the scorepp approach to evaluate emission control strategies for urban priority pollutants...
TRANSCRIPT
The The ScorePP Approach ScorePP Approach to evaluate Emission to evaluate Emission Control Strategies for Urban Priority Pollutants Control Strategies for Urban Priority Pollutants
Hans-Christian Holten Lützhøft1, Webbey De Keyser2, Lorenzo Benedetti2, Laura Raggatt3, Peter Steen Mikkelsen1
and Eva Eriksson1
1DTU Environment, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark2BIOMATH, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
3Urban Pollution Research Centre, Middlesex University, London, UK
EEA SeminarCopenhagen
Tuesday 7 December 2010
PresentationPresentationMSc in pharmacy (1991-1996)
― Medicinal chemistry, organic synthesis of AMPA-receptor ligands
PhD (1996-2000)― Environmental Risk Assessment of Antimicrobials; experimental work on ecotoxicity and
environmental fate; literature study of ecotoxicity and occurrence in relation to fish farming activities
PostDoc at KU-Life (2000-2001)― Environmental fate of antimicrobials in soil and porewater
PostDoc at Novo Nordisk (2001-2003)― Stability testing of tablets – development of super enhanced stability testing methods
AssProf at KU-Life (2003-2005)― Intestinal absorption of pharmaceuticals
Pharmacist (2005-2006)AssocProf at DTU Environment (2006- )
― Source characterisation of (organic) priority substances; inherent properties, source tracking, source dynamics, urban releases
― Sampling, extraction, purification and analysis or organic substances― Monitoring; Stakeholder interaction
BackgroundBackgroundEuropean Water Framework Directive (EU WFD) implemented in 2000 with Environmental Quality Standards implemented in 2008Aim of EU WFD is to improve water quality of European water coursesBoth pollution source inventories as well as monitoring programmes have to be establishedEU member states are obliged to improve water quality through more than one measure, for instance
LegislationImproved handling and treatment of waste streams (municipal/industrial wastewater or stormwater)Voluntary initiatives
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
AimAimThe main aim of the ScorePP project was to develop Source Control Options for Reducing Emissions of Priority Pollutants from urban areas
The specific aim of this task was to develop an Urban Framework to identify the most appropriate Emission Control Strategy for reducing the releases of priority pollutants listed in the EU WFD
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
ApproachApproach
Use the developed Emission String concept to establish a pollution source inventory
Apply pollution sources in constructed Semi Hypothetical Case Cities
Perform scenario calculations (SFA and IUWS model) for the different relevant Emission Control Strategies
Identification of appropriate Emission Control Strategies
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
The The Emission StringEmission String concept conceptWhat is an Emission String concept?
A structured way of classifying substance releases from urban pollution sources – e.g. mercury via amalgam at dentists, diuron from painted facades, phthalates from undercoatings of vehicles
RequirementsContent should be structured and organised in a harmonised wayEnsure that different pollution sources could be distinguished from each otherTo be dynamic and valid EU wide
InspirationUS EPA Source Classification Code (US EPA SCC)The Technical Guidance Document on Risk assessment (TGD)Harmonised codes like the Common Nomenclature (CN), the National Classification of Economic Activities (NACE) and the NOmenclature for Sources Emissions (NOSE)EINECS, CAS#
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
The The Emission StringEmission String concept conceptCAS #: unique identification of each substanceNOSE-P: unique identification of emission processes NACE: unique identification of economic activities related with the sourceThe ScorePP defined descriptors of
Urban Structure, comprising e.g.Construction sitesFacilities; e.g. factories, dentists, slaughter houses (i.e. legal entities)HouseholdsRiversRoadsWaste sites/landfills
Release PatternTemporal releases on a daily, weekly and yearly basis
Release Factor
All data are stored in a database
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Compiling dataCompiling dataKnowledge on pollution sources and their quantitative and qualitative releases were compiled from
Online Risk Assessment Reports from EUHazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB) and Household Product Database from US NLMHandbooks and electronic compilations, e.g. the Merck Index, Rippen, the e-Pesticide Manual, Kirk-Othmer’s Encyclopaedia of Chemical TechnologyResearch articles
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Classifying sources using the Classifying sources using the Emission String Emission String conceptconcept
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Case cities and Case cities and selection criteria in other studiesselection criteria in other studies
87 project reviewed, 31 contacted, 17 replied
Primary selection criteriaGeographical locationGood contact
Secondary selection criteriaCity characteristicsClimateDataEnd-usersManagement and governanceTechnique/structure
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Not published yet!
Illustration of the approach to design Illustration of the approach to design ’’Semi-hypothetical case city archetypesSemi-hypothetical case city archetypes’’
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Not published yet!
Case cities and Case cities and ’’Semi-hypothetical case city archetypesSemi-hypothetical case city archetypes’’
Case cities: Vastly different with respect to climate, industry, treatment technologies and environmental awareness.
+ Real-life monitoring, existing industries and release patterns etc
- Limited by confidential or missing information
SHCCA: Designed to represent different geographical and urban systems
All data available which is needed for further work (modelling, visualisation, multi-criteria analysis, evaluation of emission control strategies).
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Description of technical parameters for theDescription of technical parameters for the’’Semi-hypothetical case city archetypesSemi-hypothetical case city archetypes’’
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Indicator Unit EI NC
‘Baseline’ techniques: WWTP
Secondary (mechanical+ activated sludge)
Secondary (mechanical+ activated sludge)
‘Baseline’ techniques: CSO None None‘Baseline’ techniques: BMP Ponds PondsConsumption of electricity/heating per capita kWh/year ? ?
Consumption of water per capita incl. domestic and collective use L/pd/day 190 130Industrial wastewater production m3/day 171 000 31 342
Percentage of dwellings connected to the sewage system % 90 99
Percentage of urban wastewater treated to an applicable standard % (secondary) 78 95Proportion of dwellings lacking basic amenities % 10 <1Portion of solid waste processed by incinerator % 18 80Portion of solid waste processed by landfill % 72 3Portion of solid waste processed by recycling % 10 17Portion of sludge dispersed on soil or in forests % 60 50Portion of sludge processed by incinerator % 21 45Portion of sludge processed by landfill % 19 5Average annual number of CSOs No. 670 130Percentage of CSO treated before discharge ‘baseline’ % 0 0
Portion of stormwater conveyed in the combined sewer system % 50 10
Portion of stormwater discharged directly to the river % 50 (100% of 50) 72 (80 of 90%)
Not published yet!
Overview of parameters for theOverview of parameters for the’’Semi-hypothetical case city archetypesSemi-hypothetical case city archetypes’’
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
City indicators NC EI
Population (mio.) 0.51 1.2
City area (km2) 450 500
Precipitation (mm/y) 650 530
Receiving water flow (m3/s) 50 700
Industries
-heavily polluting 30 70
-moderately polluting 119 279
Wastewater
-treatment type Secondary Secondary
-dwellings connected (%) 99 90
-volume to combined sewer overflows (%) 10 18
Stormwater
-in combined sewer (%) 90 50
-in separate sewer (%) 10 50
--stormwater flow to BMPs* (%) 20 20
Not published yet!
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
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Emission Control StrategiesEmission Control StrategiesECS 1: BaselineThe doing-nothing-strategy
ECS 2: Implementation of relevant EU directivesRoHS, WEEE, Urban wastewater directive, Sewage sludge directive
ECS 3: 2 + Household and municipality voluntary initiativesRecycling, information campaigns, greywater treatment, eco-labelling etc.
ECS 4: 2 + Industrial Best Available TechnologiesAll industries implement BAT
ECS 5: 2 + Post-Environmental Release Control and TreatmentTreatment of stormwater, reducing CSO
ECS 6: 2 + Advanced end-of-pipe wastewater treatmentFull connection to WWTPs, AOP in larger WWTPs
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
ECS2
Schematic illustration of theSchematic illustration of theEmission Control StrategiesEmission Control Strategies
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
ECS6ECS5
ECS5
ECS4
ECS3
ECS3
ECS5
ECS3
Not published yet!
Calculations of urban releases using Calculations of urban releases using Substance Flow AnalysisSubstance Flow Analysis
Substance Flow AnalysisSimple book keeping based on the Emission String pollution inventory with quantitative release data
Inflow STOCK Outflow
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Calculations of urban releases using the Calculations of urban releases using the Integrated Urban Wastewater System modelIntegrated Urban Wastewater System model
Integrated Urban Wastewater System modelA dynamic model integrating urban substance input based on the Emission String pollution inventory with quantitative release dataEffects of legislative as well as stormwater, wastewater and voluntary initiatives are dynamically modelled to show the results of the various Emission Control Strategies
SOURCES
RELEASE
SURFACE WATER
Sludge
Soil/Groundwater
Air
Sediments
Water
Air
Boundaries of the urban system
Treatment options
Fate models technospher
e
Fate models
environment
Septic tank Activated sludge
on-line sludge
treatment biofilters
Physical-chemical treatment
WWTP
Lagoon/pond
Stormwater
BMPs
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Substances and their properties and usesSubstances and their properties and usesBenzo[a]pyrene, B[a]P
Is a combustion by-product neither commercially produced nor usedIs released from combustion of fossil fuel used for transport, electricity and heat but also from various other incineration processesIs a lipophillic substance that sorbs to particles in the gaseous as well as aqueous phases
Di(ethylhexyl)phthalate, DEHPIs a plasticizer commercially produced and used in polymer materialsIs passively released from wall and floor covering, plastic tubes and cables and from undercoating paste of carsIs a lipophillic substance that sorbs to particles
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Emission Strings for benzo[a]pyreneEmission Strings for benzo[a]pyreneEmission Strings with release factors
Incineration in relation to: waste and heat&power production (sewage sludge, wood, coal, oil etc.)Combustion of fuel for transportDeposition of sludge on landReleases from industrial production of commodities (coke, petroleum, cement and asphalt)
Emission Strings with loadsReleases from the production of metal, food, textiles, organic and inorganic chemicals
Emission Strings without quantitative release dataLeaching from bitumen (e.g. roofing) and asphaltCoal tar, petroleum, pulp, fibre and paper and wood preservation industriesRun-off from coal storage areasNatural sources like volcano eruptions and forest fires as well as recreational fires
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Emission Strings for di(ethylhexyl)phthalateEmission Strings for di(ethylhexyl)phthalateEmission Strings with release factors
None
Emission Strings with loadsHandling of the pure substanceUndercoating of motor vehicles Production of electricityRelease from electrical cables – indoor and outdoorTreatment of waste; land fillsVarious manufacturing; sealants, paint, ink, ceramic, plastic, DEHP Release from floor and wall coveringVarious building materials; tubes, profiles, coated metal sheetsTextiles, clothing, footwear, shoes
Emission Strings without quantitative release dataNone
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Results for benzo[a]pyrene using SFAResults for benzo[a]pyrene using SFABaP emitted during ECS1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
3000
4000
5000
Compatment
Mas
s em
itte
d/y
ear,
kg
BaP emitted during ECS2
Storm
water
CSO
WW
TP
Surfa
cewat
er Air
Urban
Sludge
Sedim
ent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
3000
4000
5000
Compatment
Mas
s em
itte
d/y
ear,
kg
BaP emitted during ECS3
Storm
water
CSO
WW
TP
Surfa
cewat
er Air
Urban
Sludge
Sedim
ent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
3000
4000
5000
Compatment
Mas
s em
itte
d/y
ear,
kg
BaP emitted during ECS4
Storm
water
CSO
WW
TP
Surfa
cewat
er Air
Urban
Sludge
Sedim
ent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
3000
4000
5000
Compatment
Mas
s em
itte
d/y
ear,
kg
BaP emitted during ECS5
Storm
water
CSO
WW
TP
Surfa
cewat
er Air
Urban
Sludge
Sedim
ent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
3000
4000
5000
Compatment
Mas
s em
itte
d/y
ear,
kg
BaP emitted during ECS6
Storm
water
CSO
WW
TP
Surfa
cewat
er Air
Urban
Sludge
Sedim
ent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
3000
4000
5000
CompatmentM
ass
emit
ted
/yea
r, k
g
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Results for DEHPResults for DEHPUsing SFA:
Using IUWSmodelling:
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Results for DEHP using the IUWS model (ECS 1)Results for DEHP using the IUWS model (ECS 1)
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Results for DEHP using the IUWS model (ECS 4)Results for DEHP using the IUWS model (ECS 4)
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
27
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000
0.5
1
1.5
2Rain [mm/5min]
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
River stretch 5 [µg/L]
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000.0163
0.0164
0.0165
Groundwater [µg/L]
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1004.44
4.445
4.45
4.455
Air [ng/m³]
time [d]
Infiltration pond
soil (ug/kg solids)
Combined sewer system
Stormwater to infiltration ponds
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
Example results for DEHP using theExample results for DEHP using theIUWS model (ECS1)IUWS model (ECS1)
ConclusionsConclusionsBenzo[a]pyrene
For reducing the emissions to the receiving compartment focus has to be put on enhanced stormwater management – however, aerial deposition may be the major source as most B[a]P is released to the air compartmentA dramatic (-al) change in the way to provide electricity, heat and power and other activities involving combustion of fossil fuel has to take place
Di(ethylhexyl)phthalateBoth the SFA and the IUWS modelling show that focus has to be put on the best available technologies for the industry, as both the total input of DEHP to the system is severely reduced, as well is the emission to the receiving compartment
For bothTreatment of wet-weather discharges, or accept sediment pollution ...
Databases and tools are developed, waiting for more applications!
Background Aim Approach Tools Substances Results Conclusions
AcknowledgementAcknowledgementThe 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.