Transcript Slide 1

Source control of priority
substances in Europe
EU-project within the sixth framework program
John Munthe
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute
www.socopse.eu
How did it start....
 Fourth call for proposals in the specific programme for
research, technological development and
demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the
European Research Area’
 Priority thematic area ‘Sustainable Development,
Global Change and Ecosystems’;
 Thematic sub-priority area: ‘Global Change and
Ecosystems’
 Heading: II.3 Integrated management strategies and
mitigation technologies
 Topic: II. 3.1 Source control of priority substances
 Published on July 19, 2005, deadline for proposals:
Nov 3, 2005
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Call text
 (Topic for up-to-two STREPs/CA)
 Art. 16 of the Water Framework Directive has put in place a
mechanism through which a list of 33 priority pollutants, for
which environmental quality standards and emission control
measures have to be established, was created. From this list,
a group of 11 priority hazardous substances were identified,
which will be subject to cessation or phasing out of
discharges, emissions and losses within an appropriate
timetable that shall not exceed 20 years. This action will
investigate alternative technologies, management
options and monitoring systems for source control of
priority substances, carrying out, as well, a multicriteria comparison with end-of-pipe solutions. The
impact of different substitution options of priority
substances for their various uses should be assessed.
This action contributes to the objectives of the
[Title]
Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP).
[Lecturer], [Date]
The process
 Formation of a consortium, decision on a research
approach focussed on implementation and providing
support to water authorities, national authorities, DG
Environment and the industry
 Work mainly based on existing knowledge
 Usefulness a key word throughout the project
 Stakeholder involvement a priority:
- Frequent consultations and discussions with endusers from the project start
- Case studies involving local stakeholders
- Dissemination activities: web site, participation in
meetings, workshops, conferences
 Proposal was accepted and the project started
November 1, 2006
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd (IVL), Sweden
Nederlands Organisatie Voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek
(TNO), The Netherlands
Institut National de l´Environment Industriel et des Risques (INERIS),
France
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientifi cas (CSIC), Spain
Norsk institutt for luftforskning (NILU), Norway
Instityt Ekologii Terenow Uprzemyslowionych (IETU/Envitech), Poland
Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Finland
Vyskumny Ustav Vodneho Hospodarstva (WRI), Slovakia
KWR Watercycle Research Institute. Netherlands
University of Southampton, School of Civil Engineering & the Environment
(SOTON), United Kingdom
Environmental Institute (EI), Slovakia
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Project objective
 To provide guidelines and decision
support system tools for the
implementation of the WFD with regard to
selected priority substances
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Work flow
Year
Sources
Material flow analysis
European scale
Emission control options
Guidebook + tools
Draft Decision
Support System
1
Substance reports
Control technologies
2
Case studies
Five areas in Europe
Final Decision Support System
Final Reports, Conference
[Title]
Web site DSS, Synthesis
[Lecturer], [Date]
3
Material Flow Analysis (or Substance
Flow Analysis)
 Provide quantitative information on how the flow (mass
per time) of materials or substances behaves in a well
defined system.
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Simple MFA diagram - Mercury
Dental
amalgam
(product
)
12%
Mercury (Hg)
Chloralca
li
(product
)
16%
Other
sources
(byproduct)
24%
Annual emissions for
(tonnes/year)
To air
Cement (21.3)
Residential comb. (13.4)
Waste disposal (8.1)
To water
Power plants (6)
Waste disposal (6)
Other sources (6)
To land
Waste disposal (100)
Other sources (50)
Power plants (10)
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Power
plants
(byproduct)
24%
Waste
disposal
(byproduct)
24%
Control options
 Inventory of abatement measures –Literature,
workshops (industry, scientists)
 Assessment of abatement measures – costs,
efficiencies, availability
 Emission reduction Strategy – multi criteria analysis
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Decision Support System
 Step-by-step handbook for implementation of the WFD
with associated databases, reports and information
guidance
 Web based version available on socopse.eu
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Case studies
Test and evaluate the decision support system by
applying it to 5 case studies in different geographical
regions and to integrate results and experiences to
European scale
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Case study areas
The five case studies
which represent
different geographical
regions of Europe as well
as different scales
The five cases have
different characteristics
in terms of pollution
sources and degree of
contamination of priority
substances.
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Synthesis - emissions
 Lack of information on emissions
- and production, import, export, use, fate of PS in
industrial waste, household products and municipal
waste water
 Diffuse sources important in many locations
- Atmospheric deposition
- Contaminated sites
- Agriculture
- Households and small industries: waste water (more or
less treatment)
For a long term strategy to reduce impacts from PS and
chemicals in general, a cradle to grave perspective is needed
and a higher degree of transparency in information on
[Title]
use, production and fate of chemicals.
[Lecturer], [Date]
Synthesis – monitoring data
 General lack of monitoring data to assess water
quality
 Monitoring is time consuming and costly
 All data (e.g. from research community) not available
to authorities
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Models in the WFD?
 Can the use of models assisst water authorites in
situation where availablity of information on emissions
and concentrations in water/sediments/biota?
 Fugacity based models used in Vantaa river Case
study: emissions data available; monitoring data
available from river mouth; model used to predict
concentrations in other parts of the river basin
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Potential exceedance of TBT identified
Modelled DEHP lower than measured:
missing sources?
TBT
EQS=0,2 ng/l
DEHP
EQS=1300 ng/l
21092 Keravanjoen keskiosan
21091 Keravanjoen alaosa
21011 Vantaan suualue
21041 Lepsämänjoen alaosan
21051 Luhtajoen-Ylisjoen alaosa
21081 Tuusulanjoen alaosan
21012 Seutulan alue
21021 Metsäkylän-Nummenniityn
21031 Kytajoen alaosan
21022 Nukarin Hyvinkaan
21023 Vantaan Herajoen
Kruunuvuorenselka
Vanhankaupunginlahti
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,0
5,0
10,0
ng/L
15,0
20,0
ng/L
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
25,0
30,0
Models in WFD implementation
 Insufficient information on emissions and
monitoring data: Combination of SFA and fate models
can be used to identify potential sources, pathways,
concentration ranges and suitable monitoring sites
 Modelling combined with available emission and
monitoring data can be used to check consistency
(mass balance) and identify missing sources and/or
potential sites where EQS are exceeded.
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Control options
 Technical information on end of pipe control
technologies and substitution partly available but
information on cost of emission control options are
scarce and unreliable
 Control options and strategies for diffuse pollution
(contaminated sites) difficult to define and evaluate
 Control options for atmospheric deposition outside
responsibility of Water District
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Other conclusions
 Information and knowledge not fully utilised – science
to policy communication links should be improved
 Decision making structure differs between member
states and may influence possibilities to implement
WFD
 WFD implementation is a complex process: A Decision
Support System tool is valuable for water district
managers.
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
Conclusions - summary
 The implementation of the WFD will benefit from
a continual development of decision support tools
 More transparency and openness of information
is required.
 An integrated approach for chemicals is needed
for future protection of the environment.
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]
www.socopse.eu
[Title]
[Lecturer], [Date]