How to reduce emissions most effectively? COHIBA Final Conference October 11-12

Comments

Transcription

How to reduce emissions most effectively? COHIBA Final Conference October 11-12
How to reduce emissions most effectively?
COHIBA Final Conference October 11-12th, 2011
Cindy Mathan, UBA and WP5 partners
Goals of COHIBA WP 5
• …to find cost effective measures to reduce discharges, emissions and
losses of 11 hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea Region
• WP5-lead: German environmental agency (with Fraunhofer-ISI)
• with partners from 7 countries
• …to produce guidance documents on 11 substances of concern
• utilize available information from WFD implementation, HELCOM
and EU projects and from work packages 3 and 4
• …to give recommandations on cost-effective reduction strategies
• … to contribute to a knowledge base for decision making for a Baltic
Sea with life undisturbed by hazardous substances
What are possible measures?
How to choose the right measures for the right sources?
• Pragmatic approach for selection of measures focusing on
largest reduction potential
• Evaluation in terms of cost-effectiveness
• Additional analysis environmental and economic effects
• Results compiled in 11 specific COHIBA Guidance
Documents and a Recommendation report
Three important perspectives for WP5
Three perspectives …
• Substance specific
perspective
Substance
specific
perspective
• Cross cutting
perspective across 11
hazardous substances
• Regional/National
perspective
HS emission
reduction
strategies for
Baltic Sea Area
Cross cutting
perspective
across 11 HS
Regional /
National
perspective
Regulatory background and changing emission pattern
• For most of the 11 HS existing use restrictions / bans on
international and/or EU level
• Change of emission pattern in recent years:
• Reduced emission from large industrial point sources
• Reduced total load to the environment
Regulatory background and changing emission pattern
• more complex emission pattern
• Increasing relevance of non industrial emission sources /
•
urban stock / Urban waste water as sink
Increasing proportion of long range transport but exact
contribution still unclear
• more complex selection of measures addressing multitude of
sources
Examples for insufficient regulations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sediments and dredged material, Harbors (TBT)
Car shredding facilities, electronic recycling (BDE)
Paper and textile recycling (PFOS/PFOA, NP)
Construction sites (HBCDD)*
Fire fighting foam (PFOS/PFOA)
Tyres (OP/OPE)*
Dental amalgams (Hg)*
• *Non regulated substances/uses  Need of more data to assess
importance of these sources
Substance specific perspective
• Identification of regulation gaps for some HS, e.g. exemptions for PFOA,
decaBDE, MCCP, HBCDD
• Additional regulations for substances emissions via imported product,
e.g. total ban of NP/NPE, global ban of Endosulfan
• Substitution is a cost-effective measure in several cases, e.g. NP/NPE,
PFOS, and OP
Substance specific perspective
• Work towards international conventions for HS with long range
transport as most important sources (e.g. HBCDD, PFAs)
• Update of the BREF document in some cases
• Public awareness campaigns
But: Substance specific emission reduction measures are important but
not sufficient
Cross substance measures
• Change in source pattern – Increasing importance of measures
targeting emission from urban stock via municipal waste water,
landfill leachate or urban run-off
• Existing waste water treatment is not sufficient for many HS, esp.
if UWWT or IPPC Directive not been fully implemented
• Advanced municipal waste water treatment (e.g. Activated
Carbon treatment) target various of the 11 HS simultaneously, as
well as other substances
Cross substance measures
• Some End-of-Pipe-measures (e.g. advanced waste water
•
•
treatment or sludge treatment) with cross substance effects can
be cost-effective
SME indirect dischargers need an appropriate waste water
treatment according to BAT (e.g. targeting Hg emissions from
dental clinics or Cd emissions from galvanic industries).
Address informal pathways of emission from urban areas (e.g.
wrongly connected pipes or burning of waste in backyards)
Regional perspective
• Consideration of different local boundary conditions
• Regional differences in the political enforceability of measures
(e.g. voluntary agreements, eco-labelling)
• Regulatory measures in Russia are mostly made for acute toxic
substances (BT criteria are less important)
Thank you!

Similar documents