t tno environment, energy and process innovation a study to the effectiveness of the hm and pop...

Effectiveness of HM and POP Protocols

t

TNO Environment, Energy and Process Innovation

A study to the effectiveness of the HM and POP Protocols and costs of additional measures

Task Force on Persistent Organic Pollutants Meeting 1-3 March 2004

Commissioned by the Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, contact persons Ton Blom and Johan Sliggers

Hugo Denier van der Gon & Antoon Visschedijk

TNO-MEP, March 2004

Effectiveness of HM and POP Protocols 2t

Contents

• Structure of the project• What, how & when• Current progress• Illustrate some of the difficulties with

examples• Discussion & suggestions

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Study comprises two phases:

Phase I •Emission reduction due to implementation of the HM/POP Protocols

•Reduction option +costs

•12 months, January 2004 – December 2004

Go / No Go

Phase II •Emission reduction and costs of options to revise the HM/POP Protocols

•6 months, after phase I (earliest January 2005)

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Phase I: Emission reduction due to implementation of the HM/POP Protocols

Reference inventory for Europe, 1990 and 2000

Projection 2010, 2015 and 2020

Autonomous measures

+

In-country measures

Projection 2010, 2015 and 2020

Autonomous measures

+

Full implementation Protocols

Difference

Non-ratified Ratified + non-ratified

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Reference inventory for Europe, 1990 and 2000

•All European UNECE Member States

•Heavy Metals (Pb, Cd, Hg + 6 additional)

•POPs + Substances possibly proposed to be added to POP Protocol

•Country data submissions to EMEP and UNECE

•1990 and 2000 default TNO data to fill ‘gaps’

•Consistency check

•Country comments

•Production of gridded emissions for modelling purposes

TNO-MEP, March 2004


HM and POP in this study

a) Three HM (Cd, Pb, Hg) addressed by the protocol in bold, the other 6 HM are also included since their emissions are often simultaneously reduced as a consequence of reduction measures for the three priority HM.b) POP named in the POP protocol in bold, other POP are substances that may be proposed to be added to the POP protocol in the future.

Heavy metalsa)

Persistent Organic Pollutantsb)

Cadmium (Cd) Aldrin Lead (Pb) Chlordane Mercury (Hg) Chlordecone Arsenic (As) Dieldrin Chromium (Cr) Endrin Copper (Cu) Hexabromobiphenyl Nickel (Ni) Mirex Selenium (Se) Toxaphene Zinc (Zn) DDT Heptachlor Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Hexachlorocyclohexane, including lindane (HCH) Dioxins and Furans (PCDD/F)

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Hexachlorobutadiene (HBU) Pentabromobiphenyl (PBPh) Pentachlorobenzene (PCBe) Polychlorinated naftalenes (PCN) Endosulfan Dicofol Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Short chained chlorinated paraffin’s (SCCP’s)

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Projections for 2010, 2015 and 2020•Activity scenarios 2010, 2015 and 2020 (conform IIASA & CAFE):

•Energy use (including transport)•Physical industrial production•Agricultural production•Waste generation

•All foreseen reduction policies for 2010, 2015 and 2020:

•UNECE Protocols for other substances (e.g. Sulphur)•IPPC Directive in EU•Other EU Directives (e.g. LCP, Waste)•National policies

•HM / POP Protocols:•Implementation for countries that have ratified•Countries that have not ratified:

•All foreseen but No implementation (Projection I)•Full implementation (Projection II)

TNO-MEP, March 2004


•Overview of HM / POP emissions in Europe, by country, by source•HM / POP Emission forecasts for 2010, 2015 and 2020•Side effects on other substances (e.g. PM10, PM2.5)•An estimate of the incremental effect of complete (all countries) implementation of HM / POP Protocols

Additional effort:A list of options for possible revision of the HM / POP Protocols

•Based on remaining source contributions•Including preliminary estimates for costs and reduction potential•List to be submitted to Task Force POP and Expert Group HM

Phase I will provide:

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Phase II: Emission reduction and cost of options to revise the HM/POP Protocols

•Phase II will start when Phase I is completed ( earliest 1-1-2005)

•Starting points are:•Full implementation of HM / POP Protocols •Options proposed by TF POP and EG HM:

•Measures for the HM & POP already in protocols •Measures for substances scheduled for review•Measures for substances proposed for possible addition

•Avoided emission by country, by measure for 2010, 2015 and 2020

•Annual costs by country, by measure for 2010, 2015 and 2020

•Side effects on other substances included (6 HM , PM10)

TNO-MEP, March 2004


The project overall

•Results of the study (Phase I and Phase II) to be made available at early stage to:

•Country experts•Task Force on POP•Expert Group on Heavy Metals•IIASA, ECTEI, EMEP, MSC EAST, TFEIP and TCAQCC

•Project aims at consensus on emission data

•Four reports in total:•Phase I, HM•Phase I, POP•Phase II, HM•Phase II, POP

•Gridded emission data available for modelling

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Current progress / status I• Building reference

database for 1990 & 2000

• Necessary to distribute national totals to activities and identify reduction options & costs

• Most effort on 2000 as this is needed for projections and we have a good start for 1990

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Current progress / status II

• Derive the official reported data and check for missing data and consistency

• Introduction of project to countries through national focal points

• Introduction Letter is accompanied by • overview of reported data and • enquiry for missing data • and/or elucidating data inconsistencies.

Inter-country comparison, trend 1990-2000, different reportings

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Stepwise identification of caveats in HM & POP emission inventory

• Official reporting (EMEP, webdab): all substances reported by a country in any year count as an indicator for country information (e.g., 1995 data can be scaled to 2000). Result is list of missing substances by country

• Incorporate other official UNECE document information (e.g. replacing NE with zero if countries have indicated zero use & production

• Bring in emission data from 1997 UBA/TNO study – for countries where emissions where zero at the time, they will be considered still zero.

• EMEP expert estimates to fill gaps in list of missing substances by country under (1). Result is reduced list of missing substances by country. Note: EMEP expert estimates may be under discussion later but indicate good default start information

• Scan UNECE dossier information, Scan MSC-E reports, Result is reduced list of missing substances by country

• Filling of caveats by TNO from other sources. (e.g., POP possibly to be added)

Result is national total emissions by substance by country for 2000. A split over sectors and activities is next step (if not available from original sources)

TNO-MEP, March 2004


What have we got so far? For 44 countries during 1990-2000 based on stepwise filling (on-going)

Questionnaire interpretation sometimes tricky (NE or NO, etc.)Biggest problems are dioxines, HCB, HCH, PCBs & PAHs

Pollutant Countries with no data 2000

Countries with no data 1990-2000

Aldrin 6 6 Chlordane 6 6 Chlordecone 6 6 DDT 0 0 Dieldrin 6 6 Dioxines and Furans 22 19 Endrin 6 6 Heptachlor 0 0 Hexabromobiphenyl 6 6 Hexachlorobenzene 30 26 Hexachlorocyclohexane, including lindane 34 28 Mirex 6 6 Polychlorinated biphenyls 29 27 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 23 18 Toxaphene 6 6

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Difficulties & Apparent inconsistencies in reporting :

Source: Officially Reported Emission Data (EMEP WEBDAB, Feb. 2004)

Sector: National totals (SNAP, N01 NO2) Finland Germany Netherlands UK Belgium France Pollutant PCB kg/yr

1990 43579 7123 61 1991 6544 68 1992 0.25 6048 67 1993 5300 5554 67 1994 1100 30894 0.28 4993 64 1995 15800 4439 0.0051 60 1996 3898 60 1997 3395 49 1998 2894 49 1999 2217 45 2000 1706 43

How reliable?Extremes influence mitigation costsTherefore, careful check if need be, use expert estimate instead of official data

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Check for trend consistency not only in 1990 and 2000.

Belgium Pollutant: HCH (Units in Gg) Sector : N02 NATIONAL TOTAL SNAP NATIONAL 1990 0.00016295b 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 0.000164678b 1996 0.009765q 1997 0.0096q 1998 0.0096q 1999 2000 0.00016698b

Source : Officially Reported Emission Datahttp://webdab.emep.int/ 25 February 2004

TNO-MEP, March 2004


And for different reporting formats!Belgium NATIONAL TOTAL Sector N01 SNAP N02 Pollutant: DIOX (g) 1990 625 1991 1992 1993 148 1994 1995 438 468 1996 108 108 1997 123 123 1998 123 116 1999 129 136 163 2000 116

Source : Officially Reported Emission Datahttp://webdab.emep.int/25 February 2004

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Source: Modelling assessment of uncertainties of HM and POP emission inventories (S. Dutchak et al., 2003) Based on Official emission data (document “Present state of emission

data”, EB.AIR/GE.1/2002/8, table 9 )

0

500

1000

1500

200019

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

99

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

PAHs in the Netherlands, t/y

PCDD/Fs in Denmark, g/TEQ/y

& outlier Country reportings over time

TNO-MEP, March 2004


EMEP expert estimates – a valuable addition?

NATIONAL TOTAL 1995 Official emissions Ratio Pollutant: HCB

Expert estimate N02 SNAP O/E

Gg/yr Albania 5.5E-05 Armenia 5E-05 Austria 8.12E-05 5.28E-05 0.65 Azerbaijan 0.000187 Belarus 0.000471 Belgium 7.46E-05 NEb Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.99E-05 Bulgaria 0.0003 0.000079 0.26 Croatia 7.78E-05 Czech Republic 0.000216 Denmark 0.000115 NOc Estonia 7.11E-05 Finland 0.000126 France 0.001285 0.001788 1.39 Georgia 0.000158 Greece 0.000175 Hungary 0.000305 6.6E-07 0.0022 Etc.

Yes, for general confirmation but especially if underlying data are available

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Possible newly added substancesSpecial effort necessary in making

emission inventories (1990, 2000), projections & gridding because

• limited information• No country reporting (yet)• Use the dossiers available at UNECE

site• Just starting; any suggestions for

further data welcome• For the “pesticide & industrial

product” substances could we get more country information? (registered, produced, (not) allowed etc.)

• Emission measurement data?

- Hexachlorobutadiene (HBU)

I Pentabromobiphenyl (PBPh)

- Pentachlorobenzene (PCBe)

- Polychlorinated naftalenes (PCN)

P Endosulfan P Dicofol P/I Pentachlorophenol

(PCP) I Short chained

chlorinated paraffin’s (SCCP’s)

TNO-MEP, March 2004


Final remarks • Thus a slight delay (2-3 weeks) in sending out

the introduction letter because we want to document problems & ask for clarification

• All information & suggestions welcome especially for possibly new substances

• Pesticide POPs & industrial produced POPs we hope for more country information (legislation, production)

• It would be helpful if we have access to EMEP expert estimates at the highest detail (underlying data)

• ?

t tno environment, energy and process innovation a study to the effectiveness of the hm and pop...

Documents