| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |

Detailed Review of Selected Non-Incineration and Incineration POPs Elimination Technologies for the CEE Region

2 Introduction

2.1 Background
2.2 POPs in the CEE Region

The present POP elimination technology review project follows in continuation of recommendations outlined in earlier DANCEE report “Review on Obsolete Pesticides in Eastern and Central Europe, May 2001” stating a need for:

• “Provision of input to the international clarification of the applicability of non-incineration technologies in the CEE Region”.

Subsequently, the project has the following defined development objective:

• “International clarification as to best available technology for POPs reduction/elimination, and POPs awareness in general”

and immediate objective:

• “Promising non-incineration and incineration technologies and their applicability in both short and long term perspective as to best available technique for POPs elimination in the CEE Region screened, selected and reviewed".

The development and immediate objectives have been developed in line with the 17 May 2004 enforcement of the Stockholm Convention (SC). The implementation of the SC increases the need for clarification of applicable market available POPs elimination technologies in the CEE region as well as world-wide. On a global scale, a number of in-parallel initiatives are launched to further clarify differences in-between the various market and non-market available elimination technologies. Extensive review of the studies performed either by the various UN institutions (e.g. UNEP Chemicals and UNIDO) as well as national large-scale military de-ammunition programmes (e.g. the US based ACWA programme) significantly contributes to the overall clarification. Nevertheless, many countries in economic transition like the CEE region are in need or more dedicated approach tailoring in regional specific problems.

Furthermore, many of the performed studies have a general lack of economic assessment criteria, why this particular project has developed a separate chapter on likely applicable economic evaluation parameters and considerations to be assessed.

Simultaneously, recognising that final elimination of the POP substances in question is a critical element of national POPs management underlines the importance of such a project focussing on the CEE region.

The report contains detailed environmental, technical and economic review of in total 4 POPs elimination commercial operating technologies into which 2 are characterised as incineration-based and 2 non-incineration based. Each of the reviewed technologies has been visited on-site during operation and key operating companies and license-holders etc. have been interviewed. Each of the interview stakeholders have been peer-reviewing the consultants assessment prior to this publication. Nevertheless, the outlined assessment does not necessarily reflect the full opinion of the vendors.

The project should also be seen in line with the ongoing preparatory process drafting (ongoing process in the open ended working group under the Basel Convention Secretariat) a general technical guideline on the Environmentally Sound Management of POPs as Waste. The guideline is planned to be completed for the 7^th Conferences of the Parties to the Basel Convention in October 2004.

2.1 Background

The Report follows in line with the following previous DANCEE financed work within the SC frame and in the CEE region:

• Already Danish DANCEE and Danish consultancy involvement in obsolete pesticides (OP) projects in e.g. the Baltic Republics, Belarus, Poland, Ukraine and Albania (Danish supervisor on year 2002 completed EU-PHARE collection scheme of more than 300 tonnes of OPs in Albania). In Bulgaria, involvement in establishment of a National Centre for Hazardous Waste Management. Finally, various preparatory projects under the Stockholm Convention in the Baltic Republics, Western part of Russia and Poland;
   
• DANCEE and Danish consultants participation in the latest international (UNEP-FAO-OECD) OPs workshop in Alexandria, USA, September 2000, regional workshops likes the 6^th International HCH & Pesticides Forum in Poland, March 2000, UNEP Chemicals regional OP workshop in Russia, September 2001, UNIDO high-level conference in June 2002 in Bratislava, Slovakia, UNEP hosted POPs conference on POPs in Russia, November 2002 and 7^th International HCH & Pesticides Forum in Kiev, Ukraine June 2003, all focussing on OPs and POPs and their possible inventorying and elimination in the CEE Region and globally;
   
• Contemporary projects on POPs elimination techniques including the ongoing UNDP-GEF-UNIDO project “Demonstration of Viability and Removal of Barriers that Impede Adoption and Effective Implementation of Available, Non-combustion Technologies for Destroying Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)" in e.g. Slovakia and NEFCO PCB Fast Track Project “Transformer Cleaning and PCB Incineration” in the Western part of Russia.

Furthermore, at a very early stage of the project implementation, it was decided to involve major NGO organisations like Greenpeace International, Pesticides Action Network (PAN)-UK, International Pesticides Elimination Network (IPEN) and the International HCH & Pesticides Association, all active players in the CEE Region, as external advisors. In total, two Advisory Group meetings have been held (December 2001 and April 2003) between DANCEE, the consultant and the 4 main NGO organisations discussing subjects like project approach, selection of technologies and methodology for review, focussed strategy for the selected region (CEE), accessibility to trustworthy information, key findings as a result of the review performance etc.

The NGOs have contributed with updated information on the selected POPs elimination technologies and in all manners showed serious and professional involvement in the process, making it as objective and updated as possible. However, it must be underlined that the content of this report not necessarily reflects the opinion of the involved NGO organisations.

The obsolete pesticides problem in the CEE Region (minimum 100,000 tonnes with reference to the 6^th and 7^th International HCH & Pesticides Forum conferences in Poland and Ukraine significantly exceeds the similar problem covering the entire African continent (50,000 tonnes based on information from the African Stockpile Project homepage, September 2004 (www.africastockpiles.org/).

With the changed CEE region as per May 2004, the new EU member States must focus their efforts towards full compliance with the EU regulatory framework also covering POPs management activities. The enlargement process has although left behind a group of countries either as accession countries (Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia), potential accession countries (Turkey) and non-accession countries (e.g. Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Albania and Balkan).

The sub-division of the CEE Region into more or less two sectors will inevitably necessitate the acceptance of a short–term differentiated policy for e.g. chemical elimination, due to different political agendas, but also due to differences in financial access and technical capacities. In the long perspective, chances are that national differences in short-term solutions will merge and the region in seek for sub-regional solutions for chemical fraction such as the POPs. Key features supporting such a process are:

• The Enforcement of the Stockholm Convention as per 17 May 2004;
   
• Increased international co-operation through various international and bilateral programmes and programming of the EU Cohesion and Structural Funds as well as the EU Regulation no 850 and of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on POPs and Amending Directive 79/117/EEC; and
   
• Demands from e.g. international organisations like WTO, OECD etc., which could positively influence the long-term prospects of a more uniform attitude to safe chemical management and in particular setting up disposal routings. A parallel initiative from December 2002 (subject: Remove obsolete pesticides - European funding) by 28 members of the EU Parliament highlights the importance of finding sustainable solutions for uncontrolled stored high-risk chemicals and their disposal. Furthermore, NGO initiatives, like the recent 7^th International HCH & Pesticides Forum (Kiev, Ukraine, 5-7 June 2003) declared that establishing a fund supporting obsolete pesticides elimination development in non-EU members States in the CEE Region is valuable and facilitating the Stockholm Convention process.

The importance of having a number of in-parallel programmes supporting the environmental sound development within chemicals management was latest recognised by the EU Commissioner on Environment in August 2001. The EU Environmental Commissioner confirmed that the EU-programmes ISPA, LIFE and PHARE could financially contribute to speed up the process of chemicals elimination in the former candidate countries based on national priorities, although, subsequently leaving behind non-candidate countries in a difficult situation with limited access to supportive economic and technical means.

2.1.1 Danish and International support to the Stockholm Convention within the CEE region

Denmark has during more than a decade intensively supported chemicals management and in particular POPs, obsolete pesticides and dioxins etc. within the CEE region. Through involvement in e.g. AMAP, ACAP, HELCOM and related organisations, Denmark has launched a number of “ground activities” enabling co-operative countries to verify the consequences of e.g. SC ratification. Through extensive PCB projects in Western Russia, POPs preparatory projects in the Baltic States and partly Russia (inventorying and preparatory work for the National Implementation Plans under the Stockholm Convention), review of Obsolete Pesticides (OPs) situation in the CEE Region and long lasting direct involvement into OPs projects in Latvia, Belarus and Ukraine, the Danish Assistance Programme for the former CEE countries (DANCEE) has affiliated with the regional situation within chemicals management and in particular OPs/POPs management.

Furthermore, through a Danish EPA grant, the generic Stockholm Convention guidance document “Preparation of a National Implementation Plan for POPs – Guidance Document” has been developed for the WB and is now utilised world-wide as template concept for completion of NIPs under the Stockholm Convention.

Please find in table 2.1 below a list of selected Danish EPA financed activities within the CEE region within POPs management.

Table 2.1 List of Danish funded POP/OP projects within the CEE Region (1998-2004).

Source: DANCEE (www.mst.dk).

In addition, a technical working group under the Basel Secretariat has initiated the work on a global technical guideline for the environmentally sound management of POPs as waste. The draft technical guideline outlines a number of influencing parameters, which must be carefully considered and assessed prior to any national decision of disposal of POPs and/or OPs. These are, but are not limited to:

• Regulatory requirements;
• Inventories of POPs stockpiles;
• Collection, storage and containment;
• Transport; and
• Destruction and irreversible transformation methods.

The international community has furthermore initiated a number of parallel activities like the UNDP-GEF-UNIDO-EHF POPs elimination project in e.g. Slovakia (although primary targeting only PCBs), WB/UNEP POPs initiatives in Russia and Ukraine, EU-PHARE OP collection scheme for Albania and in progress for Romania, DG-Environment Service contract on Obsolete Pesticides in Candidate countries etc. In parallel, various other financial agencies, such as the Dutch and German governments have launched POPs activities in the CEE Region.

2.1.2 Lessons learned from international projects

The new EU countries have almost completed the process of harmonising their legislation with the EU legislative framework inspiring the new Candidate countries of Bulgaria, Romanian and Croatia to follow. Other countries (e.g. Belarus, Moldova, Russian Federation and Ukraine) are also making some efforts for approximation to the EU legislative framework. Among the latest documents reflecting the modernisation of the national environmental policy and legislation within the non-EU members States are e.g. the Environmental Doctrine of the Russian Federation (2002) and the revised RF Law on the Environmental Protection (2002).

Most of the CEE countries have signed the Stockholm Convention and started preparatory works in accordance with the global generic approach towards the development of National Implementation Plans (NIPs) through GEF POP Enabling Activity Program funded under the Stockholm Convention. The funds are disbursed through the POPs Enabling institutions UNEP, UNDP, WB and UNIDO.

The latest development hosted by the International HCH & Pesticides Association, was the proposal for establishing a fund for the disposal of obsolete stockpiles of POPs within the CEE region. The proposal was initially presented by UNIDO during the International Forum on Strategies and Priorities for Environmental Industries, 12-14 June 2002, Bratislava, Slovak Republic. Subsequently, the declaration from the 7^th International HCH & Pesticides Forum in Kiev, Ukraine June 2003 confirmed the establishing of a Working Group to develop a Programme of Action to enable concerted POPs actions in collaboration with governments, appropriate international organisations, international and regional development banks, and other stakeholders, including professional and public interest organisations and the industry. This Programme of Action should include, among others:

• Information on and reference to ongoing activities (such as GEF Enabling Activities, studies related to the EU-Acquis, FAO, UNEP and ACAP), to ensure optimal use of funds and resources and avoid duplication;
   
• Harmonised methodology for inventories and monitoring;
   
• Approach for priority setting and assessment of cost effectiveness;
   
• Ongoing review of existing and emerging technologies for POPs/obsolete pesticides destruction within the framework of existing and future waste management plans;
   
• Recommendations for the establishment of organisational infrastructure;
   
• Proposals for the appropriate use of financial mechanisms, such as existing EU and GEF funds;
   
• Assistance in establishment and implementation of coordination and communication structures; and
   
• Specific programmes for public education and awareness rising, including measures to secure civil society support.

This Programme of Action should serve as a catalyst for the establishment and implementation of Programmes by the Governments of the Central European and EECCA Countries.

Conclusively, the CEE Region will in the years ahead still find it self in a position where major differences towards POPs management and elimination exist between nations. Moving the EU-border further east (e.g. Belarus has no direct borders with the EU region) will on the one hand impose pressure on nations of instability and decreased focus on chemicals management, and on the other hand make illegal export far more easy. Finally, the overall international focus on e.g. terrorism will encourage nations to corporate on trading, transport and scientific research within hazardous chemical substances in general and highly toxic substances in particular.

2.1.3 Legal framework in the CEE countries

Two legal frameworks are currently developing within the CEE Region. Firstly, the completion of the approximation of national legislation to the EU regulatory framework for the new EU Member States. Secondly, a further development of the ex-USSR legislation in separate CEE countries and NIS States.

The new EU countries in the CEE Region will have to comply with existing EU-legislation, which has substantial regulatory framework e.g. on the incineration of waste, EIA, IPPC, Seveso II etc. Furthermore, the countries will have to comply with international conventions to the extent their obligation requires as signatories and/or Parties.

It is important to have in mind the differences in initiating e.g. collection campaigns and establishment of a national elimination plant. The later is regarded as a polluting industrial activity, which has to undertake e.g. EIA procedures (although depending on the annual treatment capacity), IPPC permission, Seveso II Directive assessment as well as a substantial number of local, regional and national permissions for e.g. construction and civil works, fire safety, effluent (if any) permission, proper addressing of public information and so forth.

The legal framework for the establishment of a POPs elimination facility has although during recent years been uniformed as the new member states have approximated towards the EU legislative framework. Differences most frequently occur within regional and local permissions. Target values for admissible effluent (air, and wastewater) are still normally regulated by the EU directive 2000/76/EC on incineration of waste and its amendment (e.g. Annex 1 on admissible values of dioxins and furans in wastewater).

As an illustration of the differences in e.g. the scheduled planning processes leading to the establishment of a national POPs elimination facility, Annex 1 shows which legal procedures must be completed in e.g. Russia prior to any actual treatment of POPs waste.

In opposition to the described Russian planning context, the EU regulatory framework related to the establishment of national elimination capacity for POPs and alike substances are supported by numerous EU directives among which Regulation no 850 on POPs and amending Directive 79/117/EEC, the EIA, Incineration of Waste and IPPC directives are of main importance. The combined regulatory and legal framework both support mandatory actions involving public participation, facilitate the utilisation of Best Available Technology (BAT) as well as setting of threshold values during operation. Nevertheless, in terms of full adoption of the Stockholm Convention intentions, the European continent with a historical record on e.g. incineration based technologies, further clarification is needed stipulating the dimensioned factor in terms of accepting certain admissible values versus non-acceptance of admissible values of e.g. dioxins and furans through emissions.

Article 6.2 of the Stockholm Convention furthermore requires its “Conference of the Parties to cooperate closely with the appropriate bodies of the Basel Convention to, inter alia, "establish levels of destruction and irreversible transformation necessary to ensure that the characteristics of persistent organic pollutants as specified in paragraph 1 of Annex D are not exhibited; and … work to establish, as appropriate, the concentration levels of the chemicals listed in Annexes A, B and C in order to define the low persistent organic pollutant content referred to in paragraph 1(d)(ii).”

The determination of concentrations to establish low levels of POPs is a highly complex process which existing working groups under the Basel and Stockholm Convention are in progress drafting.

2.2 POPs in the CEE Region

2.2.1 POP amounts and characteristics

The main purpose of this chapter is to give the reader a substantial knowledge of the OPs and POPs problem in the CEE Region as to amounts, characteristics, historical facts and national experiences. Furthermore, more than 10 years of planning, institutional capacity and implementation work in the region have enabled the consultant to perspective the tendencies and identify important key obstacles.

POPs are very stable, carbon-based chemical compounds and mixtures. These pollutants are classified as `persistent' because they are not degraded easily in the environment by physical, chemical or biological processes. The currently identified POPs are primarily pesticides, industrial products and by-products, of which 12 chemicals and/or groups of chemicals have been identified by the Stockholm Convention for reduction and, where feasible, ultimate elimination. These are aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, toxaphene, mirex, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorbenzene (HCB), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs, `dioxins') and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans (PCDFs, `furans').

The above mentioned POPs chemicals exist widely spread throughout the entire CEE Region. Most of these are although today covered by the more general nomenclature for obsolete pesticides. This, both due to difficulties in distinguishing the actual POP substances, but also due to the fact that most of these chemicals today are co-stored (stockpiled) with other chemical substances (mainly pesticides). The only POPs substance differentiating from this perception is PCBs due to generic utilisation different from the other POPs.

The Stockholm Convention governing POPs has in accordance with Article 1 the following main objective - “to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants (POPs)." The Convention obliges Parties to:

• Take measures to eliminate releases from intentional production and use, unintentional production, and stockpiles and wastes of 12 POPs (Articles 3, 5 and 6);
   
• Eliminate production and use of nine intentionally produced POPs, subject to certain time-limited and general exemptions (Annex A: aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, HCB, mirex, toxaphene, and PCBs);
   
• Take measures to restrict the production and use of one intentionally produced POP (Annex B: DDT);
   
• Reduce the total releases of unintentionally produced POPs with the goal of their continuing minimisation and where feasible, ultimate elimination (Annex C: polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, HCB, PCBs);
   
• Take appropriate measures so that waste POPs, including products and articles upon becoming wastes, are handled, collected, transported and stored in an environmentally sound manner, and are disposed of in such a way that the POPs content is destroyed or irreversibly transformed so that they do not exhibit the characteristics of POPs. Alternatively they should be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner when destruction, or irreversible transformation, does not represent the environmentally preferable option or the POPs content is low) (Article 6);
   
• Prohibit POPs waste to be subject to disposal operations that may lead to recovery, recycling, reclamation, direct reuse or alternative uses of POPs (Article 6.1 (d(iii))); and
   
• Encourage the implementation of national regulations to prevent development of new chemicals with POPs characteristics by promoting changes in industrial materials, processes, and products that can create POPs.

Furthermore, Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention concerning measures to reduce or eliminate releases from stockpiles and wastes left open a number of definitional issues. It required the COP to cooperate closely with the appropriate bodies of the Basel Convention in addressing these, in particular to establish appropriate levels of destruction and irreversible transformation for POPs wastes; to determine what methods would constitute environmentally sound disposal; and to establish the concentration levels that would define low POPs content. In order to keep the various integrated problems (POPs, other obsolete pesticides and polluted soil) separated in terms of elimination, it has been decided to use the nomenclature obsolete pesticides as descriptive term for POPs substances and other obsolete pesticides. The individual aspect of polluted soil is NOT covered by this report and the nomenclature for obsolete pesticides.

Countries in the CEE region have during the last decade used substantial efforts developing national inventories of in particular obsolete pesticides, mainly uncontrolled stored in rural sheds with no or limited control. Nevertheless, the various countries are merely all facing the safe problem - how to have more or less well documented uncontrolled highly toxic chemicals disposed off in an environmentally safe manner. Table 2.2 outlines estimated amounts of obsolete pesticides, POP and hazardous substances in general for selected countries in the CEE Region.

Table 2.2 Estimated amounts (tonnes) of OPs, POPs (inclusive PCBs) and hazardous waste in general based on extrapolation of obsolete pesticide data.

*1: The POPs fraction is for selected CEE countries positively identified to be between 20-30% of identified obsolete pesticides. A median value of 25% is used for the calculation. Added hereto actual known amount of PCBs generated from various DANCEE financed studies and mass flow calculations.
*2: Based on information from three independent sources of expertise, obsolete pesticides are estimated to provide approx. 0.01% of the anticipated total amount of hazardous waste in selected (Ukraine and Russia) countries. Figures in () are the estimated based on a 0.01% fraction of obsolete pesticides in relation to the total hazardous waste.
*3: The figure is officially announced and is from 1998. The figure includes class 1-3 waste equal to EU classified “toxic waste”.
*4: The figure is officially announced and is from 1999. The figure includes class 1-3 waste equal to EU classified “toxic waste”.

The figures in Table 2.2 is only a estimate due to national inclusion of both mixed POPs substances (e.g. non-POPs mixed with certain POPs) and in a number of cases extensive amounts of polluted soil frequently containing extensive amount of e.g. PCBs. The actual amount of OPs, POPs and in particular hazardous waste will differ, but the table shows an order of magnitude.

The entire CEE Region has an estimated amount of obsolete pesticides (as pure substances not mixed with e.g. soil) in excess of 100,000 tonnes exceeding identified amounts for e.g. the entire African continent. Taking into account that approximately 25% of the identified obsolete pesticides are POPs and that the region has extensive numbers of former large-scale production facilities formerly producing POPs substances, the CEE Region will have more than 100,000 tonnes of POPs substances to be eliminated. Simultaneously, recognising that the POPs fraction only equals less than 1 0/00 of all hazardous waste generated individual or combined elimination solutions must be assessed in this context.

2.2.2 POPs status of the CEE Region

The CEE Region is typically characterised by having relatively large stocks of obsolete pesticides, minor stocks of "pure" POPs and extensive, mostly site specific (hot spot) amounts of polluted soil and industrial produced hazardous waste. Table 2.3 shows for selected new EU countries the progress in terms of POPs inventories and storage characterisation, Stockholm Convention ratification including preparation of NIPs and establishment of national POPs elimination capacities.

Table 2.3 Country specific data on OPs/POPs in selected new EU countries

*1: The official estimate is 18,000 tonnes, while the 6^th International HCH and Pesticides Forum, 2001, estimates an amount of 50-60,000 tonnes in bunkers + 160,000 tonnes on industrial industries.
*2: Pesticides produced in the former Soviet Union.

The capacity of facilities currently available that may be used to eliminate the stocks of OP in the countries is far from being sufficient. Arrangements to increase capacity are therefore given high priority. Poland and Estonia have disposed of some quantities of OP in the past by way of export. Latvia is ongoing installing a mobile incinerator, which will run into regular service during 2004. Poland and Lithuania are also looking for opportunities to establish modern OP destruction facilities.

Most of the OP in Estonia and Latvia are stored centrally. Relatively large-scale activities to dispose of or eliminate OP are needed in the four countries of this group in order to solve the problems related to OPs, which will also allow them to meet the obligations under the Stockholm Convention concerning POPs pesticides. Large efforts are being made by the countries to increase national funds for those purposes. However, considerable international funding is required to assist the countries to successfully implement the elimination of OPs.

In Ukraine, the OPs are stored at about 4,000 storage facilities distributed nationwide. The National Action Plan on OP has been prepared, the national inventory of OP is carried out with the technical assistance funded by DANCEE and combined with the practical activities for upgrading selected storage facilities.

According to presentation at the 5th International HCH & Pesticides Forum (1999), the two regions (oblasts) of Ukraine (Dnepropetrivska and Donetska) are responsible for about 80-90% of the total annual generation of hazardous waste in Ukraine and about 90% of the total accumulated hazardous waste amount is located on their territory. Total generation was estimated to 138 million tonnes per year. Certain part of waste is neutralised or recycled. As of January 2000, the total quantity of toxic waste accumulated in Ukraine was about 4.4 billion tonnes, which is about 54 million tonnes more than those accumulated by January 1999 according to source information (reference to "National Report on the State of Environment in Ukraine in 1999").

In the Russian Federation, the problem of PCB is currently prioritised higher than the problem of OPs. The problem is caused by the large quantities of PCBs which were produced in the USSR, exported to other countries and used in industrial equipment of various types. The basic data on PCB balance and distribution are presented in the ongoing AMAP project focussing on phase-out of PCB containing products. As for the POPs/OPs, the main attention in the RF should be paid to DDT and HCB. Other POPs were not so widely used due to long lasting ban or total lack of internal RF production. However, other OPs are present on stocks.

During the 1960s the DDT was sprayed over vast agricultural areas from special aircrafts and with lack of precautions. This resulted in heavy contamination of soil. The formal ban was introduced in 1970, but the agricultural use continued up to 1980 and even later. The use for medical purposes was prohibited in 1989, but some exclusive permits for DDT application were provided later for vector control. There is no current production, import or export of DDT in Russia, but it is present in stores, some of them being in poor conditions.

2.2.3 POPs elimination experiences in the CEE Region

The CEE Region has obtained a number of POPs waste elimination experiences both based on in-house solutions and exporting. The export solutions have turned out to be limited in numbers, but quite successful in the sense that POPs waste are eliminated, although no national capacity is generated beside know-ledge on formalised exporting procedures (Basel Convention transhipment documentation).

In a number of countries, national attempts for the establishment of national elimination capacity has been launched, and in particular during latest years. In e.g. Poland, both dedicated semi-mobile based elimination capacity is in preparation, although facing a large number of problems due to restricted funds and public resistance as well as test trails with cement kiln elimination. In Latvia, a semi-mobile elimination facility is under provision enabling the Latvian government to complete final elimination of almost 2,000 tonnes of nationally collected OPs during 2004/05. In Lithuania, strategic considerations are made towards seeking solutions for old stockpiled pesticides and future plans for the establishment of a national system for hazardous waste. In Russia, with assistance from several co-funded programmes, minor breakthroughs are identified for PCB elimination and partly for OP elimination in selected parts of Russia. In the Slovak Republic, a GEF financially supported programme will likely establish the first non-incineration based commercially viable elimination platform in the CEE Region. However, it will take yet a few years to have the entire programme fully implemented and available for possible commercial operations.

| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next | | Top |

Version 1.0 March 2005, © Danish Environmental Protection Agency