RAPPORT D’ÉTUDE 18/12/2008 N° DRC-09-95308 … · de synthèse intitulé « Emission Reduction ... This report presents the ... modeling results will be presented and discussed

RAPPORT D’ÉTUDE 18/12/2008

N° DRC-09-95308-00288A

Convention ONEMA 2008-12-18 Action 16 Maîtrise des rejets de substances chimiques dans l’eau à l’échelle européenne (Projet SOCOPSE)

Action N°16

Maîtrise des rejets de substances chimiques dans l’ eau à l’échelle européenne (Projet SOCOPSE)

Unité Economie et Décision pour l’Environnement (EDEN) Pôle Modélisation Environnementale et Décision

Direction des Risques Chroniques

Client (ministère, industriel, collectivités locales) : ONEMA Liste des personnes ayant participé à l’étude : Géraldine Ducos

Réf. : INERIS – DRC-09-95308-00288A Page 5 sur 15

PRÉAMBULE Le présent rapport a été établi sur la base des informations fournies à l'INERIS, des données (scientifiques ou techniques) disponibles et objectives et de la réglementation en vigueur. La responsabilité de l'INERIS ne pourra être engagée si les informations qui lui ont été communiquées sont incomplètes ou erronées. Les avis, recommandations, préconisations ou équivalent qui seraient portés par l'INERIS dans le cadre des prestations qui lui sont confiées, peuvent aider à la prise de décision. Etant donné la mission qui incombe à l'INERIS de par son décret de création, l'INERIS n'intervient pas dans la prise de décision proprement dite. La responsabilité de l'INERIS ne peut donc se substituer à celle du décideur. Le destinataire utilisera les résultats inclus dans le présent rapport intégralement ou sinon de manière objective. Son utilisation sous forme d'extraits ou de notes de synthèse sera faite sous la seule et entière responsabilité du destinataire. Il en est de même pour toute modification qui y serait apportée. L'INERIS dégage toute responsabilité pour chaque utilisation du rapport en dehors de la destination de la prestation.


TABLE DES MATIÈRES

RESUME ................................................................................................................. 8

SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 9

ACRONYMES ....................................................................................................... 10

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 11

2. INVENTAIRE DES MESURES DISPONIBLES DE REDUCTION DES SUBSTANCES PRIORITAIRES ........................... .......................................... 11

3. ETUDE DE CAS SUR LA MEUSE ......................... ........................................ 13

4. CONCLUSIONS ET PERSPECTIVES............................................................ 14

5. LISTE DES ANNEXES ................................. .................................................. 15


RESUME Ce rapport présente l’état d’avancement du projet européen Source Control of Priority Substances, SOCOPSE, que l’ONEMA co-finance. L’objectif de ce projet est dans un premier temps de développer un « Système d’Appui à la Décision » qui servirait de guide à la conception d’une stratégie de gestion des substances prioritaires dans un bassin versant, et dans un second temps, de valider ce guide dans le contexte de 4 bassins versants européens. L’INERIS participe à la première étape à travers l’élaboration d’un inventaire des mesures disponibles de réduction des substances prioritaires. Il participe également à l’étude de cas du bassin Rhin-Meuse pour le Cadmium.

L’élaboration de l’inventaire a été pilotée par l’INERIS. Les mesures de réduction y sont présentées par substance prioritaire. Chaque substance prioritaire est traitée sous la forme d’une monographie dans laquelle, en plus des caractéristiques générales de la substance, une évaluation de chaque mesure de réduction est fournie en fonction de critères de faisabilité technique, d’efficacité et de coûts. Ces monographies sont rédigées sur la base d’une revue de la littérature, d’une enquête auprès des industries polluantes et de 3 réunions de travail entre les différentes parties prenantes de la gestion de l’eau. La version finale de l’inventaire intègrera les données de terrains des études de cas et un document de synthèse intitulé « Emission Reduction Strategy » qui permettra d’identifier facilement les mesures les plus pertinentes lorsque l’on considère la gestion des substances prioritaires dans sa globalité.

La participation de l’INERIS à l’étude de cas Rhin-Meuse a consisté en l’état des lieux des données disponibles et des actions de réduction des émissions de Cadmium dans la partie française du bassin de la Meuse. En 2009, l’étude de cas sera poursuivie avec notamment l’identification des coûts et des bénéfices des différentes options de gestion du Cadmium. Des scénarios de gestion du Cadmium dans le bassin Rhin-Meuse seront également testés à l’aide du modèle PEGASE du département AQUAPOLE de l’Université de Liège. Les premiers résultats de modélisation seront présentés et discutés lors du séminaire « modélisation eau » co-organisé par le MEEDDAT et l’INERIS le 16 mars 2009.

Les premiers enseignements de ce projet sont (i) le manque de données sur les substances prioritaires et en particulier concernant les concentrations dans les réseaux hydrographiques et les coûts et bénéfices des mesures de réduction, (ii) l’hétérogénéité de la mise en œuvre du volet des substances prioritaires de la DCE d’un Etat membre à l’autre et, (iii) l’absence de modèle dominant de stratégie de réduction des substances prioritaires à l’échelle européenne.

Une conférence finale est organisée les 24 et 25 juin 2009 à Maastricht (Pays-Bas) où l’ensemble des résultats de SOCOPSE seront présentés et discutés. Le besoin de mise en œuvre en Europe d’un mécanisme pérenne d’acquisition de données sur les émissions de substances chimiques y sera particulièrement exposé.


SUMMARY This report presents the progress state of the European project Source Control of Priority Substances, SOCOPSE, which ONEMA co-finances. Objectives are, first, to develop a “Decision Support System” which would be used as a guide to design a management strategy for priority substances in a river basin and, secondly, to validate this guide in 4 European river basin contexts. INERIS participates in the first step through the development of an inventory of available priority substances abatement measures. It is also involved in the Rhine-Meuse river basin case study for Cadmium.

The development of the inventory has been managed by INERIS. Abatement measures are presented by priority substances. Each priority substance is dealt in the form of a monograph in which, in addition of substance general characteristics, an assessment of each abatement measure is provided as a function of technical feasibility, efficiency and cost criteria. These monographs are based on a literature review, a pollutant industry survey and 3 workshops with the different stakeholders of water management. The inventory final version will integrate field data from case studies and a document entitled “Emission Reduction Strategy” which will allow to easily identifying the most relevant measures when priority substances management is considered in its integrity.

INERIS participation in the Rhine-Meuse case study has consisted of the inventory of available data and Cadmium emission abatement measures in the French part of Meuse river basin. In 2009, the case study will be carried on with, notably, costs and benefits identification of the different Cadmium management options. Cadmium management scenarios in the Rhine-Meuse river basin will be tested with PEGASE model from AQUAPOLE department of Liege University. First modeling results will be presented and discussed during the seminar on “Water modeling” co-organized by the French Ministry of Ecology and INERIS on March the 16th 2009.

First lessons from this project are (i) the lack of data on priority substances and on concentration in hydrographic networks and abatement measure costs and benefits in particular, (ii) the heterogeneity of implementation of the WFD priority substances part from a member State to another, (iii) the absence of a prevailing model on priority substances reduction at the European scale.

A final conference is organized on June the 24th and 25th 2009 in Maastricht (The Netherlands) where SOCOPSE consolidated results will be presented and discussed. A focus will be done on the need of a European-wide implementation of a sustainable mechanism for chemical substance emissions data acquisition.


ACRONYMES

Acronyme En clair

DCE Directive Cadre sur l’Eau

DEHP Di-ethylhexylphtalate

DSS Decision Support System

HAP hydrocarbures aromatiques polycycliques

HCB Hexachlorobenzene

IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

PBDE Polybromodiphénylethers

PCRD Programme Cadre de Recherche et de Développement

REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals

SOCOPSE Source Control of Priority Substances

UE Union Européenne

WP Work Package


1. INTRODUCTION

L’ONEMA co-finance le projet européen Source Control of Priority Substances, SOCOPSE, sur la réduction des rejets dans l’eau des substances prioritaires de la Directive Cadre sur l’Eau.

Ce rapport fait le point sur l’avancement du projet SOCOPSE, sur ses produits de sortie, et ses principaux enseignements.

SOCOPSE est un projet du 6ème PCRD de l’UE, d’une durée de 3 ans. Sa date de démarrage était le 1er novembre 2006, et il prendra fin en 2009.

Le projet associe 11 partenaires européens (voir annexe 2).

Les substances étudiées sont : les Hydrocarbures Aromatiques Polycycliques (incluant l’anthracène), le Mercure, le Cadmium, les Nonyphénols, le Tributyltin, le Di(2-EthylHexyl)Phtalate, les PolyBromoDiphénylEthers, le HexaChloroBenzène, l’Atrazine et l’Isoproturon.

Il a pour objectif de développer un « Système d’Appui à la Décision » (DSS-Decision Support System) qui se présenterait comme un guide d’appui à la conception d’une stratégie de gestion des substances prioritaires dans un bassin versant. Parmi les différents outils d’aide à la décision sur lesquels repose ce guide figure un inventaire des mesures disponibles de réduction des substances prioritaires. Cet inventaire fait l’objet du work package 3 (WP3) que l’INERIS pilote. L’INERIS intervient également dans le cadre du work package 5 (WP5) destiné aux études de cas, ces études ayant pour but de calibrer et valider les outils du DSS et le DSS lui-même.

Deux réunions de projet ont été organisées en 2008 lors desquelles les WP 3 et 5 ont été à l’ordre du jour. La première a eu lieu à Bruxelles les 16 et 17 juin et la seconde à Oslo les 1er et 2 octobre.

2. INVENTAIRE DES MESURES DISPONIBLES DE REDUCTION DES SUBSTANCES PRIORITAIRES

Concernant le WP3, une monographie de chaque substance est en cours de finalisation. Chaque monographie a pour but d’établir un inventaire technico-économique des mesures de réduction des rejets ou des solutions de substitution de la substance en question.

Elle comprend :

- Des informations générales sur la substance (description, classification, réglementation) ;

- Des informations sur les flux de la substance à l’échelle européenne (productions et utilisations de la substance ; émissions directes et indirectes qui en découlent dans les eaux européennes) ;

- L’inventaire des techniques de réduction des émissions de la substance dans l’eau (techniques de réduction à la source et « end-of-pipe »). Cet inventaire comprend une évaluation de chaque technique selon des critères de faisabilité technique, d’efficacité et de coûts ;


- Un tableau synthétique croisant les différentes sources d’émission et les mesures envisageables pour réduire les émissions ;

- Un tableau synthétique évaluant chaque couple source/mesure selon les critères précités.

Ces monographies sont rédigées sur la base :

- D’une revue de la littérature sur l’ensemble des substances (environ 450 références rassemblées). La liste des référence est fournie en annexe 3 ;

- D’une enquête auprès des secteurs industriels et de spécialistes concernés à l’échelle européenne (le questionnaire a été envoyé à presque 200 contacts dans l’industrie) ;

- De 3 ateliers de travail en présence des différentes parties prenantes (industriels, experts, partenaires). La première réunion a eu lieu à Paris le 25 octobre 2007 pour l’Atrazine, l’Isoproturon et le HCB ; la deuxième à Katowice (Pologne) le 29 novembre 2007 pour le Mercure, le Cadmium et les HAP ; et la troisième à Nieuwegein (Pays-Bas) le 14 février 2008 pour le DEHP, les PBDE, le Nonylphénol et le Tributyltin. 51 personnes ont été contactées et 22 d’entres elles ont assisté à au moins une réunion.

Une première version des monographies (2006/2007) avait été rédigée à partir de la revue de la littérature et des résultats de l’enquête.

La deuxième version des monographies (« draft final ») a été réalisée en 2008, et est une actualisation de la première avec les données et commentaires obtenus lors des réunions de travail (voir annexe 4).

L’INERIS est actuellement en train de produire le plan de travail pour la rédaction en 2009 de la version finale de ces monographies qui intégrera les résultats des études de cas du WP5.

Le WP3 comprendra également un document de synthèse intitulé « emission reduction strategy ». En plus du résumé des principaux résultats et enseignements du WP3, ce document fournira des propositions de stratégies de réduction des émissions de substances prioritaires. Ces propositions seront basées sur une analyse des combinaisons des mesures les plus efficaces, en prenant en compte l’ensemble des substances et les autres impacts positifs et négatifs des mesures proposées.

Nous pouvons dès à présent tirer les enseignements suivants :

- Il existe des informations sur chacune des substances prioritaires étudiées. Cependant, elles sont souvent insuffisantes, et certains paramètres du DSS n’ont pu être renseignés de façon homogène d’une substance à l’autre, notamment les données de concentration des substances dans les eaux souterraines et de surface et les données de coûts des mesures de réduction ;

- La plupart des substances prioritaires étudiées n’ont pu être décrites avec des données suffisamment récentes ;

- La participation des industries a été globalement faible que ce soit pendant l’enquête ou pendant les réunions de travail ;


- Certaines des mesures citées dans les inventaires peuvent réduire plusieurs substances prioritaires. Un inventaire par substance ne permet donc pas d’identifier facilement les mesures les plus pertinentes lorsque l’on considère la gestion des substances prioritaires dans sa globalité. La synthèse des possibilités de réduction des émissions de ces substances au travers du document intitulé « Emission Reduction Strategy » permettra d’apporter cette vision plus horizontale.

Par rapport aux fiches technico-économiques déjà réalisées par l’INERIS (Action 15 2008), les résultats de ce work package donnent une image européenne des possibilités de réduction des émissions des substances prioritaires dans l’eau. Ces résultats seront intégrés aux fiches qui seront révisées en 2009 (Action 15 2009). Ils apporteront aussi une évaluation systématique des différentes mesures envisageables et une vision synthétique en termes d’avantages et d’inconvénients des mesures de réduction vis-à-vis différentes sources d’émission, qui sera exploitée dans le cadre du plan d’action prévu dans l’action 15 de 2009.

Les monographies pourront par ailleurs être utiles dans d’autres contextes, pour les acteurs de l’eau pour l’établissement des programmes de mesures de la Directive et la révision des SDAGE. Elles sont d’ores et déjà disponibles sur le site du projet www.socopse.se.

3. ETUDE DE CAS SUR LA MEUSE

Concernant le WP5, son objectif est, d’abord, d’évaluer les outils d’aide à la décision conçus dans les work packages 2 (WP2) et 3 (WP3) afin de les rendre opérationnels dans le DSS, puis, d’appliquer le DSS au contexte de 4 bassins versants européens (bassin Rhin-Meuse, bassin de la mer Baltique, bassin du Danube, bassins du Ter et de Llobregat en Espagne). L’INERIS participe à l’étude de cas du bassin Rhin-Meuse pour le Cadmium.

L’évaluation des outils du DSS vise essentiellement à valider l’applicabilité des données rassemblées dans les WP2 et WP3 au contexte des études de cas. Si nécessaire, ces données sont complétées avec les données de terrain.

En 2008, l’INERIS a participé à ce work package en faisant l’état des lieux des données disponibles et des actions de réduction des émissions de Cadmium dans la partie française du bassin de la Meuse à travers les actions suivantes (voir aussi annexe 5) :

- Etat des lieux préliminaire des données « rejets » et milieux » disponibles sur le Cadmium sur la base de deux rencontres en juin avec l’agence de l’eau Rhin-Meuse et en octobre avec le MEEDDAT (données RSDE et données du « réseau de bassin ») ;

- Définition des possibilités techniques de réduction des émissions de Cadmium.

En 2009, l’étude de cas sera poursuivie avec notamment l’identification des coûts et des bénéfices des différentes options de gestion du Cadmium. La base de données de l’agence de l’eau Rhin-Meuse précitée contient également des données de coûts. Les évaluations des bénéfices manquent cependant. Des


scénarios de gestion du Cadmium dans le bassin Rhin-Meuse seront testés à l’aide du modèle PEGASE du département AQUAPOLE de l’Université de Liège. Ce modèle est alimenté avec les données collectées pour l’étude de cas.

Un séminaire « modélisation eau » co-organisé par le MEEDDAT et l’INERIS est prévu le 16 mars 2009, en présence de représentants de l’ONEMA et également des Agences de l’Eau, des DIREN, de scientifiques, où les premiers résultats de modélisation sur la Meuse seront présentés et discutés.

Les résultats du WP5 donneront finalement une image de la gestion des substances prioritaires dans 4 grandes régions européennes. Ils seront par la suite synthétisés et intégrés dans le DSS (fait l’objet du WP4).

4. CONCLUSIONS ET PERSPECTIVES

Il apparait, lors de ce projet, que de nombreuses données sur les émissions des substances prioritaires manquent. Une des recommandations de ce projet, qui sera discutée lors du séminaire final (cf. infra), sera de mettre en œuvre en Europe un mécanisme pérenne d’acquisition de données sur les émissions de substances chimiques, pour servir les besoins de la DCE, mais aussi d’autres règlementations comme IPPC et REACH.

Nous observons également que la mise en œuvre du volet des substances prioritaires de la DCE diffère fortement d’un pays à l’autre au sein de l’Union Européenne :

- Les outils de gestion des émissions des substances prioritaires ne sont pas toujours utilisés ;

- Les bases de données disponibles sont très hétérogènes et en général peu adaptées au contexte très évolutif des substances prioritaires ;

- Il y a peu de coordination entre les administrations impliquées sur la question des substances prioritaires.

Enfin, il ne semble pas exister de modèle dominant de stratégie de réduction des substances prioritaires à l’échelle européenne.

Une conférence finale est organisée les 24 et 25 juin 2009 à Maastricht (Pays-Bas) sur le thème suivant : “Future Approach to Priority and Emerging Substances in European Waters: SOCOPSE in Support of the Next Generation River Management Plans”. Le premier jour de la conférence donnera un aperçu des résultats du projet puis organisera des discussions autour de la prochaine génération des programmes de gestion des bassins versants. Les thèmes de discussions seront :

- Disposons-nous de l’information (données sur les émissions, et données techniques et économiques sur les possibilités de les réduire) nécessaires pour planifier des mesures efficaces de réduction des émissions des substances dangereuses ?

- A partir des 6 études de cas européennes, comment préparer la seconde génération des Plans de Gestion pour la DCE ?


5. LISTE DES ANNEXES

Repère Désignation Nb de pages

ANNEXE 1 LIVRABLES 2008 1 page A4

ANNEXE 2 PARTICIPANTS AU PROJET SOCOPSE 1 page A4

ANNEXE 3 REVUE DE LA LITTERATURE 1 page A4

ANNEXE 4 SYNTHESE DES MONOGRAPHIES SUR LES SUBSTANCES

43 pages A4

ANNEXE 5 ETUDE DE CAS RHIN-MEUSE 5 pages A4

Réf. : INERIS – DRC-09-95308-00288A Annexe 1

ANNEXE 1 : LIVRABLES 2008

A titre récapitulatif, les livrables pour 2008 relatif au projet SOCOPSE sont indiqués dans le Tableau 1 (livrables du WP3 piloté par l’INERIS et ceux du WP5). Ils sont téléchargeables sur le site www.socopse.se.

Tableau 1 : Récapitulatif des livrables 2008

Livrables Date

Compte-rendu : Réunion WP3-WP5, Bruxelles (16-17/06/2008) Juin 2008

Compte-rendu : Réunion WP3-WP5, Oslo (1-2/10/2008) Octobre 2008

Compte-rendu : Workshop WP3 sur DEHP, PBDE, Nonylphénol et Tributyltin, Nieuwegein (14/02/2008)

Février 2008

Monographie (draft 2) : Atrazine Octobre 2008

Monographie (draft 2 : Isoproturon Octobre 2008

Monographie (draft 2) : HCB Octobre 2008

Monographie (draft 2) : Mercure Octobre 2008

Monographie (draft 2) : Cadmium Octobre 2008

Monographie (draft 2) : HAP Octobre 2008

Monographie (draft 2) : DEHP Octobre 2008

Monographie (draft 2) : PBDE Octobre 2008

Monographie (draft 2) : Nonylphénol Octobre 2008

Monographie (draft 2) : Tributyltin Octobre 2008


ANNEXE 2 : PARTICIPANTS AU PROJET SOCOPSE

Liste des Participants au projet SOCOPSE :

IVL, Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd (Suède)

TNO, Nederlands Organisatie Voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Pays-Bas)

CSIC, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (Espagne)

NILU, Norsk institutt for luftforskning (Norvège)

IETU, Instityt Ekologii Terenow Uprzemyslowionych (Pologne)

SYKE, Finnish Environment Institute (Finlande)

WRI, Vyskumny Ustav Vodneho Hospodarstva (Slovaquie)

KWR, Watercycle Research Institute (Pays-Bas)

SOTON, University of Southhampton, School of Civil Engineering & the Environment (Royaume-Uni)

EI, Environmental Institute (Slovaquie)


ANNEXE 3 : REVUE DE LA LITTERATURE

La liste des références utilisées lors de la rédaction des monographies sur les substances prioritaires se trouve dans le fichier Revue_litterature.xls joint à ce rapport.


ANNEXE 4 : SYNTHESE DES MONOGRAPHIES SUR LES SUBSTANCES

Le contenu de cette annexe se trouve dans le document Executive_summuries.doc joint à ce rapport. Il rassemble les 10 synthèses issues des monographies sur les substances du projet SOCOPSE, à savoir :

- les Hydrocarbures Aromatiques Polycycliques (incluant l’anthracène),

- le Mercure,

- le Cadmium,

- les Nonyphénols,

- le Tributyltin,

- le Di(2-EthylHexyl)Phtalate,

- les PolyBromoDiphénylEthers,

- le HexaChloroBenzène,

- l’Atrazine,

- l’Isoproturon.

Les monographies sont accessibles sur le site internet du projet SOCOPSE : http://www.socopse.se/,

ou directement :

http://www.socopse.se/content/downloads.4.4a4d22a41128e56161b800011270.html.

Il existe d’autres rapports (en français) sur les rejets de substances prioritaires et pouvant apporter des informations complémentaires à ces monographies : les fiches technico-économiques de l’Action Nationale de Recherche et de Réduction des Rejets des Substances Dangereuses dans les Eaux (RSDE) (http://rsde.ineris.fr/). Ces fiches se trouvent directement à l’adresse suivante :

http://rsde.ineris.fr/fiches_technico_eco1.php.


PAH

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are ubiquitous environmental contaminants formed mainly by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as wood, coal, diesel, and oil. Only anthracene and naphthalene are intentionally produced. PAHs are substances of high concern due to their toxicity and persistence in the environment. Next table enables to observe principal emission sources of 5 PAHs (Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and Benzo(a)pyrene) and the different media through which they may reach the aquatic environment. Table 1 : MFA diagram for the sum of 5 PAH in Europe at the beginning of the 2000’s (numbers in tonnes/year)

Emission sources Pathways to the aquatic environment Air Land WWater Direct

Energy production 64 15 Coke, petroleum, carbon graphite 134 7 Metal production 433 17 Vehicles and metal products 79 1 Waste management 137 69 2 Urban areas 697 6 Transport 426 1 Agriculture forestry 92 2 7 Other productions 113 37 Coal and oil tar 18 Creosote 1 52 Anthracene oil 11 995 Other products 280 TOTAL 2485 1118 92 + 7 Emissions to air are predominant and require attention in order to lower atmospheric depositions to water. Table 2 aims at making correspondences between the main emission sources and available mitigation options. It shows that either source control or end-of-pipe options are available.


Table 2: Emission sources and possible emission abatement measures

Sources

Prim

ary

alum

iniu

m

prod

uctio

n P

rodu

ctio

n of

car

bon

and

grap

hite

Cok

e ov

en p

lant

s

Bitu

men

pro

duct

ion

/ re

finer

ies

Was

te in

cine

rato

rs

Pow

er s

tatio

ns

Res

iden

tial c

ombu

stio

n ap

plia

nces

W

ood

trea

tmen

t pla

nts

Was

te w

ater

Urb

an r

unof

f

Sew

age

slud

ge

Mea

sure

s

Source control Use of pre-bake anodes O Use of inert anodes O Low PAH coal tar pitch blend O Improved transport and storage at wood impregnation plants

X

Process modification at wood impregnation plants X

Use of wood preservation products with a lower PAH content

X

Alternative wood preserving techniques

O

Use of alternative construction materials

X

Combustion optimisation X X Fuel replacement X End-of-pipe Wastewater pre-treatment: Tar removal X

Biological wastewater treatment

X X

Gas-tight operation of the gas treatment plant

X

Wastewater pre-treatment: Sour water stripping (SWS)

X

Flue gas incineration X O X Wet flue gas scrubbing X X X O X Dry flue gas scrubbing X X X X Use of condensation and electrostatic precipitators

X X

Biofilters O Ozonation and anaerobic digestion

O

Community level measures Enhancing user awareness X Regulatory measures Application of product standards

X

Note: X = available measure; O = emerging measure;


Table 3: Assessment of abatement measures Assessment Remarks

Measures Technical feasibility

Performance Costs State of the art

Source control Use of pre-bake anodes

Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: – Total score: + Applicable to new plants only. Pol.: point

source Rge: wide

Eff.: high IC: high OC: ?

St.: BAT for primary aluminium plants App.: numerous

Use of inert anodes

Total score: 0 Total score: ++ Total score: 0 Total score: – -Requires improvements in anode production processes and retrofit methods. -Commercialisa- tion expected by 2010-2015.

Pol.: point source Cmp.: medium / high

Eff.: up to 100% Oth.: yes En.: reduction CE: reduction W: no

IC: ? OC: ?

St.: emerging technology App.: ?

Low PAH coal tar pitch blend

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Total score: – – - Particularly suitable for use in Søderberg-type anodes for aluminium smelting. - U.S. patent.

Pol.: point source Rge: wide Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: ?

Eff.: 40% En.: no CE: ? W: no

IC: medium? OC: low

St.: emerging technology App.: ?

Improved transport and storage at wood impregnation sites

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ? Total score: ++ Pol.: point source Rge: wide Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: none

Eff.: ? En.: no CE: ? W: no

IC: ? OC: ?

St.: BAT for wood treatment

Process modification at wood impregnation plants

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ? Total score: ++ Pol.: point source Rge: wide Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: ?

Eff.: high? En.: yes CE: ? W: yes

IC: ? OC: ?

St.: BAT for wood treatment

Use of wood preservation products with a lower PAH content

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: + Pol.: point source Rge: wide Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: ?

Eff.: ? En.: no CE: ? W: no

IC: none OC: low

St.: existing technology App.: ?

Alternative wood preserving techniques

Total score: ? Total score: ? Total score: ? Total score: ? Techniques still under development?

Use of alternative construction materials

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ? Total score: ++ Pol.: point source Rge: wide Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: ?

Eff.: 100% En.: ? CE: yes W: no

IC: ? OC: ?

St.: existing technology App.: ?


Combustion optimisation

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Pol.: point source Rge: wide Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: none/low

Eff.: >50% to >90% Oth.: yes En.: no W: no

IC: none/low OC: none/low

St.: BAT App.: yes

Fuel replacement

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: + Pol.: point source Rge: wide Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: low

Eff.: ? W: no

IC: none/low OC: none/low

St.: existing technology

End-of-pipe Wastewater pre-treatment: Tar removal

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ? Total score: ++ - Recommended for pre-treatment of coal water prior to biological wastewater treatment.

Pol.: point source Cmp.: ? Rge: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: 99% Oth.: ? W: yes

IC: low? OC: low?

St.: BAT for coke oven plants App.: yes

Biological wastewater treatment

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ Pol.: point source Cmp.: ? Rge: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: high (>90%) Oth.: yes En.: yes CE: no W: yes

IC: medium OC: medium


Gas-tight operation of the gas treatment plant

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ? Total score: ++ Pol.: point source Cmp.: low Rge: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: high Oth.: yes En.: no CE: no W: no

IC: low? OC: low?


Wastewater pre-treatment: Sour water stripping (SWS)

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ? Total score: ++ - Recommended for pre-treatment of waste water from bitumen blowing.

Pol.: point source Cmp.: low Rge: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: medium / high? Oth.: En.: CE: W:

IC: high? OC: medium?

St.: BAT in bitumen blowing App.: yes

Flue gas incineration

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ? Total score: ++ - A novel regenerative afterburner has been used in a number of applications.

Pol.: point source Cmp.: Rge: wide Lim.:

Eff.: high (100%) Oth.: yes En.: yes CE: W: no

IC: ? OC: ?


Wet flue gas scrubbing

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ? Total score: ++ - A novel oil scrubber could be employed at waste incinerators.

Pol.: point source Cmp.: Rge: wide Lim.:

Eff.: medium/high Oth.: yes En.: yes CE: yes W: yes

IC: high? OC: high?


Dry flue gas Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++


scrubbing Pol.: point source Cmp.: Rge: wide Lim.:

Eff.: high Oth.: yes En.: yes CE: W: yes

IC: low/medium OC: low

St.: BAT for primary Al-smelters, power plants and incinerators App.: yes

Use of condensation and electrostatic precipitators

Total score: + Total score: ? Total score: ? Total score: + Pol.: point source Cmp.: Rge: Lim.:

Eff.: ? Oth.: yes En.: yes CE: yes W:

IC: ? OC: ?

St.: existing technology App.: yes

Biofilters Total score: ? Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: – – - Potentially applicable to urban runoff.

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: Rge: Lim.:

Eff.: medium/ high Oth.: En.: CE: W:

IC: low OC: low

St.: emerging technology App.: no

Ozonation and anaerobic digestion

Total score: ? Total score: + Total score: ? Total score: – – - Potentially applicable as a pre-treatment for sewage sludge prior to its use on agricultural land.

Pol.: point source Cmp.: Rge: Lim.:

Eff.: medium Oth.: yes En.: CE: W:

IC: ? OC: ?

St.: emerging technology App.: no

Community level measures Enhancing user awareness

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: + Total score: 0 Pol.: point source Cmp.: low Rge: wide Lim.: none

Eff.: 30-40%

IC: none/low OC: low/medium

St.: n/a App.: ?

Regulatory measures Application of product standards

Total score: ++ Total score: ? Total score: ? Total score: ++ Pol.: point source Cmp.: medium Rge: wide

Eff.: ?

IC: ? OC: ?

St.: yes App.: ?

Scores (five levels): – – for very bad; – for bad; 0 for average; + for good; ++ for very good; Sub-criteria (with possible values): Pol. = Type of pollution (point source, diffuse); Rge = Range of concentration (small, medium, wide); Lim. = Limits and restrictions (low, medium, high); Cmp. = Complexity of implementation (low, medium, high); Imp. = Impact on the process, on the factory (low, medium, high); Eff. = Efficiency of emission reduction (in %); Oth. = Removal of other pollutants (list of other pollutants removed); En. = Consumption of energy (no, low, medium, high); CE = Cross-effects (list of cross-effects); W = Production of waste (list of waste); IC = Investment costs (no, low, medium, high); OC = Operational costs (no, low, medium, high); St. = Status of the technique (BAT, existing, emerging); App. = Number of applications (none, some, numerous).


DEHP Next table enables to observe principal emission sources to the different media through which DEHP may reach the aquatic environment. Table 4 : Main pathways to the aquatic environment for DEHP (tonnes per year)

Emission sources Pathways to the aquatic environment Air Land WWater Direct

Production of DEHP 682 Production of polymere 197 197 Production of non-polymere 120 144 Ink processing 83 Polymere outdoor use 6402 46 642 Non-polymere outdoor use 157 157 Polymere indoor use 181 1316 0 Non-polymere indoor use 314 WWTP 1082 194 Car shreder 5.5 62 Wastes remaining in the environment (from any emission sources)

9 7240 2438

TOTAL 595 14943 2699 3431 From this table, we observe that wastes remaining in the environment are the primary source of indirect water DEHP contamination. In order to reduce these emissions, some source control options exists concerning industrial processes and users but there is no literature on options for reducing DEHP emissions from the actual waste remaining in the environment. In addition, even if we do not dispose of full data concerning DEHP exchanges between the different media, figures show that land leaching and air deposition may contribute to DEHP presence in water. Concerning land, DEHP mitigation options related to wastes remaining in the environment and outdoor uses of polymers should be relevant but we dispose of literature on the latter only. As regards air deposition, relevant options should principally concern the production and indoor use of polymers which are presented in this document. There is a need for emissions reduction options for the use of DEHP as an intermediate for non-polymer production since DEHP emission rate seems a lot higher (144 tons from 2% of the DEHP production) than in polymere production (197 tons from 98% of the DEHP production).


Next tables aim at making correspondences between the main emission sources and available mitigation options and at assessing options. Table 5 : Emission sources and possible emission abatement measures

Main Sources

Pro

d. o

f D

EH

P

Pro

d. o

f po

lym

er

Diff

use

Was

te

disp

osal

in

to th

e en

v.

(Non

)-

Pol

ymer

ou

t doo

r us

e (N

on)-

poly

mer

in

door

us

e

Indi

rect

po

int

sour

ce:

WW

TP

Mea

sure

s

Source control Substitution of DEHP X X X X X X Substitution of PVC X X X X X X End-of-pipe Main WWTP Optimization

X X X X

Advanced Water treatment (membranes, UV, oxidation)

X X X X

Secondary sludge treatment (incineration, digestion agricultural use)

X X X X

Regulatory measures Legislative protocols for production (spill overs)

O O

Legislative protocols for use

O O

Note: X = available measure; O = emerging measure


Table 6 : Assessment of abatement measures Assessment Remarks


Performances Costs State of the art

Optimization WWTP

Total score: + Total score: o Total score: ++

Total score: o

Easily obtained but only effective if diffuse sources are dealt with too

Pol.: Point Rge: all Cnd.: conventional Lim.: Sludge contamination

Eff.: 90% (+10%) Oth.: ? En.: normal CE: - W: Sludge production

IC: low OC: low

St: existing App: few

Secondary Sludge treatment and reuse: Incineration

Total score: ++ Total score: o Total score: ++

Total score: ++

Good option but less energy is produced than for digestion

Pol.: point Rge: all Cnd.: dry sludge Lim.: decreasing wet fraction

Eff.: 100% Oth.: all En.: production CE: - W: CO2

IC: low OC: low

St: yes App: many

Secondary Sludge treatment and reuse: Digestion

Total score: + Total score: o Total score: o Total score: +

Good option, but difficult to control efficiency

Pol.: point Rge: limited Cnd.: specific Lim.: complex

Eff.: 80% Oth.: En.: biogas CE: W: digestate

IC: moderate OC: moderate, but benefits as biogas

St: existing App: multiple

Advanced Water treatment techniques: separation

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: -- Total score: Expensive and only point sources are handled

Pol.: Point Rge: all Cnd.: specific Lim.:complex

Eff.: up to 100% Oth.: many En.: high CE: W: brine

IC: high OC: high

St: existing -emerging App: many - none

Advanced water treatment techniques: oxidation

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: -- Total score: o

Expensive and complex and only point sources are handled

Pol.: Point Rge: all Cnd.: specific Lim.:complex

Eff.: up to 100% Oth.:many En.: high CE: - W: none

IC: high OC: high

St: existing -emerging App: many - none

Substitution of DEHP

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: - Total score: +

Realistic for most applications, quantity in which DEHP is used has significant consequences throughout society

Pol.: diffuse /point Cmp.:moderate Imp.: extremely high Lim.: other pollutants/ restructuring chemical factories

Eff.: ++ En.: CE: all over society W: none

IC: high (sunk costs) OC: moderate

St: existing App: few products


Substitution of PVC

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score:- Total score: +

Realistic for many applications. Quantity in which DEHP and PVC has significant consequences throughout society

Pol.: diffuse /point Cmp.:moderate Imp.: extremely high Lim.: other pollutants/ restructuring chemical factories

Eff.: ++ En.: CE: all over society W: none

IC: high (sunk costs) OC: moderate

St: existing App: few products

Legislative control production

Total score: ++ Total score:- Total score: ++

Total score: ++

Already strict production demands Pol.: point

Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: none

Eff.: marginal En.: small CE: none W: none

IC: low OC: low

St: BAT App: all

Legislative control use

Total score: - Total score:++ Total score: - Total score: o

Only long term effects

Pol.: diffusive Cmp.: how to control? Imp.: significant Lim.: how to control

Eff.: high En.: none CE: PVC and DEHP production W: none

IC: - OC: high


Note: Pol. = Type of pollution; Rge = Range of concentration; Cnd. = Needed conditions; Lim. = Limits and restrictions; Cmp. = Complexity of implementation; Imp. = Impact on the process, on the factory; Eff. = Efficiency of emission reduction; Oth. = Removal of other pollutants; En. = Consumption of energy; CE = Cross effects; W = Production of waste; IC = Investment costs; OC = Operational costs; St = Status of the technique (BAT, existing, emerging); App. = Number of applications.


HCB Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), recognised as a POP (persistent organic pollutant), is currently an unintentional by-product of several industrial sectors where both chlorine and carbon are present. In Europe for many years, there is neither use of HCB, nor intentional production. It was formerly used for a variety of applications, but the main use by far was as a fungicide. The concentration in the environment is mainly due to historical pollution and accumulation. Current European emissions of HCB are quite low but still significant. Releases to water come mainly from air deposition, the remaining from industrials, pesticide application (past or present) and waste treatment. Options for reducing emissions are about source control options in industry and agriculture and end-of-pipe options for waste treatment. These abatement measures are presented below. Table 7 shows possible emission abatement measures related to emission sources. Table 8 present measure assessments.


Table 7 : Emission sources and possible emission abatement measures

Sources

Sec

onda

ry

alum

iniu

m

proc

essi

ng

Che

mic

al

man

ufac

turin

g

Com

bust

ion

Pes

ticid

e ap

plic

atio

n

Was

te

trea

tmen

t

Mea

sure

s

Source control Choice of oil- and chlorine-free feeds X X

Pre-treatment of raw material X X

Combustion control X X Limitation of demagging impacts X

Closure of small-scale facilities X X

Implementing green chemistry X

Careful operations and rigorous maintenance X X X

Process modification X Purification of products by distillation X

Recycling unintentional HCB generation X

Reducing application rate/frequency X

Shifting application date X

Controlling sprayers X Conservation tillage X Ground cover X End-of-pipe Vegetated buffer strips X Constructed wetlands X Industrial end-of-pipe techniques X X X X



Table 8 : Assessment of abatement measures Assessment Remarks



Source control Choice of oil- and chlorine-free feeds

Total score: Total score: Total score: Total score: Pol.: diffuse/point Rge: medium Cnd.: Lim.: medium Imp.:

Eff.: Oth.: En.: CE: W:

IC: OC:

St: Yes App: Numerous

Pre-treatment of feed material

Total score: Total score: Total score: Total score: Pol.: diffuse/point Rge: wide Cnd.: Lim.: Imp.:

Eff.: Oth.: En.: CE: Yes W:

IC: OC:


Combustion control

Total score: Total score: Total score: Total score: Pol.: diffuse/point Rge: wide Cnd.: Lim.:

Eff.: Oth.: yes En.: CE: W:

IC: OC:


Limitation of demagging impacts

Total score: Total score: Total score: Total score: Pol.: diffuse/point Rge: wide Cnd.: Lim.:

Eff.: Oth.: Yes En.: CE: W:

IC: OC:

St: Yes App: numerous

Closure of small-scale facilities

Total score: Total score: Total score: Total score: Pol.: diffuse/point Rge: Cnd.: Lim.:


IC: OC:


Implementing green chemistry



IC: OC:


Careful operations and rigorous maintenance



IC: none OC: low


Process modification



IC: OC:


Purification of Total score: Total score: Total score: Total score:


products by distillation

Pol.: diffuse/point Rge: Cnd.: Lim.:


IC: OC:


Recycling unintentional HCB generation



IC: OC:


Reducing application rate/frequency

Total score: + Total score: Total score: ++

Total score: ++

Pol.: diffuse Rge: wide Cnd.: low Lim.: medium Imp.: medium

Eff.: variable Oth.: Yes En.: No CE: No W: No

IC: none OC: low


Shifting application date

Total score: + Total score: Total score: ++

Total score: ++

Pol.: diffuse Rge: wide Cnd.: low Lim.: medium Imp.: medium


IC: none OC: low


Controlling sprayers

Total score: ++

Total score: Total score: ++

Total score: ++

Pol.: diffuse Rge: wide Cnd.: low Lim.: low Imp.: low


IC: none OC: low


Conservation tillage

Total score: 0 Total score: Total score: ++

Total score: ++

Pol.: diffuse Rge: wide Cnd.: low Lim.: high Imp.: medium

Eff.: ? Oth.: Yes En.: No CE: No W: No

IC: low OC: low


Ground cover Total score: ++

Total score: Total score: ++

Total score: ++

Pol.: diffuse Rge: wide Cnd.: low Lim.: low Imp.: medium

Eff.: ? Oth.: Yes En.: medium CE: No W: No

IC: none OC: medium


End-of-pipe Grass stripes Total score:

++ Total score: Total score: + Total score:

++

Pol.: diffuse Rge: wide Cnd.: low Lim.: low Imp.:

Eff.: ? Oth.: many En.: low CE: No W: No

IC: low OC: medium


Hedges Total score: ++

Total score: Total score: 0 Total score: +


Pol.: diffuse Rge: wide Cnd.: low Lim.: low Imp.:

Eff.: Oth.: many En.: low CE: No W: No



Riparian zones

Total score: ++

Total score: Total score: + Total score: +

Pol.: diffuse Rge: wide Cnd.: low Lim.: medium Imp.:

Eff.: Oth.: many En.: No CE: No W: No

IC: medium OC: low


Constructed wetlands

Total score: + Total score: Total score: - Total score: 0 Pol.: diffuse Rge: wide Cmp.: low Lim.: high Imp.:

Eff.: Oth.: many En.: No CE: No W: No

IC: high OC: medium

St: App: some

Activated carbon adsorption

Total score: + Total score: Total score:-- Total score: ++

Pol.: point Rge: wide Cnd.: medium Lim.: medium

Eff.: Oth.: many En.: medium CE: Yes W: Yes

IC: high OC: high


Gas filtration Total score: Total score: Total score: Total score: Pol.: point Rge: wide Cnd.: Lim.:

Eff.: Oth.: many En.: CE: Yes W: Yes

IC: high OC: medium


Sedimentation of solids

Total score: +

Total score: 0 Total score: Total score: ++

Pol.: point Rge: wide Cmp.: low Lim.: medium Imp.: medium

Eff.: medium Oth.: many En.: CE: medium W: high

IC: OC:


Afterburners Total score: Total score: Total score: Total score: Pol.: point Rge: wide Cnd.: Lim.:


IC: OC:

St: App:

Open burning of waste

Total score: + Total score: Total score: Total score: ++

Pol.: diffuse Rge: wide Cnd.: medium Lim.: low

Eff.: Oth.: many En.: CE: W:

IC: OC:


Soil dechlorination

Total score: Total score: Total score: Total score: -- Pol.: diffuse/point Rge: narrow Cnd.: Lim.:


IC: OC:

St: emerging App: None

Note: Pol. = Type of pollution; Rge = Range of concentration; Cnd. = Needed conditions; Lim. = Limits and restrictions; Cmp. = Complexity of implementation; Imp. = Impact on the process, on the


factory; Eff. = Efficiency of emission reduction; Oth. = Removal of other pollutants; En. = Consumption of energy; CE = Cross effects; W = Production of waste; IC = Investment costs; OC = Operational costs; St = Status of the technique (BAT, existing, emerging); App. = Number of applications.


Nonylphenols Nonylphenols (NP) or nonylphenolethoxylates (NPEs), a product in the further processing of nonylphenol, are synthetic organic mass-produced chemicals. The market volume of nonylphenols is approximately 45,000 ton per year in the EU, produced by three European companies. The main areas of use of NP are the production of modified phenolic- and epoxy resins, phenolic oximes and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). In the past NPEs were used as a surfactant in industrial and institutional cleaning agents, in textiles and leather auxiliaries as well as an emulsifier in agrochemicals. Since 2005 NPEs are used in non waste water relevant applications only as e.g. an emulsifier in the polymer production or in water based paints. The compartments to which releases occur are a) surface water (rivers, lakes, seas and their sediments) via industrial and municipal waste water and waste water treatment plants, b) soil, via sewage sludge containing NP/NPE’s spread on land, and c) air. The total emission of NP in EU is 2,9 ton/day (surface water) and 108 ton/day of NPE (waste water). Because of the high aquatic toxicity of NP (the main pathway of NP to the environment is via the biodegradation of NPEs in the aquatic environment) the EU Commission has published marketing & use restrictions (2003/53/EC) for all waste water relevant applications as a conclusion of an EU risk assessment carried out under the Existing Substances Regulation 93/793/EEC. Because NP is a so-called endocrine disruptor chemical, several political initiatives have also banned or restricted the use of NP(E) in Europe. In some countries the use of NPEs is almost completely phased out. Options for reducing the NP(E) emission to water are source control options, during the use of NP(E) containing products, including substitution, and end-of-pipe options for water treatment. The reduction measures for the different sources are presented below in table 9.



Sources

Rel

ease

to

surf

ace

wat

er

from

NP

/NP

E

prod

.

Was

te w

ater

F

rom

NP

E p

rod.

Rel

ease

to

surf

ace

wat

er

from

diff

eren

t m

ater

ials

usi

ng

NP

E p

rod.

Was

te w

ater

from

us

es o

f pro

duct

s co

ntai

ning

NP

E

Mea

sure

s

Source Control Substitutes for NPE X X End-of-pipe techniques Coal Adsorption X X X X Chemical Oxidation X X X X Nanofiltration/Reverse Osmosis X X X X Electrochemical oxidation 0 0 0 0 Electro-coagulation 0 0 0 0 Moving Bed adsorption 0 0 0 0 Separation zone NPE pesticides X X Community level measures Use of end-of- pipe techniques for effluent municipal waste water treatment plants

X

Reuse sewage sludge options X X X X Use of end-of- pipe techniques for NP(E) containing landfill-leachate and groundwater

X

Stormwater runoff options X X Regulatory measures Ban the use of NP(E) containing sludge as soil improver

X

Ban the import of NP(E) containing textiles

X X



Table 10 : Assessment of abatement measures Score at Criteria Remarks



Source Control Substitutes for NPE

Total score: + Total score: ++


Costs of substitutes could be somewhat higher that the costs of NPE

Pol.: point source/diffuse Cmp.: medium? Imp.: medium

Eff.: 100% Oth.: no En.: no Ce.: yes W: no

IC: no OC: medium

St: existing App.: numerous

End-of-pipe Coal adsorption Total score:

++ Total score: + Total score: -

- Total score: +

Pol.: point source Rge.: wide Lim.: low Cmp.: medium

Eff.: 90% Oth.: many En.: medium Ce.: no W: yes

IC: high OC: high

St: BAT App.: ?

Chemical Oxidation

Total score: ++

Total score: + Total score: - Total score: + Can be operated with or without UV

Pol.: point source Rge.: wide Lim.: low Cmp.: medium

Eff.: 90% Oth.: many En.: significant Ce.: no W: no

IC: medium OC: high

St: BAT App.:?

Nanofiltration/ Reverse osmosis

Total score: ++

Total score: - Total score: --

Total score: +

Pol.: point source Rge.: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: 20-50% Oth.: many En.: low Ce.: no W: brine

IC: high OC: high

St: BAT App.: no?

Electrochemical oxidation

Total score: ++

Total score: 0 Total score: 0 Total score: - Only tested on labscale


Eff.50-:90% Oth.: many En.: medium Ce.: no W: no


St: Emerging App.: no

Electro-coagulation

Total score: ++

Total score: + Total score: 0 Total score: - Only tested on labscale




St: Emerging App.: no

Moving Bed adsorption

Total score: ++

Total score: + Total score: - Total score: + Only tested on pilot scale



IC: medium-high? OC:medium high?

St: emerging App.: no

Separation zone NPE pesticides

Total score: ++


Total score: +

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: simply

Eff.: 50-100% Oth.: no En.: no Ce.: no W: no

IC: no OC: low


Use of end-of- pipe techniques for effluent municipal waste water

Total score:+ Total score Total score Total score

Pol.: diffuse Rge.: wide Lim.: low Cmp.: medium

Eff.: 50-90% Oth.: many En.: medium Ce.: no W: yes

IC:medium- high OC: high

St: BAT App.: ?


treatment plants

Reuse sewage sludge options

Total score:+ Total score:+ Total score: ? Total score: ?

Pol.: diffuse

Eff.: high:

Use of end-of- pipe techniques for P(E) containing landfill-leachate and groundwater

Total score: + Total score: Total score: Total score:

Pol.: diffuse Rge.: wide Lim.: low Cmp.: medium

Eff.: 50-90% Oth.: many En.: medium Ce.: no W: yes

IC:medium- high OC: high

St: BAT App.: ?

Stormwater runoff options

Total score:? Total score:? Total score:? Total score:?

Regulatory measures Ban the use of NP(E) containing sludge as soil improver

Total score:+ Total score:+ Total score:? Total score:?

Pol.: diffuse

Eff.: high:

Ban the import of NP(E) containing textiles

Total score:+ Total score:+ Total score:? Total score:?

Pol.: diffuse

Eff.: high:

Note: Technical feasibility: Pol. = Type of pollution; Rge = Range of concentration; Lim. = Limits and restrictions; Cmp. = Complexity of implementation; Imp. = Impact on the process, on the factory. Performances: Eff. = Efficiency of emission reduction; Oth. = Removal of other pollutants; En. = Consumption of energy; CE = Cross effects; W = Production of waste. Costs: IC = Investment costs; OC = Operational costs. State of the art: S.t = Status of the technique (BAT, existing, emerging); App. = Number of applications. Score: green = positive score, yellow = moderate score and red = negative score Table 10 shows that substitution of NPEs is a feasible measure. For most of the applications of NPEs, alcohol ethoxylates are acceptable substitutes. For most industrial sectors, alcohol ethoxylates are already used as a substitute for NPEs. The most promising end-of pipe techniques for the removal of NPE from effluents are coal adsorption and chemical oxidation. Advisable measures at community level are the use of end-of-pipe techniques for NP(E) containing effluent of municipal waste water treatment plants and for NP(E) containing groundwater and landfill leachate. A useful measure at regulatory level is banning the import of NP(E) containing textile.


Atrazine Atrazine was widely used in the European agriculture as an herbicide. Due to its high mobility Atrazine leaked to the groundwater, surface water and drinking water wells. When Atrazine enters the environment it will breakdown quit rapidly under a wide range of normal use conditions (43 days). When Atrazine enters the groundwater it can stay there for a long time because breakdown of the chemical is very slow. The European Commission decision 2004/248/EC not to include Atrazine on Annex I to Directive 91/414/EC specify phase out of the use in the EU. According to Article 3 all Member States except 4 could allow Atrazine to be used until the 10th Sept. 2005; in 4 countries (ES, GB, IE & PT) Atrazine may be allowed to be used until the 31st Dec. 2007 for specifically listed uses ref, Annex in the above mentioned Commission decision. This restriction can be considered to be the ultimate source control option for reduction of Atrazine concentrations in the aquatic environment. Despite this legislation Atrazine is still present in soil, groundwater, surface water and drinking water wells. There are several end-of-pipe techniques for reducing Atrazine from water. These end-of-pipe measures are presented below. Their assessment is presented in table 12. Table 11: Emission sources and possible emission abatement measures

Groundwater Surface water Waste water

For

the

prod

uctio

n of

drin

king

wat

er

and

grou

ndw

ater

tr

eatm

ent a

t re

med

iatio

n si

tes

For

the

prod

uctio

n of

drin

king

wat

er

Sew

age

wat

er

trea

tmen

t pla

nt

End

-of-

Pip

e m

easu

res

Powdered Activated Carbon X X X Granular Activated Carbon X X X Chemically activated Fibres O O O Ozone X X X AOP (Ozone/H2O2) X X X Ozone + Pt-catalyst O O O UV X X X AOP (UV/H2O2) X X X UV/TiO2 O O O Stepwise Fenton Process O O O Nanofiltration (NF) X X X Reverse Osmosis (RO) X X X




Measure Technical feasibility


End-of-pipe Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)

Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++

PAC must be removed by filtration or sedimentation

Pol.: diffuse Rge: low Cnd.: NOM Lim.: no

Eff.: 50-80 % Oth.: medium En.: low CE: Adsorption of DBP. W: high

IC: low OC: medium

St: BAT App: numerous

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)

Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: - Total score: ++

GAC must be regenerated after a specific time by steam or heat.

Pol.: diffuse Rge: low Cnd.: NOM Lim.: no

Eff.: 20-50 thousand bed volumes Oth.: low En.: low CE: Adsorption of DBP and biological breakdown of organic carbon. W: medium



Chemically Activated Carbonfibres (CAF)

Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: -- Total score: -- Technique in development

Pol.: diffuse Rge: low Cnd.: n.a. Lim.:

Eff.: Higher than GAC Oth.: low En.: n.a. CE: Adsorption of DBP W: medium

IC: hgh OC: high

St: emerging App: low

Ozone Total score: 0 Total score: - Total score: 0 Total score: 0 ozone generators requires skilled technicians and regular maintenance

Pol.: diffuse Rge: low Cnd.: low NOM Lim.: no

Eff.: 20-50 % Oth.: disinfection and other organic pollutants En.: medium CE: formation of AOC W: low

IC: high OC: medium

St: existing technique App: few

Ozone/H2O2 Total score: + Total score: 0 Total score: - Total score: - Ozone/H2O2 is a complex process and ozone generators requires skilled technicians and regular maintenance


Eff.: 50-60 % Oth.: disinfection and removal of other organic pollutants En.: medium CE: formation of AOC W: low

IC: high OC: medium


Ozone/ Total score: + Total score: 0 Total score: 0 Total score: - Technique


Pt-catalyst (TiO2)


Eff.: 93 % in 30 minutes Oth.: disinfection and removal of other organic pollutants En.: medium CE: formation of AOC W: medium

IC: n.a. OC: n.a.

St: emerging App: low

in development

UV Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Total score: - High capacity necessary to achieve enough breakdown of Atrazine

Pol.: diffuse Rge: low Cnd.: low turbidity Lim.: no


IC: high OC: Low

St: Existing App: few

UV/H2O2 Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Total score: - Pol.: diffuse Rge: low Cnd.: low turbidity, low NOM Lim.: no


IC: high OC: Low

St: excising App: few

Stepwise Fenton Process

Total score: + Total score: 0 Total score: - Total score: -- Technique in development


Eff.: 35 % in 5 minutes Oth.: disinfection and removal of other organic pollutants En.: medium CE: formation of AOC W: mdium

IC: high OC: Medium

St: emerging App: few

Nano-filtration (NF)

Total score: ++

Total score: + Total score: -- Total score: + frequently already a treatment step of a drinking water plant

Pol.: diffuse Rge: low Cnd.: no chlorine Lim.: depends on pore size

Eff.: 50-80 % Oth.: many En.: high CE: W: high

IC: high OC: high


Reverse Osmosis (RO)

Total score: ++

Total score: ++ Total score: -- Total score: + frequently already a treatment step of a drinking water plant

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: Cnd.: no chlorine Lim.: no

Eff.: 80-100 % Oth.: many En.: high CE: W: high

IC: medium OC: high



Scores (five levels): – – for very bad; – for bad; o for average; + for good; ++ for very good; Sub-criteria (with possible values): Pol. = Type of pollution (point source, diffuse); Rge = Range of concentration (small, medium, wide); Lim. = Limits and restrictions (low, medium, high); Cmp. = Complexity of implementation (low, medium, high); Imp. = Impact on the process, on the factory (low, medium, high); Eff. = Efficiency of emission reduction (in %); Oth. = Removal of other pollutants (list of other pollutants removed); En. = Consumption of energy (no, low, medium, high); CE = Cross-effects (list of cross-effects); W = Production of waste (list of waste); IC = Investment costs (no, low, medium, high); OC = Operational costs (no, low, medium, high); St. = Status of the technique (BAT, existing, emerging); App. = Number of applications (none, some, numerous).


Cadmium Cadmium is a relatively rare, soft, blush-white, transition metal naturally occurring in the earth’s crust and oceans, and present everywhere in the environment including water phase. It is recognized to produce toxic effects (e.g. cancer) on humans. Long-term occupational exposure can cause adverse health effects on the lungs and kidneys. Under normal condition, adverse human health effects have not been encountered from general population exposure to cadmium. Potential risk have been studied and now are regulate by a number of European rules. Cadmium metal is produced as a by-product from the extraction, smelting and refining of zinc, lead and copper. It is further processed into other compounds including cadmium oxide. Cadmium is used in various application as cadmium metal and cadmium oxide in industry and in products commonly consumed. Cadmium occurs naturally in the environment from the gradual process of erosion and abrasion of rocks and soils, and from singular events such as forest fires and volcanic eruptions. Pollution by cadmium is caused by both anthropogenic and natural sources. Primary and secondary non-ferrous metal production, phosphates fertilisers, steel and metals production gives around 87% of the emissions to water from production processes and major uses, followed by various manufacturing processes and uses. Occurrence of cadmium in water is basically connected with the direct and indirect anthropogenic discharges (Figure 1).

Figure 1. MFA diagram for Cd in Europe in 2000 (numbers in tonnes/year, unless indicated otherwise)


Options for reducing emissions into water comprise source control options and end-of-pipe options of water treatment. These abatement measures are presented below.


Table 13. Emission sources and possible emission abatement measures Sources

Iron

&

stee

l pr

oduc

tion

Non

-fe

rrou

s m

etal

s

Pho

spha

tes

fe

rtili

ser

Che

mic

al

indu

stry

Use

s

Air

depo

sitio

n

Source control

Mea

sure

s

Recycling and reuse X X X X X Pre-treatment of waste water from technological process

X X X X

Run off management X X X X X Low Cd phosphate rock X

Cd removal from phosphate X

Cd substitution electroplating XP X

Battery and cells substitution XP

Curbing emissions to the air X X X

End-of-pipe Optimisation of basic wastewater treatment1 X X X X X

Ion exchange X X X X Sorption Active carbon X X

Membrane filtration X X X Nanofiltration X X Electrochemical techniques X

Note: X = available measure, P - potential

1 Combinations of the following technologies precipitation, flocculation/flocation, sedimentation, filtration, neutralisation


Table 14. Assessment of abatement measures Assessment

Remarks evaluation Measures Technical

feasibility Performances Costs State of the

art Source control

Recycling and reuse (ferrous and non-ferrous industries)

Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: ++?

Total score: ++ -low

Pol.: point source Cmp.: high Imp.: low Lim.: specific processes

Eff.: high En.: low CE: low W: low


St: BAT App: large

Pre-treatment of wastewater from technological process

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: +? Total score: ++ -moderate on global scale. In some cases high on local level

Pol.: point source Cmp.: high Imp.: medium Lim.: low

Eff.: high En.: medium CE: medium W: medium

IC: high OC: medium

St: BAT App: large

Run-off management

Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ -moderate on local level Pol.: diffuse

Cmp.: medium Imp.: low Lim.: no

Eff.: medium En.: no CE: no W: no

IC: high OC: low

St: BAT App: large

Low Cd phosphate rock

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Total score: - -low on global scale moderate on local/regional scale

Pol.: point source and diffuse Cmp.: no Imp.: no Lim.: high limited Cd phosphate rock

Eff.: high En.: no CE: + transport issue W: no

IC: no OC: depends on market limitation

St: Emerging App: low

Cadmium removal from phosphate

Total score: - Total score: – Total score: - Total score: - -low moderate on local/regional scale

Pol.: point source and diffuse Cmp.: high Imp.: high Lim.: technical limitations

Eff.: high En.: high CE: air pollution W: medium

IC: high OC: medium

St: Emerging App: a few

Cadmium substitution electroplating

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Total score: - -low, locally high Pol.: point

source Cmp.: medium Imp.: high Lim.: depends on product

Eff.: high En.: ? CE: other pollutant W: no

IC: high OC: medium

St: Emerging App: a few?

Battery and cells substitution

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ -low high only for large municipal landfill sites

Pol.: point source Cmp.: no Imp.: no Lim.: restrictions

Eff.: medium En.: no CE: other pollutant W: low


St: Required in common goods App: large

End of pipe Optimisation of Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ -moderate on


basic wastewater treatment2

Pol.: point source Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: no

Eff.: > 95% En.: medium CE: need chemicals use W: medium

IC: high OC: low

St: BAT App: large

regional/local scales

Ion exchange Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: ++ -moderate/ low high in site/plant specific circumstances

Pol.: point source Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: depends on effluence quality

Eff.: > 99% En.: medium CE: low W: medium

IC: medium OC: low

St: BAT App: ?

Membrane filtration

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ -low/moderate high in local contexts site-specific situation high


Eff.: > 99% En.: medium CE: low W: low

IC: medium OC: low

St: BAT App: ?

Electrochemical techniques

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ -low -moderate in specific applications on local scale

Pol.: point source Cmp.: no Imp.: no Lim.: depends on effluence quality


IC: medium OC: low

St: BAT App: ?

Note: Pol. = Type of pollution; Lim. = Limits and restrictions; Cmp. = Complexity of implementation; Imp. = Impact on the process, on the factory; Eff. = Efficiency of emission reduction; Oth. = Removal of other pollutants; En. = Consumption of energy; CE = Cross-effects; W = Production of waste; IC = Investment costs; OC = Operational costs; St = Status of the technique (BAT, existing, emerging); App. = Number of applications.

2 precipitation, flocculation/flocation, sedimentation, filtration, neutralisation


Isoproturon Isoproturon is a selective, systemic herbicide mainly used for cereals, and is regulated by a number of European rules. It is produced in a small number of places and is only used in agriculture. The current use of isoproturon is explained by the fact that it is a relatively cheap and easy-to-use herbicide. Pollution by isoproturon is caused by both diffuse and point sources. Emissions to water come mostly from surface runoff and farm point sources (runoff from farmyards, storage facilities), and at a lesser extent from field drainflow and spray drift during field application. Options for reducing emissions are about source control and land management options in agriculture and end-of-pipe options for water treatment. These abatement measures are presented below. Table 15 shows possible emission abatement measures related to emission sources. Table 15: Emission sources and possible emission abatement measures

Sources

Run

off

wat

er

Far

m p

oint

so

urce

s

Was

tew

ater

Mea

sure

s

Source control Application rate reduction X Shifting application date X Conservation tillage X Ground cover X Sprayer inspection X Information campaign X On-farm filling and cleaning X In-field filling and cleaning X Sharing equipment, contractor X No farmyard pesticide application X Good farming practices X X Partial substitution X X Total substitution X X Semi-mechanical weed control X X Mechanical weed control X X False seedbed X X Organic farming X X End-of-pipe Ozone oxidation X Activated carbon X Nanofiltration X Reverse osmosis X Land management Grass strips X Hedges X Riparian zones X Constructed wetlands X

Note: X = available measure; O = emerging measure;





Source control Application rate reduction / runoff

Total score: + Total score: o Total score: ++ Total score: ++ -Efficiency equivalent to the rate reduction -Risk of insufficient weed control

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: low Imp.: medium Lim.: medium

Eff.: variable En.: no CE: weed less controlled W: no

IC: no OC: low

St.: best practice in agriculture App.: numerous

Shifting application date / runoff

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: ++ -Risk of insufficient weed control

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: low Imp.: medium Lim.: medium

Eff.: 80-100 % En.: no CE: weed less controlled W: no

IC: no OC: low


Conservation tillage / runoff

Total score: o Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: ++ -Efficiency unknown -Risk of fungal diseases in humid climate

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: low Imp.: medium Lim.: high

Eff.: ? En.: no CE: reduction of erosion; risk of fungal disease W: no

IC: low OC: low


Ground cover / runoff

Total score: + Total score: o Total score: ++ Total score: ++ -Efficiency unknown -Reduced efficiency or cross-effects (emissions of other chemicals) if chemical destruction

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: low Imp.: medium Lim.: low

Eff.: ? En.: medium CE: reduction of erosion; cover destruction issue W: no

IC: no OC: medium


Sprayer inspection / runoff

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: ++ -Need for facility to organise sprayer inspection

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: low

Eff.: variable En.: no CE: no W: no

IC: no OC: low


Information campaign / point source

Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: o Total score: + -Operational costs can be lower but with a reduced efficiency -Need for facility to organise information campaign

Pol.: point source Cmp.: medium Imp.: low Lim.: medium

Eff.: 60-80 % En.: no CE: implementing other best practices W: no

IC: low OC: high

St.: existing App.: numerous

On-farm filling and cleaning / point source

Total score: + Total score: o Total score: o Total score: ++ -Risk of leaching when the biobed is not completely watertight (bottom and walls).

Pol.: point source Cmp.: medium Imp.: low Lim.: low

Eff.: 80-100 % En.: low CE: risk of leaching W: toxic waste

IC: high OC: low


In-field filling Total score: o Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ -Limitations


and cleaning / point source

Pol.: point source Cmp.: medium Imp.: low Lim.: high

Eff.: 80-100 % En.: no CE: risk of runoff / overdosing W: no

IC: medium OC: low


for in-field cleaning (medium) are lower than for filling (high) -Requirements for adapted sprayers, and chemical storage, water supply, and personal protective equipment in the field

Sharing equipment, contractor / point source

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: o Pol.: point source Cmp.: low Imp.: medium Lim.: medium

Eff.: 60-80 % En.: no CE: no W: no

IC: no OC: low

St.: existing App.: some

No farmyard pesticide application / point source

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ++ -Need for alternative treatments

Pol.: point source Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: low

Eff.: 100 % En.: no CE: no W: no

IC: no OC: no


Good farming practices / runoff or point source

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ -Need for information campaign

Pol.: diffuse / point source Cmp.: medium Imp.: low Lim.: low


IC: low OC: medium


Partial substitution / runoff or point source

Total score: + Total score: o Total score: + Total score: + -Performance depends on the impacts of the substitute, which can be a new problem

Pol.: diffuse / point source Cmp.: low Imp.: low to medium Lim.: medium

Eff.: 60 % En.: no CE: emissions of other chemicals W: no

IC: no OC: variable (medium to high)


Total substitution / runoff or point source

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: o Total score: + -Performance depends on the impacts of the substitute, which can be a new problem

Pol.: diffuse / point source Cmp.: low Imp.: low to medium Lim.: medium

Eff.: 100 % En.: no CE: emissions of other chemicals W: no

IC: no OC: very high


Semi-mechanical weed control / runoff or point source

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: o Total score: + -Operational costs should be low: more work but less chemicals

Pol.: diffuse / point source Cmp.: low Imp.: medium Lim.: medium

Eff.: 60-80 % En.: low CE: no W: no

IC: high OC: low


Mechanical weed control / runoff or point source

Total score: o Total score: + Total score: – Total score: + -Investment costs could be low if conventional device can be used

Pol.: diffuse / point source Cmp.: medium Imp.: medium Lim.: medium

Eff.: 100 % En.: medium CE: no W: no

IC: medium OC: high



False seedbed / runoff or point source

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + -Reduced efficiency or cross-effects (emissions of other chemicals) if chemical destruction

Pol.: diffuse / point source Cmp.: low Imp.: medium Lim.: medium

Eff.: 100 % En.: medium CE: no W: no

IC: low OC: medium


Organic farming / runoff or point source

Total score: – Total score: ++ Total score: – Total score: + -Costs are supported by the consumers

Pol.: diffuse / point source Cmp.: high Imp.: high Lim.: medium

Eff.: 100 % En.: medium CE: reduction of other farm chemicals W: no

IC: medium OC: high


End-of-pipe Ozone oxidation / wastewater

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: – – Total score: ++ -To be considered only for industrial sites or large WWTP -Can be operated with or without UV (more costly) -Can be combined with activated carbon -By-products can be easily degraded (e.g. in a biofilter)

Pol.: point source Cmp.: medium Rge: wide Lim.: medium

Eff.: 90-100 % Oth.: many (heavy metals, pesticides…) En.: medium CE: no W: harmless by-products

IC: medium to high OC: high

St.: BAT for wastewater treatment App.: numerous

Activated carbon / wastewater

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: – – Total score: ++ -Two forms: GAC (Granulated Activated Carbon) and PAC (Powdered Activated Carbon) -To be considered only for industrial sites or large WWTP -Can be combined with ozone oxidation

Pol.: point source Cmp.: medium Rge: wide Lim.: medium

Eff.: 90-100 % Oth.: many (heavy metals, pesticides…) En.: medium CE: if GAC: GAC regeneration W: if PAC: used PAC incineration

IC: high OC: high

St.: BAT for wastewater treatment App.: numerous

Nanofiltration Total score: + Total score: o Total score: – – Total score: ++ -Energy


/ wastewater Pol.: point source Cmp.: low Rge: wide Lim.: medium

Eff.: 50-80 % Oth.: many En.: medium CE: no W: concentrated brine

IC: high OC: high


demand can also be high (depends on the water characteristics) -Frequently already a treatment step of a drinking water plant

Reverse osmosis / wastewater

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: – Total score: ++ -Energy demand can also be high (depends on the water characteristics) -Frequently already a treatment step of a drinking water plant

Pol.: point source Cmp.: low Rge: wide Lim.: medium

Eff.: 80-100 % Oth.: many En.: medium CE: no W: concentrated brine

IC: medium OC: high


Land management Grass strips / runoff

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ -Operational costs may include the loss of crop yield due to the loss of cultivation area

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: low Rge: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: 70-100 % Oth.: many (pesticides, fertilisers, metals) En.: low CE: no W: no

IC: low OC: medium


Hedges / runoff

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: o Total score: ++ -Operational costs may include the loss of crop yield due to the loss of cultivation area

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: low Rge: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: 70-100 % Oth.: many (pesticides, fertilisers, metals) En.: low CE: no W: no



Riparian zones / runoff

Total score: + Total score: o Total score: + Total score: ++ Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: low Rge: wide Lim.: medium

Eff.: 0-40 % Oth.: many (pesticides, fertilisers, metals) En.: no CE: no W: no

IC: medium OC: low


Constructed wetlands / runoff

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: – Total score: o Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: low Rge: wide Lim.: high

Eff.: 40-100 % Oth.: many (pesticides, fertilisers, metals) En.: no CE: no W: no

IC: high OC: medium

St.: existing App.: some


Scores (five levels): – – for very bad; – for bad; o for average; + for good; ++ for very good; Global assessment: green = all scores positive (good or very good); yellow = at least one moderate score (average) but no negative score (bad or very bad); red = at least one negative score (bad or very bad); Sub-criteria (with possible values): Pol. = Type of pollution (point source, diffuse); Rge = Range of concentration (small, medium, wide); Lim. = Limits and restrictions (low, medium, high); Cmp. = Complexity of implementation (low, medium, high); Imp. = Impact on the process, on the factory (low, medium, high); Eff. = Efficiency of emission reduction (in %); Oth. = Removal of other pollutants (list of other pollutants removed); En. = Consumption of energy (no, low, medium, high); CE = Cross-effects (list of cross-effects); W = Production of waste (list of waste); IC = Investment costs (no, low, medium, high); OC = Operational costs (no, low, medium, high); St. = Status of the technique (BAT, existing, emerging); App. = Number of applications (none, some, numerous).


Mercury Mercury is a naturally occurring element, and is regulated by a number of European rules. Elemental mercury (Hg(0)) is the only metal in liquid form at room temperature. Mercury is an extremely rare element in the earth's crust. It is found either as a native metal (rare) or in cinnabar, corderoite, livingstonite, and other minerals, with cinnabar (HgS) being the most common ore. The metal is extracted by heating cinnabar in a current of air and condensing the vapour. Mercury is used in various industry and in products commonly consumed. At present, some mercury applications are limited or forbidden. Mercury is emitted into the environment from a number of natural as well as anthropogenic sources. In contrast with the other heavy metals, mercury and many of its compounds behave exceptionally in the environment due to their volatility and capability for methylation. Mercury is outstanding among the global environmental pollutants of continuing concern. Mercury contamination of water is caused by production processes and major uses, followed by various manufacturing processes and uses. The main route of water contamination with mercury is the direct and indirect discharge from point sources. The most important sources of direct emissions to water are dental amalgam use, chlor-alkali plants, power plants, ferrous and non-ferrous industries along with waste disposal. The Material Flow Analysis for mercury is presented in the figure below (Figure 2).

Figure 2. MFA diagram for Hg in Europe in 2000 (numbers in tonnes/year) Options for reducing mercury emissions into water comprise source control options in particular and end-of-pipe options of water treatment technologies. These abatement measures are presented below.


Table 17. Emission sources and possible emission abatement measures Sources

Larg

e C

ombu

stio

n P

lant

Iron

& s

teel

pr

oduc

tion

Non

-fer

rous

m

etal

Use

of

Chl

or-a

lkal

i

Use

of

Mea

surin

g &

co

ntro

l eq

uipm

ent

Use

of

Ele

ctric

pr

oduc

ts

Use

of

Pha

rmac

euti

cals

Use

of

Den

tal

Source control

Pro

cess

Recycling and reuse X X X Pre-treatment of waste water from technological process

X X X X

Run-off management X X X X

Sub

stitu

tion Chlor alkali substitution X

Dentistry materials substitution X

Electric products substitution X3

Man

agem

ent Separated collection,

recycling and save disposal

XP XP XP

Good management practices XPC XPC XPC XPC XPC

End-of-pipe

Air

Air deposition reduction X Crematoria – emission reduction techniques X

Wat

er

gene

ral Optimisation of basic

wastewater treatment4 X X X X XP XP XP

Ion exchange X X X X XP XP XP

Wat

er s

peci

al Membrane filtration X X X X XP XP XP

Nanofiltration X Riverse osmosis X X X Electrochemical techniques X

Note: X – available measure, XP – producer, XC – consumer.

3 Restrictions in use of mercury and its compounds are already imposed that the potential reduction effects are of small scale 4 precipitation, flocculation/flocation, sedimentation, filtration, neutralisation


Table 18. Assessment of abatement measures Assessment Remarks

reduction potential



Source control Recycling and reuse (ferrous and non-ferrous industries LCP)

Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ++ -low Pol.: point source Cmp.: high Imp.: low Lim.: specific processes

Eff.: high En.: low CE: low W: low


St: BAT App: large

Pre-treatment of wastewater from technological processes

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: +? Total score: ++ -high regional or local - older plants

Pol.: point source Cmp.: high Imp.: medium Lim.: low

Eff.: high En.: medium CE: medium W: medium

IC: high OC: mediun

St: BAT App: large

Run-off management

Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ -moderate on regional/local level

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: medium Imp.: low Lim.: no

Eff.: medium En.: no CE: no W: no

IC: high OC: low

St: BAT App: large

Chlor alkali substitution

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ -high regional and local level

Pol.: point source Cmp.: high Imp.: low Lim.: no

Eff.: 100% En.: reduction of energy CE: no W: low

IC: high OC: low

St: BAT App: medium

Dentistry materials substitution

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ++ -moderate on global/ regional scale

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: low Imp.: no Lim.: low

Eff.: 100% En.: no CE: no W: no

IC: low OC: low

St: existing App: common

Crematoria – emission reduction techniques

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ - moderate on regional level

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: medium Imp.: low Lim.: low

Eff.: high En.: low CE: no W: waste

IC: medium OC: low

St: in same country BAT App: low

Electric products substitution

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ -generally low moderate on regional/local scale

Pol.: diffuse, point source Cmp.: high Imp.: medium Lim.: restriction for same applications

Eff.: 100% En.: energy reduction CE: no W: no

IC: low OC: low

St: regulation App: large

Separated collection, recycling and save disposal

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ++ -moderate/ low on regional/local scale

Pol.: diffuse, Cmp.: high Imp.: medium Lim.: low

Eff.: depends on product (50 – 95%) En.: low CE: positive other aspect W: no additional

IC: low OC: low

St: regulation App: large

Good Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ -low


management practices

Pol.: diffuse, point source Cmp.: no Imp.: no Lim.: no

Eff.: high En.: no CE: no W: no

IC: very low OC: no

St: BAT, standards regulation App: large

important for older plants

End-of-pipe Optimisation Basic wastewater treatment5

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ -moderate, mostly implemented improvements in older plants

Pol.: point source Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: no

Eff.: > 95% En.: medium CE: need chemicals use W: medium

IC: high OC: low

St: BAT App: large

Ion exchange Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: ++ - high on local scale and specific situations


Eff.: > 99% En.: medium CE: low W: medium

IC: medium OC: low

St: BAT App: ?

Membrane filtration

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: ++ -high on local scale specific situations



IC: medium OC: low

St: BAT App: ?

Electrochemical techniques

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: ++ -low Pol.: point source Cmp.: no Imp.: no Lim.: depends on effluence quality


IC: medium OC: low

St: BAT App: ?

Scores (five levels): – – for very bad; – for bad; o for average; + for good; ++ for very good; Sub-criteria (with possible values): Pol. = Type of pollution (point source, diffuse); Rge = Range of concentration (small, medium, wide); Lim. = Limits and restrictions (low, medium, high); Cmp. = Complexity of implementation (low, medium, high); Imp. = Impact on the process, on the factory (low, medium, high); Eff. = Efficiency of emission reduction (in %); Oth. = Removal of other pollutants (list of other pollutants removed); En. = Consumption of energy (no, low, medium, high); CE = Cross-effects (list of cross-effects); W = Production of waste (list of waste); IC = Investment costs (no, low, medium, high); OC = Operational costs (no, low, medium, high); St. = Status of the technique (BAT, existing, emerging); App. = Number of applications (none, some, numerous).

5 precipitation, flocculation/flocation, sedimentation, filtration, neutralisation


PBDE Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are used as flame retardant in plastics and to some extent in textiles, and include a group of 209 aromatic brominated compounds. PBDEs are marketed under three technical products, pentabromodiphenyl ether (PentaBDE), octabromodiphenyl ether (OctaBDE), and decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE), where each commercial product is a mixture of PBDEs with varying degrees of bromination. PentaBDE is considered as priority hazardous substance with a need for phasing out discharges. The production and use of PentaBDE and OctaBDE are now banned in Europe; only DecaBDE is still permitted. However, there are stocks of all PBDEs from products in service and waste. Main applications of PBDEs were as flame retardants in (in descending order of importance): high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), flexible polyurethane foam, textile coatings (not clothing), wire and cable insulation, electrical/electronic connectors and other interior parts. PBDEs do not occur naturally, so all PBDEs in the environment come from human activities. Most current PBDE emissions to water come from waste (disposal and sludge spreading), but some industrial point sources (DecaBDE) as well as fires via extinguishing water might cause local pollution. However the PBDE concentrations in the environment are mainly due to historical pollution and accumulation. Penta- and OctaBDE have been phased out (only DecaBDE is still permitted) and discharges are regulated. One of the remaining issues is PBDE containing waste all the more than they are very stable. Options for reducing emissions are about source control options in industry (DecaBDE), alternatives to PBDEs, and PBDE containing waste (recycling and disposal).


Table 19: Emission sources and possible emission abatement measures

Sources

Indu

stria

l m

anuf

act

urin

g

Use

rs

Was

te

trea

tmen

t

Mea

sure

s

Source control Improving raw material handling X Improving compounding process X Improving conversion/backcoating X Avoiding washing O O Chemical substitution X X X Changing product material X X X Redesigning the products O O O End-of-pipe Recycling X X Controlled incineration X X Landfilling safely X X

Note: X = available measure; O = emerging measure.





Source control Improving raw material handling

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Pol.: point source Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: low

Eff.: 95% En.: low CE: no W: dust

IC: low OC: low

St.: voluntary agreement App.: numerous

Improving compounding process

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ Pol.: point source Cmp.: medium Imp.: low Lim.: low

Eff.: 95% En.: low CE: no W: dust, sludge

IC: medium OC: low


Improving conversion / backcoating

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ Pol.: point source Cmp.: medium Imp.: low Lim.: low

Eff.: 95% En.: low CE: no W: dust, sludge

IC: medium OC: low


Avoiding washing

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: – Pol.: point source / diffuse Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: low


IC: no OC: no

St.: emerging App.: some

Chemical substitution

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Pol.: point source / diffuse Cmp.: low Imp.: low Lim.: medium

Eff.: 100% En.: low CE: emission of other chemicals W: no

IC: low OC: medium


Changing product material

Total score: + Total score: + Total score: o Total score: + Pol.: point source / diffuse Cmp.: low Imp.: medium Lim.: medium

Eff.: 100% En.: low CE: use of other polymers W: no



Redesigning the products

Total score: − Total score: ++ Total score: o Total score: – Pol.: point source / diffuse Cmp.: medium Imp.: medium Lim.: high

Eff.: 100% En.: low CE: no W: no

IC: high OC: low


End-of-pipe Recycling Total score: o Total score: + Total score: + Total score: ++ -Complexity:

recycling requires specific plants -Limits: mixture of plastics can be hardly recycled

Pol.: point source Cmp.: medium Rge: medium Lim.: medium

Eff.: variable Oth.: no En.: medium CE: recycling of plastics and metals W: no

IC: low OC: medium

St.: BAT App.: numerous

Controlled Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: – Total score: – -Conditions


incineration Pol.: point source Cmp.: high Rge: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: 100% Oth.: other pollutants En.: recovery of energy CE: recycling of bromine W: ash

IC: high OC: medium


of incineration need to be carefully controlled to avoid dioxin and furan emissions -Recycling of bromine needs a chlorine supply on site to be cost efficient

Landfilling safely

Total score: + Total score: – Total score: ++ Total score: + -Landfilling safely requires leachate treatment to avoid further emissions (limits) -PBDEs are stored in landfill but still remain

Pol.: point source Cmp.: low Rge: wide Lim.: medium

Eff.: variable Oth.: no En.: no CE: possible further emissions W: yes

IC: low OC: low


Scores (five levels): – – for very bad; – for bad; o for average; + for good; ++ for very good; Global assessment: green = all scores positive (good or very good); yellow = at least one moderate score (average) but no negative score (bad or very bad); red = at least one negative score (bad or very bad); Sub-criteria (with possible values): Pol. = Type of pollution (point source, diffuse); Rge = Range of concentration (small, medium, wide); Lim. = Limits and restrictions (low, medium, high); Cmp. = Complexity of implementation (low, medium, high); Imp. = Impact on the process, on the factory (low, medium, high); Eff. = Efficiency of emission reduction (in %); Oth. = Removal of other pollutants (list of other pollutants removed); En. = Consumption of energy (no, low, medium, high); CE = Cross-effects (list of cross-effects); W = Production of waste (list of waste); IC = Investment costs (no, low, medium, high); OC = Operational costs (no, low, medium, high); St. = Status of the technique (BAT, existing, emerging); App. = Number of applications (none, some, numerous).


Tributyltin In the EU, the use of organotins was about 19.000 ton/year in 2002. In the same year the use of tri-substituted organotins was about 1600 ton/year. The main areas of use of TBT in 2002 are antifouling paints (80%), fungicides, and various biocide uses in preparations and products. Because the use of TBT in anti fouling paints is nowadays forbidden, the use of tri-substituted organotins is lowered to about 350 tons/year and the use of TBT to about 250 tons/year. Pollution by TBT is caused by diffuse emissions from ship hulls, and emissions of TBT during activities in ship and dock yards, diffusion of TBT from contaminated (habour and river) sediments and from effluents of WWTPs from several industrial plants (Metal industry, basis organic chemicals). The emissions from ship hulls and yards will gradually diminish. Options for reducing the TBT emission to water are source control options during the use of TBT containing products and end-of-pipe options for water treatment. The abatement measures are presented below.



Sources

Shi

pyar

d w

aste

w

ater

WW

TP

ef

fluen

t

Was

te

wat

er

(oth

er)

Sur

face

w

ater

Mea

sure

s

Source Control Avoid disposal of TBT during wood pretreatment

X

Avoid disposal of TBT coatings X Substitution of TBT in anti fouling paint

X X

Substitution of TBT in wood preservatives

X X

Substitution of TBT as fungicide in cooling towers

X

Substitution of TBT containing stabilisers in PVC

X

End-of-pipe Activated sludge system X MBR X Oxidation X X Sedimentation X Sand filtration X Micro/Ultrafiltration X X Nanofiltration/Reverse Osmosis X X Coagulation/flocc. + sand filtration X X X Coagulation/flocc. + clarification (DAF)

X X X

Coal adsorption X X Solvent extraction X Moving Bed Adsorption X X Community level measures Use of environmental friendly dredging method

X

Remediation of sediment X Use of end-of- pipe techniques for effluent municipal waste water treatment plants

X

Treatment of TBT containing sewage sludge/use as a sec. fuel

X

Measures at regulatory level Prohibit dumping at sea of TBT containing sediment

X

Ban the use of TBT contaminated sludge as soil improver

X

Ban the dumping at sea of TBT contaminated sludge

X

Ban the use of chemicals containing TBT (>0,1% by mass)

X





Source Control Avoid disposal of TBT during wood pre-treatment (waste water)

Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: -- Total score: + Costs of alternative methods are high

Pol.: point source Cmp.: medium? Imp.: medium

Eff.: 100% Oth.: no En.: no Ce.: yes W: yes

IC: high OC: high

St: sometimes disposal to waste water is forbidden App.: rarely

Avoid disposal of TBT coatings (shipyard wastes)

Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: -- Total score: Costs of alternative methods are high

Pol.: point source Cmp.: medium? Imp.: medium

Eff.: 100% Oth.: no En.: no Ce.: yes W: yes

IC: high OC: high

St: not used App.: rarely

Substitution of TBT in anti fouling paint

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: - Total score: ++ Since 2003 several substitutes are being used. Mostly copper-bases foulings which are also causing seriously pollution

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: low Imp.: high


IC: no OC: high


Substitution of TBT in wood preservatives

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ++ In 2001 only one company produced TBT containing biocides and planned to withdraw these products from the market

Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: low Imp.: high


IC: no OC: no

St: existing, TBT–based biocides are rarely used App.: numerous

Substitution of TBT containing stabilisers in PVC

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ? Total score: ++ Pol.: diffuse Cmp.: ? Imp.: high


IC: ? OC: ?

St: existing App.: ?

End-of-pipe Activated sludge system (waste water)

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: -- Total score: ++ Activated sludge system is a general technique for treating communal of industrial waste water and not specific for TBT containing waste water


Eff.: 90%? Oth.: many En.: significant Ce.: no W: yes (sludge)

IC: high OC: high

St: BAT for communal and industrial waste water App.: many

MBR (waste water)

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: - Total score: + MBR is a general technique for treating communal or industrial waste water and not specific for TBT containing waste water


Eff.: 90%? Oth.: many En.: significant Ce.: no W: yes (sludge)

IC: high OC: high

St: recently introduces technique App.: some

Oxidation (effluent

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: 0 Total score: + Can be operated with or without UV

Pol.: point source Eff.: 90%? IC: medium St: BAT


WWTP) Rge.: wide Lim.: low

Oth.: many En.: significant Ce.: no W: no

OC: medium App.:?

Sedimentation Total score: ++ Total score: -- Total score: ++ Total score: + Sedimentation is standard technique in WWTP; more effective when flocc/coagulation is used


Eff.: <50% Oth.: many En.: low Ce.: no W: yes

IC: low OC: low

St: BAT App.: no?

Sand filtration (shipyard waste water)

Total score: ++ Total score: - Total score: ++ Total score: + Sand filtration is standard technique in WWTP; more effective when flocc/coagulation is used


Eff.: 50% Oth.: many En.: low Ce.: no W: yes

IC: low OC: low

St: BAT App.: no?

Micro/Ultrafiltration (effluent WWTP)

Total score: ++ Total score: - Total score: 0 Total score: +


Eff.: 50% Oth.: many En.: medium Ce.: no W: yes (concentrate)


St: BAT App.: no?

Nanofiltration/ Reverse Osmosis (effluent WWTP)

Total score: ++ Total score: 0 Total score: - Total score: 0 Cleaning or treating of the brine is a problem


Eff.: 90%? Oth.: many En.: medium Ce.: no W: brine

IC: high OC: high

St: BAT for drinking water production App.: no?

Coagulation/flocc. + sand filtration (shipyard waste water + effluent WWTP)

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: ++ Total score: + Pol.: point source Rge.: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: 90% Oth.: many En.: low Ce.: now W: yes

IC: low OC: low

St: BAT for removing SS App.: no?

Coagulation/flocc. + clarification (DAF) (shipyard waste water + effluent WWTP)

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: + Total score: + Pol.: point source Rge.: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: 90% Oth.: many En.: high Ce.: now W: yes

IC: medium OC: low

St: BAT for removing SS App.: no?

Coal adsorption (effluent WWTP)

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: + Pol.: point source Rge.: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: 99% Oth.: many En.: medium Ce.: now W: yes

IC:low-medium OC: medium

St: BAT for polishing effluent WWTP App.: no?

Solvent extraction (shipyard waste water)

Total score: ++ Total score: + Total score: -- Total score: -- Pol.: point source Rge.: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: 99% Oth.: some En.: high Ce.: now W: yes (solvent)

IC: high OC: high

St: rarely used as technique for waste water App.: no

Moving bed Adsorption (effluent WWTP)

Total score: ++ Total score: ? Total score: - Total score: -- Pol.: point source Rge.: wide Lim.: low

Eff.: ? Oth.: many En.: medium Ce.: now W: yes


St: Emerging technique App.: no

Emerging technique

Community level measures Environmental Total score: ++ Total score: 0 Total score: Total score: ++


friendly dredging method

Pol.: diffuse Rge.: wide Lim.: low Cmp: low

Eff.: 50-100%

St: existing technique App.: several

Effect of measure depends of chosen method

Remediation of TBT contaminated sediment

Total score: ++ Total score: 0 Total score: - Total score: ++

Pol.: diffuse Rge.: wide Lim.: low Cmp: low

Eff.: 50-100%

IC: high OC: high

St: existing technique App.: several

Effect and costs depends of chosen method

Use of end-of-pipe techniques at municipal WWTP

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: -- Total score: +

Pol.: diffuse

Eff.: 90%

IC: high OC: high

St: BAT for polishing effluent WWTP App.: several

Treatment of TBT containing sewage sludge/use as sec. fuel

Total score: ++ Total score: 0 Total score: ? Total score: ++ Treatment costs could be high

Pol.: diffuse

Eff.: 100%

Regulatory measures Ban dumping at sea of TBT containing sediment

Total score: ++ Total score: 0 Total score: ? Total score: ++

Pol.: diffuse

Eff.: 100%

Costs of alternative measures could be high

Ban the use of TBT contaminated sludge as soil improver

Total score: ++ Total score: ++ Total score: ? Total score: ++

Pol.: diffuse

Eff.: 100%

Ban dumping at sea of TBT containing sludge


Pol.: diffuse

Eff.: 100%

Costs of alternative measures could be high

Ban the use of chemicals containing TBT (> 0,1% by mass)


Pol.: diffuse

Eff.: 100%

Technical feasibility: Pol. = Type of pollution; Rge = Range of concentration; Lim. = Limits and restrictions; Cmp. = Complexity of implementation; Imp. = Impact on the process, on the factory. Performance: Eff. = Efficiency of emission reduction; Oth. = Removal of other pollutants; En. = Consumption of energy; CE = Cross effects; W = Production of waste. Costs: IC = Investment costs; OC = Operational costs. State of the art: S.t = Status of the technique (BAT, existing, emerging); App. = Number of applications. Global assessment: green = positive score, yellow = moderate score and red = negative score As the use of TBT in anti fouling is forbidden since 2003, the emission of TBT to water will decrease the next decade. Attention must be paid to environmental effect of the substitutes used as anti fouling, especially the copper-containing anti-fouling coatings.

For purification of waste water and effluent of WWTPs contaminated with TBT, the use of end-of-pipe techniques are advised. A combination of coagulation/flocculation + filtration (particulate TBT) and coal adsorption (dissolved TBT) is given the best results. End-of-pipe techniques can also be used for polishing the effluent of municipal WWTPs. A second effective measure at community level is the use of an environmental dredging method. Effective measures at regulatory level are the ban of dumping TBT containing


sludge or sediment to sea, the ban of TBT containing sludge as soil improver and a ban for the use of TBT containing chemicals (e.q. plastics).


ANNEXE 5 : ETUDE DE CAS RHIN-MEUSE

Ci-dessous :

- Rapport d’activité 2008 de l’INERIS pour le work package 5 (études de cas) de SOCOPSE ;

- Compte rendu de la réunion à l’Agence de l’eau Rhin-Meuse du 15 mai 2008.


Activity report year 2: WP5 – Meuse case study – IN ERIS

1. Overview of activities carried out by the consor tium

The main tasks INERIS carried out in relation to WP 5 are:

Presenting and Discussing SOCOPSE and its DSS with French Meuse River Basin Authorities, and French National Authorities in charge of WFD

For Cadmium, collecting PS inventories and identifying main PS sources

Defining potential management options

Evaluating costs and benefits for different management options

Modelling

2. Description of progress toward the objectives of WP5

WP5/Task 5.1: Case study methods and reporting rout ines

WP5/Task 5.2: Case studies

Step 1: PS inventory and identification of main PS sources

An inventory for Cd was made from:

- French database on industrial discharge “RSDE data base” : As part of the “RSDE action” : collected data on PS emissions among industries under authorisation (IPPC sites) in 2006.

- Water agency data basis: PS concentration data in data basis such as the « réseau de bassin » concerning superficial and underground waters, and, regional inventories of underground water quality.

Identification of PS sources: it consisted in first identifying areas where emissions come from; within these areas, identification of industries where emissions come from.

Step 2: Define potential management options

A data basis on management options is available in the Rhin-Meuse water agency. It gathers data classified by pollution type (pollution by organic, nitrogen and phosphate maters; pollution by phytosanitary products, pollution by toxic and dangerous substances) and by pollution source (urban, industrial, agricultural and from the hydrology). This database with complement the WP3 database.

Step 3: Evaluate costs and benefits for different management options (with WP4 DSS)

The water agency data basis also provides some general cost information of the different management options. However, data on benefits are missing.


Step 4: Modelling

Cd concentrations in the Meuse river are being modelled with PEGASE model of the AQUA. Interim calibration results are available since September 2008.

Final calibration results are expected for December 2008.

Scenarios based on different management option combinations, and are not planned to be modelled before 2009.

Step 4: Interact with stakeholders (during whole process) (with support from WP6)

During year 2:

Meeting with Meuse Regional Water authorities in June 2008.

October the 28th: meeting at the MEEDDAT. Discussed issues: data collection, modelling results presentation.

More interactions are planned during year 3:

At least 2 meetings:

- On November the 27th 2008: water agency, local ministry representatives, from all regions of France will be present.

Issues to be discussed:

o substance concentration modelling (based on presentation on results on the Meuse obtained so far)

o how to build emissions reductions strategies at the river basin scale and determine emission limit values at the local scale, in a consistent manner.

- In March 2009 : Same issues but 1) a larger audience is expected with presence of industry, scientists, …2) presentation of more advanced modelling results on the Meuse and other watersheds.

Step 5: Use experiences to improve DSS

Planned during year 3

WP5/Task 5.3: Synthesis and generalisation of resul ts for European-wide application

Planned during year 3

3. Meetings

See “Step 4 Interaction with stakeholders” above.

4. Identification of any problems encountered and c orrective actions taken

Data from the water agency data basis do not link management options with substances. A detailed study of each management option would enable to find these links.


Meeting with French water Agency Rhin-Meuse 15th May 2008

1. Meeting Objectives and Main Conclusions

The meeting was held at the main office of Agence de l’eau Rhin-Meuse (French Water Agency Rhin-Meuse) in Moulins-Lès-Metz (15/05/2008). The main objectives were to: � Give a general presentation of project SOCOPSE to the Water Agency � Discuss the interest of Water Agency in the priority substances (PS) in general and the

SOCOPSE Decision Support System (DSS) in particular

The presentation of SOCOPSE consisted in giving a general overview of SOCOPSE, a presentation of the DSS, and an overview of the case studies. Then the Maas case study was presented and the discussion was organised through a questionnaire.

The main conclusions are: � The DSS is similar to the approach followed by the 6 French Water Agencies for

implementing the Water Framework Directive; � The application of the DSS to the Maas case would be interesting; � PEGASE (pollutant dispersion model) will be applied in a specific study on the Maas

watershed for managing Cadmium and Zinc (building of cost/effectiveness scenarios).

Concerning the last point, the specific study actually consists in achieving the steps 3 to 5 of the DSS (Definition of a baseline scenario, Inventory of possible measures, Assessment of the effects of the measures). Note that the steps 0 to 2 of the DSS (System definition, Problem definition, Inventory of sources) are considered to have already been done in previous works. Step 6 (selection of the best solutions) is not planned in the specific study.

Participants and questions and answers from the questionnaire are given below.

2. Participants

Participants Organisation e-mail

Céline CONAN Agence de l’eau Rhin-Meuse [email protected]

Claire RIOU Agence de l’eau Rhin-Meuse [email protected]

Sophie NICOLAI Agence de l’eau Rhin-Meuse nicolaï@eau-rhin-meuse.fr

Jean-Marc BRIGNON

INERIS [email protected]

Aurélien GOUZY INERIS [email protected]

Aurélien GENTY INERIS [email protected]


3. Questionnaire

Q1 Implication of interviewees in WFD

A1: - Ms RIOU has carried out Monitoring programmes and data exploitation on chemicals,

and participated in the definition of chemical status for the WFD - Ms CONAN has carried out PAH, diuron, and nickel modelling, but the results were

not considered valid enough to be considered for planning measures in the WFD - Ms NICOLAI, as an economist, supervised the cost calculation on some measures for

the WFD (measures on: chlorinated solvents, PAHs, emission reduction of IPPC sites…)

Q2: Opinion on the WFD requirements for PS

A2: The cessation of release does not seem realistic for PAHs, DEHP, and contaminated sediments; and more generally the FWD is too ambitious regarding the substances which are used outside the industry.

It is difficult to identify the emission sources. And it is difficult to set objectives for emission reduction and assess the decrease in emissions because the number and the location of sources vary in time in the watershed. Moreover phasing out the substance will not automatically lead to the cessation of emissions (e.g. atrazine).

Until now, the PS issue is more focussed on industrial releases and not much on the release from WWTP.

Q3: What has been done and remains to be done for substances in the Maas basin?

A3: Very little has been actually undertaken so far to reduce emissions. In France there is no legal framework for local authorities to ask for industrials to reduce their emissions. Local authorities can only inform the industrials.

Q4: Point vs. diffuse sources?

A4: Generally, it has been considered that pesticides concerned diffuse sources, and other chemicals point sources (industry).

Q5: Emission control vs. end-of pipe?

A5: Both (end-of-pipe solutions and process modification/chemical substitution) are considered, even if end-of-pipe is the simplest.

The prohibition of substances sometimes can be a good and much simpler solution but it can raise some social and economic risks. In any case the decision of phasing out should be taken at the EU level.

Q6: Enough info on emissions? If not, how to improve the situation?

A6: Not enough, but in the future: the self-monitoring emission data of industrial sites will be accessible through a national database, and if PHS are monitored it will improve access to emission data (for each activity sector, systematic measurements of relevant substances should be undertaken).

Q7: Enough info on uses? If not, how to improve the situation?

A7: the work done in France by INERIS (monographs on around 50 substances) is useful; but more is needed, especially for substances found everywhere: how to identify the main uses and the means of actions?

Q8: Enough info on control options? If not, how to improve the situation?

A8: Nothing available, support is critically needed.

Q9: Cost efficiency criteria for PHS


A9: There are some cost efficiency studies but PHS were not taken into account: only « classical » pollution (DCO, DBO, MES…) has been considered so far. The assessment of efficiency was done by expert judgement.

The calculation of costs was done at the water body level (not at the industrial level).

Q10: Which are the most cost efficient measures?

A10: No idea.

Q11: what support is received/needed from national and EU level?

A11: From national level, there is a lack of guidelines on costing (some water basins include maintenance costs, some not). In that way, a database on the costs and efficiency of control options would be helpful (Water Agency interested), because this is not in the competence of public authorities.

UE guidance felt too general to be useful for more advanced countries.

Q12: Is the transboundary issue on the Maas important for the Agency, how it is taken into account?

A12: The approach varies among countries, so applying a common detailed DSS seems difficult (the German have a different approach, the Netherlands are interested mostly in drinking water quality, etc.). The state of the art on the basin has been achieved separately, but there is a joint effort for harmonising the costs. A common river basin management plan is foreseen; however the program of measures is developed in each country.

Q13: Do you need the DSS? What for?

A13: The DSS could be useful for the French part of the Maas in parallel with model PEGASE.

Q14: Additional contacts?

A14: Some contacts were given: two contacts in the French local authorities for industry and the environment, and one contact in the industry. - DRIRE Lorraine: Maxime COURTY - DIREN Lorraine: Pascal DUCHENE

ARMUE (Association for the industrial water users in water basin Rhein-Maas): Patrick SIVRY ([email protected]).

Documents

RAPPORT D’ÉTUDE 18/12/2008 N° DRC-09-95308 … · de synthèse intitulé « Emission Reduction ... This report presents the ... modeling results will be presented and discussed