Emission Mitigation Measures in Baltic Sea

Frank Marscheider-Weidemann, Eve Menger-Krug, Felix Tettenborn Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe

Cindy Mathan, Simon Siewert, Joachim Heidemeier

Umweltbundesamt UBA, Berlin

Presentation at the Karlsruhe Flussgebietstage, Karlsruhe, May 27th 2011

Introduction

Why are hazardous substances a problem

in the Baltic Sea ?

• Natural characteristics

• slow water exchange (35 a)

• long history of urbanisation and

industrialisation

• large catchment area with 85 mio.

people

sometimes referred to as the most

polluted sea in the world

Source: HELCOM, 2010: Hazardous substances in

the Baltic Sea – An integrated thematic

assessment. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 120B.

Introduction

• HELCOM identified 11 hazardous

substances and substance groups with

special concern to the Baltic Sea

• … including flame retardants, biocides,

surfactants and heavy metals

• Small amounts of these hazardous substances

are also contained in consumer products

• Electronic products, (functional) textiles, low

energy lamps, paints …

1. Dioxins (PCDD), furans (PCDF)

& dioxin-like PCBs

2a. Tributyltin compounds (TBT)

2b. Triphenyltin compounds (TPhT)

3a. Pentabromodiphenyl ether (pentaBDE)

3b. Octabromodiphenyl ether (octaBDE)

3c. Decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE)

4a. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)

4b. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)

5. Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD)

6a. Nonylphenols (NP)

6b. Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE)

7a. Octylphenols (OP)

7b. Octylphenol ethoxylates (OPE)

8a. Short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCP)

8b. Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCP)

9. Endosulfan

10. Mercury

11. Cadmium

Aim of COHIBA Project For these 11 hazardous substances COHIBA aims

• to identify the most important sources of hazardous substances

basis for control of chemicals

• to analyze the flow patterns from production and to quantify

inputs to the sea

• to develop recommendations for cost effective management

options to reduce discharges

• to provide input to the development of national implementation

programs, serving also requirements under the EU WFD

• to provide input to the HELCOM integrated assessments on

hazardous substances as a basis for decision making

• Overall aim is to give support to the implementation of the Baltic

Sea Action Plan

• … and to contribute to the knowledge base for a Baltic Sea

with life undisturbed by hazardous substances

Structure of COHIBA project

• Lead partner Finnish Environment Institute

• 22 partners of 8 countries and several associated organizations

• Duration 36 months (2009 – 2012)

• EU Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013

WP3: Monitoring,

Whole Effluent

Analysis, Case Studies

WP4: Analysis of

Sources and Flows,

European and Regional

SFAs

WP5: Cost-effective management

options for emission reduction

WP6: Diss-

emination to EBSR and

training

Structure of COHIBA project

• Lead partner Finnish Environment Institute

• 22 partners of 8 countries and several associated organisations

• Duration 36 months (2009 – 2012)

• EU Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013

WP3: Monitoring,

Whole Effluent

Analysis, Case Studies

WP4: Analysis of

Sources and Flows,

European and Regional

SFAs

WP5: Cost-effective management

options for emission reduction

WP6: Diss-

emination to EBSR and

training

WP 3: Baltic wide screening of discharges

• Coordinated sampling programme in

8 EU countries for screening the

sources of 11 BSAP substances/

substance groups – WWTPs, treated effluents; sewage sludge;

landfill leachate and storm water

• HELCOM BSAP substances or

substance groups observed

– All 11 priority substances observed in

majority of the samples

– Notable seasonal variations in effluent quality

– No remarkable differences observable

between industrial and municipal effluents

• Whole effluent toxicity testing an

excellent tool to assess the overall

ecotoxicity of effluents

– Acute and chronic toxicity like also high

hormone-disrupting activity occurs in treated

effluents

– Proposal for HELCOM Recommendations

WP4: Major sources and pathways of HBCDD

(Preliminary results)

• different types of measures

• measures for a single

substance or cross-substances

WP 5: How to choose effective measures for

emission reduction of hazardous substances?

Prioritizing sources and measures

How to find the most important sources for a specific substance ?

• Close cooperation with WP4 EU27- and Regional/National SFAs

• Regional differences in importance of sources

esp. urban emissions vs. industrial emissions

• But: the largest source does not necessarily have the largest reduction potential

How to find the most important measures ?

• For important sources: comparison of source control (substitution) and EoP

measures for a specific substance

• Try to find synergies in the form of

• Cross-Substance effects Measure has an effect on more than one of the

11 HS at a specific source (also for reduction strategies)

• Additional environmental benefits Measure has an positive effect on

other environmental problems e.g. eutrophication or emission of heavy

metals

Measures • Measures for emission reduction can be technical or non-technical measures

• … like a special filter at waste water treatment plants

• … like a substitution of flame retardants with safer alternatives

• … or like an international ban on the production and use of a substance

Regulatory Measures

Economic & Financial Measures

Voluntary Agreements

Management & Technical Measures

Source Control

Substitution, Alternatives

End-of-pipe Measures

International level

EU level

HELCOM level

National level

Sub-National level

• Regulatory Measures e.g. laws that prescribe special management

techniques (e.g. incineration of industrial waste and safe landfilling) or ban the

use of a hazardous substance in certain applications or absolutely

• Economic & Financial Measures e.g. special taxes for industries on the use

or disposal of a hazardous substance or including hazardous substances in

the waste water levy (MWWTPs)

• Voluntary Agreements e.g. industry that uses hazardous substances

voluntarily agrees on reduction measures or on phasing out

• International level e.g. Stockholm Convention of POPs

• HELCOM level e.g. BSAP

• National level and sub-National level

• Prerequisite for all non-technical measures: suitable mature technical

measures (end-of-pipe or substitute) exist

Measures

Management & Technical Measures

• Source Control

• Substitution of a hazardous substance in a specific application with another

substance which is less or non hazardous, or finding an alternative process

that makes use of the hazardous substance obsolete

• End-of-pipe Measures

• Special filters or technical procedures to eliminate a specific hazardous

substance from waste flow streams (plus safe disposal) or to degrade them to

non harmful compounds

Measures

Compare substitution

• Prerequisites: availability of a

suitable substitute (some

applications require chemical

properties which makes it difficult to

find a substitute with same

performance, but lower risks for

human health and ecosystems)

• Cost depend largely on

specialization of application, usually

high cost for development of a

substitute and relatively low

additional running costs

Measures vs. EoP

• Prerequisites: availability of a

suitable technique (some waste

streams are difficult to treat)

• Cost depend largely on kind,

concentration and volume of flow

streams, usually high running costs

• EoP measures can have cross

substance effects and positive

environmental side effects

• If a substitute is available, which poses no concern for human health or the

environment this is the preferable measure

• Otherwise the situation has to be analysed carefully to find the advantages and

disadvantages of measures!

How to find the „best“ measure?

1. Find important sources

• Identification of use pattern, emission factors and load pattern of a

substance from general data (e.g. global or EU level inventories)

• Regionalization of use and load pattern

• How important is this industry regionally as a source of HS?

• What is the technological base line?

• Uncertainties because of incomplete inventories (CBI), dynamics, regional

differences… But: the largest source does not necessarily have the largest

reduction potential

• … Example: PFOS - used

amount and load to water

in EU. Will be updated

with WP4 regional results

1

10

100

1000

10000

PF

OS

[kg

/a]

Used amount Low load to environment High load to environment

How to find the „best“ measure?

2. Find appropriate measures

• Choose from wide variety of measures: technical and non technical

• Preselection step „pragmatic approach“ based on data availability

• Collect data on effectiveness (e.g. elimination efficiency) and costs

of measures

• Uncertainties because elimination efficiency and costs strongly depend on

(local) boundary conditions

Example: Cost of AC

treatment at

MWWTPs depends

on size class (A<F)

and dosing

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

A B C D E F

sp

ecif

ic c

osts

[€/p

*a]

6 WWT in Switzerland

specific cost (10 g PAC/m³)

specific cost high doses +filt. (20 g PAC/m³)

specific costs withoutfiltration step (10 g PAC/m³)

Cost data from StrategyMicropoll

How to find the „best“ measure?

3. Calculate cost effectiveness of measures

• CE strongly depends on eliminated load

• [function of load and effectiveness of measure]

• Use different scenarios

– worst case: low load of source – low effectiveness of measure – high

costs of measure

– best case: high load – high eff. – low costs

1

10

100

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10

CE

of

measu

re [

mio

.€/k

g]

Eliminated load per capita [mg/a]

Example: costs for AC treatment

at MWWTPs depends largely on

volume of flow streams CE

depends strongly on load

00

00

01

10

100

1.000

M1 M2 S P WW1 WW2 WW3

CE

[M€

/kg]

worst case best case

Cross substance effect (+PFOA)

CSE (+PFOA, NP)

Metal Plating

Photographic industries

EoP measure at Municipal waste water treatment plants (activated carbon)

Semi- conductor industries

(scenario description and data sources, please refer to hand out)

End of pipe at urban sources Substitution at industrial sources

Preliminary results:

Cost effectiveness of different measures for PFOS (based on estimates of loads and costs in different scenarios )

How to find the „best“ measure?

4. Collect data on additional aspects

• Additional aspects are important to find measures that are not only

cost effective, but sustainable

• If data allows, they should be included qualitatively in the evaluation

and comparison of measures

Important additional aspects include

– Cross substance effects and wider

environmental effect

– wider economic effect

– technical feasibility

– and political enforceability

Outlook

• For each of the 11 hazardous substances, COHIBA WP5 will

compile guidance documents on measures for emission reduction

(evaluation and comparison of measures)

• Additionally, recommendations for reduction strategies will be

derived

Synthesis across all 11 hazardous substances

Regional aspects, taking into account different (local) boundary

conditions in the Baltic Sea Region

Outlook

With the COHIBA WP5 guidance documents

on measures for emission reduction and

the recommendations for reduction strategies

across all 11 hazardous substances

of special concern to the BS

COHIBA WP5 contributes to a knowledge base for a

Baltic Sea with life undisturbed by hazardous substances

www.cohiba-project.net

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING

AND THANKS TO ALL COHIBA PROJECT PARTNERS