EU ETS exchange of experience. Key figures. Meeting Norwegian Accreditation. Thomas Haug. 13 October 2015

Transcription

1 BUSINESS ASSURANCE EU ETS exchange of experience Meeting Norwegian Accreditation Thomas Haug 1 EU 13 October ETS exchange 2015 of experience SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER Key figures Accredited for all scopes and sectors ( except for ccs due to lack of clients with this demand) 9 trained and qualified verifiers. 3 more under qualification Local unit in Norway operates with clients in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland Appr 70 installations verified in

2 Experiences from 2014 verifications All reports where concluded as satisfactory but still many with comments Still issues with MP Missing emission sources; de-minimis and very low emissions Documentation; procedures, uncertainty analysis etc Risk assessments Control and quality assurance improving but not top of mind in all companies robust reporting process Documentation of external services; measuring devices, sampling, analysis etc What is rolling equipment, coco drier etc, time consuming discussions Additional work after 1. April making concerns; change in reports, registry Concerns and challenges related to a smooth/lean verification process Operators think they are the only installation that need to be verified Replay on outstanding issues to late Emission registry increase technical review time 3 Experiences from 2014 verifications, cont. Improvement reports not all companies fulfilled their obligations There was issues when companies had not updated MP regarding Biofuel Justervesenet missing capacity -> calibration records not updated 4 2

3 Missing data / Data gaps There were some issues in 2014, mainly related to continues measuring Missed some consistency in this respect in the verification reports The auditors has been trained and will repeat this in the calibration meeting this autumn Spent some time during opening meetings with client to explain the requirement, and KGD Conservative methods and principles stressed AER should be reviewed and improved to include space for comments about data gaps 5 Needs for improvement/clarification Emission registry If figures are changed by authority the verifiers records is not updated in this respect How to handle biomass when subtract from emission figures; Why is there no requirements for data quality related to this source? Guidance on how to fill the verification emission report agreed on last year Experience need for harmonisation between MP, sectors etc Different approaches regarding small deminimis sources Different approaches regarding mass balance calculations/system Nice to know/definition on significant capacity change What is the requirements related to charcoal? Need to document origin and sustainability criteria's? How to handle outsourced processes, for instance welding services 6 3

4 Needs for improvement/clarification, cont Metres not approved by Justervesenet Good to have some guidance on the requirements Gas flow metres Flow metres not approved but still used for trade What is the expectations related to follow up activities during the year and from previous years? Example: new client emission verified and approved MilDir spotted different figures in previous year related to inventory (in/out). 7 Collaboration VB NA - Mildir Good experience The competence are increasing for al parties Good and constructive feedback from audits and witness observations Categorisation of findings: Should be made an Norwegian translation to the operators of the differences 8 4

5 Thomas Haug SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER 9 5