Preliminary Results From the ScorePP Project

1. Preliminary Results From the ScorePP Project Hans-Christian Holten Lützhøft and Eva Eriksson DTU Environment, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark SOCOPSE Final ConferenceMaastricht (NL)24 June 2009

2. A Specific Targeted Research Project (STREP) Funded by the European Commission under the 6th Framework Programme (4th Call), sub-priority 1.1.6.3 ”Global Change and Ecosystems” Duration: 01OCT2006 to 30SEP2009 +6 months Budget: 3.6 M EUR, 2.6 M EUR from the EC 9 partners 4 case cities www.scorepp.eu The ScorePP project

3. D+T D+T T +T T D+T The ScorePP approach Example: Combined system: • Limiting release through: • Substitution • Minimising release from products • Legislation and regulations • Voluntary use reductions R+T • Treatment options: • Stormwater BMPs • Household treatment & reuse of WW • On-site industrial treatment • WWTPs • Sludge disposal T O • Sinks: • Primary: Surface water (WFD) • Secondary: Sediments, • soils/gr., water, humans, ... ELV ...   EQS ...  ?

4. Aim • The main project aim is to develop comprehensive and appropriate Source Control Options that authorities, cities, water utilities and chemical industry can employ to Reduce Emissions of Priority Pollutants from urban areas which will be pursued through • identifying potential sources and to quantify releases of priority pollutants • identifying emission barriers that can be implemented at appropriate stages in the priority pollutantrelease process • defining archetype cities in order to define emission control strategies • studying the pollutant flows in society to be able to assess the important stocks and pathways

5. Approach Establish Source Classification Framework Compile data on sources & releases Classifying using ESs

6. Source Classification Framework • Requirements • Content should be structured and organised in a harmonised way • Ensure that the different sources could be distinguished from each other • To be valid EU wide • Dynamic and to be used after this project ends • Inspiration • US EPA SCC • TGD • Harmonised codes like CN, NACE and NOSE • EINECS, CAS#

7. Source Classification Framework – the Emission String concept • CAS #: unique identification of each substance • NOSE: unique identification of emission processes • NACE: unique identification of economic activities related with the source • ES_Type: a ScorePP defined urban structure descriptor • Agriculture • Construction sites • Facilities; e.g. factories, dentists, slaughter houses (legal entities) • Households • Railways • Rivers • Roads • Waste sites/landfills • and more • All data are stored in a database

8. Compiling data • Risk Assessment Reports from EU • Hazardous Substance Data Bank and Household Product Database from US NLM • Handbooks and electronic compilations, e.g. the Merck Index, Rippen, the e-Pesticide Manual, Kirk-Othmer’s Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology • Research articles

9. NOSE Evaporation Evaporation Wear & tear NACE Waste Disposal ES_Type CAS# Classifying sources using the ES concept Plasticiser, by-products, impurities Release factor

10. SCF tested on a selection of WFD substances

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

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

13. Environmental releases due to vehicular transport on roads • Anthracene • Combustion: 5,2-28 µg/kg fuel burned, depending on vehicle and fuel type • Benzene • Combustion: 4-10 mg/km driven, depending on vehicle type • Benzo(a)pyrene • Combustion: 1-8 µg/km driven, without and with catalyst • Cadmium (from both break linings, tyres, fuel and asphalt) • 7 kg/year is released in Stockholm with 780.000 inhabitants • DEHP (from undercoating) • 200 kg/year is released in Stockholm with 780.000 inhabitants • Mercury • Tyres: 4-240 µg/km depending on vehicle type • Roads: 3-17 µg/km depending on vehicle type • Nickel • Combustion: 21-107 and 3,2-2310 ng/km driven, for gasoline and diesel, respectively • Brake-linings, tyres and asphalt: 91-182 ng/km

14. Statistics for Denmark year 2007

15. Environmental releases due to vehicular transport on roads Release of nickel from Danish highways: 108 kg • Benzene from cars: 154 tonnes • Benzo(a)pyrene: 360 tonnes • DEHP: 1,41 tonnes • Depending on fuel and vehicle type: • Anthracene: 12-67 kg • Nickel: 4,4-117 kg • Benzene frombusses, lorries etc: 105 tonnes • Cadmium: 49 kg • Mercury: 0,3-12 tonnes Plus releases of anthracene from wear & tear of tyres and asphalt and release of anthracene, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene due to leakage & spillage Thomas Ruby Bentzen, PhD thesis (2008)

16. Example of source mapping

17. Emission barriers using GIS

18. Emission barriers using GIS

19. Potential emission barriers for a specific source

20. Potential emission barriers for a specific area

21. Potential sites for an emission barrier

22. Case cities and ’Semi-hypothetical case city archetypes’ • Case cities : Vastly different with respect to climate, industry, treatment technologies and environmental awareness. + Real-life monitoring, existing industries and release patterns etc - Limited by confidential or missing information • SHCCA: Designed to represent different geographical and urban systems • All data available which is needed for further work (modelling, visualisation, multi-criteria analysis, evaluation of emission control strategies).

23. Archetypes • Geographical system • Climate; Size; Rainfall; Population etc • Urban system • Urban structures; Financial and activity systems; Technical systems and consumption; Pollution level; Local authorities and households • Emission control strategies • Generic and city specific Emission control strategies Urban system Geographical system

24. Limiting release and emissions • Pre-Application Control: Voluntary and regulatory initiatives, legislation, preventative measures, phasing out, substitutions etc • Pre-Environmental Release Treatment: municipal and industrial WWTPs and greywater as well as combined sewer overflows treatment etc • Post-Environmental Release Control and Treatment: structural and non-structural stormwater best management practices, management of sinks etc

25. An example of Pre-Application Control • Case city Stockholm • Pre-application control campaigns in the period 1995-2003 • Stricter EU and national legislations • New technologies (batteries) • Voluntary initiatives e.g., artists paint (Cd), anglers (Pb) also dentists (Hg) • Substance flow analyses showed a reduction in the stocks of Cd and Hg by approximately 25 % to 30 %. Cd and Hg inflow was substantially reduced, but Pb inflow increased. • Individual campaigns cannot be quantified due to the lack of field data Månsson et al (2008) Phasing Out Cadmium, Lead, and Mercury Effects on Urban Stocks and Flows. Journal of Industrial Ecology

26. Emission control strategies • Emission control strategies are combination of individual barriers (source control or treatment units)  individual barriers should also be evaluated. • Initial test-set: 1: Baseline 2: Implementation of relevant EU directives 3: 2 + Household voluntary initiatives and on-site treatment 4: 2 + Industrial Best Available Technologies 5: 2 + Post-Environmental Release Control and Treatment (stormwater and CSO) 6: 2 + Advanced end-of-pipe treatment

27. Tool for assessing effects of emission control strategies Inflow STOCK Outflow Substance flow analysis: Test the framework for a selected substance: Di(2-etylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) Utilise the Emission String DB Compare estimated environmental loads with monitoring data

28. Size and distribution of stock

29. Fate of emissions

30. Comparing SFA results with measured data

31. Conclusions • SCF established – based on literature knowledge about sources • About 900 ESs established for the 25 WFD substances • Overall 16% with concrete knowledge about release quantity • Overall 65% without any quantitative data on release into the technosphere • WFD substances occur in a wide variety of sources and activities in urban settings and are released to all studied compartments • Most sources are related to production activities • Other large categories are households, waste disposal, agriculture, construction and transport • Linking the urban descriptor/the ESs with GIS enables good visualisation tools • Sources can be plotted on a map • Substances can be plotted on a map • Source control options, e.g. waste water and stormwater treatment units can be shown on a map

32. Conclusions • Semi-hypothetical case cities provide valuable possibilities as all data needed for evaluation are present • Source control and mitigation options can be highly beneficial • Not all priority pollutants can be substituted • Some substances are not removed with conventional treatment units • Combined approaches merging source control and treatment is needed • Substance flow analysis can be a valuable tool for evaluation emission control strategies and identification of the most important emissions

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