Preliminary Results From the ScorePP Project Hans-Christian Holten Lützhøft and Eva Eriksson DTU Environment, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby,

Preliminary Results Preliminary Results From the ScorePP ProjectFrom the ScorePP Project

Hans-Christian Holten Lützhøft and Eva Eriksson

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

SOCOPSE Final ConferenceMaastricht (NL)24 June 2009

The ScorePP projectThe ScorePP project

A Specific Targeted Research Project (STREP)Funded by the European Commission under the 6th Framework Programme (4th Call), sub-priority 1.1.6.3 ”Global Change and Ecosystems” Duration: 01OCT2006 to 30SEP2009 +6 monthsBudget: 3.6 M EUR, 2.6 M EUR from the EC9 partners4 case citieswww.scorepp.eu

Introduction Sources Visualisation Strategies Substance flows Conclusions

The ScorePP approachThe ScorePP approach

Limiting release through:- Substitution- Minimising release from products- Legislation and regulations- Voluntary use reductions

O

D+T

T

D+T

Example: Combined system:

D+TT

+T

Treatment options:- Stormwater BMPs- Household treatment & reuse of WW- On-site industrial treatment- WWTPs- Sludge disposal

Sinks:- Primary: Surface water (WFD)

- Secondary: Sediments, soils/gr., water, humans, ...

EQS ... ?

R+T

T

ELV ...


AimAimThe main project aim is to develop comprehensive and appropriate Source Control Options that authorities, cities, water utilities and chemical industry can employ to Reduce Emissions of Priority Pollutants from urban areas

which will be pursued through

identifying potential sources and to quantify releases of priority pollutants

identifying emission barriers that can be implemented at appropriate stages in the priority pollutant release process

defining archetype cities in order to define emission control strategies studying the pollutant flows in society to be able to assess the

important stocks and pathways


ApproachApproach

Establish Source Classification Framework

Compile data on sources & releases

Classifying using ESs


Source Classification FrameworkSource Classification FrameworkRequirements

Content should be structured and organised in a harmonised wayEnsure that the different sources could be distinguished from each otherTo be valid EU wideDynamic and to be used after this project ends

InspirationUS EPA SCCTGDHarmonised codes like CN, NACE and NOSEEINECS, CAS#


Source Classification Framework – Source Classification Framework – the the Emission StringEmission String concept concept

CAS #: unique identification of each substanceNOSE: unique identification of emission processes NACE: unique identification of economic activities related with the sourceES_Type: a ScorePP defined urban structure descriptor

AgricultureConstruction sitesFacilities; e.g. factories, dentists, slaughter houses (legal entities)HouseholdsRailwaysRiversRoadsWaste sites/landfillsand more

All data are stored in a database


Compiling dataCompiling dataRisk Assessment Reports from EUHazardous Substance Data Bank and Household Product Database from US NLMHandbooks and electronic compilations, e.g. the Merck Index, Rippen, the e-Pesticide Manual, Kirk-Othmer’s Encyclopedia of Chemical TechnologyResearch articles


Classifying sources using the ES conceptClassifying sources using the ES concept

Release factorPlasticiser, by-products, impurities

Evaporation

Wear & tear

Disposal

CAS#

NACE

NOSE

ES_Type

Waste

Evaporation


SCF tested on a selection of WFD substancesSCF tested on a selection of WFD substances


Number of ESs for each PPNumber of ESs for each PP(ab 900 ESs in total)(ab 900 ESs in total)

Anthr

acen

e

Atrazin

e

Benze

ne

Benzo

(a)p

yren

e

Chloro

alkan

es

Cadm

ium

Chlorp

yrifo

sDCM

DEHP

Diuron

Endos

ulfan

Endrin

HCB

HCBDHCH

Lead

Mer

cury

Nickel

Triflur

alinNPs

PBDEPeC

BTEL

TBTsTCE

0

50

100

150

LoadMiscellaneousNo data

RF

Substance

ES

s w

ith

...


Number of ESs in each urban structureNumber of ESs in each urban structure(ab 900 ESs in total)(ab 900 ESs in total)

Agricu

lture

Air tra

nspo

rt

Buildin

gs

Constr

uctio

n sit

es

Diffuse

sour

ces

Was

te d

ispos

al

Electri

city

Facilit

ies

Fores

try

Garde

ns

House

holds

Mini

ng

Other

use

s

Railro

ads

Rivers

Roads

Sea tr

ansp

ort

Wat

er su

pply

0

50

100

150

LoadMiscellaneousNo data

RF

200400600

ES_Type

ES

s w

ith

...


Environmental releases due to Environmental releases due to vehicular transport on vehicular transport on roadsroads

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

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

Benzo(a)pyreneCombustion: 1-8 µg/km driven, without and with catalyst

Cadmium (from both break linings, tyres, fuel and asphalt)7 kg/year is released in Stockholm with 780.000 inhabitants

DEHP (from undercoating)200 kg/year is released in Stockholm with 780.000 inhabitants

MercuryTyres: 4-240 µg/km depending on vehicle typeRoads: 3-17 µg/km depending on vehicle type

NickelCombustion: 21-107 and 3,2-2310 ng/km driven, for gasoline and diesel, respectivelyBrake-linings, tyres and asphalt: 91-182 ng/km


Statistics for Denmark year 2007Statistics for Denmark year 2007


Environmental releases due to Environmental releases due to vehicular transport on vehicular transport on roadsroads

Depending on fuel and vehicle type:

Anthracene: 12-67 kg Nickel: 4,4-117 kg

Benzene frombusses, lorries etc: 105 tonnes

Cadmium: 49 kg

Mercury: 0,3-12 tonnes

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

Benzene from cars: 154 tonnes

Benzo(a)pyrene: 360 tonnes

DEHP: 1,41 tonnes

Release of nickel from Danish highways: 108 kg

Thomas Ruby Bentzen, PhD thesis (2008)


Example of source mappingExample of source mapping


Emission barriers using GISEmission barriers using GIS


Emission barriers using GISEmission barriers using GIS


Potential emission barriers for a Potential emission barriers for a specific sourcespecific source


Potential emission barriers for a Potential emission barriers for a specific areaspecific area


Potential Potential sitessites for an emission barrier for an emission barrier


Case cities and Case cities and ’Semi-hypothetical case city ’Semi-hypothetical case city archetypes’archetypes’

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

+ Real-life monitoring, existing industries and release patterns etc

- Limited by confidential or missing information

SHCCA: Designed to represent different geographical and urban systems

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


ArchetypesArchetypesGeographical system

Climate; Size; Rainfall; Population etc

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

Emission control strategiesGeneric and city specific

Geographical system

Urbansystem

Emission control strategies


Limiting release and emissionsLimiting release and emissionsPre-Application Control: Voluntary and regulatory initiatives, legislation, preventative measures, phasing out, substitutions etc

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

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

Limiting release through:- Substitution- Minimising release from produtcs- Legislation and regulations- Voluntary use reductions

O+T

D+TD+T

T

TT

D+TD+T

D+TT D+TT D+TT

Treatment options:- Stormwater BMPs- Household treatment & reuse of WW- On-site industrial treatment- WWTPs- Sludge disposal

Sinks:- Primary: Surface water (WFD)- Secondary: Sediments,

soils/gr.water, humans, ...


An example of Pre-Application Control An example of Pre-Application Control Case city StockholmPre-application control campaigns in the period 1995-2003

Stricter EU and national legislationsNew technologies (batteries)Voluntary initiatives e.g., artists paint (Cd), anglers (Pb) also dentists (Hg)

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

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

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


Emission control strategiesEmission control strategiesEmission control strategies are combination of individual barriers (source control or treatment units) individual barriers should also be evaluated.

Initial test-set:1: Baseline2: Implementation of relevant EU directives3: 2 + Household voluntary initiatives and on-site treatment4: 2 + Industrial Best Available Technologies 5: 2 + Post-Environmental Release Control and Treatment (stormwater and CSO)6: 2 + Advanced end-of-pipe treatment


Inflow STOCK Outflow

Substance flow analysis:

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

Utilise the Emission String DB

Compare estimated environmental loads with monitoring data

Tool for assessing effects of emission control Tool for assessing effects of emission control strategiesstrategies


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Stock 2002 Stock 2009

tonn

es

Roofings

Undersealing paste

Shoe soles

Coated textiles

Films, sheets, coatedproducts

Tubes and profiles

Floor and wall coverings

Cables

Size and distribution of stock


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Surface water Air Urban surface WWTP sludge

ton

ne

s/ye

ar

Printing inkLacquers and paintSealants and adhesivesCombustionRelease during transportRoofingsCar washUndersealing pasteShoe solesCoated textilesFilms, sheets, coated productsTubes and profilesFloor and wall coveringsCables

Fate of emissions


Comparing SFA results with measured dataComparing SFA results with measured data

Loads (in tonnes/year)

SFA Measured

WWTP sludge 0.7 1

WWTP effluent 0.1 0.07-0.12


ConclusionsConclusionsSCF established – based on literature knowledge about sourcesAbout 900 ESs established for the 25 WFD substances

Overall 16% with concrete knowledge about release quantityOverall 65% without any quantitative data on release into the technosphere

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

Most sources are related to production activitiesOther large categories are households, waste disposal, agriculture, construction and transport

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

Sources can be plotted on a mapSubstances can be plotted on a mapSource control options, e.g. waste water and stormwater treatment units can be shown on a map


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

Source control and mitigation options can be highly beneficial

Not all priority pollutants can be substituted

Some substances are not removed with conventional treatment units

Combined approaches merging source control and treatment is needed

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


AcknowledgementAcknowledgementTonie, Maria and Arne from Miljöforvaltningen (SV)Mike, Erica, Lian and Christoph from Middelsex University (UK)Webbey, Veerle, Lorenzo and Frederik from University of Ghent (BE)André from ENVICAT (BE)Kemi, Luis and Emmanuel from Anjou Recherche (FR)Matej, Natasa, Primoz and Boris from University of Ljubljana (SL) Peter from Université Laval (CAN)Colette and José from Estudis (SP)Luca, Anna and Peter (project coordinator) from DTU Environment (DK) The presented results have been obtained within the framework of the project ScorePP - “Source Control Options for Reducing Emissions of Priority Pollutants”, contract no. 037036, a project coordinated by Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark within the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development section of the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration.

Documents

Preliminary Results From the ScorePP Project Hans-Christian Holten Lützhøft and Eva Eriksson DTU Environment, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby,