Conclusions - socopse

quaggahooliganInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

5 Φεβ 2013 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 4 μήνες)

90 εμφανίσεις

Preliminary Results

From the ScorePP Project



Hans
-
Christian Holten Lützhøft and Eva Eriksson


DTU Environment, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark


SOCOPSE Final Conference

Maastricht (NL)

24 June 2009

The ScorePP project

A Specific Targeted
Research Project (STREP)

Funded by the European
Commission under the 6
th

Framework Programme
(4
th

Call), sub
-
priority
1.1.6.3 ”Global Change
and Ecosystems”

Duration: 01OCT2006 to
30SEP2009 +6 months

Budget: 3.6 M EUR, 2.6
M EUR from the EC

9 partners

4 case cities

www.scorepp.eu

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

The ScorePP approach

Limiting release through:

-

Substitution

-

Minimising release from products

-

Legislation and regulations

-

Voluntary use reductions

O

D+T

T

D+T

Example:
Combined

system:

D+T

T

+T

Treatment options:

-

Stormwater BMPs

-

Household treatment & reuse of WW

-

On
-
site industrial treatment

-

WWTPs

-

Sludge disposal

Sinks:

-

Primary: Surface
water

(WFD)


-

Secondary: Sediments,


soils/gr., water, humans, ...

EQS ...


?

R+T

T

ELV ...




Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Aim

The main project aim is to develop
comprehensive and appropriate
Source Control Options

that authorities, cities, water utilities and
chemical industry can employ to
Reduce Emissions

of
Priority
Pollutants

from urban areas



which will be pursued through



identifying potential sources

and to
quantify releases

of
priority
pollutants



identifying emission barriers

that can be implemented at
appropriate
stages

in the
priority pollutant

release process


defining archetype cities in order to define
emission control strategies


studying the pollutant flows

in society to be able to
assess the
important stocks and pathways

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Approach

Establish Source Classification Framework

Compile data on sources & releases

Classifying using ESs

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Source Classification Framework

Requirements

Content should be structured and organised in a harmonised way

Ensure that the different sources could be distinguished from each other

To be valid EU wide

Dynamic and to be used after this project ends


Inspiration

US EPA SCC

TGD

Harmonised codes like CN, NACE and NOSE

EINECS, CAS#

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Source Classification Framework



the
Emission String

concept

CAS #: unique identification of each substance

NOSE: unique identification of emission processes


NACE: unique identification of economic activities related with the source

ES_Type: a ScorePP defined urban structure descriptor

Agriculture

Construction sites

Facilities; e.g. factories, dentists, slaughter houses (legal entities)

Households

Railways

Rivers

Roads

Waste sites/landfills

and more


All data are stored in a database

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Compiling data

Risk Assessment Reports from EU

Hazardous Substance Data Bank and
Household Product Database

from
US NLM

Handbooks and electronic compilations, e.g. the Merck Index, Rippen, the
e
-
Pesticide Manual
, Kirk
-
Othmer’s Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology

Research articles

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Classifying sources using the ES concept

Release factor

Plasticiser, by
-
products, impurities

Evaporation

Wear & tear

Disposal

CAS#

NACE

NOSE

ES_Type

Waste

Evaporation

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

SCF tested on a selection of WFD substances


Substance

Major use/function

Representing

Anthracene

Intermediate (lower PAH)

Naphthalene; fluoranthene

Atrazine

Pesticide, triazine

Alachlor; simazine

Benzene

Intermediate

trichlorobenzenes

B(a)P

Combustion product (higher PAH)

Higher PAHs

Cl
-
alkane
s

Flame
-
retardant/metal working fluid


Cadmium

Metal. Wide variety of functions


Chlorpyrifos

Pesticide, organophosphate

Chlorfenvinphos

DEHP

Plasticizer


Diuron

Pesticide, urea

Isoproturon

Endosulfan

Pesticide, cyclodiene organochlorine

Alfa
-
endosulf
an; partly PeCP

Endrin

Pesticide, cyclodiene

Aldrin; dieldrin; isodrin

HCB

Impurity/by
-
product


HCBD

Impurity/by
-
product


HCH

Pesticide, cyclodiene organochlorine

Lindane; partly PeCP

Lead

Metal. Wide variety of functions


Mercury

Metal. Wide variety
of functions

Alkyl mercury

DCM

Solvent, chlorinated methane

Cl
-
methanes

Nickel

Metal. Wide variety of functions


NPs

Intermediate

Alkyl phenols

DDT

Pesticide

DDT derivatives

PBDE

Flame
-
retardant


PeCB

Impurity/by
-
product


TEL

Alkyllead anti knockin
g agent

Alkyl lead

TBTs

Pesticide/stabilizer in plastics

Alkyl tin

TCE

Solvent, chlorinated ethane

Cl
-
ethylenes

Trifluralin

Pesticide, selective soil herbicide

Partly isoproturon


Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Number of ESs for each PP

(ab 900 ESs in total)

Anthracene
Atrazine
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chloroalkanes
Cadmium
Chlorpyrifos
DCM
DEHP
Diuron
Endosulfan
Endrin
HCB
HCBD
HCH
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Trifluralin
NPs
PBDE
PeCB
TEL
TBTs
TCE
0
50
100
150
Load
Miscellaneous
No data
RF
Substance
ESs with ...
Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Number of ESs in each urban structure

(ab 900 ESs in total)

Agriculture
Air transport
Buildings
Construction sites
Diffuse sources
Waste disposal
Electricity
Facilities
Forestry
Gardens
Households
Mining
Other uses
Railroads
Rivers
Roads
Sea transport
Water supply
0
50
100
150
Load
Miscellaneous
No data
RF
200
400
600
ES_Type
ESs with ...
Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Environmental releases due to

vehicular transport on
roads

Anthracene

Combustion: 5,2
-
28 µg/kg fuel burned, depending on vehicle and fuel type

Benzene

Combustion: 4
-
10 mg/km driven, depending on vehicle type

Benzo(a)pyrene

Combustion: 1
-
8 µg/km driven, without and with catalyst

Cadmium (from both break linings, tyres, fuel and asphalt)

7 kg/year is released in Stockholm with 780.000 inhabitants

DEHP (from undercoating)

200 kg/year is released in Stockholm with 780.000 inhabitants

Mercury

Tyres: 4
-
240 µg/km depending on vehicle type

Roads: 3
-
17 µg/km depending on vehicle type

Nickel

Combustion: 21
-
107 and 3,2
-
2310 ng/km driven, for gasoline and diesel,
respectively

Brake
-
linings, tyres and asphalt: 91
-
182 ng/km

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Statistics for Denmark year 2007

Data on driven km and use of fu
el (Danish Statistics, 2009)

Person cars (both diesel and gasoline)

35
∙10
9
km

Taxis (both diesel and gasoline)

51
∙10
7
km

Motorbikes

76
∙10
7
km

Mopeds

90
∙10
6
km

Total

36∙10
9
km



Vans

(both diesel and gasoline)

79
∙10
8
km

Lorries

14
∙10
8
km

Semi
-
trailers

92
∙10
7
km

Bus
s
es

62
∙1
0
7
km

Total

11∙10
9
km



Fuel used for vehicle engines

2,4∙10
9
kg


Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Environmental releases due to

vehicular transport on
roads

Depending on fuel and
vehicle type:

Anthracene: 12
-
67 kg

Nickel: 4,4
-
117 kg


Benzene from

busses, lorries etc:
105 tonnes


Cadmium: 49 kg


Mercury:

0,3
-
12 tonnes


Plus releases of anthracene from wear & tear of tyres and asphalt and
release of anthracene, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene due to leakage & spillage






Benzene from cars:
154 tonnes



Benzo(a)pyrene:
360 tonnes


DEHP: 1,41 tonnes

Release of nickel from Danish
highways:
108 kg

Thomas Ruby Bentzen, PhD thesis (2008)

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Example of source mapping


Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Emission barriers using GIS

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Emission barriers using GIS

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Potential emission barriers for a
specific source


Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Potential emission barriers for a
specific area


Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Potential
sites

for an emission barrier

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Case cities and
’Semi
-
hypothetical case city
archetypes’

Case cities : Vastly different with respect to
climate, industry, treatment technologies
and environmental awareness.

+

Real
-
life monitoring, existing industries
and release patterns etc

-

Limited by confidential or missing
information


SHCCA: Designed to represent different
geographical and urban systems

All data available which is needed for further
work (modelling, visualisation, multi
-
criteria
analysis, evaluation of emission control
strategies).


Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Archetypes

Geographical system

Climate; Size; Rainfall; Population etc


Urban system

Urban structures;
Financial and activity systems;
Technical systems and consumption; Pollution
level; Local authorities and households



Emission control strategies

Generic and city specific

Geographical

system

Urban

system

Emission control

strategies

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Limiting release and emissions

Pre
-
Application Control
: Voluntary and
regulatory initiatives, legislation,
preventative measures, phasing out,
substitutions etc


Pre
-
Environmental Release
Treatment
: municipal and industrial
WWTPs and greywater as well as
combined sewer overflows treatment etc


Post
-
Environmental Release Control
and Treatment
: structural and non
-
structural stormwater best management
practices, management of sinks etc

Limiting release through:
-
Substitution
-
Minimising release from produtcs
-
Legislation and regulations
-
Voluntary use reductions
O+T
D+T
D+T
T
T
T
D+T
D+T
D+T
T
D+T
T
D+T
T
Treatment options:
-
Stormwater BMPs
-
Household treatment & reuse of WW
-
On
-
site industrial treatment
-
WWTPs
-
Sludge disposal
Sinks:
-
Primary: Surface
water
(WFD)
-
Secondary: Sediments,
soils/gr.water, humans, ...
Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

An example of Pre
-
Application Control

Case city Stockholm

Pre
-
application control campaigns in the period 1995
-
2003

Stricter EU and national legislations

New technologies (batteries)

Voluntary initiatives e.g., artists paint (Cd), anglers (Pb) also dentists
(Hg)

Substance flow analyses showed a reduction in the stocks of Cd and Hg
by approximately 25 % to 30 %. Cd and Hg inflow was substantially
reduced, but Pb inflow increased.


Individual campaigns cannot be quantified due to the lack of field data



Månsson et al (2008) Phasing Out Cadmium, Lead, and Mercury Effects on Urban Stocks and Flows.
Journal of
Industrial Ecology


Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Emission control strategies

Emission control strategies are
combination of individual barriers
(source control or treatment units)


individual barriers should also
be evaluated.


Initial test
-
set:


1: Baseline


2: Implementation of relevant EU directives


3: 2 + Household voluntary initiatives and on
-
site treatment


4: 2 + Industrial Best Available Technologies


5: 2 +
Post
-
Environmental Release Control and Treatment

(stormwater and CSO)


6: 2 + Advanced end
-
of
-
pipe treatment


Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Inflow

STOCK

Outflow

Substance flow analysis:

Test the framework for a selected substance: Di(2
-
etylhexyl) phthalate
(DEHP)

Utilise the Emission String DB

Compare estimated environmental loads with monitoring data

Tool for assessing effects of emission control
strategies

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Stock 2002
Stock 2009
tonnes
Roofings
Undersealing paste
Shoe soles
Coated textiles
Films, sheets, coated
products
Tubes and profiles
Floor and wall coverings
Cables
Size and distribution of stock

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Surface water
Air
Urban surface
WWTP sludge
tonnes/year
Printing ink
Lacquers and paint
Sealants and adhesives
Combustion
Release during transport
Roofings
Car wash
Undersealing paste
Shoe soles
Coated textiles
Films, sheets, coated products
Tubes and profiles
Floor and wall coverings
Cables
Fate of
emissions

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions



Comparing SFA results with measured data

Loads (in
tonnes/year)

SFA

Measured

WWTP sludge

0.7

1

WWTP effluent

0.1

0.07
-
0.12

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Conclusions

SCF established


based on literature knowledge about sources

About 900 ESs established for the 25 WFD substances

Overall 16% with concrete knowledge about release quantity

Overall 65% without any quantitative data on release into the technosphere

WFD substances occur in a wide variety of sources and activities in urban
settings and are released to all studied compartments

Most sources are related to production activities

Other large categories are households, waste disposal, agriculture, construction
and transport

Linking the urban descriptor/the ESs with GIS enables good visualisation
tools

Sources can be plotted on a map

Substances can be plotted on a map

Source control options, e.g. waste water and stormwater treatment units can
be shown on a map


Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Conclusions

Semi
-
hypothetical case cities provide valuable possibilities as all data
needed for evaluation are present


Source control and mitigation options can be highly beneficial


Not all priority pollutants can be substituted


Some substances are not removed with conventional treatment units


Combined approaches merging source control and treatment is needed


Substance flow analysis can be a valuable tool for evaluation emission
control strategies and identification of the most important emissions

Introduction

Sources

Visualisation

Strategies

Substance flows

Conclusions

Acknowledgement

Tonie, Maria and Arne from Miljöforvaltningen (SV)

Mike, Erica, Lian and Christoph from Middelsex University (UK)

Webbey, Veerle, Lorenzo and Frederik from University of Ghent (BE)

André from ENVICAT (BE)

Kemi, Luis and Emmanuel from Anjou Recherche (FR)

Matej, Natasa, Primoz and Boris from University of Ljubljana (SL)

Peter from
Université

Laval (CAN)

Colette and José from Estudis (SP)

Luca, Anna and Peter (project coordinator) from DTU Environment (DK)

The presented results have been obtained within the framework of the project
ScorePP
-

“Source Control Options for Reducing Emissions of Priority Pollutants”,
contract no. 037036, a project coordinated by Department of Environmental
Engineering, Technical University of Denmark within the Energy, Environment and
Sustainable Development section of the
European Community’s Sixth
Framework Programme

for Research, Technological Development and
Demonstration.