United Nations Environment Programme

Transcription

UNITED
NATIONS
EP
Distr.
GENERAL
United Nations
Environment
Programme
UNEP/POPS/EGB.3/INF/3
27 July 2004
ENGLISH ONLY
EXPERT GROUP ON BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNIQUES AND BEST ENVIRONMENTAL
PRACTICES
Third session
Tokyo, Japan, 11– 16 October 2004
Item 3 of the provisional agenda1
Development of guidelines on best available techniques and provisional guidance on best
environmental practices relevant to the provisions of Article 5 and Annex C of the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO SECRETARIAT INVITATION
OF 16 APRIL 2004 TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT GUIDELINES AND GUIDANCE2
Note by the Secretariat
1.
At its second session held in Villarrica, Chile, from 8 to 12 December 2003, the Expert
Group to develop guidelines on best available techniques and provisional guidance on best
environmental practices relevant to the provisions of Article 5 and Annex C of the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants agreed to undertake intersessional work to prepare the
draft guidance and guidelines for its further consideration at its third session be be held from 11 to
16 October 2004 in Japan. The schedule agreed for the intersessional work that can be found in
paragraph 61 of UNEP/POPS/EGB.2/3 which is available at: www.pops.int/
documents/ meetings/bat_bep/2nd_session/egb2_followup.
2.
A preliminary draft of the guidance and guidelines was completed on 15 April 2005. On
16 April 2004 the Secretariat transmitted a letter inviting comments on the draft to Stockholm
Convention Focal Points, UNEP Official Contact Points and heads of delegations that were present
at the seventh session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an International
Legally Binding Instrument for International Action on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants. The
invitation letter and the draft were also posted on the Stockholm Convention website:
www.pops.int. The list of those submitting comments, what they commented on and the full
submissions are contained in the annex to the present note.
1
2
UNEP/POPS/EGB.3/1.
This document has not been formally edited.
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly requested to bring their copies to
meetings and not to request additional copies.
Annex
Submissions received by the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention on the
draft guidelines on BAT and guidance on BEP
Submissions by Governments
COUNTRY
Botswana
OBSERVATIONS
Comments on open burning, municipal waste incineration, and medical waste
incineration.
General comments.
General comments.
Comments on waste incinerators: municipal and hazardous waste and sewage
sludge, cement kilns, production of pulp, sinter plants in the iron industry,
open burning, secondary lead production, and chemical production processes.
Acknowledged receiving request for comments.
Comments on Leather dying, chemical production processes, open burning of
wastes, residential combustion sources, firing installations.
General comments.
General comments and comments on Sections: V.A.1, V.A.2, and V.C.
Has no comment.
General comments on Section V.A.2 and on the need to keep in mind through
out the guidance socio-economic considerations .
General comments.
General comments.
General comments
Comments on: production of pulp, open burning, Cement kilns, medical waste
and municipal incinerators
Comments on Sections V.D., VI.B, V.C., and VI.A.
Brazil
China
Colombia
Gabon
Germany
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Mexico
Peru
Philippines
Slovakia
Trinidad and Tobago
United States of America
Submissions by Members of the Expert Group
EXPERTS
Algeria
Canada
Kazakhstan
Switzerland
UNEP
OBSERVATIONS
Comments on open burning.
Comments on sections: V.A.1, VI.C, VI.E, and V.C.
Comments on open burning.
Comments on Sections: V.A.1, V.B., and VI.C.
General comments and comments on Sections on alternatives, residential
combustion sources, firing installations for wood and other biomass
Submissions by NGOs
ORGANIZATION
American Forest & Paper
Association
Arnika Association –
Toxics and Waste
Programme
Canadian Steel Producers
Association
Cancer Action
Finnish Forest Industries
GAIA: Global Alliance for
Incineration Alternatives
Greenpeace International
OBSERVATIONS
Comments on Pulp and paper
General comments and comments on incineration and cement kilns.
General comments
Comments on open burning and on incineration
Comments on Guidelines on BAT for production of pulp using elemental
chlorine
General comments on consideration of use of alternative non-combustion
processes
Comments on sections on consideration of alternatives, V.A.1, VI.A, VI.F
Compilation of Comments on the draft guidelines on BAT and guidance on BEP
received by the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention
Comments submitted by Governments
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY BOTSWANA
Guidelines on open burning
• Residues from Agricultural undertakings to be shredded and composted instead of burning in
open air. This will facilitate the reduction in the level of dioxins and furans released in to the
atmosphere.
• Controlled composting in a secured area where soil study has been done to find out how the
soil could be useful later (if possible chemicals could be used to facilitate the process of
composting).
• To develop technology that will facilitate and speed composting especially to enrich the soil
for Agricultural purposes in semi arid areas.
• Burning of inorganic waste should be totally discouraged.
Guidelines on municipal waste
• Appropriate and affordable technology for rapid assessment and monitoring of pollutants
released from different categories of wastes during incineration. This will facilitate easy
monitoring of the level of pollutants.
• Improved and approved incinerators to be used.
Guidelines on medical waste incineration
• Affordable and appropriate technology and guidelines for autoclaving of health care waste
should be used.
1
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY BRAZIL
2
3
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY CHINA
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY COLOMBIA
COMENTARIOS DE COLOMBIA
DRAFT GUIDELINES BAT/BEP
Section V.A.I: Guidance by source category, Annex C, Part II Source Categories –Waste
Incinerators (DRAFT 19/04/04): Municipal and hazardous waste and sewage sludge –
Coordinated by Mr. Robert Kellam (United States of America)
Colombia está de acuerdo con las mejores técnicas disponibles y las mejores prácticas
medioambientales de esta guía, sin embargo, es importante señalar que Colombia no puede
sostener económicamente incineradores giratorios dedicados exclusivamente para desechos
peligrosos. Por lo anterior, el país ha desarrollado algunas pruebas de coprocesamiento de
residuos peligrosos en la producción de cemento con desechos como plásticos y tierras
contaminados con plaguicidas y llantas usadas, en hornos giratorios de plantas cementeras
colombianas cumpliendo todos los valores limites hasta las Dioxinas/Furanos y PCBs de
USEPA y de UE.
De otra parte, se propone las siguientes medidas para la minimización de liberaciones de Dioxinas y
Furanos en esta categoría:
Las estrategias al principio se deben concentrar en las fuentes más generadoras de PCDD/PCDF con
el lanzamiento de nuevas y modernas tecnologías de producción, producción más limpia y modernos
sistemas de control de polución de emisiones.
Se proponen las siguientes medidas acerca de procesos industriales liberadores de PCDD/PCDF, con
el fin de reducir las liberaciones de dioxinas y furanos:
¾ Conocer los mecanismos de formación de PCDD/PCDF profundamente en las plantas industriales
de esta categoría. Experimentalmente se puede demostrar p.ej en caso de los procesos de
combustión que
•
No solo la combustión directa produce PCDD/PCDF
•
En la zona de enfriamiento de los gases, como precipitadores electrostáticos, se produce casi 10
veces más PCDD/PCDF.
•
Los filtros de mangas son mejores que los precipitadores electrostáticos, ya que la temperatura de
trabajo puede ser <200°C ó 150°C. Por lo tanto se debe aplicar las mejores técnicas disponibles
(BAT). En caso de uso de los precipitadores electroestáticos (ESP) se debe siempre utilizar
precipitadores electroestáticos fríos (c-ESP) y jamás precipitadores electroestáticos calientes (hESP), en donde “c-” significa la temperatura de trabajo del equipo de <220°C/150°C y “h-” de >
220°C/150°C
•
El mismo equipo de control de polución de aire a la temperatura de trabajo de >300°C podría
emitir cerca 0,3 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 y a la temperatura de trabajo de <200°C < = 0,1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 .
•
Un enfriamiento de choques de los gases de salida por debajo de 200°C reduce la generación de
PCDD/PCDF.
•
Las dioxinas y furanos pueden ser oxidadas a alta temperatura de 800—1200°C ó en un
catalizador a temperatura baja.
11
•
Las dioxinas y furanos después del filtro de mangas pueden ser reducidas de <0,05 ng/m3 a < 0,01
ng/m3 a través de SCR-—DeDiox catalizador .
•
Las superficies activas de catalizadores metálicos (Cu, Fe, Ni, Si etc.) en la ceniza volante
generando PCDD/PCDF pueden ser bloqueados mediante NH3, H2S ó Aminas.
•
La ceniza volante impregnada con destructores inorgánicos no volátiles puede reducir 99,99% la
concentración generada a la temperatura de 200—400°C por los precursores potenciales
indicando que los destructores están envenenando las superficies activas de las cenizas volantes.
•
Desalienta la incineración de desechos sólidos municipales sus inmensos volúmenes
consiguiente su significativo potencial de dar lugar a la liberación de PCDD/PCDF
y por
Se debe animar la aplicación de las mejores tecnologías disponibles (BAT) y las mejores prácticas
medioambientales (BEP) en los procesos de incineración de desechos municipales, peligrosos y lodos
de tratamiento de aguas residuales de químicos orgánicos e inorgánicos utilizando filtros de mangas
junto con un catalizador a descomponer los PCDD/PCDF ó la combinación de filtro de mangas con
inyector de sorbente seco (como carbón activo etc.) cumpliendo el valor limite internacional en
emisión al aire de 0.1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 de PCDD/PCDF.
Como un mejor indicador de medidas de mitigación de PCDD/PCDF se debe adecuar y actualizar
sucesivamente el inventario básico con base en los datos más precisos y factores de emisión,
experimentales de ser posible, más específicos y ajustados a la situación real de cada país, dando una
base sustentada para aplicar “National Implementation Plan—NIP” adecuadamente.
Además se debe fijar los valores límites de PCDD/PCDF en los residuos/lodos de scrubber/suelos, en
el vector agua como el valor existente en el vector aire de 0.1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3. De esta manera se
muestra el cumplimiento de los estándares del desempeño (Performance Standards) y del desempeño
de reportaje (Performance Reporting).
Section V.B.: Guidance by source category, Annex C, Part II Source Categories –Cement
kilns firing hazardous waste (Draft 15/04/04) –Coordinated by Ms. Ute Karl (Germany) and
Ms. Steffi Richter (Germany)
Colombia está de acuerdo con las mejores técnicas disponibles (Best Available Techniques --BAT) y
las mejores prácticas medioambientales (Best Environmental Practices--BEP) que esta guía propone
para el co - procesamiento de desechos peligrosos in-situ en la producción de cemento.
Además, de lo expuesto por la guía Colombia propone las siguientes medidas para la minimización de
liberaciones de Dioxinas y Furanos:
Las estrategias al principio se deben concentrar en los desechos peligrosos más generadores de
PCDD/PCDF con el lanzamiento de nuevas y modernas tecnologías de producción--- producción más
limpia—y de modernos sistemas de control de polución de emisiones.
Se propone lo siguiente acerca de procesos industriales liberadores de PCDD/PCDF, con el fin de
reducir las liberaciones de dioxinas y furanos:
de esta categoría. Experimentalmente se puede demostrar p.ej en caso de los procesos de
combustión que
•
No solo la combustión directa produce PCDD/PCDF
•
12
•
Los filtros de mangas son mejores que los precipitadores electrostático, ya que la temperatura de
trabajo puede ser < 200°C ó 150°C. Por lo tanto se debe aplicar las mejores técnicas disponibles
precipitadores electroestáticos fríos (c-ESP) y jamás precipitadores electroestáticos calientes (hESP), en donde “c-” significa la temperatura de trabajo del equipo de <220°C/150°C y “h-” de >
220°C/150°C
•
emitir cerca 0,3 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 de PCDD/PCDF y a la temperatura de trabajo de < 200°C < = 0,1
ng I-TEQ/Nm3.
•
PCDD/PCDF. Se logra este enfriando Clinker a la temperatura <200°C.
•
•
•
•
indicando que los destructoresestán envenenando las superficies activas de las cenizas volantes.
medioambientales (BEP) en los procesos del co-procesamiento de desechos peligrosos en la
producción de cemento, utilizando filtro de mangas junto con un catalizador a descomponer los
PCDD/PCDF ó la combinación de filtro de mangas con inyector de sorbente seco (como carbón
activo etc.) cumpliendo el valor limite internacional en emisión al aire de 0.1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 de
PCDD/PCDF
sucesivamente el inventario básico con base en los datos más precisos y factores de emisión –
experimentales de ser posible--más específicos y ajustados a la situación real del país, dando una base
sustentada para aplicar “National Implementation Plan—NIP” adecuadamente.
Además se debe fijar los valores límites de PCDD/PCDF en Clinker /Particulas Suspendidas Totales
PST/lodos de scrubber y en vector agua (en caso se utiliza Scrubber) como el valor existente en el
vector aire de 0.1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3. De esta manera se muestra el cumplimiento de los estándares del
desempeño (Performance Standards) y del desempeño de reportaje (Performance Reporting).
Section V.C.: Guidance by source category, Annex C, Part II Source Categories–Production
of pulp using elemental chlorine or chemicals generating elemental chlorine for bleaching
(DRAFT15/04/04)–Coordinated by Ms. Hille Hyytiä (Finland)
las mejores prácticas medioambientales (Best Environmental Practices--BEP) de esta guía para la
producción de pasta utilizando cloro ó químicos que generan cloro para blanqueado con meta de
desligninificación.
Además, se propone las siguientes medidas para la minimización de liberaciones de
Dioxinas y Furanos en esta categoría:
13
¾ Las estrategias al principio se debe concentrar en los procesos industriales más generadores de
PCDD/PCDF con el lanzamiento de nuevas y modernas tecnologías de producción---producción
más limpia—y de modernos sistemas de control de polución de emisiones.
Se propone las siguientes medidas acerca de procesos industriales liberadores de 2378-TCDD/TCDF,
con el fin de reducir estas liberaciones, tomando en cuenta en primer lugar la realidad del país en
cuanto a su tecnología vieja:
¾ Conocer profundamente los mecanismos de formación de 2378-TCDD/TCDF en las plantas
industriales de esta categoría. Experimentalmente se puede demostrar que evitando la presencia de
PCDD/PCDF precursores como inclorados DBD (Dibenzo-p-dioxin) y DBF (Dibenzofuran) en
las formulaciones de ciertos “Defoamers” utilizados mientras del blanqueado con cloro en la
industria de producción de pasta y papel se puede eliminar la generación de 2378-TCDD/TCDF
en la “C-stage” del proceso.
•
En la producción de pasta Kraft blanqueada se debe recuperar las fibras en las distintas etapas así
evitando la generación de lodos durante el tratamiento de efluentes.
•
No solo la liberación al aire de PCDD/PCDF a través del quemado del licor negro en el ciclo de
recuperación a generar energía y recuperar químicos inorgánicos de proceso, aunque evitando la
liberación de cenizas.
•
•
(BAT). En caso de uso de los precipitadores electrostáticos (ESP) se debe siempre utilizar
precipitadores electrostáticos fríos (c-ESP) y jamás precipitadores electrostáticos calientes (hESP), en donde “c-” significa la temperatura de trabajo del equipo de < 220°C/150°C y “h-” de >
220°C/150°C. Se recomienda la utilización de filtro de mangas.
•
El mismo equipo de control de polución de aire a la temperatura de trabajo de > 300°C podría
emitir cerca 0,3 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 y a la temperatura de trabajo de < 200°C < = 0,1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3.
•
Un enfriamiento de choque de los gases de salida por debajo de 200°Creduce la generación de
PCDD/PCDF.
•
•
Las dioxinas y furanos después del filtro de mangas pueden ser reducidas de < 0,05 ng/m3 a <
0,01 ng/m3 a través de SCR-—DeDiox catalizador.
•
•
medioambientales (BEP) en proceso del quemado del material orgánico en el ciclo de recuperación a
generar energía y recuperar químicos inorgánicos de proceso, utilizando filtro de mangas junto con un
catalizador a descomponer los PCDD/PCDF ó la combinación de filtro de mangas con inyector de
sorbente seco (como carbón activo etc.) cumpliendo el valor limite internacional en emisión al aire de
0.1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 de PCDD/PCDF.
14
base sustentada para aplicar el “National Implementation Plan—NIP” adecuadamente.
Además se deben fijar los valores límites de PCDD/PCDF en Productos/Residuos/Particulas
Suspendidas Totales PST/lodos de scrubber y en vector agua (en caso se utiliza Scrubber) como el
valor existente en el vector aire de 0.1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3. De esta manera se muestra el cumplimiento de
los estándares del desempeño (Performance Standards) y del desempeño de reportaje (Performance
Reporting).
Section V.D.2: Guidance by source category, Annex C, Part II Source Categories –Sinter
plants in the iron industry (DRAFT 22/04/04) –Coordinated by Mr. Patrick Finlay (Canada)
las mejores prácticas medioambientales (Best Environmental Practices--BEP) de esta guía para las
plantas de sinterización en la industria de hierro.
Además Colombia propone las siguientes medidas para la minimización de liberaciones de Dioxinas y
¾ Las estrategias al principio se deben concentrar en procesos industriales más generadoras de
PCDD/PCDF con el lanzamiento de nuevas y modernas tecnologías de producción, producción
más limpia, y de modernos sistemas de control de polución de emisiones.
Se propone las siguientes medidas acerca de procesos industriales liberadores de PCDD/PCDF, con el
fin de reducir las liberaciones de dioxinas y furanos, tomando en cuenta en primer lugar la realidad
del país en cuanto a su tecnología vieja:
de esta categoría. Experimentalmente se puede demostrar p.e., en caso del proceso de
sinterización que:
•
No solo el proceso de sinterización produce PCDD/PCDF
•
•
precipitadores electroestáticos fríos (c-ESP) y jamás precipitadores electroestáticos calientes (hESP), en donde “c-” significa la temperatura de trabajo del equipo de <220°C/150°C y “h-” de
>220°C/150°C. Se recomienda la utilización de filtro de mangas.
•
emitir cerca 0,3 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 y a la temperatura de trabajo de < 200°C < = 0,1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3.
•
Un enfriamiento de choques de los gases de salida por debajo de 200°Creduce la generación de
PCDD/PCDF.
•
•
Las dioxinas y furanos después del filtro de mangas pueden ser reducidas de <0,05 ng/m3 a <0,01
ng/m3 a través de SCR-—DeDiox catalizador.
15
•
•
indicando que los destructoresestán envenenando las superficies activas de las cenizas volantes.
medioambientales (BEP) en las plantas de sinterización en la industria de hierro utilizando filtro de
mangas junto con un catalizador a descomponer los PCDD/PCDF ó la combinación de filtro de
mangas con inyector de sorbente seco (como carbón activo etc.) cumpliendo el valor limite
internacional en emisión al aire de 0.1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 de PCDD/PCDF
experimentales de ser posible--más específicos y ajustados a la situación real de cada país, dando una
Además se deben fijar los valores límites de PCDD/PCDF en Residuos /Particulas Suspendidas
Totales PST/lodos de scrubber y en vector agua (en caso se utiliza Scrubber) como el valor existente
en el vector aire de 0.1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3. De esta manera se muestra el cumplimiento de los estándares
del desempeño (Performance Standards) y del desempeño de reportaje (Performance Reporting).
Section VI.A: Guidance by source category, Annex C, Part III Source Categories –Open
burning of wastes (DRAFT 13/04/04)–Coordinated by Mr. Francis Kihumba (Kenya) and
Mr. William Carroll (international Council of Chemical Associations)
las mejores prácticas medioambientales (Best Environmental Practices--BEP) que esta guía propone.
Además se propone las siguientes medidas para la minimización de liberaciones de Dioxinas y
¾ Las estrategias al principio se deben concentrar en las fuentes más generadoras de PCDD/PCDF
con el lanzamiento de nuevas y modernas tecnologías de producción---producción más limpia—y
de modernos sistemas de control de polución de emisiones.
Se proponen las siguientes medidas acerca de las quemas abiertas con el fin de reducir las liberaciones
de dioxinas y furanos, tomando en cuenta en primer lugar la realidad del país en cuanto a su
tecnología vieja:
1. Conocer profundamente los mecanismos de formación de PCDD/PCDF de esta categoría de
desechos de quemas a cielo abierto.
•
Las quemas a cielo abierto liberan PCDD/PCDF, HCB, PCBs, HAPs, PST, Benceno y CO.
Según el Decreto 948/95 de Colombia, se prohiben este tipo de quemas; sin embargo, por falta del
seguimiento de las autoridades ambientales se siguen realizando quemas a cielo abierto. Las
quemas a cielo abierto son una mala practica.
Por lo tanto y de acuerdo con lo planteado por la guía, el enfoque de la implementación del
Convenio de Estocolmo debe ser el de buscar alternativas a las quemas abiertas y no el de ensayar
mejorar una mala práctica.
2. Prevenir los quemados incontrolados abiertos al cielo de residuos agrícolas (cáscara de arroz,
bagazo de caña etc.), para la reclamación térmica de cobre de alambre (quemas abiertas) y de
desechos sólidos municipales. Cáscara de arroz p.ej. se puede utilizar en la producción de papel,
16
su procesamiento al “charcoal vineger” como pesticidas naturales evitando la dependencia de los
pesticidas con base en química y además como materiales para “Mulching and soil amendment
for organic farming”.
medioambientales (BEP) para el quemado y no permitir quemas a cielo abierto.
experimentales de ser posible--más específicos y ajustados a la situación real de cada país, dando una
Además se debe ensayar fijar el valor límite de PCDD/PCDF en immisión (calidad del aire) alrededor
de las quemas a cielo abierto.
Section VI.B.I : Guidance by source category, Annex C, Part III Source Categories –
Secondary lead production (DRAFT 22/04/04) –Coordinated by Mr. Patrick Finlay (Canada)
Colombia está de acuerdo con las mejores técnicas disponibles (Best Available Techniques--BAT) y
las mejores prácticas medioambientales (Best Environmental Practices--BEP) de esta guía para la
producción secundaria de plomo.
Además se propone las siguientes medidas para la minimización de liberaciones de Dioxinas y
Las estrategias al principio se deben concentrar en procesos industriales más generadoras de
PCDD/PCDF con el lanzamiento de nuevas modernas tecnologías de producción, producción más
limpia, y de modernos sistemas de control de polución de emisiones.
Se propone las siguientes medidas acerca de procesos industriales liberadores de PCDD/PCDF, con
el fin de reducir las liberaciones de dioxinas y furanos:
¾ Conocer profundamente los mecanismos de formación de PCDD/PCDF en las plantas
industriales de esta categoría. Experimentalmente se puede demostrar p.ej en caso de los procesos
de fundición que
•
No solo la fundición directa produce PCDD/PCDF
•
•
(BAT). En caso de uso de los precipitadores electrostáticos (ESP) se debe siempre utilizar
precipitadores electrostáticos fríos (c-ESP) y jamás precipitadores electrostáticos calientes (hESP), en donde “c-” significa la temperatura de trabajo del equipo de <220°C/150°C y “h-” de
>220°C/150°C. Se recomienda la utilización de filtro de mangas.
•
emitir cerca 0,3 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 y a la temperatura de trabajo de <200°C < = 0,1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3.
•
Un enfriamiento de choques de los gases de salida por debajo de 200°Creduce la generación de
PCDD/PCDF.
•
17
•
•
•
medioambientales (BEP) en la producción secundaria de plomo utilizando filtro de mangas junto con
un catalizador a descomponer los PCDD/PCDF ó la combinación de filtro de mangas con inyector de
sorbente seco (como carbón activo etc.) cumpliendo el valor limite internacional en emisión al aire de
0.1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 de PCDD/PCDF
Además se deben fijar los valores límites de PCDD/PCDF en Residuos /Particulas Suspendidas
Totales PST/lodos de scrubber y en vector agua (en caso se utiliza Scrubber) como el valor existente
en el vector aire de 0.1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3. De esta manera se muestra el cumplimiento de los estándares
del desempeño (Performance Standards) y del desempeño de reportaje (Performance Reporting).
Section VI.F: Guidance by source category, Annex C, Part III Source Categories –Chemical
production processes (DRAFT 13/04/04) –Coordinated by Mr. William Carroll
(international Council of Chemical Associations)
Colombia está de acuerdo con las mejores técnicas disponibles (Best Available Techniques -BAT) y las mejores prácticas medioambientales (Best Environmental Practices--BEP) de esta
guía.
Además se propone las siguientes medidas para la minimización de liberaciones de
Dioxinas y Furanos en esta categoría:
¾ Las estrategias al principio se deben concentrar en las fuentes más generadoras de
PCDD/PCDF con el lanzamiento de nuevas y modernas tecnologías de producción--producción más limpia—y de modernos sistemas de control de polución de emisiones.
Se proponen las siguientes medidas acerca de procesos de producción de químicos con el fin
de reducir las liberaciones de dioxinas y furanos:
¾ Conocer profundamente los mecanismos de formación de PCDD/PCDF en las plantas productoras
de químicos en esta categoría. Experimentalmente se puede demostrar p.ej en el caso de la
destrucción térmica de los productos subsidiarios durante de los procesos de producción de
químicos orgánicos y inorgánicos que:
•
No solo destrucción directa produce PCDD/PCDF
•
•
Los filtros de mangas son mejores que los precipitadores electrostático, ya que la temperatura de
trabajo puede ser <200°C ó 150°C. Por lo tanto se debe aplicar las mejores técnicas disponibles
18
precipitadores electroestáticos fríos (c-ESP) y jamás precipitadores electroestáticos calientes (hESP), en donde “c-” significa la temperatura de trabajo del equipo de <220°C/150°C y “h-” de
>220°C/150°C
•
emitir cerca 0,3 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 de PCDD/PCDF y a la temperatura de trabajo de < 200°C < =
0,1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3.
•
PCDD/PCDF.
•
•
ng/m3 a través de SCR-—DeDiox catalizador.
•
•
La ceniza volante impregnada con destructores inorgánicos no volátiles puede reducir
99,99% la concentración generada a la temperatura de 200—400°C por los precursores
potenciales indicando que los destructores están envenenando las superficies activas de
las cenizas volantes.
medioambientales (BEP) p.ej. en la industria de cloro, destrucción térmica de los productos
subsidiarios en los procesos de producción de químicos orgánicos y inorgánicos utilizando filtro de
mangas junto con un catalizador a descomponer los PCDD/PCDF ó la combinación de filtro de
mangas con inyector de sorbente seco (como carbón activo etc.) cumpliendo el valor limite
internacional en emisión al aire de 0.1 ng I-TEQ/Nm3 de PCDD/PCDF
experimentales de ser posible, más específicos y ajustados a la situación real del país, dando una base
sustentada para aplicar “National Implementation Plan—NIP” adecuadamente.
Además se debe fijar los valores límites de PCDD/PCDF en los residuos/productos subsidiarios, en el
vector agua y en químicos principales producidos como el valor existente en el vector aire de 0.1 ng
I-TEQ/Nm3. Estos químicos producidos con trazas de PCDD/PCDF se deben registrar en un
Inventario de Liberación de Sustancias Tóxicas como el que existe en EE.UU –denominado TRI
(Toxics Release Inventory) y también en Alemania. De esta manera se muestra el cumplimiento de los
estándares del desempeño (Performance Standards) y del desempeño de reportaje (Performance
Reporting).
19
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY GABON
20
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY GERMANY
Federal Environmental Agency
Berlin, 18.06.2004
German comments to the
Draft guidelines on best available techniques (BAT) and guidance on best environmental
practices (BEP) relevant to Article 5 and Annex C of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants
The draft guidelines on best available techniques and guidance on best environmental
practices relevant to Article 5 and Annex C of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants are valuable documents for giving countries information how to eliminate
and restrict as most as possible PCDD/F releases from different source categories. From our
site was noted, that these guidances could for developed and developing countries as well a
sophisticated basis to be applied in a flexible manner.
The Federal Environmental Agency can give comments to the following source categories:
- Leather dyeing and finishing
- Chemical production process
- Open burning of wastes
- Residential combustion sources
- Firing installations for wood and other biomass fuels
Leather dyeing and finishing
As outlined in the Draft Guideline - the occurrence of PCDD/PCDF in the textile and
leather industries are due to the use of chlorinated chemicals, esp. PCP, to protect
and conserve the raw – material.
Available substitutes for preservation should be outlined in the Guidance. The
following substitutes are used in Germany since the national phasing out of PCP:
2-Thiocyanatomethylthiobenzothiazole (TCMTB)
-
o-Phenylphenole (oPP)
-
4-Chloro-3-methyl-phenole (CMK)
-
2-Octylisothiazolinone (OIT)
The mentioned chemicals are assessed as less hazardous for the environment than PCP,
but not as inherently safe at all.
Chemical production processes
There are some minor comments to the guidance, which are included in the text with
comments in the context of the relevant chapters. The changes are colored:
1.4.1 Fixed Bed Oxychlorination.
Fixed bed reactors resemble multi-tube heat
exchangers, with the catalyst packed in vertical tubes held in a tubesheet at top and bottom.
21
Uniform packing of catalyst within the tubes is important to ensure uniform pressure drop,
flow, and residence time through each tube. Reaction heat is removed by generating steam
on the shell side of the reactor, or by flowing some other heat transfer fluid through it.
Temperature control in these reactions is important. The tendency to develop hot spots in a
fixed bed can be minimized by packing the reactor tubes with active catalyst and inert diluent
mixtures in proportions that vary along the length of the tubes, so that there is low catalyst
activity at the inlet, but the activity steadily increases to a maximum at the outlet.
Alternatively, tubes can be packed with catalyst formulated to have an activity gradient along
the length of the tubes. Multiple reactors in series can also be used in fixed bed
oxychlorination, providing a similar activity gradient. Using pure oxygen as feed instead of
air permits lower temperature operation and therefore lowers the formation of chlorinated byproducts. However this must be balanced against the cost of energy expended in producing
pure oxygen. 6 Staging the air or oxygen feed and grading the catalyst activity flatten the
temperature profile and allow improved temperature control.7
1.5 Main Product Isolation. Another common facet of these processes is the need to purify
products that will either be sold or used in subsequent process steps. In virtually all cases,
organic reaction products will be distilled. Fractional distillation separates streams of desired
products and also separates desired product from unwanted high molecular weight materials
called “heavy ends” or tars.
In the European Union the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive
requires the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT) in generating a plant permit. To
facilitate this, BAT Reference Documents (BREFs) are produced under the Directive by the
European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (EIPPCB). Several of these
are relevant to the application of BAT to processes using chlorination. For example, the
BREF relating to Large Volume Organic Chemical Processes produced under the IPPC
Directive contains discussion of distillation.6
1.6 By-product Destruction. Undesired materials, including heavy ends are destroyed in
thermal processes, with or without oxygen. Figure 4 shows a prototypical heavy ends
destruction train with HCl recovery.
When there are air, water and solid emissions from these processes, these streams can be
analyzed and treated for by-product POPs contamination. In many Countries treatment
systems are well-defined by regulation. Further information are available in the BREFs on
Large Volume Organic Chemical Processes the and on Treatment of Water and Gas
Outputs from the Chemical Sector.
4.1.1 Distillation and Internal Recycling of By-products.
Distillation is used primarily to produce product of a purity appropriate to downstream
processing. As an example, VCM is manufactured via oxychlorination and purified by
distillation. Rigorous distillation is used due to the potential for disruption of subsequent
polymerization process by impurities. Unsaturated materials that might act as co-monomers
competing in the polymerization and saturated or aromatic materials susceptible to free
radical reactions other than polymerization can negatively impact polymerization reaction
kinetics.
Distillation and high purity are important for good production. Distillation systems can be
designed to effect separation of materials of closely- or widely-separated boiling points. The
boiling points of chemical products of direct chlorination and the boiling points of competing
impurities allow for their practical separation. Their boiling points are also sufficiently
different from those of the unintended POPs, however, that virtually complete separation can
22
be accomplished. The Large Volume Organic BREF notes that purified EDC does not
contain significant amounts of PCDD/F.6
Destruction of chlorinated by-product materials allows for HCl to be harvested and reused.14
This is deemed “greater impact” because small changes in POPs generation upstream of
distillation are not reflected in the quality of desired products after distillation.
Distillation is a means of separating the desired product from inadvertend sideproducts used
across the chemical production industry from commodities of pesticides. Adapting the design
and operation of distillation apparatus is, in principle, relatively straightforward. Residual
side product contained in commercial product can be minimized by appropriate design and
operation of the distillation apparatus. Effecting more complete separation for materials with
boiling points that are not so widely separated as, for example, those of vinyl chloride and
the various lower molecular weight side products is for the most part a matter of correct
design and construction and operation cost. Differences in concentration of residual byproduct POPs in commercial product may be due to differences in local regulation of
products.
4.1.5
Modified
Production
Pentachlorophenate.
of
Pentachlorophenol
(PCP)
and
Sodium
The following processes are also described in the Toolkit.2 Three routes to PCP are known
commercially.
Chlorination of phenol by Cl2 over a catalyst, hydrolysis of
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) with sodium hydroxide and thermolysis of HCB. The most
common route today is the first. Sodium pentachlorophenate can be produced via hydrolysis
of HCB, or more commonly, by treatment of PCP by sodium hydroxide.
For both products, careful control of reaction conditions (e.g., temperature, chlorine feed rate
and purity of catalyst) leads to significant reductions of dioxin microcontaminants. In the US,
emission of these materials was reduced from ca 3-4 mg I-TEQ/kg in the mid- to late-1980s
to ca 1 mg I-TEQ/kg in the years since 1988 .3
Further information referring PCDD/F-emissions from the chlorine process of titanium dioxid
production:
There is one plant in Germany, which is performing this type of process (Kronos Titan,
Leverkusen). Measurements gave no information of considerable emissions of PCDD/F, at
least they are quite below 0,1 ng TE/m3.
Open burning of wastes
A very helpful draft guidance.
Our observation is, that in the context of open burning of wastes more or less measures
under Best Environmental Practices (BEP) are more relevant, than those under Best
Available Techniques (BAT). This guidance seems to be a quite good example, were BEP –
measures could be given priority, or falling under BEP anyway.
23
Residential combustion sources
For this draft guidance some comments should be taken into account, with the excuse at the
other hand, that for some of them no direct proposal for reviewing is connected. These
comments are:
•
The issue is very difficult and quite complex, as various background conditions are to
be considered. But in spite of this fact the scope of the source category should be
outlined. This should include a short description, if only households or smaller and
medium heating systems should be touched as far as possible connected to a
performance range.
•
The introduction (No. 1.0) presents some very general information about emissions
for PCB, HCB and PCDD/F from residential combustion sources. We would like to
propose, that any data should be used together with a quotation only and by giving
the literature to make them transparently. This relates especially also to tables 1 to 3.
It should be also pointed out, that emission data in this context need some
background information. For PCB and HCB - as far as we are informed - currently no
confidential data are available. From Germany at least, we have regrettably also no
reliable data to add. Possibly such data – especially if they are not very reliable - are
not needed to a big extend at this stage, as applicable measures should be in the
focus of this guidance. But in any case of giving data – these should quoted
thoroughly.
•
The draft guidance is outlining measures in a very general way in many cases. A
more descriptive outline of techniques for basic combustion types using oil, natural
gas and solid fuels should be added. A differentiation between single and central
heating systems should be also included. Having in mind and in spite of the fact, that
this guidance will be a big issue especially for developing countries, where simple
measures of BEP may be of prior interest, some examples of modern combustion
techniques with BAT, used in developed countries should be given.
•
Under No. 4.2 an information for developing countries is given, that the combustion
of plastics in heating systems is occuring. We would propose to delete such any hint,
as such a practice is and should be forbidden (deletion of the sentence:
“Unfortunately, in developed countries people use plastics as fuel.”)
•
The opportunity to use regenerative energies (e.g. solar) should be mentioned in the
context of residential heating under "further recommendations" (No. 5.0) as
alternative to classical "residential combustion".
Firing installations for wood and other biomass fuels
This paper will be helpful, but no specific focus on the requirements of developing countries
can be identified. Some comments to this paper:
•
Combustion of other biomass, than wood, seems to be a bit little underrepresented. It
should be incorporated the information, that combustion of straw, cereals, grass and
other grassy material is causing considerably higher PCDD/F – emissions, than
combustion of untreated wood.
24
•
In the context of descriptions for techniques for PCDD/F-reduction, only techniques
to be applicable at bigger non-residential combustion devices are outlined. Some of
these measures are only be used (e.g. SCR) in Germany in the case of combustion
of treated wood. The application of effective dust precipitators should be given focus,
as most PCDD/F are adsorbed at particles.
•
A huge proportion of PCDD/F – emissions in Germany is emitted from residential
combustion devices (in the context, that industrial sources have been reduced to a
very large extend during the years). This means, that focus should be given sources
of the type of residential combustion. Simple an applicable primary measures
according BEP for households are primary needed. So chapter 3 and 6 should
include guidance for adequate use of heating systems. Those includes:

No co-incineration of wastes (already in chapter 6),

Requirement to use licensed, higher-qualitatively fuels (no use of wet
and treated wood at all),

periodically service for heating systems,

stepwise substitution of old potentially high-emission systems, where
implementable by modern systems (pelleticed wood combustion,
vessels with buffer saving systems).
25
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY ITALY
ITALIAN COMMENTS ON
DRAFT GUIDELINES ON BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES
AND GUIDANCE ON BEST ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES
RELEVANT TO ARTICLE 5 AND ANNEX C
OF THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION
Italy would like to thank the Executive Secretary, Mr. James B. Willis, for inviting
Governments and other relevant organisations to provide comments on the Draft Guidelines
on Best Available Techniques and Guidance on Best Environmental Practices, developed by
the Expert Group on BAT and BEP.
All the 23 documents available up to now are very valuable, and we wish to thank Experts that made a
lot of work to perform them in due time. Moreover, we appreciate the choice to include in various
sections relevant information taken from BAT reference documents, produced under the information
exchange provisions, contained in article 16 (2) of the European Union Directive on Integrated
Pollution Prevention and Control.
As a general comment, we would like only to suggest to harmonise all the contributions at the end of
the process in the final draft to be presented at COP1.
In effect, some little differences arise reading the texts: for instance, some sections give an idea about
costs of the described techniques, while others do not refer to this aspect. Another characteristic not
always mentioned is the achievable reduction level associated with the adoption of the techniques, or
their applicability to new and/or existing plants. From our point of view, these information are useful
and should not be missed, because their knowledge helps to evaluate the best solution.
Some sections make a clear distinction between BAT and BEP, while in others the two are mixed: this
may ingenerate confusion in the reader and in the final user of the document. The mandate of the
Expert Group is to develop guidelines on best available techniques and to develop provisional
guidance on best environmental practices relevant to the provisions of article 5 of the Convention, for
consideration by the Conference of the Parties upon entry into force of the Convention (see document
UNEP/POPS/INC6/22, Annex VII: “Terms of reference for the Expert Group on Best Available
Techniques/Best Environmental Practices”).
During the EGB1 meeting it was recognised that BEP is a more overarching notion that might include
policies and strategies, while BAT is well defined and conceptually developed in the text of the
Convention, (see EGB1 meeting report, point 25 and 26).
Therefore, we suggest to separate the descriptions of BATs from those of BEPs in all sections, so
helping final users of the guidelines and guidance in choosing of the best solutions.
The document of Section II, “Consideration of alternatives”, is the only one that has some
paragraphs in square brackets. The introductory note of one of the two co-ordinators clarifies
the reason why this happened. We are confident that the difference of views among Experts
will overcome during the third meeting of the Expert Group, scheduled in Japan next
October.
26
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY JAPAN
JAPAN
Date: June 23, 2004
Japan’s comments on the Draft guidelines on best available techniques and guidance on
best environmental practices relevant to Article 5 and Annex C of the Stockholm Convention
on Persistent Organic Pollutants are as follow.
General Comments:
1. In current draft guidelines, numerical values such as “Emission Limit Value,” “Achievable
Level,” etc., and the measurement data are given as reference information in several parts.
However, the following points should be clarified before providing numerical values.
First, different measuring methods of PCDD/PCDF are used by countries. Under the
circumstance, the same quantity of unintentional PCDD/PCDF emission could be estimated
differently according to the measuring method. Therefore, specific conditions under which the
numerical values are estimated should be clarified.
The second point regards variation of units used by countries. In the guidelines, many units
including m3, Rm3, dscm are used. They should be harmonized, for example, by using conversion
formulas.
2. Some of the current draft guidelines refer to the release limit values as “Emission Limit Value,”
“Achievable Level,” etc.. In order to avoid unnecessary confusion, these expressions should be
unified so that it is clear that those levels are referential values. In paragraph 29 of the report of the
2nd session of the Expert Groups on BAT and BEP, it is agreed that the release limit values in
guidelines are included as reference information. (See the 2nd session of the Expert Groups on BAT
and BEP practices)
3. We would like to provide Japan’s emission standards and effluent standards of dioxins (see
attached table).
Specific Comments:
4. [Section V. A. 1 Waste Incinerators: Municipal and hazardous waste, and sewage sludge]
(Page 8) 3.1 General Incinerator Design, Paragraph 1
With regard to the sentence “Incinerators are designed for full oxidative combustion over a general
temperature range of 850-1400ºC.,” we would like to clarify the meaning of “combustion.”
In Japan, combustions are categorized according to the temperature under which these combustions
are conducted as follows; "-1000ºC: combustion," "1000-1200ºC: calcinations," "1200ºC-: melting."
Please instruct us on if the “combustion” in the sentence contradicts with the above categories or not.
(Page 13) 3.2.2.3 Refuse-derived fuel, Paragraph 2, 16
The expression ”very large” MWC facilities seems inadequate from Japan’s standard. In Japan,
relatively large-scale MWC facilities, including the scale of 30t/16h, are used to incinerate refusederived fuel as it is difficult for small-scale MWC facilities to recover heat efficiently.
(Page 35) 6.3.2 Fly Ash and Other Flue Gas Treatment Residue Techniques, Paragraph 12
We propose to amend the sentence into the following:
27
“If the content exceeds the limit, the ash must be stabilized or destruct.”
(Reason) Japan possesses a scientific concern that re-incineration of fly ash may discharge
undecomposed dioxins. Therefore, re-incineration is not permitted for fly ash treatment in the Waste
Management and Public Cleansing Law in Japan.
7. [Section V. A. 2 : Waste Incinerators: Medical Waste]
(Page 8) 5. Alternative Techniques Diagram, (APPROPROATE TREATMENT OPTIONS: frame 3)
We propose to add the following sentence:
Sharps (not infection)
Municipal waste incineration (specially adapted for this
→ purpose)
Hazardous waste disposal route(e.g.,sterilization)
(Reason) As sterilization is equally effective in treating sharps, sharp wastes are treated in the same
manner as infectious wastes under the Infectious Waste Treatment Manual in Japan. Therefore, not
only incineration but also sterilization are allowed as a disposal method.
8. [Section V. C : Production of pulp using elemental chlorine or chemicals generating elemental
chlorine for bleaching]
Our final comment regards Draft Guideline on BAT for production of pulp using elemental chlorine
submitted by the secretariat. Due to Japan’s dioxin problems in 1989, oxygen bleaching has been
introduced to all bleaching plants. Some of the plants are smoothly converting to ECF and we believe
the process will be complete by FY2005. Moreover, most of the technologies mentioned in BAT have
already been carried out in Japan.
- END Regulations for Emission Gas and Effluent Relating to Dioxins in Japan
The control standards for dioxins for the emission gas and effluent have been set in the
Law Concerning Special Measures against Dioxins (the Dioxins Law; promulgated on July
16, 1999) at the strictest values achievable at present.
Dioxins are defined to include PCDDs, PCDFs and co-planar PCBs in the Dioxins Law.
The level of dioxins is expressed as TEQ calculated according to WHO-TEF(1998).
1) Emission standards
Type of Specified
Scale of facilities
Facilities
(Capacity of
incineration)
Waste incinerators
More than 4t/h
(hearth area is
2t/h – 4t/h
more than 0.5 m2
Below 2t/h
or capacity of
incineration is
more than 50 kg/h)
Electric steel-making furnaces
Sintering facilities for steel industry
Facilities for collecting zinc
Facilities for manufacturing aluminum
base alloy
(Unit: ng-TEQ/m3 N)
Standards for
Standards
new facility
for existing
facility
0.1
1
28
1
5
5
10
0.5
0.1
1
1
5
1
10
5
2) Effluent standards
(Unit: pg-TEQ/L)
Type of Specified Facilities
Standard
• Bleaching facilities using chlorine or chlorine compounds used for
manufacturing sulfate pulps (kraft pulps) or sulfite pulps.
• Cleansing facilities for acetylen used for manufacturing acetylene by
carbide method
• Cleansing facilities for waste gas used for manufacturing potassium
sulfate
• Cleansing facilities for waste gas used for manufacturing alumina fiber
• Cleansing facilities for dichloroethane used for manufacturing vinyl
chloride monomer
• Sulfuric acid concentration facilities, cyclohexane separation facilities,
and waste gas cleansing facilities used for manufacturing caprolactam
(limited to using nitrosyl chloride)
• Water washing facilities and waste gas cleansing facilities used for
manufacturing chlorobenzene or dichlorobenzene
• Filtering facilities, drying facilities and waste gas cleaning facilities used
for manufacturing of sodium hydrogen 4-chlorophthalate
• Filtering facilities, drying facilities and waste gas cleaning facilities used
for manufacturing of 2,3-dichloro-1,4-naphthoquinone
• Nitro-derivative and its reductant separation facilities, nitro-derivative and
10
its reductant cleansing facilities, dioxazineviolet cleansing facilities, and
hot-air drying facilities used for manufacturing dioxazineviolet
• Cleansing facilities for waste gas and wet dust collecting facilities relating
to roasting furnaces, melting furnaces or dry kilns used for manufacturing
aluminum or aluminum–base alloy
• Refining facilities, waste gas cleansing facilities, and wet dust collecting
facilities used for recovering of zinc ( limited to zinc recovery from dust
that is generated from electric steel-making furnaces and collected by
dust-collector)
• Cleansing facilities, wet dust collecting facilities, and ash storing facilities
which are related to waste incinerators (hearth area is more than 0.5m2
or capacity of incineration is more than 50kg/h) and discharge sewage or
waste solution
• Resolving facilities for waste PCB or PCB-processed products
• Cleansing facilities for PCB contaminated matter or PCB-processed
products
• Facilities for disposing water discharged from plants or business places
with facilities mentioned above
• Terminal treatment facilities for sewerage relating to facilities mentioned
above
Note 1: The standard relating to water discharged from terminal waste disposal facilities is
10pg-TEQ/L based on instructions stipulating standards for maintenance and management
based on the Wastes Disposal and Public Cleaning Law.
29
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY JORDAN
30
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEXICO
31
32
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY PERU
Consideraciones Generales
Consideramos muy importante la elaboración y difusión de estas guías técnicas ya
que nos permitirán promover la aplicación de las Mejores Técnicas Disponibles (BAT) y las
Mejores Prácticas Medioambientales (BEP) sobre Contaminantes Orgánicos Persistentes
(COPs) en nuestro país.
En el Perú se viene realizando el Proyecto: “Inventario de Existencias de PCBs e
Identificación y Cuantificación de Liberación de Dioxinas y Furanos” y se está por dar inicio
al proyecto “Plan Nacional de Implementación de para la Aplicación de COPs en el Perú”
por lo que estas guías serán de mucha importancia.
Sobre los temas que se están por desarrollar en las guías
Consideramos necesario recomendaciones en los relacionado a la forma correcta de usar
estas guías y a la forma adecuada de aplicarlo, por este motivo pedimos que se tomen en
cuenta estas consideraciones durante el desarrollo de la parte C del Capítulo I: “Como usar
estas guías”.
Tomando en cuenta que en nuestro país todavía no se aplica una normatividad específica
en lo referente a la aplicación de Convenios Internacionales como el de Estocolmo, creemos
importante que se termine de desarrollar el punto E del Capítulo III en lo referente a
aspectos legales para la aplicación de estas guías.
Teniendo el Perú una Ley de Cementerios y Servicios Funerarios y siendo la cremación de
cadáveres una práctica que se da en nuestra patria, en muchos casos sin tomar en cuenta
la liberación de los COPs, creemos muy oportuno y satisfactorio que se desarrolle el punto
F del Capítulo VI sobre Cremación, ya que permitirá la aplicación de las BAT y BEP en esta
actividad.
Sobre temas que proponemos se incluyan
Sugerimos que se considere el desarrollo de la Aplicación de BAT y BEP en el Desguace y
Desmantelamiento de Navíos y Embarcaciones. Creemos que esta actividad, cuando se
lleva a cabo en malas condiciones, no permite una buena separación de COPs como los
aceites y PCBs y una mala disposición de las fracciones ligeras (restos de pinturas, aceites,
plásticos y otros) libera Dioxinas y Furanos cuando la incineración de estos se realiza en
condiciones no controladas. En nuestro país se viene realizando esta actividad y creemos
que con la aplicación de las BAT y BEP se controlará la liberación de estos COPs.
Sobre los Temas Desarrollados
d.1) Incineradores de Desechos Municipales y Peligrosos
Si bien es cierto que en las técnicas de combustión del capítulo 6 sobre BAT nos indican los
parámetros a controlar para asegurar una buena combustión, creemos necesario que se
mencionen las características de las cenizas resultantes de la incineración que se deben
analizar y determinar para verificar que se ha realizado una buena combustión.
Creemos conveniente que en el capítulo 3 sobre Diseño y Operación de Incineradores de la
sección V.A.I correspondiente a la Incineración de Desechos, se incluya diagramas de flujo
y su respectiva descripción del proceso de incineración especificando la ruta que sigue el
desecho para los diferentes tipos de procesos de incineración.
33
d.2) Incineración de Desechos Hospitalarios
En cuanto a la inclusión de BAT y BEP en la incineración de desechos peligrosos y
hospitalarios, así como el autoclavado, lo consideramos importante y oportuno ya que en
nuestro país se está empezando a utilizar estas técnicas y la aplicación adecuada de estas
guías nos permitirá realizarlas sin perjuicio de la salud y el medio ambiente en lo referente a
los COPs. En el Perú todavía no aplicamos la incineración de desechos municipales.
d.3) Hornos de Cemento
De la misma forma la incineración de desechos peligrosos en hornos de cemento en el Perú
todavía no es una práctica autorizada y siendo un problema la disposición de residuos
peligrosos que contienen COPs como residuos de aceite y envases de plaguicidas,
consideramos oportuno y adecuado que se haya desarrollado el capítulo referente a las
BAT y BEP en la incineración de residuos peligrosos en hornos de cemento lo que nos
permitirá tener una alternativa limpia sin liberación de COPs en la disposición de residuos
peligrosos como los plaguicidas.
d.4) Idioma y Vocabulario
Siendo necesario la difusión de estas guías entre todos los sectores involucrados en
nuestro país como el sector industrial en el marco de la Implementación del Convenio de
Estocolmo, consideramos adecuado se publiquen estas guías en el idioma español y se
establezca un glosario de términos generales utilizados en estas guías.
Consideraciones Finales
Estando nuestro país en un proceso de desarrollo y considerando que el objetivo del
Convenio de Estocolmo es proteger a la salud humana y el medio ambiente frente a los
contaminantes orgánicos persistentes, creemos que la aplicación de estas guías en nuestro
país serán una gran herramienta para lograr el objetivo.
_______________________
Ing. Domitila Briones Yañez
DIGESA – Ministerio de Salud
PERU
34
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PHILIPPINES
SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Guidelines on Best Available Techniques and Best
Environmental Practices
The Philippines currently has two (2) projects associated with POPs:
o Philippine Enabling Activity Project – Initial Assistance to the Philippines to
Meet Its Obligations Under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs)
o Demonstration of Viability and Removal of Barriers that Impede Adoption
and Effective Implementation of Available, Non-Combustion Technologies
The Draft Guidelines on Best Available Techniques and Best Environmental Practices
provides very useful information especially in choosing the most economical yet
environmentally-sound technologies and processes in areas where there is a possibility of
POPs release into the environment. The guidelines and suggestions are very useful in
formulating regulations and policies to further reduce and manage POPs.
In the issue of incineration, Republic Act 8749, or the Clean Air Act of the Philippines,
banned the use of incineration which is a major contributor to the release of dioxins and
furans.
We are now in the process of formulating our National Implementation Plan (NIP) which is
the final output of the Philippine Enabling Activity Project on POPs. The other activities
conducted under this project were the Initial National Inventory on POPs, Capacity and
Needs Assessment for the Country’s Compliance to the Stockholm Convention, and the
Public Awareness and Information Campaign Program. The Draft Guidelines on BAT and
BEP will be used as a basis in prioritizing goals and policies for the country’s compliance to
the Stockholm Convention through the NIP. The guidelines listed are comprehensive and
covers most of the processes being used in our country. But due to economic constraints,
crude equipment and processes are being employed by the industry to perform these
processes which lead to release of POPs.
Future policies and guidelines on the management of POPs releases will be based from these
guidelines and these will be reflected on the priorities and objectives that will be set for the
National Implementation Plan (NIP).
ANGELITA T. BRABANTE
POPs Project Coordinator
35
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY SLOVAKIA
Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic
Waste management department
Bratislava
Number:
14.6.2004
682/2004-min
241/2004-6
809/2004-6.2
[email protected]
Slovak comments on draft guidelines on BAT and guidance on BEP relevant to Article 5 and Annex
C of the Stockholm Convention on POPs
Slovakia welcomes these both document prepared by the Expert Group for next session which be
held in October 2004 in Japan. We agree with discussed versions.
Concerning the draft guidelines on best available techniques, Slovakia is of the opinion that it is a
very important issue also as a basis for the giving a right statement on establishing several new waste
recovery and waste disposal installation at regional and district level.
It is also needed to ensure the application of the most appropriate combination of environmental
control measures and strategies in the practice. To ensure it by the way ”guidance on best
environmental practices” seems to be a very good idea in view of the need to ensure control not only
waste handling but also the conditions of production processes and of the marketing.
We hope that in the future we will be able to find some our experts to joint in discussion by E-mail on
several documents from this area thanks to implementation of the Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on POPs amending Council Directive 79/117. It seems to be good
basis for mutual work government-designated experts in the field of the best available techniques and
best environmental practices.
In Slovakia there are on going following international projects to help us to be prepared
to implement the Stockholm Convention on POPs:
1. “Initial assistance to the SR to meet its obligations under the Stockholm Convention
on POPs”
2. “Demonstration of Viability and Removal of Barriers that Impede Adoption and
Effective Implementation of Available, Non-combustion Technologies”
3. ”Dioxin emissions in Candidate Countries”
4. Strengthening of Institutional Basis for Safe management of Chemicals”
5. ”Regional approach for the environmentally sound management of POPs as waste in
selected CEE countries”.
We hope that thanks all these projects Slovakia will be able to find national experts for next mutual
work in the field of the best available techniques and best environmental practices and to ensure
efficient functioning co-operation in the future.
Prepared by:
Ing. Marta Fratricova from the Waste Management Department at the Ministry of the Environment of
the Slovak Republic (WMD of the MoE of the SR).
Approved by:
Ing. Peter Gallovic, Head of the WMD at the MoE of the SR
Ing.Ivan Mojík, Designated Head of the Environment Protection Section at the MoE of the SR
36
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
37
38
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
United States Comments on International BAT/BEP Guidelines for Unintentional POP’s
Processing of Metals (Papers under sections V.D. & VI. B.)
1) The results presented in the paper for dioxins/furans (D/F) from secondary aluminum
production, magnesium production, and sinter plants in the iron and steel industry are
consistent with what we know about US plants.
2) For primary aluminum production, the paper presents that D/F were judged not to be
significant, and that is consistent with what we found in the US.
3) We have no data for D/F from US electric arc furnaces (EAFs), so we do not know how
applicable the results in the paper are. However, the techniques discussed for reducing D/F
from EAFs are consistent with some of those we are considering in the US (the US regulation
related to EAF’s may get co-control of D/F). Primary measures mentioned in the EAF paper
for D/F control are:
i) Reducing contaminants such as oil, plastics, and other hydrocarbons in the scrap
(which also reduces VOC and volatile HAP)
ii) Proper operation of the EAF (reducing air infiltration, replacing the roof cover after
charging, avoiding operational delays)
iii) Adequately sized evacuation system
iv) Continuous parameter monitoring system (to make sure everything is operating
properly)
Secondary measures include:
i) Having an efficient dust collecting system such as a baghouse, because higher dust
collection relates to better D/F control.
Also mentioned are other control methods using post combustion/rapid water quench and
carbon injection, neither of which are used at US plants (some European plants have these). It
is indicated that there might be some site-specific considerations (space, configuration, cost)
that might limit the applicability of these techniques to existing plants.
4) Overall, secondary steel recommendations for control seem reasonable.
Production of pulp using elemental chlorine or chemicals generating elemental chlorine for bleaching
(Section V.C.)
No comments on these guidelines, other than some grammatical and typographical errors.
Open burning of wastes (Section VI. A.)
This Annex is well written and clearly understood. For the most part it appears to be technically
correct. Comments by section:
Section 1
1) We would not qualify those devices that are merely drums as “incinerator.” BAT incineration
also includes provisions for removal of particulate matter and acid gases, not just provisions
to minimize dioxins.
2) I would not make a comment on the use of open piles as a method of reducing dioxins. The
Lemieux et al (2003) study only had 1 data point for open piles and the dioxin emissions data
for that 1 test were within the spread of the baseline combustion condition. There are not
sufficient data to support assumptions that open pile combustion will have higher (or lower)
dioxin emissions.
3) Is there really evidence that fireworks are a substantive source?
4) In the last sentence of Section 1, I think you mean upwind of residential areas not downwind.
39
Section 2
1) The first sentence is not a sentence and perhaps should begin with: “In general, this
includes…”
2) “geographical boundaries to be burned” is awkward. Instead, it could read “Intentional
burning may not constitute well-controlled combustion, even if the area to be burned is well
defined.” (Section 2.1.1)
3) Do inhibitors “adversely effect” dioxin formation? (Section 2.1.1)
4) I have not seen any studies that suggest that application of herbicides or pesticides produced
increased risk of PCDD/F formation. (Section 2.1.5)
5) Note that it is not clear that small prescribed burns lead to less PCDD/F than “more
devastating inadvertent burns.” (Section 2.1.5)
Section 3
1) This section notes that there has been significant study of open burning of wastes. This is not
an accurate characterization. Further, the reference provided, #7, deals with forest fires, not
waste. (Section 3.1.1)
2) The statement: “Variation in waste among countries” is probably true. However, a reference
would help. (Section 3.1.1)
3) “Garbage” and “refuse” are not synonymous. Garbage is putrescible organics; refuse is all of
the other stuff. Those are definitions from the field of environmental engineering. (Section
3.1.1)
4) “Burnings should be a last resort…”. The word “open” should be inserted at the beginning of
this sentence, otherwise this statement (and perhaps others like it earlier in the document) is
not supported by evidence presented in this document. It should not be presented a priori
without this sufficient caveate. For example, composting is given the impression as a more
favorable option. But what if the compost is used for subsistence farming, resulting in
substantial heavy metal ingestion? What if the recycling processes (e.g., waste aluminum)
result in substantially more PCDD/F than a modern waste to energy facility? (Section 3.2.5)
Section 4
1) Tires do not necessarily have a relatively high amount of sulfur. It would be more accurate to
say that tires have a similar amount of sulfur as is found in medium sulfur coals. Open
burning of tires produces huge amounts of particulate matter (mostly a carbon black type of
particulate) as well as PAHs (particularly Benzo(a)pyrene and benzene). In addition open
burning of tires produced an oozing oily liquid that can contaminate ground water.
2) Tires have also been successfully used in rubber modified asphalt which greatly extends the
lifetime of the pavement (Section 4.2.4).
References
Lemieux, P.M.; Gullett, B.K.; Lutes, C.C.; Winterrowd, C.K.; Winters, D.L. (2003), "Variables
Affecting Emissions of PCDDs/Fs from Uncontrolled Combustion of Household Waste in Barrels,"
AWMA J, Vol. 53, pp. 523-531.
40
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE EXPERT GROUP
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY PROF. ALAMIR BARKAHOUM (ALGERIA)
1-INCINÉRATION DE BIOMASSE NON ASSOCIÉE À L’ÉNERGIE
1-a Nettoyage pour l’agriculture
- Pratiques d’incinération du chaume de blé interdite
- Le reste des déchets est enfouis lors des labours
- Certains déchets sont transformés en aliments de bétail
A) Composition des déchets
- Mauvaises herbes
- Reste des moissons
- Broussailles diverses
B) Barrières à l’effet d’éliminer l’incinération à ciel ouvert
Remède
Barrière
Ignorance
Education et sensibilisation
Manque d’informations
Création de cellule d’information au
niveau des communes.
Manque de Moyens
L’état doit aider l’agriculteur par un
financement ou des prêts.
C) Documents Politiques Spécifiques
- Loi n°93-03 du 05/02/83 relative à la protection de l’environnement.
- Loi n° 01-19 du 12/12/01 relative à la gestion du contrôle et à l’élimination
de déchets.
- Loi n° 01-20 du 12/12/01 relative à l’aménagement du territoire et du
développement durable.
D) Minimisation des Déchets/ Stratégies de Diversion
Traitement des sols par des désherbants.
E) Alternatives disponibles concernant l’incinération à ciel ouvert
Dégradation naturelle pour éviter l’incinération.
F) Techniques d’incinération et attributs
Les déchets sont brûlés à l’air libre, sans aucun contrôle.
G) Techniques d’amélioration
Propositions d’incinération contrôlés par combustion bien aérée
H) Variation Régionale
Trois principales catégories de régions :
- Partie nord : oléagineux, primeurs
- Haut plateau : céréales
- Partie sud : primeurs et palmiers
I) Commentaires
Les déchets générés par « Nettoyage pour l’Agriculture » ne posent pas
véritablement un problème de pollution en Algérie, néanmoins, un contrôle de leur
gestion doit être mis en place à l’avenir.
I-b Feux de forêts imprévisibles
•
A) Types de matériaux d’alimentation/composition
En Algérie les espèces les plus dominantes sont :
- le pin d’Alep : localisé généralement en montagne (Atlas Blidéen, kabylie)
41
-
le liège : localisé le long de la côte Est Algérien (jijel, collo).
•
Il n y a pas de résidus de bois de forêts du fait de l’inexistence d’industrie forestière.
•
Les grandes surfaces forestières sont gérées par le ministère de l’Agriculture (Direction
Générale des Forêts).
Les feux de forêts imprévisibles se déclarent généralement durant la période estivale. Ils
généralement sont provoqués.
•
Les types de forêts varient avec la géographie (ex : espèces, densité, taille, etc.) [Non
dépendant de l’état de développement du pays] ;
Résidus de bois laissé dans les forêts par rapport à tous les arbres/buissons ;
•
•
La biomasse par hectare dépend des espèces, de la géographie, du
climat ;
• Les différentes espèces peuvent avoir différentes concentrations de produits chimiques
dangereux, ex : le contenu du chlore ;
• Les forêts peuvent être gérées ou naturelles ;
• Les forêts peuvent être traitées avec des produits chimiques, qui constituent soit, des
précurseurs des PCDD /PCDF (ex : 2,4,5 d’acide trichlorophénoxyacétique (2,4,5-T) 2,4d’acide dichlorophénoxyacétique (2,4-D) du pentachlorophénol dans le cas des résidus
de bois) soit des métaux catalytiques, (ex : du cuivre) soit des inhibiteurs, (ex : du
sulfure) ;
• Les feux de forêts peuvent être accidentels ou le fait d’incidences.
B) Barrières pour éliminer les Feux de Forêts
Barrière
1. Départ naturel :
température
Remède
la - Nettoyage et élimination de corps
pouvant déclencher un feu.
- Aménagement d’accès et
d’installation de coupes feux.
2. Imprudence, Ignorance des dangers
- Education
- Réglementation stricte
- Renforcement de moyens de
gardiennage.
3. Feux intentionnels pour récupération - Renforcement de gardiennage
du bois
- Renforcement et application de la
législation.
4. Terrains difficiles
- Prévoir l’équipement adéquat.
élévation
de
C) Documents Politiques Spécifiques
• Application de la législation en vigueur relative à la protection des forêts (décret de
1987).
D) Minimisation des occurrences, Taille/Impact
• Il existe un plan de renouvellement des forêts qui se traduit annuellement par des
campagnes de reboisement (exemple du Barrage vert pour lutter contre la remontée du
désert).
• Aucune réglementation disponible n’autorise l’incinération à ciel ouvert.
• Renouvellement de la forêt
• Interdiction de permis pour des brûlages prescrits
• Interdiction générale
• Réduction des permis (ex : seulement dans les régions éloignées ayant une faible
exposition aux humains/ production de l’alimentation) ;
42
•
•
•
•
•
•
Réduction à de la végétation à brûlage rapide
Restreint aux régions qui fournissent de bonnes conditions de combustion
Dés que cela arrive, il faut protéger les humains, les animaux, et les marchandises de
l’impact direct du feu (y compris les avertissements, et peut-être l’évacuation) ;
Au déclenchement du feu , s’assurer qu’il y en place un système à activer pour
l’éteindre.
Au déclenchement de l’incendie, des mesures de prévention/ de minimisation de
l’étalement des résidus brûlés doivent être initiées (ex : la gestion des cendres si
nécessaire) ;
Initiez des contre-mesures pour limiter l’impact.
E) Alternatives disponibles concernant l’Incinération à Ciel Ouvert
• Nettoyage manuel irrégulier
• Les gardes forestiers sont équipés de moyens de communications, en plus d’installation
de miradors pour les grands espaces. La protection civile intervient rapidement à l’aide
de moyens mis à sa disponibilité.
• L’infrastructure d’intervention rapide existe depuis longtemps, mais reste cependant
insuffisante quand il s’agit de terrains accidentés.
• Nettoyage mécanique (pour les brûlures dues à des incendies)
• Les impacts des accidents peuvent être limités seulement par l’intervention rapide pour
éteindre le feu
• Pour empêcher la gravité : interdiction de l’utilisation / application de précurseurs ou de
métaux catalytiques de formation de PCDD/PCDF ;
F) Les Incinérations- peuvent varier d’une région à une autre
• Les causes d’incendies sont à la fois intentionnelles et accidentelles.
• Les feux de forêts se déclenchent pendant la période des grandes chaleurs (forêts
sèches, incendies avec flammes).
• Dans les zones accessibles, les feux de forêts sont généralement circonscrits
rapidement, contrairement aux zones accidentées où les feux ravagent totalement la
zone boisée. Les cendres générées se déplacent parfois jusqu’aux zones habitées.
• Causes : Intentionnelle « » Accidentelle
• Feu chaud à ciel ouvert dans les forêts sèches
• Le brûlage lent sans flamme dans un environnement humide (note : l’humidité ne peut
pas augmenter indéfiniment)
• La longueur de temps du feu et donc, le nombre d’arbres/ buissons brûlés
G) Techniques d’amélioration abattements
Il n’existe pas d’incinération de déchets de forêt à ciel ouvert programmées. Ce type de
déchets se dégradent naturellement.
H) Variations régionales
I) Commentaires
Les feux de forêts accidentels, ne peuvent pas être évités, et se produisent surtout en
été (Juillet-Août). Divers mesures sont prises par les pouvoirs publics, pour minimiser le
déclenchement des feux de forêts (nettoyage des espaces, surveillance renforcée, et
existence d’un plan ORSEC pendant la période estivale).
I-c Nettoyage de la végétation pour préparer la moisson
•
A) Composition des déchets.
Matériau organique dérivé des plantes. Une source de plantes spécifique peut varier, et
peut avoir un petit effet.
43
B) Barrières pour éliminer les incinérations à ciel ouvert
Barrière
1- Ignorance, manque d’informations
2 - Moyen
A)
B)
C)
•
•
Remède
Education et sensibilisation
L’état doit aider l’agriculteur par un
financement sous forme de prêt
Documents Politiques Spécifiques
Minimisation des déchets
Alternatives disponibles à l’incinération à ciel ouvert
Retrait mécanique avec addition de nutriments
Les techniques de plantation sans incinération (pour des cultures appropriées)
D) Techniques d’incinération et Attributs
E) Techniques d’Amélioration
• Choix des jours pour permettre la réduction de l’exposition des humains à la fumée
F) Commentaires
2- FEUX DE DÉCHARGES PUBLIQUES
(Intentionnels ou imprévisibles)
Les déchets solides mis en décharge, subissent une récupération à hauteur de 20
%. Les produits récupérés pour un éventuel recyclage sont :les matières plastiques et
certains matériaux. Cette récupération est faite par des « chiffonniers » qui leur permet un
gain substantiel.
Ces décharges publiques ne sont pas totalement gérées ce qui entraîne pour la majorité
d’entre elles des combustions non contrôlées.
B) Barrières pour éliminer les incinérations à ciel ouvert
Barrière
1.Recherche de terrains adéquats (sol
imperméable loin des habitations,
voies d’accès rapides etc. …)
2. Accès non contrôlé
3. Canalisation des Bio gaz formés
4.Tri en amont (à partir de la
ménagère)
5. Ramassage
Remède
*Etude d’impact pour l’implantation des décharges
contrôlées
*Gestion rigoureuse des CET
*Mise en place de centres d’ enfouissement
techniques à travers le territoire national.
*Meilleures pratiques de gestion (clôture,
gardiennage, contrôle des déchets, etc. …)
*Dans les CET au stade de la réalisation, des bio
gaz formés sont collectés et brûlés (torchères)
*Utilisation des bio gaz comme source d’énergie.
*Sensibilisation
*Mettre à la disposition des ménagères des
sachets de couleur différente pour le tri.
*Rentabiliser et renforcer les moyens de collectes
*Ramassage des déchets à des horaires
convenables.
C) Documents politiques
• Des textes réglementaires concernant la gestion des déchets solides existent :
- Loi n°93-03 du 05/02/83 relative à la protection de l’environnement.
- Loi n° 01-19 du 12/12/01 relative à la gestion du contrôle et à
l’élimination de déchets.
44
- Loi n° 01-20 du 12/12/01 relative à l’aménagement du territoire et du
développement durable.
• Avec l’ouverture prochaine des centres d’enfouissement technique (CET) l’incinération à
ciel ouvert bne posera plus de problème ; les bio gaz sont brûlés à travers les torchères.
D) Minimisation des Déchets / Stratégies de Diversion
• La stratégie algérienne en matière de gestion des déchets solides, se base
essentiellement sur les points suivants :
Le tri en amont qui permettra de recycler certains déchets et produire un
composant pour les besoins de l’agriculture.
E) Alternatives disponibles à l’incinération à ciel ouvert de ces
déchets
Les centres d’enfouissement techniques représentent une alternative à l’incinération
des déchets à ciel ouvert..
Dans ce cadre, l’Algérie, a lancé un programme de réalisation de 48 CET. Ces CET
régleront le problème d’utilisation de grandes surfaces et les émanations de fumées.
Dans les zones rurales, les habitants incinèrent eux mêmes leurs déchets.
A travers le tri qui se fera en amont, il est possible d’améliorer l’incinération en
évitant les combustions génératrices de dioxines et furannes.
H) Variations Régionales/Commentaires
Dans les grandes agglomérations les déchets générés sont plus diversifiés et
susceptibles d’émettre des dioxines et furannes et leur gestion doit être prise en charge
d’une manière différente que la gestion des déchets provenant des zones rurales.
3- DÉCHETS RÉSIDENTIELS
A) Composition des Déchets
L’organisme chargé de la gestion des déchets au niveau d’Alger (NETCOM) envisage une étude
sur la composition des déchets produits par la population de la ville.
La quantité de ces déchets a été estimée en 2003 à un million de tonne, constitués principalement
de déchets ménagers (humides).
B) Barrières pour éliminer l’incinération à ciel ouvert
Barrière
Remède
.1. Recherches de terrains adéquats
*Etude d’impact pour l’implantation des
(sol imperméable loin des habitations,
décharges contrôlées
voies d’accès rapides etc …)
*Gestion rigoureuse des CET
*Mise en place de centres d’enfouissement
techniques à travers le territoire national.
2.Accès non contrôlé
Meilleures pratiques de gestion (clôture,
gardiennage, contrôle des déchets, etc
3.Canalisation des Bio gaz formés
Dans les CET au stade de la réalisation, des
bio gaz formés sont collectés et brûlés
(torchères)
*Utilisation des bio gaz comme source
d’énergie.
4.Tri en amont (à partir de la ménagère *Sensibilisation
*Mettre à la disposition des ménagères des
sachets de couleur différentes pour le tri.
5. Ramassage
*Rentabiliser et renforcer les moyens de
45
collectes
*Ramassage des déchets à des horaires
convenables.
4) DÉCHETS COMMERCIAUX
•
•
Aucune étude n’a été faite concernant ce type de déchets.
D’une manière générale, les déchets commerciaux sont considérés comme les déchets
municipaux et sont donc collectés et mis en décharge comme des déchets ménagers.
B) Barrières à l’élimination d’incinération à ciel ouvert
Barrière
Remède
1. Aucune distinction
*Réglementation juridiquement contraignante.
*Sensibilisation.
2. Pas de tri
*Faciliter et encourager les tris
* Mettre les moyens à la disposition des concernés
pour faciliter le tri.
3. Décharges spécifiques à ce type *Ouvrir des décharges adéquates.
de déchets
4. Quantité insuffisante pour *Prévoir des collectes périodiques.
justifier la collecte
5. Moyens de collecte non *Mettre les moyens adéquats de collecte de ces
spécifiques.
déchets.
C) Documents politiques Spécifiques
• Interdire la mise en décharge de ce type de déchets avec les déchets ménagers.
• Selon le principe pollueur –payeur, une taxe sur les déchets est instaurée en Algérie.
• L’Algérie est dotée d’une réglementation concernant la gestion de déchets solides.
• Un programme interministériel, sur la gestion des déchets solides, et donc des déchets
commerciaux, a été initié et mis en application.
D) Minimisation des déchets/ Stratégies de Diversion
Les emballages utilisés en Algérie proviennent en majeure partie de l’importation.
Actuellement, il n’existe pas de structures qui utilisent des techniques de réduction de ces
déchets.
Certains emballages sont récupérés par le recyclage (cartons, plastiques, emballage
métallique).
E) Alternatives disponibles à l’incinération à ciel ouvert
Comme déjà proposé plus haut, prévoir des cycles de collectes périodiques, et
l’ouverture de décharges publiques appropriées à ce type de déchets.
Un tri, avec possibilité de recyclage sur site peut être envisagé pour la réduction des
déchets.
F) Pratiques d’incinération :
Dans ce domaine, l’Algérie n’a pas d’expérience car aucune pratique d’incinération
n’a été mise en œuvre.
G) Techniques d’Amélioration
Il n’existe pas d’incinération de déchets de forêt à ciel ouvert programmées. Ce type de
déchets se dégradent naturellement
A) Commentaires
Les déchets sont généralement volumineux, donc il est plus facile de procédé a un tri.
Prévoir des unités de récupération permettant de réduire ces déchets.
46
Ce type de déchets nécessite une gestion demandant des moyens spécifiques.
5-DÉCHETS DE CONSTRUCTION ET DE DÉMOLITION
A) Composition des Déchets
Les déchets de construction et de démolition se composent principalement de béton,
d’acier, de brique et à un degrés moindre de verre et de bois.
Des sites appropriés existent à travers le territoire Algérien. Ces déchets sont
concassés et utilisés dans le revêtement des routes.
B) Barrières à l’élimination d’incinération à ciel ouvert
Barrière
1. Manque de moyens de recyclage
2. Manque de décharges appropriées
3. Pas de tri avant la mise en décharge
4. Technique de demolition
5. Recyclage
Remède
*Encourager l’ouverture de centres de
recyclage
*Aménager des espaces appropriés pour
recevoir ces déchets
*Encourager les entrepreneurs à réaliser
un tri en amont.
*Utilisation des techniques modernes de
démolition (explosifs, etc …)
*Valoriser les produits recyclés (Gravats
pour revêtement, acier, bois)
C) Documents spécifiques
•
•
Inciter les investisseurs dans le recyclage de ces déchets, en valorisant les différents
produits.
Prendre des dispositions réglementaires pour le contrôle et le processus de démolition
et de mise en décharge.
D) Minimisation des déchets/ Stratégies de Diversion
•
Lors des démolitions de constructions, une séparation des divers composants (béton,
briques, acier, bois, verre, etc…) se fait généralement sur site. Les produits récupérés
sont réutilisés.
En Algérie, cette catégorie de déchets ne subit pas d’incinération à ciel ouvert.
F) Techniques d’incinération- peuvent varier d’une région à une autre
• Aucune incinération
• Aucune incinération
H) Variations régionales
I) Commentaires
• Une grande partie des déchets de démolition, en raison de leur valeur ajoutée ; est
réutilisée, dans divers secteurs notamment dans les travaux publics et matériaux de
construction.
• Il existe des sites spécialement aménagés pour recevoir ces déchets.
47
6- EQUIPEMENTS MILITAIRES/MUNITIONS
7- INCINÉRATION À CIEL OUVERT DES DÉBRIS
POST CATASTROPHIQUES
•
•
•
Déchets de démolition d’habitations (dans le cas d’un séisme).
Déchets provenant d’inondations (boues, détrituces de toutes sortes).
Explosions accidentelles d’usines (hydrocarbures, produits chimiques et le bâti).
B) Barrières pour l’élimination de l’incinération à ciel ouvert
Barrière
1 Réglementation
vigilance
Remède
de *Prévoir une réglementation stricte et
contraignante permettant une vigilance
plus accrue.
2. Pas de contrôle et de suivi
*Mettre en place un comité intersectoriel
pour le contrôle et le suivi.
*Mettre en place un comité de contrôle et
de suivi, au niveau des installations à
haut risque pour une bonne application
des textes en vigueur.
3. Manque de communication
*Equipements de brigades d’intervention
en matériel adéquat.
4. Manque de moyens d’intervention *Education hygiène et sécurité et
rapide
information sur les risques, vulgarisation
des conduites à tenir en cas de
catastrophe.
5. Manque de plan de prévention et *Chaque secteur doit avoir un plan
exercices de stimulation.
d’intervention rapide.
*Prévoir des exercices de stimulation
annuellement.
6. Formation de personnel
*Former des spécialistes à cet effet
(Protection civile, santé, forces armées).
.et
manque
C) Documents politiques spécifiques
• Application de la législation en vigueur relative à la protection des forêts (décret de
1987).
D) Minimisation des déchets/stratégie de diversion
• Prévention : agir en amont
•
•
•
Respect des normes de sécurité (construction et matériaux)
Prévoir des brigades d’intervention rapide
Gestion rationnelle des déchets après une catastrophe.
•
Récupération et recyclage le plus large possible.
F/G/H Techniques d’incinération/d’amélioration/ commentaire
48
•
Dans le cas de l’Algérie, les déchets provenant des catastrophes, sont pour certains
recyclés et récupérés et pour le reste mis en décharge.
8- FEUX ACCIDENTELS
Bois, papier textiles, plastiques, essence, vernis, asphalte. Le pourcentage dépend du
type d’objets en feu ( Ex : maisons, commerce, agricoles, constructions publiques et voitures
et autres véhicules
B) Barrière à l’élimination d’incinération à ciel ouvert
Barrière
1. Manipulation imprudente de feux
2. Equipements électriques défectueux et
installations électriques vétustes.
3. Accidents de la circulation.
4. Accidents dans l’industrie
5. Activités criminelles
Remède
*Education et information sur les risques.
*Norme de sécurité des produits
*Contrôle périodique des installations.
*Mesures de prévention et campagnes
de sensibilisation.
*Respect des normes de sécurité
*Contrôle périodique des équipements.
*Surveillance et gardiennage
*Vigilance et mesures de sécurité.
C) Documents politiques spécifiques
• Loi sur les risques majeurs et les grandes catastrophes ( juillet 2003).
D) Minimisation des déchets
• Intervention efficace et rapide des équipes d’intervention
E) Alternatives disponibles
Aucune
F) Techniques d’incinération
Pas d’incinération
• Former et sensibiliser et éveiller les consciences
• Améliorer les mesures d’intervention
• Renforcer les contrôles de sécurité.
H) Commentaires
• Dans le cas de l’Algérie, après un feu accidentel, les déchets générés sont mis en
décharge et ne subisse aucune incineration.
49
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY MR. PATRICK FINLAY (CANADA)
-----Original Message----From: Ternan,Sarah [NCR] [mailto:[email protected]]
Posted At: 16 June 2004 22:47
Posted To: SSC
Conversation: Canada Comments RE: Draft Guidelines and Guidance on BAT and BEP
Subject: Canada Comments RE: Draft Guidelines and Guidance on BAT and BEP
Importance: High
On behalf of Patrick Finlay, Canada's member of the Stockholm Convention Expert Group on Best
Available Techniques (BAT) and Best Environmental Practices (BEP), please find below comments
and information for various source sector draft BAT/BEP documents for consideration.
Regards,
Sarah Ternan
for
Patrick Finlay
Environment Canada
----------------------------------------------------------Section V.A.1 - Waste Incinerators: Medical, Hazardous and Sewadge Sludge
Under Section 3.3.1.2 there should be a distinction made between chlorinated and non-chlorinated
wastes when discussing temperatures. Temperatures of 850-1000 C can be considered adequate for
destruction of non-chlorinated hazardous waste; while 1000-1200 C is considered adequate for
destruction of chlorinated hazardous waste, i.e. dioxins and furans, PCBs and HCB. This issue is
raised as these guidelines identify "pass through" as one source of unintentional POP release.
Also - for consideration by the authors/country leads for both the document noted above and section
V.A.2 (Medical Waste incinerators) - Canadian emission limits for the above designated sources can
be found in the attached files (Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans, May, 2001 and
accompanying stack test requirements).
http://www.ccme.ca/initiatives/standards.html?category_id=50#23
<<d_f_incin_stk_tst_rqmts_e.pdf>> <<d_and_f_standard_e.pdf>>
Section VI.C Residential Combustion Sources
Additional clarification would be beneficial for Tables 1 & 3. A reference or notation of the source of
the emission factors should be included for these tables.
In Table 3 - it's suggested that further explanation be included to better clarify the differences in the
two sets of PCDD/PCDF release estimates.
For the section on recommendations, it is suggested that an annex of information sources relating to
'improved wood stoves' be compiled and included, as may be possible. Such a list of information
sources could be useful for all countries (developed, developing and those with economies in
transition) in developing their National Implementation Plans and associated Action Plans.
Section VI.E Firing installations for wood and biomass
Suggest that the recommendation in Table 3 regarding the primary measure "Increased residence
time of flue gases upstream of the boiler" be further expanded and/or clarified.
Section V.C Production of Pulp
It's recommended that sections 1.3 and 2.2.1 be included in the BAT/BEP document for this source
(in response to the question posed by the country lead/author). Additional information and details
could be appended or included, as deemed appropriate to assist countries in the effective
minimization/elimination of UPOPs from pulp production generally.
50
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY PROF. MARAT ISHANKULOV (KAZAKHSTAN)
Dear colleagues,
My comments on the proposed variant of “Best Available Techniques – Best
Environmental Practices (BAT-BEP) for Open Burning of Waste” text are as follows.
1. I think it advisable in Section 1,0 (General Guidance) to make a special note of whom the
Guidance is addressed. In my opinion, it is most urgently needed by developing countries and
countries with economies in transition. In these countries all forms of open burning are widely spread,
frequently without any scientifically-based background.
Besides, the use of best techniques and best environmental practices in this field is a key to
solving social problems of local communities and promoting their democratization. For this reason I
highly appreciate this very section - «open burning» of the Guidance on BAT & BEP.
2. The classification of open burning types is not perfect yet in spite of all efforts to improve
it.
Though this part of the Guidance BAT and ВЕР considers only open burning of waste, item
4.3 addresses not only waste. Such categories as «crude oil» and «oil well» do not fall into waste.
Military Ordinance/Munitions (item 4.4) are not waste as well.
3. I propose my own view of the problem (table).
Titles of classification categories (upper row) of the table are relative. We can name them not as
types, class, category, etc. as it is done in the proposed variant. What is important is their hierarchy,
consistency, complete account of all open burning categories.
4. I have no any additional proposals on sections 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0. Different prevention
methods can be proposed for inclusion into them (prevention measures), technological control
approaches to the by-products emission.
Table
Categories of open burning of production and consumption waste, natural resources and products as
sources of POPs by-products
Type
Open
burning of
production
and
consumption
waste,
Natural
resources,
products
in conditions
favoring
formation of
POPs byproducts
(low
Subtype
Open
burning of
production
and
consumption
waste
Kind
Intended
burning
Class
Homogeneous
51
Subclass
Vegetation
Category
1. Agricultural/crop residue
2. Land Clearing Debris).
3. Yard Waste(vegetation).
4. Burning of pressed dung for
cooking and heating purposes
Animal
5. Burning of animal carcasses
Mineral
(organomineral)
Artificial
(organic
synthesis
products)
6. Burning of sewer sludge
7. Waste water sediments
8. Agricultural Plastic
9. Tires.
10. Cable.
Type
temperatures,
chlorine and
organic
substances
presence)
Subtype
Open
burning of
natural
resources
Kind
Class
Mixed
Unintended
burning
Mixed
Intended
burning
Homogeneous
Unintended
burning
Homogeneous
Subclass
17. Landfills/dumps
18. Construction debris
Vegetation
19. Savanna and forest
Mineral
(organomineral)
20. Petroleum gas flares at gas
and oil fields in chloride class
landscapes (ocean coast, sea
and lake shores).
21. Forest and grassland fires.
Vegetation
Mineral
(organomineral)
Open
burning of
products
Category
11. Household waste.
12. Medical waste.
13. Industrial non-hazardous
waste.
14.
Сonstruction/Demolition/Post
disaster Debris
15. Automobile shredder fluff
16. Electronics waste
22. Crude Oil.
23. Oil well/Oil Spills
Unintended
burning
Mixed
24. Vehicle fires
25. Fires in production areas
and dwellings.
Intended
burning
Mixed
26. Fireworks
27. Military
Ordinance/Munitions.
52
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY MR. HANS-PETER FAHRNI (SWITZERLAND)
53
54
55
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY DR. HEIDELORE FIEDLER (UNEP)
Dear Maria Cristina,
I apologize for the delay with submission of my comments to the draft guidelines. Nevertheless, I
hope that they will find entry into the existing guidance.
My comments includes additional information for amendment of the present drafts and specific
comments on individual documents and some comments related to several documents. For the first
group of additional comments, I kindly ask you to forward the documents attached to this e-mail to
the respective coordinators of documents; however, it should be taken into account that all papers
issued by publishing companies are subject to copyright and cannot be put on the WebPage.
Kind regards,
Heidi Fiedler
General comments on style and inconsistencies:
- Apply abbreviations and acronyms as defined in the Stockholm Convention throughout all
documents, e.g., PCDD/PCDF (and not PCDD/Fs, PCBs, etc.) throughout all text;
- Note: the terms "dioxins" and "furans" are not used in the Stockholm Convention and, more
important, they are wrong since these terms refer to other chemicals and not to PCDD and PCDF;
- Note that UPOP(s) is not an agreed acronym. Personally, I do not like it. If considered to introduce
an acronym for unintentional POPs, then it should be u-POPs;
- Insert a blank between numbers and units (including %, °C);
- Volumes have to be harmonized: the European and Asian authors use Nm³ (normal cubic meter)
whereas the Canadian use Rm³ (Reference cubic meter). Since Nm³ is the wider used standardization
(besides 25 EU countries also in the Aarhus POPs Protocol), I suggest to take Nm³ as the basis for
these guidance documents;
- Commonly used concentrations should be used throughout all documents: Stack concentrations
should be given in ng TEQ/Nm³, ash or solids concentrations in ng TEQ/kg, concentrations in liquids
in pg TEQ/L;
- Limits of detection are not interesting to the chemists. Hat is meant here is limit of quantification
(LOQ and not LOD);
- The term "level" cannot be used when numeric values are given. 0.1 ng/Nm³ is a (mass)
concentration and not a level. Subsequently, we have to talk about limit concentrations or limit
values. If such numbers are legally binding or recommended does not matter. A
law/directive/ordinance will make it legally binding whereas a guideline/orientation is only a
reference and not legally binding;
- All acronyms have to be introduced in text, including chemicals such as SO2, NH3, etc.
Preferentially, each document should have a list of acronyms used, which may later be summarized
into one list;
- the apostrophe cannot be used when a plural is meant, e.g., POP's;
- ppm is not a SI unit and should not be used;
- AMESA is a trade name and should not be used as a generic term when referring to a continuous
sampling method (there are others available that serve the same purpose; e.g.,
DioxinMonitoringSystems);
Ref.: Consideration of Alternatives:
I recognize that the text provided to define the borderlines of "alternatives" as agreed and requested in
the mentioned conference call were not included into the draft. I kindly ask the coordinators to
consider inclusion.
Ref.: Residential combustion sources
This document needs much input since there is almost no information included on PCDD/PCDF. The
references given in the Toolkit for category 3 may be consulted. When listing various firing
installations, categorization has to be made as to the type of the fuels especially to the physical state
56
(solid, liquid, gaseous) and to its purity. Addition of wastes to the fuels results in higher release of
PCDD/PCDF which has been demonstrated in solid residues and stack emissions.
I attach a publication summarizing some of the important findings: Lavric et al. (2004): Dioxin
levels in wood combustion-a review. Biomass and Energy. The list of references should be taken into
account for further reading.
Biomass-Wood
combustion_2003.p..
Ref.: Firing installations for wood and other biomass
See the above paper by Lavric for additional information.
Further reading include Materialien 172 of BUWAL <http://www.umweltschweiz.ch/imperia/md/content/luft/fachgebiet/f/feuerungen/10.pdf>
Mohn et al. <http://www.empa-ren.ch/Internet-Files/Programm/Aktuelles/aktualitaeten/StatusSeminar/pdf-files/Mohn-J.pdf>
Marutzky <http://www.wki.fraunhofer.de/projekte/abschluss08206.pdf>
Dissertation <http://www.biblio.tu-bs.de/ediss/data/20010723a/20010723a.pdf>
Finally, this presentation contains some interesting technical details
<http://www.wtb.tue.nl/woc/ptc/education/4S600/Section4-combustionprinciples+emissions.pdf>
Additional reading:
- the inventory reports of Landesumweltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen on behalf of the EU provide
information on performances of European plants, especially as additional information to the ferrous
and non-ferrous metal sectors - both are available for download from the EU dioxin Website
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/dioxin/>:
LUA (1997): Identification of Relevant Industrial Sources of Dioxins and Furans in Europe.
Materialien No. 43. Landesumweltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen, Essen, 1997
LUA (2000): The European Dioxin Emission Inventory - Stage II. Final Report December 2000.
Materialien No. 59. Landesumweltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen, Essen 2001
Other remarks:
- Subsequently to the finalization of the documents, I suggest to take out of the individual documents
issues that are common to many of the documents. This should be done to first save space and make
the individual guidance better understandable and second to avoid contradictory
statements/requirements. Examples include: handling of ashes from thermal processes, reporting and
documentation, sampling and analysis;
- in the same way, all flue gas cleaning technology can be summarized and listed in one document and
afterwards referred to in the other documents; e.g., cement and waste incineration documents
Dr. Heidelore Fiedler
Scientific Affairs Officer
UNEP Chemicals
International Environment House
11-13, chemin des Anémones
CH-1219 Châtelaine (GE)
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (22) 917-8187; mobile: +41 (79) 477-0833
Fax: +41 (22) 797 3460
E-mail: [email protected]
57
COMPILATION OF SUBMISSIONS ON
THE DRAFT GUIDELINES ON BAT AND GUIDANCE ON BEP
RECEIVED BY THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION SECRETARIAT
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY NGOS
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION
AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION
GROWING WITH AMERICA SINCE 1861
Comments of the American Forest & Paper Association on:
Section V.C.
Guidance by source category: Annex C, Part II Source Categories
“Production of pulp using elemental chlorine or chemicals generating elemental chlorine
for bleaching”
Draft of April 15, 2004
Preamble
These comments are provided by the American Paper & Forest Association to assist
the Expert Group in the development of Best Available Techniques and Best
Environmental Practices for the elimination of specific polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans that may be formed during the bleaching
of chemical pulp and emitted to waterways. ( AF&PA contact: Dr. John L. Festa).
General Comments on “Draft Guidelines on BAT for production of pulp using
elemental chlorine”
The current, “Draft Guidelines on BAT for production of pulp using elemental
chlorine” accurately identifies the relevant UPOPs that have the potential for formation
when pulp is produced with elemental chlorine.
The draft guidelines, with some exceptions noted below, describe the internationally
recognized, scientifically sound, and widely implemented, Best Available Techniques
for their reduction and elimination. Furthermore, the success of these Best Available
Techniques has been well documented. Relevant international regulatory standards
are also provided to guide Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants toward implementation of the Convention.
Section 1.3 Other sources of UPOPs in pulp mills
Section 1.3 (1.3.1 – 1.3.5) is deficient in a number of respects:
•
•
•
The descriptions of the releases are general in nature;
There is no description of the relevant UPOPs for each potential release;
There is no discussion of mechanisms of formation or sources of contamination
of the relevant UPOPs;
58
•
There is no discussion of appropriate and demonstrated Best Available
Techniques for reduction or elimination of relevant UPOPs;
•
There is no documentation of successful implementation of Best Available
Techniques; and
•
There is no guidance provided to the Parties of relevant regulatory standards
and the background upon which such standards are based.
For these reasons AF&PA recommends this chapter be removed until each of the above
noted issues has been fully addressed and supported by additional information,
and/or required research, technology development and economical implementation.
Section 2.2.1 Upstream and downstream aspects
Section 2.2.1 while emphasizing bleaching processes where chlorine is still practiced,
for the most part, discusses technology options for elimination of chlorinated organic
compounds in general. Development of BAT/BET for elimination of chlorinated
organic chemicals is clearly outside the scope of the treaty. For this reason alone,
AF&PA recommends this chapter be removed from the guidelines.
In addition, AF&PA believes this section should be removed based on the following
summary. Since the late 1980s, the international scientific community has rigorously
examined and rejected the hypothesis that the presence of and the amount of
chlorinated organic substances is a measure of potential adverse environmental effects.
More importantly, the scientific community has rejected the hypothesis that decreased
chlorinated organic emissions will result in improved effluent quality and
environmental protection. Overwhelming scientific evidence indicates these
hypotheses are flawed for the following reasons:
• Chlorinated organic compounds, as measured by the amount of chlorine attached to
organic substances, is not a predictor of bioassay responses for either primary or
secondary treated effluents1.
• There are no established causal relationships between ecological effects and the
concentration of chlorinated organic substances2.
• Factors other than the presence or absence of chlorine containing organic substances
determine ecological responses. Natural compounds extracted from wood in
pulping processes and released to the environment have been identified as one
likely cause.
• Ecological responses to fish have been found downstream of mills with and without
chlorine- and/or chlorine dioxide-based bleaching3.
• Model ecosystem studies have shown no relationship between the concentration of
chlorinated organic substance and observed environmental effects4.
O’Connor, B.I., Kovacs, T.G., Voss, R.H. and Martel, P.H. A Study of the Relationship Between
Laboratory Bioassay Response and AOX Content for Pulp Mill Effluents. Journal of Pulp and Paper Science:
Vol. 19. No. 1. January 1993
2 Priha, M. Ecotoxicological Impacts of Pulp Mill Effluents in Finland. 1994 Proceedings International Fate
and Effects of Pulp and Paper Mill Effluents Conference, Vancouver B.C. St. Lucie Press, Florida,
(1996)
3 Williams, T.G., Carey, J.H., Burnison, B.K., Dixon, D.G., and Lee, H.-B. Rainbow Trout Mixed Function
Oxygenase Responses Caused by Unbleached and Bleached Pulp Mill Effluents: A Laboratory Study. 1994
Proceedings International Fate and Effects of Pulp and Paper Mill Effluents Conference. Vancouver
B.C. St. Lucie Press, Florida, (1996)
1
59
• Environmental effects assessed by field studies in receiving waters do not correlate
with the concentration of chlorinated organic substances5.
Finally, the discussion of technologies minimizing bleach plant effluent volume,
delignification, enzyme pretreatment, chemical substitution, effluent treatment, sludge
disposal and combustion processes while relevant in the development of overall
environmental regulations for protection of the ecosystem, are not relevant in this BAT
guideline for elimination of UPOPs.
Specific Comments on “Draft Guidelines on BAT for production of pulp using
elemental chlorine”
Summary
The last line of the second paragraph should be amended as follows:
“… have been identified as potentially being produced ...”
The next sentence should be amended as follows:
“… can be taken for decreasing and/or eliminating …”
The summary would benefit by adding the following to the measures that can taken
for decreasing and/or elimination the formation of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF:
•
•
Maximize knot removal;
Eliminate pulping of wood chips contaminated with polychlorinated phenol;
and
•
Reduce application of molecular chlorine by decreasing active chlorine
multiple.
Section 1.2.1 Process Steps in general
The third line should be amended as follows:
“… residue cleaning and de-knotting …”
Section 1.2.2 Pulping Methods Applied
Something is missing at the end of the second paragraph; see the following:
“… in the case of ? are continuous processes ? are vertical tower constant flow
digesters …”
The last line of the last paragraph should be amended as follows:
Tana, J. and Lehtinen, K-J., The Aquatic Environmental Impact of Pulping and Bleaching Operations - An
Overview. Finnish Environmental Agency, Helsinki, (1996).
5 Munkittrick, K.R., Servos, M.R., Carey, J.H. and Van Der Kraak, G.J. Environmental Impacts of Pulp
and Paper Wastewater: Evidence for a Reduction in Environmental Effects at North American Pulp Mills Since
1992. IAWQ, 1996 Proceedings of the 5th Forest Industries Waste Water Symposium.Vancouver, B.C.,
June 1996.
4
60
“… it is achieved using non-chlorinated compounds such as dithionite or peroxides
…”
The use of the term “non-chlorinated” is unnecessary, as chlorine was never used for
mechanical pulp bleaching.
Section 1.2.2.3 Sulphite Pulping Processes
The last sentence could be amended as follows:
“… Sulphite pulps are relatively bright compared to kraft pulps and are also
relatively easy to bleach with oxygen based chemicals such as peroxides …”
The comment that they are easy to bleach without chlorine chemicals is not necessary.
Section 1.2.3 Bleaching
The first sentence of the third paragraph should be amended as follows:
“… ECF pulp bleached with chlorine dioxide accounts for the predominant share of
roughly three-quarters6 of the bleached pulp produced worldwide …”
The last sentence of the third paragraph should be amended as follows:
“… Roughly 20% of the bleached pulp produced world-wide is still bleached with
some elemental chlorine…”
In the preceding sentence, “some” need not be underlined. The emphasis is not
necessary.
Section 1.2.3.3 Elimination mechanisms for 2378-TCDD/F
This section should be amended as follows:
• The title of Figure 2 should be: “… 2378-TCDF formation with different chlorine
dioxide substitution level”
• The next sentence should be “… 2378-TCDD/F formation will be reduced and
ultimately eliminated by increasing chlorine dioxide substitution …”
• The next paragraph should be amended as follows: “… The summary effect of active
chlorine multiple and chlorine dioxide substitution and precursor concentration can
be seen in the figure 3. The level of the dioxin formation under these conditions, i.e.,
high active chlorine multiple and low chlorine dioxide substitution, is expected to
vary depending on the DBD content of the brownstock …”
• The title of Figure 3 should be: “… Effect of precursor content, active chlorine
multiple and chlorine dioxide substitution level on 2378-TCDD formation …”. The
figure does not show the effect of precursor content.
• The last sentence of the next paragraph should be removed. The fact that ECF
bleaching leads to the formation of a relatively small amount of chlorinated
compounds is true but not relevant to the discussion of the elimination of 23786
Trends in World Bleached Chemical Pulp Production: 1990-2002. Alliance for Environmental
Technology. December, 2002.
61
TCDD/F. The latter half of the sentence discussing 85% substitution is unclear and
confusing.
Section 1.3 Other sources of UPOS in pulp mills
The title should be amended to “… Other sources of UPOPs in pulp mills …”
Section 1.3 (1.3.1 – 1.3.5) is deficient in a number of respects:
•
•
•
The descriptions of the releases are general in nature;
There is no description of the relevant UPOPs for each potential release;
There is no discussion of mechanisms of formation or sources of contamination
of the relevant UPOPs;
•
There is no discussion of appropriate and demonstrated Best Available
Techniques for reduction or elimination of relevant UPOPs;
•
There is no documentation of successful implementation of Best Available
Techniques; and
•
There is no guidance provided to the Parties of relevant regulatory standards
and the background upon which such standards are based.
For these reasons AF&PA recommends this chapter be removed until each of the above
noted issues has been fully addressed and supported by additional information,
and/or required research, technology development and economical implementation.
Section 2.2.1 Upstream and downstream aspects
Section 2.2.1 while emphasizing bleaching processes where chlorine is still practiced,
for the most part, discusses technology options for elimination of chlorinated organic
compounds in general. Development of BAT/BET for elimination of chlorinated
organic chemicals is clearly outside the scope of the treaty. For this reason alone,
AF&PA is of the opinion that this chapter should be removed from the guidelines.
In addition, AF&PA recommends this section be removed based on the following
summary. Since the late 1980s, the international scientific community has rigorously
examined and rejected the hypothesis that the presence of and the amount of
chlorinated organic substances is a measure of potential adverse environmental effects.
More importantly, the scientific community has rejected the hypothesis that decreased
chlorinated organic emissions will result in improved effluent quality and
environmental protection. Overwhelming scientific evidence indicates these
hypotheses are flawed for the following reasons:
• Chlorinated organic compounds, as measured by the amount of chlorine attached to
organic substances, is not a predictor of bioassay responses for either primary or
secondary treated effluents7.
• There are no established causal relationships between ecological effects and the
concentration of chlorinated organic substances8.
O’Connor, B.I., Kovacs, T.G., Voss, R.H. and Martel, P.H. A Study of the Relationship Between
Laboratory Bioassay Response and AOX Content for Pulp Mill Effluents. Journal of Pulp and Paper Science:
Vol. 19. No. 1. January 1993
8 Priha, M. Ecotoxicological Impacts of Pulp Mill Effluents in Finland. 1994 Proceedings International Fate
and Effects of Pulp and Paper Mill Effluents Conference, Vancouver B.C. St. Lucie Press, Florida,
(1996)
7
62
• Factors other than the presence or absence of chlorine containing organic substances
determine ecological responses. Natural compounds extracted from wood in
pulping processes and released to the environment have been identified as one
likely cause.
• Ecological responses to fish have been found downstream of mills with and without
chlorine- and/or chlorine dioxide-based bleaching9.
• Model ecosystem studies have shown no relationship between the concentration of
chlorinated organic substance and observed environmental effects10.
• Environmental effects assessed by field studies in receiving waters do not correlate
with the concentration of chlorinated organic substances11.
•
Finally, the discussion of technologies minimizing bleach plant effluent
volume, delignification, enzyme pretreatment, chemical substitution, effluent
treatment, sludge disposal and combustion processes while relevant in the
development of overall environmental regulations for protection of the ecosystem,
are not relevant in this BAT guideline for elimination of UPOPs.
Section 3 Performance standards
Under 2378-TCDD/2378-TCDF ppq To Water and the USA Ammonium based and
specialty sulphite, the measurement point is: “… in bleach plant effluent…”
Section 4 Performance Reporting
The final sentence of the first full paragraph should be amended as follows:
“… The testing period reverts back to monthly testing if either a quarterly test or an
annual test detects dioxins or furans exceeds the level of quantitation (LOQ) … “
Williams, T.G., Carey, J.H., Burnison, B.K., Dixon, D.G., and Lee, H.-B. Rainbow Trout Mixed Function
Oxygenase Responses Caused by Unbleached and Bleached Pulp Mill Effluents: A Laboratory Study. 1994
Proceedings International Fate and Effects of Pulp and Paper Mill Effluents Conference. Vancouver
B.C. St. Lucie Press, Florida, (1996)
10 Tana, J. and Lehtinen, K-J., The Aquatic Environmental Impact of Pulping and Bleaching Operations - An
Overview. Finnish Environmental Agency, Helsinki, (1996).
11 Munkittrick, K.R., Servos, M.R., Carey, J.H. and Van Der Kraak, G.J. Environmental Impacts of Pulp
and Paper Wastewater: Evidence for a Reduction in Environmental Effects at North American Pulp Mills Since
1992. IAWQ, 1996 Proceedings of the 5th Forest Industries Waste Water Symposium.Vancouver, B.C.,
June 1996.
9
63
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY ARNIKA ASSOCIATION –TOXICS AND WASTE PROGRAMME
Comments on „Draft guidelines and guidance on BAT and BEP for the sources of
dioxins and other unintentionally produced POPs identified in Annex C of the
Stockholm Convention“
The submitted „Draft guidelines and guidance on BAT and BEP for the sources of dioxins and other
unintentionally produced POPs identified in Annex C of the Stockholm Convention“ (quoted as
„Draft guidelines and guidance on BAT and BEP“ further) will undoubtedly represent an important
document for parties of the Stockholm Convention. This document should serve in particular to
fulfilment of the requirements of the Stockholm Convention which requires: „…each country to
reduce the total releases derived from anthropogenic sources of [POPs], with the goal of their
continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate elimination.”
Annex C of the Stockholm Convention further states: “When considering proposals to construct new
facilities or significantly modify existing facilities using processes that release chemicals listed in this
Annex [i.e. dioxins, furans, PCBs and HCB], priority consideration should be given to alternative
processes, techniques or practices that have similar usefulness but which avoid the formation and
release of such chemicals.” (Annex C, Part V (B)(b))
When reviewing the „Draft guidelines and guidance on BAT and BEP“ from the point of view
of the two above-mentioned quotations of the text of the Convention, it has to be stated that the
Draft is not in accordance with them or it does not fulfil even a half of them. For this reason, we
require revision of the Draft. Specifically, in the case of incineration of wastes, either in incinerators
or in cement kilns, an important part is avoidance of these practices. The description of the Best
Environmental Practice should contain also a description of the specific sources included into Part V.
Therefore, in the case of incineration of municipal wastes, we lack description of methods used in the
cities and states which adopted „Zero waste“ policy as their waste management policy. The Australian
city Canberra could serve as an example for a description of such method. Similarly, in the case of
description of medical waste incineration, we lack a more detailed description of alternative methods
of medical waste treatment. The comprehensive report prepared by Health Care Without Harm
network „Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies“ can be used as a source for such
description. We recommend to do this when revising the „Draft guidelines and guidance on BAT and
BEP“.
One of the important methods resulting in reduction of POPs releases is, for example,
elimination of PVC, as a material comprising chlorine, from the waste which is
incinerated or deposited into landfills. Incineration of PVC and other chlorinated
substances results in higher likelihood of POPs formation, as proved by numerous
studies. Therefore, we hope that recommendation to eliminate PVC, and, optionally,
further materials, from the flow of wastes into incinerators and landfills, will be
incorporated into the „Draft guidelines and guidance on BAT and BEP“. From our point
of view, BEP in the case of PVC is reduction of its use with the goal of its total
replacement.
In the countries which have experience with introduction of full informing of the public
about flows of toxic chemicals through publicly available Pollutant Release and Transfer
Register, reduction of all toxic chemicals releases is evident. For this reason, we believe
that the list of BEP in the „Draft guidelines and guidance on BAT and BEP“ should
include also establishment of PRTRs. From this point of view, recommendation to the
parties of the Convention to adopt PRTR Protocol to Aarhus Convention should be
considered.
The „Draft guidelines and guidance on BAT and BEP“ reflect, to a certain extent, loopholes in „The
Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin and Furan Releases“, or more
precisely, its shortcomings concerning releases of other unwanted by-products (PCBs and HCB), and
64
in the field of assessment of the content of unwanted by-products in solid and liquid residues. We lack
such assessment in the part dealing with incineration of wastes in cement kilns. If HCB is formed
during incineration of hazardous wastes in incinerators, then certain emissions of this chemical can be
expected also during incineration of wastes in cement kilns as it was measured in Poland (see further
detail comments). It is not possible to be satisfied with the statement that the emissions of HCB and
PCB are not subject to regulatory monitoring in cement plants.
All technologies, including incineration of hazardous wastes (both in incinerators and in cement
kilns), plasma arc, pyrolysis and others should be compared according to their Destruction
Efficiencies in full TEQs scale, in the „Draft guidelines and guidance on BAT and BEP“. Therefore
the following part is specifically focused on POPs waste destruction.
Criteria for destruction of POPs waste
Parties are to take measures according to the Stockholm Convention so that POPs wastes are:
∼
∼
Disposed of in such a way that the persistent organic pollutant content is destroyed or
irreversibly transformed so that they do not exhibit the characteristics of persistent organic
pollutants...
…not permitted to be subject to disposal operations that may lead to recovery, recycling,
reclamation, direct reuse or alternative uses for POPs.
Criteria from Stockholm Convention:
A suitable destruction process/technology therefore should:
∼
∼
∼
∼
Prevent the formation of dioxins, furans and other by-product POPs.
Prevent the release of dioxins/furans and other by-product POPs.
Not generate any wastes with POPs characteristics.
Not utilise any POPs disposal methods which are non-destructive, such as landfilling or
recycling in any form.
By undersigned NGOs endorsed criteria for destruction of (historical) POPs waste originally prepared
by Greenpeace:
•
•
An effective destruction efficiency of 100% - taking into account all inputs and releases;
Complete containment of all process streams to enable testing and reprocessing if
necessary to ensure;
•
No uncontrolled releases from the process.
Further Considerations when evaluating technologies:
•
•
•
•
Eliminate inappropriate technologies (based on guidance/criteria)
–
E.g. formation of POPs/releases of POPs/POPs wastes/landfill etc
Destruction Efficiency (based on inputs vs. all outputs)
Ability to contain all process streams
Ability to reprocess materials, residues, gases, liquids if required
65
•
•
•
•
•
Availability of complete process information (analytical data)
Track record/commercial availability
Safety/OH&S
Hazardous materials use
Community acceptability
We prefer to use a concept of Destruction Efficiency rather than Destruction and Removal Efficiency
commonly used during the evaluation of technologies for POPs destruction. Difference between these
two concepts is quite clear from paper prepared by D. Luscombe as Greenpeace factsheet (NonIncineration Technology Fact Sheet #2).
Few detail comments
In Section V.B. “Cement kilns firing hazardous waste”, Table 1: “Summary of PCDD/PCDF
measurements data” is contained. This Table attempts to summarise the measured concentrations of
PCDD/PCDF in flue gases. There were done measurements on cement kilns co-burning waste as fuel
in the Czech Republic in 2002 - 2003. Only in one case a level of 0.005 ng I-TEQ/m3 was measured.
The rest of results (12 measurements together) were in a range of 0.023 - 2.3 ng I-TEQ/m3. In three
cases, the results exceeded the limit of 0.1 ng I-TEQ/m3.
Measurements done in Poland in a cement kiln co-incinerating non-hazardous waste found that
emissions of PCBs and HCB rose many times in comparison with a cement kiln burning coal only,
what is contrary to statement in chapter 3.4 of Section V.B. of the „Draft guidelines and guidance on
BAT and BEP“: “However, some measurements have revealed that HCB could not be detected, i. e.
HCB emissions is most probably not an issue for the cement industry.”
Cement kiln
Co-incinerating waste
Burning coal
PCDD/F ng-TEQ/m3
0.070
0.055
PCBs ng-TEQ/m3
8.95
4.45
HCB ng-TEQ/m3
44.2
2.90
Ref.: Grochowalski A., Sprawozdanie z przeprowadzonych pomiarow i oznaczania stezenia
PCDDs/PCDFs, HCB i PCBs, 30.09.2002; http://ks.ios.edu.pl/gef/doc/GF-POL-INV-R1.PDF
Comment to Section V.B., chapter 3. Process Outputs: Recycling cement kiln dust (CKD) directly to
the kiln generally results in a gradual increase in alkali content of generated dust that may damage
cement kiln linings, produce inferior cement, and increase particle emissions.i In Europe, CKD is
commonly added directly to the product cement.ii This practice may well explain the PCDD/PCDF
levels of 5.1 to 17.8 ng I-TEQ/kg in clinker that has been reported by Denmark,iii since PCDD/PCDF
levels as high as 297 ng I-TEQ/kg are known to occur in CKD.iv
Elevated PCDD/PCDF levels in CKD suggest that fugitive emissions of CKD
constitute significant releases of PCDD/PCDF. Fugitive emissions of CKD
associated PCDD/PCDF occur not only with operation of kilns but also
subsequent handling, storage and disposal of CKD.
For example, the
Environmental Protection Agency offered the following evaluation:v
may
and
with
U.S.
Additionally, particulate emissions of fugitive dust are the major contributor of CKD to EPA's
indirect foodchain pathway model. The Agency's quantitative modeling of ``indirect'' food chain
pathways, both aquatic and agricultural, indicates potential human health effects, both cancer and
non-cancer. A wide range of chemical constituents, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
barium, thallium, lead, and dioxins, were indicated as constituents of concern at various plants.
Because some CKD disposal units are located near, and in some instances immediately adjacent
to, farm fields, rural residences with gardens, or surface waters containing fish, there is potential
66
for indirect risk from the consumption of CKD-contaminated beef, vegetables and fish, as well as
ingestion of CKD-contaminated water during recreational swimming.
In Section V.A.1. “Municipal and hazardous waste, and sewage sludge”, there is stated in Table 6.3
that by incinerating 1 tonne of MSW, 210 kg of bottom ash is produced. In the Czech MSWI it is up
to 370 kg according to records from the MSWI Termizo Liberec.
You can find more detailed data from Poland useful for medical waste incineration guidelines in
section V.A.2. in Annex to our Comments.
Conclusions
As follows from the previous text, we require completion, or, optionally, revision of the „Draft
guidelines and guidance on BAT and BEP“ in order to contain:
- „Zero waste“ policy examples as realistic alternative to municipal waste incineration avoiding new
POPs releases generated by waste incineration and/or by fires on landfills;
- more detailed description of alternatives to incineration of medical wastes;
- more detailed description of alternatives to incineration of hazardous wastes;
- separate dealing with incineration of hazardous wastes in the „Draft guidelines and guidance on
BAT and BEP“, because this is a waste different in many aspects from municipal waste;
- more detailed description of chemical treatment of fly and boiler ashes, resulting in decomposition
of POPs;
- comparison of all technologies by means of Destruction Efficiencies based on full TEQ and/or all
POPs releases assessment;
- reduction of PVC and other substances, incinerating of which, or, optionally, firing of
which on landfills, or in the case of which household and/or open burning of waste leads to
POPs releases;
- establishment of publicly available PRTRs incorporating full information on POPs in all recorded
flows, as information systems which, in its consequence, result in reduction of releases of toxic
chemicals in general.
These comments were endorsed by following NGOs and experts:
Ing. Milan Havel, Ing. Petr Hrdina and RNDr. Jindrich Petrlik, Arnika Association, Czech
Republic
Dr. Mahmood A. Khwaja, Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), Islamabad.
Pakistan
Pawel Gluszynski, Waste Prevention Association - 3R, Krakow, Poland
Boryana Hrissimova, independent environmental expert, Sofia, Bulgaria
Ralph Ryder, Communities Against Toxics, United Kingdom
Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, USA
Ellen Connett, Editor, Waste Not, Canton, NY, USA
Huub Scheele, Both ENDS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
67
Ing. Cestmir Hrdinka, Executive director, Health Care Without Harm Europe, Prague, Czech Republic
(undersigning the comments related to medical waste)
Donald L. Hassig, Director, Cancer Action NY, USA
Eugeniy Lobanov, Foundation for Realization of Ideas (FRI), Belarus
Igor Hadjamberdiev "PAN Central Asia network" Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan-Tadjikistan
Miroslav Beranek, Czech Ecological Society, Czech Republic
Sonia S. Mendoza, President, Mother Earth Foundation, Philippines
Vratislav Bina, Civic Association Suchomasty, Czech Republic
Any reactions please send to:
Arnika Association - Toxics and Waste Programme
Chlumova 17
130 00 Praha 3
Czech Republic
tel. and fax number: + 420 222 781 471
e-mail: [email protected]
ANNEX:
Table 1. Non-incineration medical waste treatment technologies certified for the Polish
market:
G.P.P.U.
(Polish)
Ecodas
(French)
Meteka
(Austrian)
Newster
(Italian)
Sintion
(Austrian)
Chemical
Autoclave +
Thermal
Microwave
Treatment
Sintion 1.1.
Newster 10
Installation
Autoclave
TSO 150
Autoclave
T.300
Microwave
Medister
360
Level
sterilisation
sterilisation
sterilisation sterilisation sterilisation
Maximum quantity [TPA]
*
350
300
130
370
**120
Capacity [kg/cycle]
70
35
12 – 18
10 – 25
12
Chamber capacity [m ]
0,93
0,35
0,06
0,13
0,103
Installation dimension
L x W x H [m]
2,4x1,5x2,7
1,85x2,1x3
1,7x1,05x0,8
Installation mass [kg]
3150
2000
480
1100
430
Power supply type [V]
3 x 380
380
3 x 380
3 x 380
3 x 400
11,2
17
no data
30
no data
166 000 €
130 000 €
70 000 €
85 000 €
50 000 €
3
Power [kW]
Price net
[excluding VAT]
68
1,2x0,8x1,
0,84x1,2x1,1
4
G.P.P.U.
(Polish)
Ecodas
(French)
Meteka
(Austrian)
Newster
(Italian)
Sintion
(Austrian)
without steam
generator
without
steam
generator
yes
yes
yes
24 – 36
12
12
12
12 - 18
Water use per cycle [m3]
0,25
0,1
0,05
0,15 – 0,3
no data
Steam use per cycle [kg]
30
15
–
–
–
Energy use per cycle
[kWh]
5
3
8,5
0,6
1
none
The price includes all
equipment
Term of guarantee
[month]
Chemical use per cycle
[kg]
Cycle time [minute]
Shredder
Chamber unload
none
none
40 – 90
40 – 60
55
15 – 25
10 – 30
yes
yes
no
yes
no
automatic
manual
~ 90
< 50
automatic
Waste temperature right
after process [oC]
*
**
none
0,3 – 0,5
{14 – 15%
NaClO}
gravitational gravitational
80 - 100
80
50
Maximum cycle time, and full load; operational for 7466 hours per year (85%).
Sintion requires 8 hours break per twenty-four hours.
Investment costs
recalculated for maximum capacity
[€ net/tonne]
2000
1500
512
474
433
500
Newster
Ecodas
G.P.P.U.
Outdated
incinerator
229
Modern
incinerator
0
538
416
Sintion
683
Meteka
1000
Modern incinerator: equipped with secondary chamber; filters and scrubber, and
automatic monitoring control system as required by Directive 2000/76/EC.
[Average price based on three proposed installations, in 2002/2003.]
69
Outdated incinerator: equipped with secondary chamber; filters and scrubber, without automatic
monitoring control system as required by Directive 2000/76/EC, and [possibly] not meeting the EU
emission standard. [Average price based on seven installations built in late 90’s.]
All incinerators have average capacity 300 kg/h.
Source:
Urządzenia do unieszkodliwiania zakaźnych odpadów medycznych i weterynaryjnych dostępne na
rynku krajowym [Medical waste treatment technologies available on the Polish market],
OTZO/WPA, Kraków, March 2003.
___________________________________
i
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Technical Background Document on Ground Water Controls at CKD
Landfills. Draft. Washington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ii
Lohse, J., Wulf-Schnabel, J., 1996. Expertise on the Environmental Risks Associated with the Co-Incineration of Wastes in
the Cement Kiln "Four E" of CBR Usine de Lixhe, Belgium. Hamburg, Germany: Okopol.
http://www.oekopol.de/Archiv/Anlagen/CBRBelgien.htm
iii
Hansen, E., 2000. Substance Flow Analysis for dioxins in Denmark. Environmental project No. 570. Copenhagen,
Denmark: Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
iv
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Draft Risk Assessment for Cement Kiln Dust Used as an Agricultural Soil
Amendment. Draft Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 16 June 1998.
v
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Standards for the Management of Cement Kiln Dust; Proposed Rule. 40 CFR
Parts 259, 261, 266, and 270. Federal Register: August 20, 1999 (Volume 64, No. 161, pp. 45631-456971.
70
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY CANADIAN STEEL PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION
Comments on the Draft Guidelines on Best Available Techniques (BAT) Relevant to Article
Five and Annex C of the Stockholm POPs Convention
Submitted by the Canadian Steel Producers Association
♦ Draft guidelines have been prepared on a number of sources not identified in Annex C to
the Stockholm Convention. This includes secondary lead production, primary aluminiun
production, magnesium production, secondary steel and primary metals. No rationale is
presented as to why they have been included, nor was there any consultation before the
documents for these sources were prepared. Only those sources cited in Annex C of the
Convention should be included in the preparation of draft Guidance on BAT/BEP.
♦ The table of contents lists sections on how to use the guidelines and guidance with the
indication that they are yet to be developed. This content of this section is an important
part of the guidelines and it should clearly indicate that these documents are “guidance”
that offers a range of approaches for jurisdictions and industrial sectors. The fact that the
documents represent guidance should be clear in the language and tone of the Guidelines.
It would be appropriate to indicate at the beginning of the discussion for each source that
the techniques and practices most appropriate to a specific industrial source will be
affected by considerations specific to an industry and jurisdiction, and will be affected by
competitive and cost considerations.
♦ The language used in a number of the guidance documents dealing with the various
metals sectors goes beyond guidance in dealing with areas such as achievable levels and
monitoring and reporting. It is appropriate to indicate an achievable level of emissions
based on experience from a range of countries, but schedules for reaching them should be
the decision of the appropriate jurisdiction. Again, it is appropriate to recommend a
monitoring program that meets accepted criteria and reporting of results, but the
frequency of testing and details related to any program should again be the decision of the
responsible jurisdiction. This is the approach adopted in the guidance document for
Chemical Production Processes.
♦ In best available techniques, available is clarified to mean “those techniques that are
accessible to the operator and that are developed on a scale that allow implementation in
the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technical viable conditions, taking
into consideration the costs and advantages”. This is not reflected in certain statements in
the draft guidelines, for example on page 12 of the Draft Guidance for Secondary steel
production, which states that “it should be feasible for all plants to implement some or all
of the pollution prevention practices identified below”, without any discussion of the
costs of implementing the measures.
♦ All guides should be reviewed to ensure consistency from the perspective of what is
covered and how specific items are handled (see third bullet above).
71
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY CANCER ACTION
CANCER ACTION NY
www.canceractionny.org
Cancer Prevention by Pollution Minimization
5/27/04
James B. Willis, Executive Secretary
Stockholm Convention
11-13 chemin des Anemones
CH-1219, Chatelaine, Geneva, Switzerland
Dear Executive Secretary Willis,
Cancer Action NY submits the following comments upon the Expert Group on BAT/BEP guidance on open
burning of waste.
In Section 1.0 of the guidance, it is stated: “Countries should work diligently to establish and implement sound
practices including resource reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, modern sanitary landfilling, and BAT
incineration.”
Comment No.1. BAT incineration should not be included as an alternative to open burning of wastes due to the
fact that environmentally significant levels of dioxins and dioxin-like compounds are created and released by
the most carefully regulated incineration. Non-combustion disposal techniques and technologies should be the
only recommended alternatives to open burning.
In Section 1.1, it is stated: “In the short term, where there are not realistic alternatives to open burning,
practical process modifications that are likely to reduce unintentional POPs generation include:4
•
•
•
•
•
Reduction in the amount of material discarded via open burning. Consistent with the
convention, this is the first line of improvement.
Removal of non-combustibles, including glass and bulk metals, and materials of low fuel
value.
Supply of sufficient air
Steady burning or rate of mass loss
Minimization of smoldering, possibly with direct extinguishments”
Comment No. 2. Removal of PVC plastics from the waste to be disposed of by open burning should also be
recommended. PVC plastic smolders in an open fire. Smoldering, sooty combustion is a significant source of
dioxins and dioxin-like compounds.
In the following sections: 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 4.1.3, BAT incineration is recommended as an alternative to the
open burning of wastes.
Comment No. 3. Please see Comment No. 1.
In Section 4.2.4, it is stated that efficient combustion of shredded tires has been demonstrated in cement kilns,
wood and coal combustors.
Comment No. 4. Regardless of how efficient the combustion of shredded tires is for producing heat energy,
emissions from this fuel use are relatively high in particulates. The most environmentally sound disposal
method for waste tires is incorporation into road surfacing materials.
72
General Comments
Comment No. 5. No mention is made in the guidance of the importance of public health education to the
elimination of open waste burning. In many areas where open waste fire disposal takes place there exist
numerous public health entities, including: local, regional and national public health departments. Residents
are more inclined to change behaviors based upon warnings of adverse health effects, which come directly from
government health agencies rather than from other sources such as environmental groups or government
planning offices.
Elimination of the open burning of wastes is the responsibility of government as a matter of
public health protection. Dioxin exposure, which takes place by way of consumption of animal fat
foods, imposes a significant cancer risk upon the residents of industrialized nations. The US
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has published a dioxin reassessment, which includes,
“Part III: Integrated Summary and Risk Characterization for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) and Related Compounds”. This document provides a quantification of dioxin exposure
cancer risk. Epidemiologic studies of several exposed groups: workers who manufactured or
applied dioxin contaminated pesticides, including pentachlorophenol, and 2,4,5-T; victims of an
industrial accident in Seveso, Italy, which released kilogram quantities of dioxin; and US Air
Force personnel engaged in Project Ranch Hand, the spraying of Agent Orange during the
Vietnam War, demonstrate a linear relationship between dioxin exposure and increased cancer
risk. According to US EPA, the average American consumes a quantity of animal fat sufficient to
impose a dioxin and dioxin-like compound exposure of 1 pg dioxin TEQ/kg bw/day. This level of
exposure is associated with a 1 in 1000 excess risk of developing cancer. Doubling one’s intake of
animal fat food results in a doubled cancer risk. During the 1970s and 1980s, dioxin and dioxinlike compound levels in animal fat foods were considerably higher than current levels. Those
who consumed animal fat produced over that time period have a significantly higher lifetime
cancer risk; 1 in 100 represents a reasonable estimate of cancer risk for this group.
Comment No. 6. Labeling of animal fat foods for dioxin and dioxin-like compound content constitutes a
powerful educational tool for increasing public awareness of the need to eliminate the burning of waste in open
fires. The consumer will seek out information on the source of this contamination. A public thus informed will
support governmental policies implemented for the establishment of environmentally sound waste disposal
practices.
Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the development of BAT/BEP guidance that will lead to the
elimination of open waste burning as a source of the releases of dioxins and dioxin-like compounds to the
environment.
Respectfully submitted,
Donald L. Hassig, Director
Cancer Action NY
Board of Directors: Frederick E. Biggs, Patricia M. Biggs, and Lewis M. Shepard
Director, Donald L. Hassig
531 CR 28, Ogdensburg, NY 13669
[email protected]
73
CANCER ACTION NY
www.canceractionny.org
Cancer Prevention by Pollution Minimization
June 10th, 2004
James B. Willis, Executive Secretary
Stockholm Convention
11-13 chemin des Anemones
CH-1219, Chatelaine, Geneva, Switzerland
Re: Comments upon the Expert Group on BAT/BEP guidance on Waste Incinerators: Municipal and
Hazardous Waste, and Sewage Sludge
Dear Executive Secretary Willis,
Cancer Action NY submits the following comments upon the Expert Group on BAT/BEP guidance on Waste
Incinerators: Municipal and Hazardous Waste, and Sewage Sludge.
This guidance needs to include a fully developed protocol for guarding against illegal fuel use. Unauthorized
fuels can lead to significant increases in dioxin and dioxin-like compound formation. Inspection of waste,
which is addressed in the guidance, is an important part of obtaining information about what is actually being
burned. Records of all inspections should be maintained at the facility, and also provided to the government
regulatory entity responsible for environmental protection. The public should have full access to these records.
Due to the fact that inspection yields only sporadic snapshots of waste composition, additional means for
determining what materials are being incinerated must be incorporated into the protocol. Testing of bottom ash
for metals concentration will provide necessary information about fuel use.
If fuel usage changes to include materials with a higher copper and/or iron content, dioxin emissions will
increase due to the catalytic effect of these metals on dioxin formation. Such a change in fuel can be readily
detected by ash testing. Incinerator bottom ash should be tested regularly for copper and iron concentrations. If
it is discovered that these metals are present in the fuel over a considerable range of concentrations, it will be
necessary to stack test when the higher metal content fuel is in use to determine how great an impact this fuel
has on dioxin emissions. An ash testing protocol can serve as a deterrent to the burning of unauthorized waste
materials.
Only by following the protocol described above is it possible to accumulate the data that would be necessary to
enforce fuel use restrictions. Without fuel use restrictions, dioxin and dioxin-like compound emissions will
vary significantly from stack test results, thereby making the true emissions of the facility greater than what
stack testing would indicate.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide input on the development of the incineration guidance.
Respectfully submitted,
Donald L. Hassig, Director
Cancer Action NY
Board of Directors: Frederick E. Biggs, Patricia M. Biggs, and Lewis M. Shepard
Director, Donald L. Hassig
531 CR 28, Ogdensburg, NY 13669
[email protected]
74
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE FINNISH FOREST INDUSTRIES
From: Luukko Kari [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:54 AM
To: Cristina Cardenas
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: comments to the 2nd draft
Dear receiver,
Enclosed please find the Finnish forest industries' comments to the UNEP
draft document "Guidelines on BAT for production of pulp using elemental
chlorinE".
Best Regards,
<<Draft2 Comments 11.6.2004.doc>>
Kari Luukko
Mr. Kari Luukko
Research Manager, Dr. Tech.
Finnish Forest Industries Federation
P.O. Box 336 (Snellmaninkatu 13)
FIN-00171 Helsinki
FINLAND
tel. +358 (0)9 132 6622, +358 (0)40 565 6622
fax. +358 (0)9 132 4445
mailto: [email protected]
75
2 nd DRAFT
GUIDELINES ON BAT FOR PRODUCTION OF PULP USING
ELEMENTAL CHLORINE OR CHEMICALS GENERATING
ELEMENTAL CHLORINE FOR BLEACHING
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 77
1
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 77
1.1 GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY ................................................... 77
1.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 78
1.2.1 Process Steps in general ............................................................................................ 78
1.2.2 Pulping Methods Applied............................................................................................. 78
1.2.2.1 The Kraft (Sulphate) Pulping Process ..................................................................... 79
1.2.2.2 Lime and Soda processes ....................................................................................... 81
1.2.2.3 Sulphite Pulping Processes..................................................................................... 81
1.2.3 Bleaching..................................................................................................................... 82
1.2.3.1 Bleaching with chlorine and hypohlorous acid......................................................... 82
1.2.3.2 Formation of 2378-TCDD/F .................................................................................... 83
1.2.3.3 Elimination mechanisms for 2378-TCDD/F ............................................................. 84
1.3 OTHER SOURCES OF UPOS IN PULP MILLS............................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1.3.1 Releases to water from recycled fibre processing......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.2 Releases from process sludges. ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.3 Releases to air from burning of organic materials in the recovery cycle to
generate energy and recover inorganic process chemicals...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3.4 Releases to air from burning wood and biomass to generate energyError! Bookmark not defin
1.3.5 Releases / Transfer into products (pulp or paper)......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES (BAT) FOR PRODUCTION OF PULP USING
ELEMENTAL CHLORINE .............................................................................................................. 86
2.1 PRIMARY MEASUREMENTS ..................................................................................................... 86
2.2 SECONDARY MEASUREMENTS ............................................................................................... 86
2.2.1 Upstream and downstream aspects.............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ............................................................................................ 87
4
PERFORMANCE REPORTING.............................................................................................. 88
References
76
Draft Guidelines on BAT for production of pulpusing elemental chlorine
or chemicals generating elemental chlorine for bleaching
Summary
Annex C Part II (c) of the Convention identifies ”production of pulp using elemental
chlorine or chemicals generating elemental chlorine” as an industrial source category
having ”the potential for comparatively high formation and release of polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF),
hexachlorobenzene (HCB), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).”
Of these compounds HCB and PCB are not formed during pulp bleaching. Only
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF)
have been identified as being unintentionally produced during the production of pulp
using elemental chlorine. Of the 17 PCDD/PCDF congeners with chlorine in the 2,3,7
and 8 positions, only two congeners, namely 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(2378-TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (2378-TCDF), have been
identified as potentially being produced during chemical pulp bleaching using
chlorine.
As a summary, the following primary measures can be taken for eliminating or
decreasing the formation of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF:
•
•
Eliminate elemental chlorine via replacing with chlorine dioxide (ECF bleaching),
or with chlorine free chemicals (TCF bleaching)
Reduce application of elemental chlorine via decreasing chlorine multiple or
increasing substitution of chlorine dioxide for molecular chlorine
Introduction
General information about pulp and paper production
Pulp and paper are manufactured from wood, recycled paper and many types of
agricultural residue. Wood and the main non-wood materials used in papermaking
are a complex mixture of the same substances – cellulose (40-45%), hemicelluloses
(25-35%), lignin (20-30%) and extractives (2-15%). Most ligno-cellulosic and
cellulosic materials of fibrous structure may be processed into various grades of
papers and paperboard. Fibres from different raw materials are, however, not alike.
They differ considerably in their morphological and chemical characteristics, which
make them more or less suitable for papermaking.
Pulping and bleaching technology must be matched to the quality and characteristics
of the pulp and paper grades to be produced. No single pulping or bleaching process
can produce pulp suitable for all uses. For instance, newsprint is a high volume
product of moderate strength, opacity and printability and a relatively short life.
Therefore, a high yield of pulp at the expense of maximum achievable strength and
brightness can be manufactured from the raw materials and there is a lower
bleaching requirement due to natural brightness of the pulps. On the other hand
packaging papers need strength if they are to be fit for use and here it is necessary
to accept a lower yield via a different manufacturing route in order to obtain this
77
strength but again the bleaching requirement may be low if this is a middle layer
board . Further characteristics such as the brightness and its durability as required
by outer packaging layers and printing and writing papers that may need to last for
many years without yellowing, mean that and here the level of delignification and
bleaching applied may need to be high. The amount of effort needed in bleaching
can therefore vary widely.
Apart from hardwood and softwood species normally used in pulping, in some parts
of the world a very high proportion of primary cellulose fibres originate from nonwood raw materials such as bagasse, cereal straw, bamboo, reeds, grasses, jute,
kenaf, flax and sisal [TAPPI, 1987]. Over 10% of world pulp production is made from
these non-wood fibres and in some countries it is the dominant fibre source, for
instance in China and India.
Pulp and paper mills may be integrated or non-integrated. Non-integrated pulp mills
(market pulp) are only manufacturing pulp that is then sold on the open market. Nonintegrated paper mills use purchased pulp for their paper production. In integrated
pulp and paper mills, the activities of pulp and paper making are undertaken on the
same site. With recovered paper manufacturing the level of integration is high; nearly
all recovered paper mills include recovered paper processing, some of them adding
purchased pulp.
Compared to pulp production a relatively high number of small and medium-sized
paper manufacturing facilities are in operation in many countries. A difference in
relation to the scale of production is seen in different parts of the world with the
capacities ranging from small mills of a few tens of tonnes per day through to major
industrial complexes processing 1,000 to 1,500 tonnes per day.
Process Description
Process Steps in general
The main processes involved in making pulp, cellulose and paper products are: raw
material handling and preparation, such as transport, storage, wood debarking,
chipping and agricultural residue cleaning and de-noding; then pulping; pulp
processing and bleaching and finally paper or paperboard making. Cellulose rich
pulp products are also manufactured as raw material for other industrial processes,
the manufacture of rayon, cellophane and some products in the chemical industry
for example.
The industry is a divergent production process and so there is a wide range of
techniques, using different pulping chemicals and process conditions as well as
different bleaching sequences, that deliver the desired fibre product characteristics
from a range of available raw fibre types and mixtures. The methods employed vary
across the world both in relation to the characteristics of the fibre types available, the
products to be made from them and the local pollution control restrictions that apply.
Pulping Methods Applied
78
The manufacture of pulp uses mechanical, thermomechanical, chemimechanical and
chemical methods. Mechanical and thermomechanical methods are used in
integrated mills to make naturally bright, high yield pulps mainly used for newsprint
manufacture. Chemical pulping methods are used in integrated and non integrated
pulping mills. Pulps produced in different ways have different properties that make
them suited to particular products.
Pulping is the process of converting the virgin fibre into a form suitable for making
paper and paperboard grades. In chemical pulping the fibres are broken down
chemically: chemicals are used in a cooking process to enter the fibre lumen and
dissolve lignin in the cell walls to gain access to the compound middle lamella
(CML). Lignin has to be removed from the CML to free the fibres. The lignin and
many other organic substances are thus put into solution. This happens in pressure
vessels, called digesters, which in the case of batch processes are heated,
pressurissed vertical stationary vessels for wood and often spherical ones arranged
to rotate to unload the contents, for non-woods, or in the case of continuous
processes are vertical tower constant flow digesters.
Mechanical pulping processes use grinding for logs and disc refiners for chips. In
these processes, mechanical shear forces are used to pull the fibres apart and the
majority of the lignin remains with the fibres, although there is still some significant
dissolution of organics. The first step is followed by secondary disc refining and
direct supply to a paper machine. Mechanical pulps can often be used without
bleaching, but where brightening is done it is achieved using non chlorinated
compounds such as dithionite or peroxides.
The main chemical semi-chemical and chemimechanical pulping techniques are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lime, lime-soda especially non-wood fibres;
Cold soda uses sodium hydroxide pre treatment at ambient temperatures,
alone or with sodium carbonate; especially hardwood and non-wood fibres;
(semi chemical).
Soda AQ sodium hydroxide alone or with sodium carbonate and a catalyst
anthraquinone, hardwood and non-wood fibres; (chemical, similar to kraft but
without sulphur), reduced odour.
Sulphate (kraft) uses a mixture of sodium hydroxide and sodium sulphide
under alkaline conditions to dissolve the ligninfrom wood and most non-wood
fibres; (chemical method).
Sulphite - acid bisulphite, bisulphite, alkaline and neutral sulphite
methods, (Ca, Mg, NH4, Na) different bases, including anthraquinone, under
a range of pH, to dissolve the lignins, most wood fibres; (chemical and semichemical methods).
Organosolv methods, wood and non-wood applications, some proven on mill
scale:
• Alcohol as a solvent (not in commercial use), organic acids as solvent;
• Hybrid processes.
The Kraft (Sulphate) Pulping Process
79
The kraft or sulphate process is an alkaline cooking liquor process and it is the
dominating pulping process world wide (84 % of the world chemical pulp production
and 63% of total chemical and mechanical pulp production). The kraft process uses
a sodium based alkaline pulping solution consisting of sodium sulphide (Na2S) and
sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Used cooking liquor (black liquor) is recovered to
generate white liquor for the first pulping step. At mills with chemical recovery, most
of the dissolved wood substances are combusted and the wastewater mainly
contains the organics in condensates plus, at bleached mills, the substances
dissolved during bleaching and the residues of the bleaching chemicals. Many small
mills do not recover the liquor.
The recovery of non-wood fibre liquors is problematic due to the high silica content of
fibre materials, the rapid increase of the liquor viscosity during evaporation and
difficulties in achieving high solids content in the concentrated liquor fed to the
recovery system. However, this area of recovery technology is currently receiving
much attention with some claims for viable processes.
80
Figure 1. Pulping process flows - kraft pulping example (EIPPCB BREF, 2001)
Lime and Soda processes
These are processes using simple alkaline cooking liquors in a similar process to
kraft pulping but without the use of sulphur compounds. At mills with no chemical
recovery, all the dissolved wood substances and pulping/bleaching chemicals remain
in the wastewater apart from the volatiles incidentally released to atmosphere. The
de-lignification ability is inadequate for low yield, high white, wood pulping. Its
application to non-wood pulps is widespread and it is also used with oxygen for straw
pulping. In the soda process, the chemistry is simplified as there is no added sulphur
to form undesirable by-products and the hydroxide can be recovered by lime
causticization of the sodium carbonate smelt. After cooking, pulps that are not to be
bleached are refined to separate the fibres.
Sulphite Pulping Processes
81
The sulphite pulping process is based on aqueous sulphur dioxide (SO2) and a base,
calcium, sodium, magnesium or ammonium. This method is losing its importance
and only 10% of the world pulp is produced by this method. Alkaline sulphite mills for
non-wood fibres are often operated as a batch process and chemical recovery is
generally not practised at such mills due to their small size and the complexity of
chemical recovery from what is normally a sodium based process. Compared to kraft
pulps sulphite pulps are relatively bright and are also relative easy to bleach with
oxygen based chemicals such as peroxides.
Bleaching
The objective of bleaching is to further remove the small quantity of residual lignin
left after cooking. All lignin cannot be removed selectively enough in a single
bleaching stage, but pulp is usually bleached in three to five stages, using
combinations of oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, ozone, peracetic acid, Caro’s acid,
sodium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine and other chemicals or treatments.
The first two stages primarily release and extracts lignin and the subsequent stages
removes the lignin residues and finishes the product. These bleaching sequences
are applied to maximise the bleaching effect of each component. Water is used to
perform intermediate washes to remove extracted wastes from the pulp.
Bleaching sequences where chlorine based chemicals are used are called Chlorine
Chemical Bleaching (CCB). If molecular chlorine and hypochlorite are excluded, the
abbreviation is Chlorine Dioxide Bleaching (CDB), or Elemental Chlorine Free
Bleaching (ECF). If the sequence uses only oxygen based chemicals like oxygen,
ozone, alkaline or acidic peroxide the term Oxygen Chemical Bleaching (OCB), or
Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) can be used.
ECF pulp bleached with chlorine dioxide accounts for the predominant share of
roughly three-quarters of the bleached pulp produced worldwide. TCF pulp only
accounts for about 6% and is primarily produced in mills in Northern and Central
Europe. Roughly 20% of the bleached pulp produced world-wide is still bleached
with some elemental chlorine.
Hardwood and straw pulps are easier to bleach by non chlorine methods due to their
lower lignin content to begin with and the bleaching effort required for sulphite pulps
is less due to their higher pre bleach brightness.
Bleaching with chlorine and hypohlorous acid
Electrophilic bleaching chemical agents such as chlorine and hypochlorous acid may
be used to achieve further delignification after pulping. These electrophilic bleaching
agents react with all unsaturated structures, namely lignin structures, polysaccharide
degradation products such as hexenuronic acid and extractive stuctures that contain
carbon-carbon double bonds. These electrophilic bleaching agents are able to react
with different unsubstituted aromatic carbon atoms in lignin to either:
a) chlorinate (when the carbon is not bonded with an oxygen atom), b) chlorinate and
depolymerize (via displacement of an α-hydroxyl group), or c) just depolymerize
without chlorination (via hydroxylation) .
82
These chlorination or depolymerization reactions make lignin alkaline soluble
and it can be removed from pulp in the alkaline bleaching stages of the
bleaching sequence.
The chlorination of non-aromatic structures, such as hexenuronic acid, does not lead
to the formation of polychlorinated aromatic degradation products.
Some examples of bleaching sequences when chlorine is used:
CEH (non-woods)
CEHD
CEHDED (higher brightness)
CEDED
(CD)EDED
With an oxygen de-lignification stage or reinforced extraction stage then:
OCEH (non-woods)
(D+C)(EO)D (non-woods)
With oxygen de-lignification and reinforced extraction then:
O(D+C)(EO)D (non-woods)
O-(CD)EDED
O-(CD)(EO)DED
Bleaching sequence letters :
C is elemental chlorine Cl2
E is alkaline extraction NaOH
H is hypochlorite
D is chlorine dioxide ClO2
(CD)
is mixtures of chlorine and chlorine dioxide
O is oxygen
(EO)
is alkaline extraction with oxygen
Formation of 2378-TCDD/F
Dioxins and furans (only 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF) may be formed in the
bleaching process in which chlorine is used. Most of the formation of the 2378-TCDD
and 2378-TCDF are generated in the C-stage via the reaction of chlorine with
precursors of TCDD namely dibenzo-p-dioxin (DBD) and precursor of TCDF which
is unchlorinated dibenzofuran (DBF). When these precursors are chlorinated, the key
reaction is electrophilic aromatic substitution. The rate of this reaction will be
dependent both on the concentration of the precursor and the concentration of
chlorine. The levels of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF are not determined by the
content of the lignin in the pulp /R.M.Berry, B.I.Fleming et. al/ .
The unchlorinated dioxin precursors are prevalent in certain mineral oils which are
part of some defoamer formulations used in the pulp and paper industry and are the
major source of precursors. Wood itself may be source of dioxin precursor. In
particular compression wood contains higher concentrations of precursors than
83
normal wood. Compression of wood also contains higher levels of coumaryl-type
lignin which may be a source of DBD- and DBF-like precursors.
Elimination mechanisms for 2378-TCDD/F
Preventing formation of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF in the bleaching will be
achieved mainly by decreasing the amount of chlorine used in the first bleaching
stage. This can be done by reducing atomic chlorine multiple through use of oxygen
and peroxide reinforced extraction stage and increased chlorine dioxide substitution.
Figure 2. shows how formation 2378-TCDF will be reduced by increasing ClO2
substitution: when ClO2 substitution level is more than 85 % 2378-TCDF is not
detectable in waste waters coming from the mill.
84
Figure 2. 2378-TCDF formation with different chlorine dioxide substitution level
The summary effect of active chlorine multiple and chlorine dioxide substitution level
can be see in the figure 3. The level of dioxin formation under these conditions, i.e.,
high active chlorine multiple and low chlorine dioxide substitution, is expected to vary
depending on the DBD precursor content of the brownstock.
35
30
2,3,7,8 25
20 TCDD,
15 ppt
10
5
0
20
40
% ClO2 60
80
0.28
Substitution
100
0.20 0.24
0.16
0.12
Active chlorine
multiple
Figure 3. Effect of active chlorine multiple and chlorine dioxide substitution level on
2378-TCDD formation.
85
Elemental chlorine can completely be replaced by chlorine dioxide (Elemental
Chlorine-Free bleaching ECF). In comparison withchlorine bleaching, ECF bleaching
using chlorine dioxide leads to the formation of a relatively small amount of
chlorinated compounds, but does not lead to the formation of 2378-TCDD/F.
Chlorine is produced as a side product in some chlorine dioxide manufacturing
methods, but in all cases this amount is too small for the unintentional production of
2378-TCDD/F.
As a summary, the following measures can be made for eliminating or decreasing
the formation of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF:
•
•
•
Eliminate elemental chlorine via replacing with chlorine dioxide (ECF bleaching),
or with chlorine free chemicals (TCF bleaching)
Reduce application of elemental chlorine via decreasing chlorine multiple or
increasing substitution of chlorine dioxide for molecular chlorine
Minimize precursors like DBD and DBF entering the bleach plant by using
precursor-free additives and good washing such
Best Available Techniques (BAT) for production of pulp using elemental
chlorine
Primary measurements
The principal Best Available Techniques to minimization or elimination of formation
of 2378-TCDD/F are as follows and they are independent of the raw material (wood
or non-wood) used in the process:
•
Eliminate molecular chlorine via replacing with chlorine dioxide (ECF
bleaching), or with chlorine free chemicals (TCF bleaching)
•
Reduce application of molecular chlorine via decreasing chlorine multiple
or increasing substitution of chlorine dioxide for molecular chlorine
•
•
•
Utilize DBD and DBF-free defoamers
•
•
•
Eliminate pulping of wood chips contaminated with polychlorinated phenol
Effective brown stock washing to enable the reduction of chlorine multiple
Maximize knot and dirt removal to enable the reduction of chlorine
multiple
Secondary measurements
86
The following general measures are suggested:
•
Substitution. The identification and substitution of potentially harmful substances
with less harmful alternatives. Use of a detailed inventory of raw materials used,
chemical composition, quantities, fate and environmental impact.
•
Investment planning/cycles, co-ordination of process improvements to reduce
technical bottleneck delays to the introduction of better techniques.
•
Training, education and motivation of personnel. Training, education and
motivation of staff and operators. People operate pulp and paper mills. Therefore,
training of staff can be a very cost-effective way of reducing discharges of
harmful substances.
•
Process control monitoring and optimisation. To be able to reduce different
pollutants simultaneously and to maintain low releases, improved process control
is required. Raw materials specification and monitoring of raw materials for
precursor materials.
•
Adequate maintenance. To maintain the efficiency of the process and the
associated abatement techniques at a high level, sufficient maintenance has to
be ensured.
•
Environmental management system. A system which clearly defines the
responsibilities for environmentally relevant aspects in a mill. It raises awareness
and includes goals and measures, process and job instructions, check lists and
other relevant documentation. Incorporation of environmental issues in process
change controls.
•
Development of environmental monitoring and standard monitoring protocols.
•
Release monitoring for new facilities. Demonstrate performance of combustion
processes and releases to water.
Performance standards( Is this chapter necessary?)
The following table summarises this information as it is applied to bleached kraft pulp
mills:
New Plant
EU
Canada -
2378-TCDD /
2378-TCDF ppq
To Water
2378-TCDD /
2378-TCDF
ng/kg
To Sludge
Non-measurable1
87
PCDD /
PCDF
ng/m3 STP
TEQ To
Air
0.1
0.1
Defoamers
DBD and DBF ppb
DBD <10
Federal
– In treated final
effluent
USA Kraft and 2378-TCDD <10
10 / 100
Soda
2378-TCDF 31.9 In bleach plant
effluent
2378-TCDD <10
USA
2378-TCDF <10
Ammonium
-In bleach plant
based and
effluent
speciality
sulphite
Australia
2378-TCDD <15
2378-TCDF none
– In treated final
effluent
DBF <40
1. Non measurable - means a concentration less than the level of quantification as defined
in the Reference Method. The current level of quantification is 15 ppq.
Performance Reporting
Performance reporting is recommended as follows:
For dioxin and furan releases to water – a monthly testing period. A mill may adopt
quarterly sampling if it has had no measurable concentrations in its last three
consecutive monthly samples, a mill may adopt annual sampling if it has had no
measurable concentrations in its last three consecutive quarterly samples. The
testing period reverts back to monthly testing if either a quarterly test or an annual
test exceeds the level of quantitation (LOQ).
Treatment sludges used for agricultural benefit may also need to be tested before
use.
Where emissions testing is not possible (e.g., analytical capacity is not readily
available), the use of PCDD/PCDF release factors associated with a similar mill type
and operation is suggested as an interim performance reporting requirement until
such time as annual emissions testing and analysis is available. Emission factors for
releases of PCDD/PCDFs from mills are presented at page 184 in the UNEP
Standardized Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Dioxin and Furan
Releases, May 2003 (URL:www.pops.int).
The commonality of this issue across all sector guides would indicate that it needs to
be covered as a separate report and draw on the information on performance levels
and testing methods contained in each of the individual sector guides.
88
References:
[AGIC, 1990] Australian Government, Industry Commission, Pulp and Paper:
Bleaching and the Environment, Report no 1, May 1990, Australian Government
Publishing Service Canberra, ISBN 0 644 12529 2. See
http://www.pc.gov.au/ic/inquiry/01pulp/finalreport/01pulp.pdf
[Pulp&paper Canada] R.M.Berry, B.I.Flemming, et. al. Toward preventing the
formation of dioxins during chemical pulp bleaching. Pulp&Paper Canada, 90:8
1989.
[CBNS, 1996] Pulp and Paper Production, Zeroing Out The Dioxin in the Great
Lakes: Wthin Our Reach, Center for the Biology of Natural Systems (CBNS),
Queens College, New York, June 1996. See http://www.cbns.qc.edu/cbns_ch5.pdf
[CEPA Regulations (SOR/92-268), 1992] Canadian Pulp and Paper Mill Defoamer
and Wood Chip Regulations (SOR/92-268), Canadian Department of Justice.
See http://www.ec.gc.ca/NOPP/DIVISION/EN/detail.cfm?par_docID=99
[EA S6.01, 2000] IPPC S6.01 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)
Technical Guidance for the Pulp and Paper Sector, The Environment Agency for
England and Wales, SEPA & EHS, Nov 2000. See http://environmentagency.gov.uk/business/444304/444635/107293/?version=1&lang=_e
[EIPPCB BREF, 2001] Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)
Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in Pulp and Paper Industry,
European Commission, EIPPCB, December 2001. See: http://eippcb.jrc.es
[Finnish BAT Report, 1997] The Finnish Background Report for the EC
Documentation of Best Available Techniques for Pulp and Paper Industry. The
Finnsih Environment 96, Ministry of Environment in Finland, Edita Ltd, Helsinki 1997,
ISBN 952-11-0123-7
[PMS&T FAPET, Series, 1999] Johan Gullichsen and Hannu Paulapuro,
Papermaking Science and Technology Series, 19 Volumes, FAPET Oy, Jyväskylä
1999. ISBN 952-5216-00-4 (Series).
[PMS&T Vol 6, FAPET 1999] Johan Gullichsen and Carl-Johan Fogelholm,
Chemical Pulping, Papermaking Science and Technology, Vols 6 A and B, FAPET
Oy, Jyväskylä 1999. ISBN 952-5216-07-1. See http://fapet.fi
[SEPA-Report 4713-2, 1997] Aspects on Energy and Environment Costs in
Connection with Production of Kraft Pulp, Recycled Fibre and TMP. Jaakko Pöyry
Consulting AB. 1997
[SYKE, No 17, 1996] J. Tana and K.J. Lehtinen: The Aquatic Environmental Impact
of Pulping and Bleaching Operations – An Overview. Finnish Environment Agency
(SYKE), 1996. ISBN 952-11-0028-1.
[TAPPI, 1987] Pulp and Paper Manufacture Volume 3, Secondary Fibers and NonWood Pulping, F. Hamilton, B. Leopold and M.J. Kocurek, TAPPI, 1987.
89
[TU Darmstadt, 2002] U. Hamm and L. Göttsching: Comparison of the aquatic
environmental impact resulting from the production of ECF and TCF sulphate pulp,
Concise assessment of current knowledge VDP – INFOR project (No. 19), Institut für
Papierfabrikation, TU Darmstadt (Institute for Papermaking, Darmstadt Technical
University), December 2002.
[USC, 1989] U.S Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies for
Reducing Dioxin in the Manufacture of Bleached Wood Pulp, OTA-BP-O-54
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1989). See:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_2/DATA/1989/8931.PDF
[USEPA, 2003] Effluent Guidelines – Final Pulp and Paper Cluster Rule, Federal
Register: April 15, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 72), USEPA. See:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/pulppaper/cluster.html
[VTT Biotechnology, 2003] VTT Biotechnology, Marcus Wallenberg Prize 2003,
See http://www.mwp.org and http://vtt.fi
[World Bank, 1998] World Bank Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook
1998 – Toward Cleaner Production.
See http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000094946_990
40905052283
90
DEFINITIONS
ADt & ODt Air dried tonne of paper (paper contains around 7% water under
ambient conditions). ODt oven dried.
AOX Adsorbable Organic Halogen
APP Alkaline peroxide process
BAT Best Available Techniques
Bleaching Sequence letters :
C is elemental chlorine Cl2
E is alkaline extraction NaOH
H is hypochlorite
D is chlorine dioxide ClO2
(CD)
is mixtures of chlorine and chlorine dioxide
O is oxygen
(EO)
is alkaline extraction with oxygen
P is hydrogen peroxide
(EOP)
is alkaline extraction with oxygen and hydrogen peroxide
aP
is hydrogen peroxide in acidic conditions
(PO)
is peroxide pressurised with oxygen
(DN)
is chlorine dioxide with subsequent neutralisation
Z is ozone
Paa
is peracetic acid
Ca
is Caro’s acid (sulphuric acid and hydrogen peroxide)
Pxa
is mixed peracids
Q is chelation stage
X is enzyme treatment
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CTMP
Chemi-thermo-mechanical-pulping processes (using sulphite or APP)
DAF Dissolved air flotation
DBD Dibenzodioxin
DBF Dibenzofuran
DTPA Diethylene triamino pentaacetic acid
ECF Elemental chlorine free (pulp bleached without elemental chlorine)
EDTA Ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid
EMS Environmental Management System
Kappa No The Kappa number is an indirect measure of the residual lignin content
in a pulp measured via the
consumption of an oxidant chemical (e.g. potassium permanganate).
Measure used for process control.
Integrated-mill
A mill in which both pulping and papermaking take place
I-TEQ International Toxicity Equivalents or TEQ (Toxic Equivalents)
I-TEF International Toxicity Equivalency Factor or TEF (Toxicity Equivalence Factor)
NTA Nitrilo triacetic acid
PAE Polyamidoamine-epichlorhydrin resins
PAM Polyacrylamides
PCDDs
Polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins
PCDFs
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
PCP Pentachlorophenol
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
PEI Polyethyleneimines
91
RCF Recycled fibre
TCDD
2,3,7,8 –tetrachloro-para-dibenzodioxin
TCDF 2,3,7,8 – tetrachloro dibenzofuran
TCF Totally chlorine free (pulp bleached without any chlorine compounds)
TOC Total Organic Carbon
Wood-free Paper made from pulp from which the lignin has been largely dissolved
by chemical mean
92
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY GAIA: GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR INCINERATION ALTERNATIVES
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL
greenpeace international
Ottho Heldringstraat 5, 1066 AZ, Amsterdam, Netherlands
t +31 514 8150 f +31 20 514 8151
k.v.k. reg. 41200415 stichting greenpeace council
www.greenpeace.org
16 June 2004
Comments on draft guidelines on best available techniques and guidance
on best environmental practices relevant to Article 5 and Annex C of the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
By Pat Costner
Senior Science Advisor
Greenpeace International
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the latest draft guidelines and guidance.
It was agreed at EGB-2 that a section on alternatives would included in the draft
guideline/guidance document. Reflecting that agreement, “Consideration of Alternatives” is
listed as the second chapter in the table of contents of this document. It was also agreed to
include similar, appropriately specific alternatives chapters in each of the guidance/guidelines
for individual source categories. However, as is evident, all of the latter documents do not
include an alternatives chapter and, consequently, require revision to correct this oversight.
Below are brief comments, both specific and general, on the guidelines/guidance document as
a whole as well as on guidance/guidelines for several of the individual source categories.
Chapter/Section
Comment
1.A. Purpose
Despite its title, there is no mention in this segment of the actual
purpose of the guidelines and guidance.
•
The purpose of the guidelines and guidance can be broadly
described as providing Parties with information that will help them
to achieve the goal of the Stockholm Convention with respect to
unintentionally produced POPs (UPOPs) – the “continuing
minimization and, where feasible, ultimate elimination” of UPOPs.
•
The purpose of the guidelines and guidance can be described more
specifically as providing Parties with information that will help
them to meet their obligations to promote and in some cases require
the use of best available techniques (BAT) and to promote the use
of BEP in order to achieve the goal of the Stockholm Convention
with respect to UPOPs – the “continuing minimization and, where
feasible, ultimate elimination” of UPOPs.
We suggest that this segment is revised so that it begins with one or
both of the above statements, or reasonably similar text.
100
II. Consideration The title of this section –“Consideration of alternatives” as it is listed
of alternatives
in the table of contents – is so vague that many readers are likely to
skip past it and go directly to the apparent “meat” of the document, “V.
Guidance/guidelines by source category: Annex C, Part II Source
Categories,” and “VI. Guidance/guidelines by source category: Annex
C, Part III Source Categories.”
A more meaningful title – “Consideration of alternative processes,
activities and chemicals” – can be taken from the text of the
Convention, e.g., in the preamble – “Recognizing the importance of
developing and using environmentally sound alternative processes and
chemicals” -- and in Annex C, Part V.A – “When considering proposals
to construct new waste disposal facilities, consideration should be given to
alternatives such as activities to minimize the generation of municipal and
medical waste, including resource recovery, reuse, recycling, waste
separation and promoting products that generate less waste.”
With several types of suggested text distinguished by color, this section
is difficult to read and the meaning of the text is hard to discern.
However, the general approach -- a “checklist” methodology -- has
considerable merit and should be retained. In addition, this section
requires substantial revision if it is to serve as the overarching
discussion of alternatives to be included in this guidance/guideline as
agreed at EGB-2.
V.A. Waste
incinerators: 1.
Municipal and
hazardous waste
and sewage
sludge
This draft guidance/guideline includes a large mass of information.
However, a significant share of that information is repetitive. For
example, flue gas treatment is addressed in great detail both in section
4.0 and yet again in sub-section 6.2. At the same time, important
information is lacking. For example, while the widespread use of
waste incinerators in developed nations as well as some developing
nations is noted, there is no accompanying description of the
contribution of waste incinerators to UPOPs releases to air, water, land,
products and residues in some of these same countries, although such
data are readily available. Similarly, there is no mention of the
relatively numerous studies and reviews that have examined the
association between impacts on public health and the environment and
waste incinerators.
While the details of incinerator designs can be appreciated, the size of
this document could be markedly reduced, its organization improved
and its contents simplified by referring readers who desire a high level
of detail to the EU BREF.
In addition to the agreement at EGB-2 to include an overarching
discussion of alternatives, it was also agreed to include guidance on
alternatives in the guideline/guidance for each source category.
Following the model of the overall guideline/guidance document,
based on its table of contents, the alternatives sub-section of this
guideline/guidance for waste incinerators should follow the
introduction or, as it is called here, “1.0 Background.”
101
However, as this guideline/guidance is currently organized, the one
section that might be construed as addressing alternatives occurs near
the end of the report. It is listed in the table of contents as “9.0
Alternative and Emerging Technologies” and titled in the text as “9.0
Emerging Technologies.” The information in this sub-section consists
only of brief discussions of pyrolysis and gasification, thermal
depolymerization, plasma technologies, and high temperature melting.
Some of these are considered to be incineration technologies by some
authorities, such as the European Commission, and all are potential
sources of UPOPs.
The purpose of this guidance/guideline is described in “1.0 Background” as
follows:
The environmentally sound design and operation of waste
incinerators requires the use of best environmental practices and best
available techniques to prevent or minimize the formation and release of
the unintentional POPs. The purpose of this guidance is to identify such
practices and techniques, summarize their effectiveness, and estimate their
relative cost, for consideration by the Parties in the development of
national action plans under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants”.
We suggest revising the above purpose so that it is compatible with the
obligations defined by the Convention with respect to UPOPs and UPOPs
sources. For example, the Convention clearly recognizes that “alternatives
such as activities to minimize the generation of municipal and medical waste,
including resource recovery, reuse, recycling, waste separation and
promoting products that generate less waste, including resource recovery,
reuse, recycling, waste separation and promoting products that generate less
waste” (see Annex C, Part V.A) as BAT/BEP for UPOPs sources including
waste incinerators.
It is interesting to note that this guidance states that “poorly designed or
operated incinerators can lead to the unintentional formation and release of
persistent organic pollutants (dioxins and furans [PCDD/F], and
unintentionally produced polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs] and
hexachlorobenzene [HCB].” There is no argument that UPOPs formation
and releases may be much higher with poorly designed and operated
incinerators. However, the formation and release of UPOPs from even the
most modern, well-designed and operated waste incinerators is welldocumented. Similarly inaccurate statements are made with respect to
hazardous waste incinerators and sewage sludge incinerators.
The notion of folding together of BAT/BEP for municipal waste
incinerators, hazardous waste incinerators and sewage sludge
incinerators can be seen to have merit in that it potentially avoids the
repetition of certain types of information, such as flue gas cleaning
techniques. However, in this document, it has also created a
circumstance in which the section on BEP for waste incineration offers
information on waste minimization for municipal waste only.
Since this guidance/guidelines is intended for use by Parties that are
developing countries, the information presented that can be expected to
be relevant predominantly to industrialized countries should be clearly
102
identified. For example, the contents of municipal wastes differ
greatly, depending on levels of development, as indicated by gross
national product. For example, in developing countries, municipal
waste commonly has a higher moisture content and higher levels of
inert materials such as dirt and sand so that volume and weight
reductions achieved by incineration may be considerably less, the mass
of bottom ash may be larger, energy recovery may be considerably
reduced, etc. Such factors should be presented and discussed in this
guidance/guideline. Many developing countries have no hazardous
waste or lined, monitored landfills for the disposal of incinerator ash
and no municipal wastewater treatment systems that can appropriately
treat incinerator scrubber water. The economic implications of such
factors should also be addressed in this document.
It is also interesting to note that there is no mention of chlorine in
Section “2.0 Formation and Release of Unintentional POPs,” while it is
mentioned in Section “3.2.1 Delivery, Storage and Pre-Treatment of
MSW” --“Recycling paper, cardboard, and plastics will reduce the
energy value of the waste but may also reduce available chlorine” –
with no explanation of why reducing available chlorine is relevant to
UPOPs formation and release. We suggest revising Section 2.0 so that
the role of chlorine in UPOPs formation is explained. Toward that end,
we offer the following explanation of PCDD/F formation which can be
suitably simplified:
The prerequisites for PCDD/F formation in thermal processes are
the following:
•
•
•
•
Chlorine in the form of gaseous, elemental chlorine; as
organic chlorine, such as chlorobenzene, polyvinyl chloride
(PVC), etc.; or as inorganic chloride, such as hydrogen
chloride, sodium chloride (table salt), etc.;
Carbon in the form of macromolecular carbon in fly ash, soot
, and/or the activated carbon that is used to reduce releases in
flue gases, or in the form of organically-bound carbon in
compounds that have escaped combustion or formed as
products of incomplete combustion;
Oxygen as gaseous, elemental oxygen or as oxygen in
organic or inorganic forms e.g., PCDD/PCDF formation can
take place in a nitrogen atmospherei; and
Hydrogen in any form..
PCDD/PCDF formation in thermal processes is thought to occur
primarily through these pathways:
1. High-temperature, gas-phase formation in homogeneous12
reactions of chlorine, either in elemental form or as hydrogen
chloride, and gaseous precursors13;
12
In this context, the term “homogeneous’ means that all reactants are in the same
physical state (gaseous, liquid or solid), while in “heterogeneous” reactions, reactants
differ in their physical states.
103
2. Relatively low-temperature formation from the reaction of
macromolecular14 carbon, which occurs in fly ash, soot and
activated carbon, with organic or inorganic chlorine present
in the fly ash, (often referred to as de novo formation); and
3. Formation in heterogeneous reactions of gas-phase organic
precursors with metal oxides, metal chlorides or other
catalytically active constituents on fly ash, other particulates
or solid surfaces.
.
The relative importance of these pathways varies, depending on
conditions. However, the two latter pathways are thought to be
most important in modern, well-operated incinerators.
Conditions that favour PCDD/PCDF formation in thermal processes
are as follows:
•
•
VI.A Open
burning of
wastes
Elevated temperatures: Formation of PCDD/PCDF in the
combustion zones of lab- and full-scale combustion systems
has been reported to occur in the range of 500-1000 oC . ii, iii,
iv
Formation in post-combustion zones, including air
pollution control devices, of full-scale incinerators via de
novo synthesis or another heterogeneous pathway has been
found to occur at temperatures as low as 150 oC. v However,
the optimum temperature for PCDD/PCDF formation in the
post-combustion zone has been reported to range between
650 and 250 °C, with maximum formation at approximately
300 °C. vi
Metals (for example, copper and iron, vii zinc,viii and
manganeseix) can serve as catalysts that increase and expedite
PCDD/PCDF formation. However, some studies have shown
that metals may not be required.x
.
In “1.1 General Process Consideration”, we suggest the following
revised text:
In the short term, where there are no realistic alternatives to open
burning, practical techniques that are likely to reduce UPOPs
generation include:
•
Reduce as much as possible the amount of material burned,
O Remove non-combustibles such as glass and bulk
metals
O Remove other materials of low fuel value;
O Remove wet materials;
13
A precursor is a substance from which another substance is formed, for example,
chlorobenzenes and chlorophenols are precursors of PCDD/PCDF formation in
combustion processes. A precursor is commonly regarded as being somewhat similar in
chemical structure to the substance for which it is a precursor.
14
Macromolecular carbon is carbon that possesses a structure in which all of the carbons
are linked by chemical bonds.
104
•
•
•
•
O Remove chlorine-containing materials such as PVC,
salty food scraps, etc.;
O Remove metal-containing materials such as scrap wire,
cans, etc.
Supply sufficient air, e.g., do not compact wastes;
Burn in piles rather than confined spaces such as barrels;
Maintain a steady rate of combustion; and
Minimize smoldering by, if needed, extinguishing the fire.
We note that there are numerous studies, including open burning of
various materials, that have found increased chlorine content in the
materials burned to correlate with increased PCDD/PCDF formation.
An annotated bibliography of such studies has been prepared by
Costner (2001).xi
In section 3.1.2, we suggest deletion of the following sentence: “The
preferred combustion alternative is BAT incineration with energy
recovery, however combustors run the gamut from BAT incineration
through a continuum of decreasing technology and efficiency to open
pile or pit or “barrel” burning.”
In section 3.2.1 Material Composition, we suggest including PVC
among the materials in “Construction waste” as well as “Demolition
waste.’
In section 3.1.3 Strategies and Policy Instruments to Avoid, Reduce or
Divert Waste, we suggest including policies that reduce and/or change
the character of consumer products and materials that, upon becoming
wastes, contribute to the formation and release of UPOPs when
subjected to open burning. Such products and materials include those
that are made of or contain chlorinated materials, such as PVC plastic.
the character of construction products and materials that, upon
becoming wastes, contribute to the formation and release of UPOPs
when subjected to open burning. Such products and materials include
those that are made of or contain chlorinated materials, such as PVC
siding, PVC pipe, etc.
the character of agricultural film which, upon becoming a waste,
contributes to the formation and release of UPOPs when subjected to
open burning. Such agricultural films include those that are made of or
contain chlorinated materials, such as PVC plastic.
In section 4.2.4 Alternatives, Barriers to Use and Policy Instruments to
Remove Barriers, we suggest including the following in the text:
Dedicated tire incinerators have been identified as UPOPs sources,xii
while co-combustion tires and coal is associated with increased
105
PAH emissions.xiii
VI.F. Chemical
production
processes
We suggest that the following is included as the introductory section of
this document;
The World Chlorine Council describes chemical production processes
in which formation of PCDD/PCDF occurs as follows:xiv
“Dioxins can be formed in chemical processes, where the element
chlorine is involved.”
The other basic prerequisites for PCDD/PCDF formation in industrialchemical processes are the presence of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen.
For example, PCDD/PCDF formation takes place during the
manufacture of elemental chlorine when graphite electrodes are used,
as is commonly the case in China.xv
USEPA (1997) described the factors that influence PCDD/PCDF
formation in the manufacture of organic chemicals as follows: xvi
“A number of factors influence the amount of dioxins and furans
that may be formed in a given manufacturing process, including
temperature, pH, catalyst, and reaction kinetics. …
Four major mechanisms have been postulated for the formation of
halogenated
dioxins and furans in the manufacture of halogenated organic
chemicals: (1) direct
halogenation of dioxins or furans …); (2) reaction of an ortho
halogen with a phenate…; (3) loss of the halogen (e.g., chlorine or
bromine) from a halogenated phenate to form halogenated furans
… ; and (4) reactions between ortho- and meta-substituted halogens
….”
With regard to PCDD/PCDF formation in the manufacture of organic
chemicals, Fiedler et al. (2000) noted as follows: xvii
“In wet-chemical processes the propensity to generate PCDD/PCDF
during synthesis of chemical compounds decreases in the following
order:
Chlorophenols < Chlorobenzenes < Aliphatic chlorinated
compounds < Inorganic chlorinated compounds”
i
Wikstrom, E., Tysklind, M., Marklund, S., 1999. Influence of variation of combustion conditions on the
primary formation of chlorinated organic micropollutants during municipal solid waste combustion. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 33: 4263-4269.
106
ii
Wikstrom, E., Tysklind, M., Marklund, S., 1999. Influence of variation of combustion conditions on the
primary formation of chlorinated organic micropollutants during municipal solid waste combustion. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 33: 4263-4269.
iii
Zimmermann, R., Blumenstock, M., Heger, H., Schramm, K.-W., Kettrup, A., 2001. Emission of
nonchlorinated and chlorinated aromatics in the flue gas of incineration plants during and after transient
disturbances of combustion conditions: Delayed emission effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35: 1019-1030.
iv
Stanmore, B., 2004. The formation of dioxins in combustion systems. Combustion & Flame 136: 398-427.
v
Chang, M., Lin, J., 2001. Memory effect on the dioxin emissions from municipal waste incinerator in Taiwan.
Chemosphere 45: 1151-1157
vi
Tuppurainen, K., Halonen, I., Rukokojarvi, P., Tarhanen, J., Ruuskanen, J., 1998. Formation of PCDDs and
PCDFs in municipal waste incineration and its inhibition mechanisms: A review. Chemosphere 36: 1493-1511.
vii
Ryan, S., Altwicker, E., 2004. Understanding the role of iron chlorides in the de novo synthesis of
polychlorinated dibenzo-p- dioxins/dibenzofurans. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38: 1708-1717
viii
Hinton W.S., Lane A.M., Synthesis of polychlorinated dioxins over MSW incinerator fly ash to
identify catalytic species. Chemosphere, 23, 831-840, 1991.
ix
Halonen, I., Tarhanen, J., Ruokojarvi, P., Tuppurainen, K., Ruuskanen, J., 1995. Effect of catalysts and
chlorine source on the formation of organic chlorinated compounds. Chemosphere 30: 1261-1273.
x
Sidhu, S., Kasti, N., Edwards, P., Dellinger, B., 2001. Hazardous air pollutants formation from reactions of
raw meal organics in cement kilns. Chemosphere 42: 499-506.
xi
Costner, P., 2001. Chlorine, Combustion and Dioxins: Does Reducing Chlorine in Wastes Decrease Dioxin
Formation in Waste Incinerators? Amsterdam, Netherlands: Greenpeace International.
xii
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds. Part I: Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like
Compounds. Volume 2: Sources of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States, EPA/600/P-00/001Bb, Draft
Final Report, September 2000. www.epa.gov/ncea
xiii
Levendis, Y., Atal, A., Carlson, J. 1998. On the Correlation of CO and PAH Emissions from the
Combustion of Pulverized Coal and Waste Tires Environ. Sci. Technol. 32: 3767-3777
xiv
World Chlorine Council, 1998. Dioxins and Furans in the Chemical Industry.
http://www.eurochlor.org/chlorine/issues/dioxins.htm (Accessed 16 March 2004).
xv
Xu, Y., Zhang, Q., Wu, W., Li, W., 2000. Patterns and levels of PCDD/F in a Chinese graphite electrode
sludge. Chinese Science Bulletin 45: 1471- 1475.
xvi
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of
Dioxins and Furans. EPA 454/R-97-003. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
xvii
Fiedler, H., Hutzinger, O., Welsch-Pausch, K., Schmiedinger, A., 2000. Evaluation of the Occurrence of
PCDD/PCDF and POPs in Wastes and Their Potential to Enter the Foodchain. Final Report. Study on behalf of
the European Commission, DG Environment. Bayreuth, Germany: University of Bayreuth.
107