPMEIP for conventional installation
Conventional large unit with CEPMEIP, the use of charcoal is likely to be
100 60 35
multicyclone very rare
Charcoal 112 1.A.2.c Chemicals
CEPMEIP, the use of charcoal is likely to be
400 100 35
very rare.
Textile and leather
Black liquour 215 1.A.2.f Conventional installation 160 150 150 concentration would apply to few, if any,
(pulp and paper)
plant)
Modern optimised large
3 3 2.5 (CEPMEIP, clean fuel)
Electricity, CHP, installation
Biogas 309 Various
Modern, optimised 20 15 10 CEPMEIP (gasification plant)

Default emission factors for use with simpler methodology (Tier 1)
Emission factor, g GJ-1 Notes (4)

Fuel Technology
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Pulverised coal, ESP 30 20 9 Based on AP-42 — assumes 20 % ash content and PM emissions from solid mineral
Hard coal, (assumes
Pulverised coal, fluid bed, other FF 7.4 7.4 3.7 fuels generally similar to coal
20 % ash)
Cyclone furnace, ESP 6.1 4.2 2.3
Brown coal
Stoker with multicyclone 330 230 27
Other solid fuels
Pulverised coal ESP + wet limestone FGD 6 6 5 From CEPMEIP data (US EPA default factors for wet scrubbers are very high)
Natural gas 0.9 0.9 0.9 AP-42 filterable PM factor
Derived gases 5 5 5 CEPMEIP data, worst case for derived gases

Heavy fuel oil No control 25 18 13 Assumes 1 % sulphur as specified in the EU sulphur content of liquid fuels Directive
(1 % S) FGD 1.5 1.5 1.5
Heavy fuel oil No control 64 45 33 Assumes 3 % sulphur (maximum permitted in EU countries)
(3 % S) FGD 3.8 3.8 3.7
Other liquid fuels LPG 2.0 2.0 2.0

FF 51 38 33 AP-42 wood waste
Biomass
ESP 28 21 18
(4) Source: R. Stewart (2006); US EPA AP 42 (1996); CEPMEIP (2006).

Table 8.2a Emission factors for combustion processes burning hard coal
Emission factor
Fuel NAPFUE NFR Codes Activity description Activity detail (5) Notes (6)
g·GJ-1
Hard coal TSP PM10 PM2.5
FGD, ESP or FF < 20 mg·Nm-3 (BAT) 6 6 5 CEPMEIP
ESP (or FF) < 50 mg·Nm-3 (LCPD) 15 12 6 Scaled from CEPMEIP ESP factor
From CEPMEIP sub-bit. coal ‘high
ESP < 100 mg·Nm-3 (LCPD) 30 25 12 efficiency ESP’, TSP scaled to the EU LCP
Directive existing plant sub 100 MWth limit
Bituminous Electricity plant, CHP
101 Various ESP Old/conventional
coal plant 140 70 17 CEPMEIP
< 500 mg. Nm-3
Large unit with multicyclone 100 60 35 CEPMEIP
Large unit, uncontrolled or cyclone 500 250 100 concentration would apply to few, if any,
plant)
ESP (or FF) < 50 mg·Nm-3 (LCPD) 15 12 6 Scaled from CEPMEIP ESP factor
From CEPMEIP sub-bit. coal ‘high
ESP < 100 mg·Nm-3 (LCPD) 30 25 12 efficiency ESP’, TSP scaled to LCPD
existing plant sub 100 MWth limit
Sub-
Electricity plant, CHP ESP old/conventional
bituminous 103 Various 140 70 17 CEPMEIP
plant, heat plant < 500 mg·Nm-3
coal
Conventional large unit with
100 60 35 CEPMEIP
multicyclone
Conventional unit, uncontrolled or
500 250 100 concentration would apply to few, if any,
cyclone
plant)
Coke is unlikely to be burned as primary
Coke 107 fuel, when co-fired use the factor for the
principal fuel.
(5) KEY: FGD: flue gas desulphurisation; ESP: electrostatic precipitator; FF: fabric filter; BAT: Best Available Techniques; LCPD: large combustion plant data.
(6) Sources: R. Stewart (2006); US EPA AP-42 (1996); CEPMEIP (2006).
Table 8.2b Emission factors for combustion processes burning brown coal
Fuel Reference/Comments
NAPFUE NFR Code Activity description Activity detail Emission factor
TSP PM10 PM2.5

High efficiency ESP (or FF) 40 30 14 concentration would apply to few, if any,
plant)
Conventional large unit with
Electricity plant, CHP multicyclone
Brown coal 105 Various plant)
plant, heat plant
Older ESP 160 80 20 concentration would apply to few, if any,
plant)
Older installation uncontrolled or
cyclone
plant)
BAT/new LCPD, modern end-of-
pipe abatement FGD, ESP or FF. 9 8 6 CEPMEIP
< 30 mg·Nm3
Efficient abatement LCP larger TSP scaled from LCP emission limit of
20 15 10
Electricity plant, CHP facility, < 50 mg·Nm3 50 mg·Nm-3
Peat 113 Various
plant, heat plant Efficient abatement LCP TSP scaled from LCP emission limit of
40 30 20
< 100 MWth, < 100 mg·Nm3 50 mg·Nm-3
Conventional technology 120 40 20 CEPMEIP
Conventional smaller,
300 40 20 CEPMEIP
multicyclone

Table 8.2c Emission factors for combustion processes burning other solid fuels
Fuel
NAPFUE NFR Code Activity description Activity detail Emission factor Reference
TSP PM10 PM2.5

CEPMEIP (N.B. care should be taken using this
Municipal factor as waste burning is often controlled
solid waste under national/international regulation to a
more stringent specification)
Electricity plant, CHP
114 Various CEPMEIP (uncontrolled. optimised combustion),
plant, heating plant
(N.B. care should be taken using this factor as
(Solid) Conventional emission control 100 70 55 waste burning is often controlled under
national/international regulation to a more
stringent specification)
CEPMEIP, (N.B. care should be taken using this
factor as waste burning is often controlled
under national/international regulation to a
more stringent specification)
Industrial Electricity, CHP,
115 Various CEPMEIP (uncontrolled, optimised combustion),
Waste heating plant
(N.B. care should be taken using this factor as
Conventional emission control 100 70 55 waste burning is often controlled under
national/international regulation to a more
stringent specification)
Table 8.2d Emission factors for combustion processes burning natural gas
Fuel (IPCC NAPFUE NFR Code Activity description Activity detail Emission factor Reference
Cat)
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Burner with optimised combustion 0.1 0.1 0.1 CEPMEIP
Electricity, CHP and heating Conventional installation 0.2 0.2 0.2 CEPMEIP
Natural gas 301 Various
plant USEPA AP-42 filterable PM (all PM stated to
Conventional installation 0.9 0.9 0.9
be PM1 )

Table 8.2e Emission factors for combustion of derived gases
Fuel Reference
(IPCC Cat)
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Clean fuel, efficient combustion 0.1 0.1 0.1 CEPMEIP
Clean fuel, conventional CEPMEIP (conventional
Gas works Electricity, CHP and 0.2 0.2 0.2
311 Various installation installation)
gas heating plant
CEPMEIP (N.B. high PM due
Conventional installation 5 5 5
to fuel quality)
Other Electricity, CHP and CEPMEIP
314 Various
gaseous fuel heating plant Conventional installation 5 5 5

Electricity, CHP
Coke oven Clean fuel, conventional CEPMEIP (conventional
304 Various heating plant, coke 0.2 0.2 0.2
gas installation installation)
ovens
Conventional installation 5 5 5 CEPMEIP.
Electricity, CHP and
Blast furnace Clean fuel, conventional CEPMEIP (conventional
305 Various heating plant, coke 0.2 0.2 0.2
gas installation installation)
ovens
Conventional installation 5 5 5 CEPMEIP.

Table 8.2f Emission factors for combustion of heavy fuel oil
Fuel Reference
(IPCC Cat)
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Low S fuel with optimised CEPMEIP (equivalent to about 10 mg·Nm3 or
3 3 2.5
burner or abatement BAT)
Low S fuel, efficient CEPMEIP, about 50 mg·Nm3 (EU LCPD limit
14 12 10
combustion for existing plant)
Low-medium S fuel, CEPMEIP (equivalent. to about 70mg·Nm3.
20 15 9
Residual fuel Electricity, CHP and conventional installation
203 Various
oil heating plant Low-medium S fuel, CEPMEIP, the higher of two entries used
60 50 40
conventional installation about 200 mg·Nm3
CEPMEIP, the lower of two entries for high S
used. (N.B. such a high emission
High S fuel 210 190 130
concentration 750 mg·Nm3 would apply to
few if any plant)
CEPMEIP, N.B the factor is very high
Petroleum compared to the EU LCP Directive ELVs and
110 1.A.1.b Oil refineries Conventional, multicyclone 100 60 35
coke BAT for large furnaces. Bit. coal factors more
appropriate.

Table 8.2g Emission factors for combustion of other liquid fuels
Fuel Reference
(IPCC Cat)
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Electricity, CHP, Optimised burner 2 2 2 CEPMEIP
Gas/diesel oil 205 Various
Naphtha 210 1.A.1.b Oil refineries All units 5 5 5 CEPMEIP
Liquefied Electricity, CHP, Optimised burner 0.1 0.1 0.1 CEPMEIP
303 Various
petroleum gas heating plant Conventional burner 5 5 5 CEPMEIP
Electricity, CHP, Optimised burner 0.1 0.1 0.1 CEPMEIP
Refinery gas 308 Various
Low S fuel, optimised burner 3 3 2.5 CEPMEIP
CEPMEIP for residual oil. About 50 mg·Nm3
Low S fuel, efficient combustion 14 12 10
(LCPD limit for existing plant)
Low-medium S fuel, conventional CEPMEIP (equivalent to about 70 mg·Nm3
20 15 9
installation
Electricity, CHP,
Other oil 224 Various CEPMEIP (highest of similar entries with
heating plant Low-medium S fuel, conventional
60 50 40 TSP of 35, 40, 50 and 60 used. About
installation
200 mg·Nm-3)
CEPMEIP, lower of two entries for high S
High S fuel 210 190 130 used. (N.B. this is a very high emission
concentration ~750 mg·Nm3)

Table 8.2h Emission factors for combustion of biomass
Fuel Reference
(IPCC Cat)
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Modern, BAT unit TSP scaled from BAT benchmark, fractions
7 7 6
< 20 mg·Nm3 TSP applied based on bit. coal
Electricity, CHP, TSP scaled from emission concentration,
Wood 111 Various Older unit, < 100 mg·Nm3 TSP 35 25 12
heating plant fractions based on bit. coal
CEPMEIP (equivalent to an uncontrolled
Uncontrolled conventional 100 70 55
multicyclone)
Conventional large unit with CEPMEIP (N.B. the use of charcoal in LCP is
Charcoal 112 1.A.2.c Chemicals 100 60 35
multicyclone likely to be rare
Textile and leather
Black liquour 215 1.A.2.f Conventional installation 160 150 150 concentration would apply to few if any
(pulp and paper ?)
plant)
Modern optimised large CEPMEIP (cleaned fuel)
3 3 2.5
installation
Conventional burner 5 5 5 CEPMEIP
Electricity, CHP, CEPMEIP (gasification plant), seems high
Biogas 309 Various Modern, optimised 20 15 10
Heating plant for gaseous fuel
Conventional installation 160 150 150 concentration would apply to few if any
plant)

Default emission factors for use with simpler methodology (Tier 1)
Fuel Technology Emission factor, g·GJ-1 Notes

TSP PM10 PM2.5
Hard coal - - - Not applicable
Brown coal - - - Not applicable
Other solid fuels - - - Not applicable
Gas turbines 0.9 0.9 0.9 US EPA
Natural gas
Spark ignition 18 18 18 US EPA 2-stroke lean burn, 4-stroke lean burn is 0.04 g·GJ-1
Derived gases Gas turbine 11 11 11 Based on US EPA landfill gas
Heavy fuel oil Diesel 28 23 22 US EPA factor for diesel engines
Gas turbine 2.0 2.0 2.0 US EPA factor for PM applied to other fractions
Other liquid fuels
Diesel 28 23 22 US EPA
Biomass Gas turbine 11 11 11 Landfill gas
Gas turbine 5.7 5.7 5.7 Anaerobic digester gas
Table 9.2a Emission factors for gas turbines combustion processes
Fuel NAPFUE NFR Codes Activity description Activity detail Emission factor, g·GJ-1 Notes
TSP PM10 PM2.5

Sierra (234 tests), assumed all
Natural gas 0.9 0.9 0.9
PM2.5
Sierra (15 tests), assumed all
Gas oil 3 3 3
PM2.5

Table 9.2b Emission factors for compression ignition combustion processes
Fuel Emission factor Reference/Comments

NAPFUE NFR Code Activity description Activity detail
(IPCC Cat) g·GJ-1
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Natural gas Dual fuel engine, gas with HFO 11 11 11 LCP BREF, assumed all PM2.5
Diesel engine 50 41 39 LCP BREF, ‘BAT’ US EPA profile applied
Heavy fuel oil LCP BREF, US EPA profile applied, applicable to
Diesel engine < 64 53 50
older equipment
Diesel engine < 0.02 % S < 26 21 20 LCP BREF, US EPA profile
Gas oil Smaller unit with diesel particulate filter, US EPA
Diesel engine < 17 14 14
profile

1.A.1 Energy Industries 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.A.1 Energy Industries 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.A.1 Energy Industries 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Category Title

NFR 1.A.1 Energy industries

SNAP 01 Combustion in energy and transformation industries

Version Guidebook 2019

Contributing authors (including to earlier versions of this chapter)

EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 1

EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 2

 1.A.1.a — Public electricity and heat production

Source releases Substance

cadmium) and their compounds

Dioxins, PCB, HCB

EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 3

Fuel Combustion Heat

EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 4

Fuel Combustion Generator Electricity

Fuel Combustion Generator

2.2 1.A.1.b Petroleum refining

EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 5

Crude Oil Process Product

2.3 1.A.1.c Manufacture of solid fuel and other energy industries

Coal Process Product

EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 6

3 1.A.1.a Public electricity and heat

3.1.1 Combustion of coal and other solid mineral fuels

3.1.2 Combustion of biomass

3.1.3 Combustion of peat

EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 7

3.1.4 Combustion of gas and oil

3.1.4.1.1 Boilers and furnaces

3.1.4.1.2 Gas turbines

3.1.4.1.3 Stationary engines

(1) Available here: http://www.ceip.at

EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 8

3.2.1.1.1 Sulphur oxides

3.2.1.1.2 Nitrogen oxides

3.2.1.1.3 Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC)

3.2.1.1.4 Carbon monoxide (CO)

3.2.1.1.5 Ammonia (NH3)

3.2.1.1.6 Particulate matter

EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 9

3.2.1.1.7 Black carbon (BC)

EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 10

3.3.1 Sulphur oxides

3.3.1.1.1 Lime/limestone wet scrubbing (WS)

EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 11

3.3.1.1.2 Spray dryer (semi-dry) absorption (SDA)

3.3.1.1.3 Dry sorbent injection (DSI)

3.3.2 Nitrogen oxides

3.3.2.1.1 Primary measures

3.3.2.1.2 Secondary measures — DeNOx processes

3.3.3 Particulate matter

3.4.1 Choice of method

 if detailed information is available, use it;

EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 12

Figure 3-1 Decision tree for combustion in energy transformation industries

Are all single Yes Use Tier 3

Yes Use measurements Tier

Can modelled fuel