Transcript 04, 02FEB2010, A Jamtrot, Stockholm Stad.ppt

CITY OF STOCKHOLM
Substance Flow Analysis
for Selected Priority Pollutants in
Case Cities
Arne Jamtrot1, Kemi Seriki2, Maria Pettersson1
1City of Stockholm, Environment and Health Administration, Sweden
2Anjou Recherche -Veolia Environnement, France
28/07/2016
PAGE 1
Inflow
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
STOCK
Outflow
28/07/2016
PAGE 2
Air
Surface water
Stormwater
Compare with
monitoring
Wastewater
Sewage
treatment
Compare with
monitoring
Urban soil
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
Sludge
28/07/2016
PAGE 3
Case city characteristics
Case city A
Case city B
Population
800 000
53 000 (winter)
120 000 (summer)
Industries
Trade, service,
telecommunications and
the financial sectors
No heavy industries
Production of fertilizer,
agriculture and food industry,
aeronautics and
manufacturing
14 % of employment
associated with industrial
sector and 70 % with goods
and services sector.
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
28/07/2016
PAGE 5
System definition
 Temporal:
One year – not a specific year, but as recent data as possible
 Spatial:
Administrative borders
except for the WWTPs in Case City A, which receive wastewater from
surrounding areas, corresponding to an extra 20 % load.
 Chemical:
– Both cities: DEHP, Cd, Hg
– Case city A: Benzo(a)pyrene, PentaBDE
– Case city B: Ni, Pb, Naphthalene
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
28/07/2016
PAGE 6
Calculation of emissions
• Emission strings (ES) from ScorePP database
• Identification of ES relevant for the case city
• Use the release factors (RF) to calculate emissions from each source
using local data on population, traffic, land use etc. (i.e. Release
Multipliers)
• In case city B attempts were made to use figures from a local
emission register software, but there were doubts about whether
they related to actual releases
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
28/07/2016
PAGE 7
Distribution factors (percent) used to predict the
fate of PPs at WWTPs
Priority pollutant Degr.
Ads.
Naphthalene
26
11
Benzo(a)pyrene
12
87
DEHP
75
25
PentaBDE
0.5
97
Cadmium
0
84
Mercury
0
88
Nickel
0
50
Lead
0
70
1Seriki et al. (2008); 2Seriki et al. (2009)
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
Vol.
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Remain.
52
1.2
0
2.5
16
12
50
30
Ref.
STPWIN1
STPWIN1
STPWIN1
STPWIN1
Monitoring2
Monitoring2
Literature1
Literature1
28/07/2016
PAGE 8
Cadmium loads (kg/year) in case city A and B
1.2
20
A
B
18
Waste
incineration
Gardening
1
16
Agriculture
14
0.8
Food
12
kg/year
Contaminant in
zinc
Detergents
Artist paint
8
Car wash
6
Traffic
Long range
transport
0.6
10
0.4
4
0.2
2
0
0
Surface
water
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
Air
Urban
soil
WWTP
sludge
Surface
water
Air
Urban soil
WWTP
sludge
28/07/2016
PAGE 9
Cadmium loads (kg/year) calculated in the SFA
compared to monitoring results
Case city A
Case city B
Calculated Measured Calculated Measured
Influent
20
24
1.2
<13
Effluent
3.3
4
0.19
<13
Sludge
17
19
1
1.6
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
28/07/2016
PAGE 10
DEHP loads (kg/year) in case city A and B
45000
kg/year
3500
B
A
40000
Waste collection
Manufacture non-metallic prod.
Car wash
Release during transport
Printing ink
Cables indoor
Combustion
Tubes and profiles
Films, sheets, coated products
Undersealing paste
Shoe soles
Roofings
Cables outdoors in air
Sealants and adhesives
Lacquers and paint
Coated textiles
Floor and wall coverings
Cables outdoors in soil
Waste in the environment
3000
35000
2500
30000
2000
25000
20000
1500
15000
1000
10000
500
5000
0
0
Surface
water
Air
Urban soil
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
WWTP
sludge
Surface
water
Air
Urban soil
WWTP
sludge
28/07/2016
PAGE 11
DEHP loads (kg/year) without Urban soil
3500
kg/year
160
B
A
140
3000
Waste collection
Manufacture non-metallic prod.
Car wash
Release during transport
Printing ink
Cables indoor
Combustion
Tubes and profiles
Films, sheets, coated products
Undersealing paste
Shoe soles
Roofings
Cables outdoors in air
Sealants and adhesives
Lacquers and paint
Coated textiles
Floor and wall coverings
Cables outdoors in soil
Waste in the environment
120
2500
100
2000
80
1500
60
1000
40
500
20
0
0
Surface water
Air
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
WWTP sludge
Surface water
Air
WWTP sludge
28/07/2016
PAGE 12
DEHP loads (kg/year) calculated in the SFA
compared to monitoring results
Case city A
Case city B
Calculated Measured
Calculated Measured
Influent
8000
<80-1050
650
100
Effluent
0
100
0
100
Sludge
1800
1200*
150
50
* From annual report for the two WWTPs
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
28/07/2016
PAGE 13
Mercury loads (kg/year) in case city A and B
40
0.7
B
A
Transportation - distillated fuels
35
0.6
Transportation - heavy fuels
Cleaning activities
30
Manufacturing of motor vehicle
accessories
Manufacturing of chemicals
0.5
25
Energy plants - distillated fuels
0.4
Energy plants - heavy fuels
kg/year
20
Crematoria
0.3
Human excrements due to
amalgam fillings
Dentists, old dental filling
15
0.2
Coal combustion installations
(>50MW)
Non-hazardous waste
10
0.1
5
Erosion of roads
Erosion of tyres
0
0
Surface
water
Air
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
Urban
soil
WWTP
sludge
Surface
water
Air
Urban
soil
WWTP
sludge
28/07/2016
PAGE 14
Mercury loads (kg/year) calculated in the SFA
compared to monitoring results
Case city A
Case city B
Calculated Measured
Calculated Measured
Influent
40
11-23
0.44
<3.3
Effluent
4.7
1.1-3.2
0.053
<0.35
Sludge
35
16*
0.39
1.4
* From annual report for the two WWTPs
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
28/07/2016
PAGE 15
Overview of the comparison between calculated and
measured flows at WWTPs in the two cities (kg/year)
10000
1000
Monitored
3
100
1
10
2
1
0.1
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
SFA
Circles indicate influent, triangles effluent and squares sludge. Filled symbols refer to case city A and
empty to case city B. Different colours refer to the different substances included in the study: blue:
cadmium, pink: DEHP, black: mercury, green: benzo(a)pyrene, red: penta-BDE.
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
28/07/2016
PAGE 20
Conclusions (1)
The major sources to water and wastewater systems identified and
quantified were:
 Cadmium: Car wash, long range transport (case city A),
contaminant in zinc (case city B).
 DEHP: Abrasion particles (“waste in the environment”), floor
and wall coverings, coated textiles and lacquers and paint.
 Mercury: Dentists, human excrements (due to amalgam fillings),
erosion of tires and roads (case city A), Manufacturing of
chemicals (case city B)
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
28/07/2016
PAGE 21
Conclusions (2)
 Predicted values (SFA) in good agreement with monitoring.
 Differences due to:
– The data gathered to produce the SFAs was too general or could not be
used because of lack of essential supporting information.
– The release factors developed in the ScorePP emission string database
provided average releases factors that were too high.
– The uncertainty linked to measurements and the small number of
measuring points
– In case city A, the system analysed in the SFA was not exactly the same as
the area from which wastewater is treated at the two WWTPs.
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
28/07/2016
PAGE 22
Conclusions (3)
 Accumulation in society means releases of substances like
DEHP will be hard to phase out
 Good relations to stake-holders (industry, municipalities…)
important for the possibility of calculating local specific releases
based on emission string data
 Release factors need continuous revision
 Distribution factors for PPs at WWTPs crucial for the results,
but not easily accessible.
CITY OF STOCKHOLM
28/07/2016
PAGE 23