|
Potential measures for reduction of releases of heavy metals, POPs, HCFCs, BFRs and industrial greenhouse gases with particular reference to Russia, Ukraine and ChinaContents
3 International agreements overview 5 Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
Appendix 1 International agreements in short PrefaceObjective The objective of the present review is to provide background for the Danish Environmental Protection Agency's considerations regarding its contribution to Nordic and Arctic initiatives such as NEFCO, Nordic Council/Nordic Council of Ministers and Arctic Council in the field of hazardous substances. The study focuses on initiatives for reduction of the releases of the substances in Russia, but includes information on Ukraine and China. The review performed does not pretend to be fully comprehensive as to the status in the countries included. One particular gap for most substances is a detailed survey of national or local measures already under implementation addressing the substances; in some cases that type of information has however been available and is presented in the report. Content The project addresses the following substance groups: Heavy metals (mercury, lead, cadmium), persistent organic pollutants (PCBs, PCDD/PDCF, HCB, 9 other pesticides), HCFC, industrial greenhouse gases (HFC, PFC, SF6) and brominated flame retardants (mainly PBB, PBDE and HBCD). For each of the substances the review includes:
Based on the assessment, recommendations on potential activities for release reduction have been prepared. The list of potential additional activities is included in a memorandum for internal use of the Danish EPA. Steering group The study has been followed by a Steering Committee consisting of:
Study team The following team has contributed to the solving of this assignment: Carsten Lassen (Project Manager), Jakob Maag, Sven Havelund, Erik Hansen, Jørn Lauridsen and Jesper Skaarup, COWI A/S. Disclaimer Please note that publication of this report does not signify that the content of the report necessarily reflect the views of the Danish EPA. Abbreviations and acronyms
1 Summary
In the following summary a short abstract is presented for each substance/substance group. An Internet scanning of 27 organisations for aid projects in Russia, Ukraine and China specifically addressing hazardous substances revealed that the main part of ongoing activities is undertaken with support from the Global Environment Facility (implemented by WB, UNIDO, UNEP and UNDP), ACAP (with grants from the Arctic countries) or through bilateral arrangements with Denmark (Russia and Ukraine), Canada (China) and Italy (China). Hazardous substances are not a priority area for the EU TACIS programme, although a few small TACIS BISTRO projects in this field have been identified. Besides these projects specifically addressing the substances, some Climate Change programmes aiming at shifting to other energy sources may indirectly have an impact on the mobilisation of heavy metals and the unintentional formation of PCDD/PCDFs, PCBs and HCB. The reviews have been used for identification of potential new support activities. The list of activities is included in a memorandum for internal use in the Danish EPA. 1.1 MercuryMercury is among the best described pollutants of the World, and the need for global actions to promote release reduction has been commonly accepted in recent years. Mercury and its compounds are toxic to humans and in the envi-ronment, and exposures considered to have adverse effects are present today in many parts of the world. Mercury releases sources can be grouped according to two principally different mechanisms: Mobilisation of mercury in trace concentrations in materials exploited in large volumes. Examples of major source categories in this group are coal combustion and extraction of non-ferrous metals and minerals. For this group of sources, end-of-pipe reduction measures are most commonly used. Generally certain mercury reductions can be obtained by multi-pollutant controls (filters etc.) and much can still be done by these means, but for major reduction cuts to occur, mercury specific controls may become necessary. A switch of raw mate-rials or technology is sometimes also an option - for example a switch from coal-fired energy production to renewable energy sources. Intentional use of mercury in products and processes. Examples of source categories in this group are chlor-alkali production with mercury cells, dental amalgam, mercury thermometers, batteries with mercury and mercury switches, among many others. It has been Danish policy for decades to reduce these re-leases at the primary source by substitution and phase-outs, and promotion of development and commercialisation of adequate alternatives. In many cases end-of-pipe reduction measures have however also been necessary, notably in the industry and in the waste treatment sector, because substitution can gener-ally not be obtained fast, and because end-of-pipe solutions often address sev-eral pollutants at the same time. For products the principal types of measures needed today are elimination of mercury in new products, separate collection, mercury specific reduction filters on waste incineration and environmentally safe disposal. 1.2 LeadLead and its compounds are toxic to humans and in the environment. The major source of lead releases to the atmosphere, and a major lead problem of concern, has been the release of lead compounds from the use of lead additives in petrol. Leaded petrol for vehicle transport is today 100% phased out in Russia, Ukraine and China. Lead batteries account for more than 50% of global lead consumption, and development of systems for efficient end environmentally sound collection and recycling of lead batteries is an important activity area. The effect of lead shot on waterfowls is internationally recognised, and a ban on lead shot in wetlands may be the first step in the phase out of lead in ammunition. The major Russian (and global) source category of lead releases today is non-ferrous metal industry. Measures for reduction of lead releases from this industry also address releases of cadmium, mercury and the unintentional production of PCDD/PCDF, PCB and HCB, and release reduction measures are stipulated by the UNECE HM protocol. Reduction of releases from non-ferrous industry is thus a major area of action. 1.3 CadmiumCadmium and its compounds are toxic to humans and in the environment. Nickel-cadmium (NiCd) batteries account for more than half of the global consumption with China as the major producer. Development of efficient systems for collection and recovery of cadmium batteries as well as batteries containing other hazardous substances is essential for preventing cadmium disposal to landfills and waste incinerators. For most of the major applications of cadmium alternatives are available on the market, e.g. pigments, plastic stabilizers, cadmium plating and batteries. Phase-out programmes for products and processes, for which alternatives are readily available, may include preparation of action plans, surveys of uses and options for substitution and implementation of regulation and substitution demonstration projects. The major global source category of cadmium releases today is non-ferrous metal industry. Measures for reduction of cadmium releases from this sector also address releases of lead, mercury and the unintentional production of PCDD/PCDF, PCB and HCB, and release reduction measures are stipulated by the UNECE HM protocol. 1.4 PCDD/PCDFsPolychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDFs) are two groups of persistent substances, both toxic to humans and in the environment. PCDD/PCDFs are not used intentionally, and the reduction measures concern the avoidance of formation and releases of the substances. PCDD/PCDFs reduction is addressed by the Stockholm Convention signed by Russia, Ukraine and China. As part of the enabling activities for implementation of the Stockholm Convention, preliminary PCDD/PCDFs inventories are undertaken in the countries and action plans for addressing PCDD/PCDFs releases will be prepared. Further activities concerning PCDD/PCDF reduction should preferably be in accordance with the priorities of the countries' individual action plans. Releases from waste incineration, iron ore sintering, secondary metal production and uncontrolled burning of waste are probably the main PCDD/PCDFs sources in the countries, and reduction of releases from these sources should have high priority. Measurements of PCDD/PCDFs are complicated and expensive, and there is an urgent need for actual measurements and detailed inventories documenting the need for, and costs of, implementation of reduction measures. PCDD/PCDF-specific air emission controls (e.g. fabric filter and carbon injection) are a prerequisite for reaching acceptable emission levels from the major source categories, and projects implementing such controls may have a significant demonstration effect. 1.5 PCBsPolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a group of persistent substances, toxic to humans and in the environment. PCBs are not produced intentionally today, but were formerly widely produced, and used in electrical equipment, paints and a number of minor applications. A significant part of the produced PCBs is still in use, first of all in transformers and capacitors, and elimination of waste PCBs and PCB-containing equipment is addressed by the Stockholm Convention signed by Russia, Ukraine and China. PCBs used for paints and other so-called "open applications" have today to a large extent already been released to the environment, and the remaining part is practically impossible to identify and manage. Inventories of PCB-containing electric equipment have been undertaken in all three countries. The main issue is today preparation of adequate regulation, collection of equipment, development of PCB waste management systems and final destruction of the PCBs. Ongoing projects in Russia address identification of PCB-containing equipment for final treatment and construction of two facilities for destruction of liquid PCBs and PCB-containing capacitors respectively. In China a large project on collection and destruction of PCB-containing equipment in selected regions is in preparation. 1.6 HCBHexachlorobenzene (HCB) is persistent and toxic to humans and in the environment. HCB is produced intentionally for use as a pesticide and an intermediate in the production of pentachlorophenol (PCP) and other chemicals. Pesticidal use of HCB is included in the chapter on POPs pesticides. HCB is produced unintentionally by the same thermal processes as PCDD/PCDDs, and measures for PCDD/PCDDs formation also address HCB. The driving force for implementation of the measures will usually be PCDD/PCDDs reduction; the HCB reduction being a desirable side-effect. Furthermore, HCB is unintentionally produced by some specific chemical and metallurgical processes. HCB is, when certain techniques are applied, produced as by-product by the production of chlorinated solvents, chlorinated aromatics and pesticides, by production of aluminium and magnesium and by production of chlor-alkali. The measures for reduction of HCB releases are changed production processes. Comprehensive inventories of HCB formation and releases in Russia, Ukraine and China have not been identified, and it is not known to what extent the processes specifically forming HCB are used. The first step in the awareness raising and identification of priority measures may be to assist Russia in undertaking a detailed HCB inventory. The obtained information would also be relevant for other countries from the former Soviet Union. HCB is in China used for production of PCP (pentachlorophenol), which today has been phased out in most countries because of the presence of PCDD/PCDFs as impurity, and because PCP acts as a precursor for PCDD/PCDFs formation. Phase-out of PCP production consequently addresses more of the POPs. Alternatives to the use of PCP for wood preservation are readily available. 1.7 POPs pesticidesNine POPs pesticides are addressed by the Stockholm Convention for immediate or future elimination: Aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, toxaphene, and hexachlorobenzene. In
Russia and Ukraine the POPs pesticides are not used today, but the POPs pesticides make a substantial part of the stockpiles of obsolete pesticides. In these countries the issue is thus mainly identification,
safe storage and final destruction of obsolete POPs pesticides in close coordination with the management of other obsolete pesticides. Identification, repacking and safe storage of obsolete pesticides in
selected oblasts is addressed in ongoing projects, but there is still an urgent need for application of the obtained experience in other regions. The pesticides are today stored intermediately, and in a long-term
perspective there is a need for building of destruction facilities, e.g. waste incinerators optimised for pesticide destruction. 1.8 Industrial greenhouse gasesThe gases HFCs, PFCs and SF6 are addressed here. These are the only so-called industrial greenhouse gases (GHGs) covered in the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) and PFCs (perfluorocarbons) are two groups of substances. SF6 (sulphurhexaflouride) is an individual substance. The so-called flexible mechanisms for implementation of GHG reduction efforts: "joint implementation" with East European Countries, and "clean development mechanism" with developing countries (including China), offer an opportunity to finance reduction initiatives in other countries on a commercial basis. This is a very strong incentive. The most important environmental property of these fluorinated compounds is the contribution to global climate change. Though the nominal contributions to global warming from these gases are currently in the range of a few percent, the emission reduction amounts that can be reached by reduction of industrial GHGs lie in the same order of magnitude as individual measures on CO2, because in principle a 100% substitution is possible for the major uses of industrial GHGs. HFCs and SF6 are deliberately produced and used in equipment and in products. Releases are primarily generated when using the substances or during the disposal of equipment or products. Substitution/phase-out is therefore the main type of measure for these substances. HFCs are also released as a pollutant from production of the ODS HCFC. These releases may decrease as a result of HCFC reductions stipulated in the Montreal Protocol and its amendments; see section 1.9 and Chapter 7. PFCs are also produced deliberately, but the major releases are generated as unwanted pollutants from the production of primary aluminium. For aluminium production improved technology and release reduction measures are the important types of measures. 1.9 HCFCsThe so-called Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS), including HCFCs, damage the stratospheric ozone layer, which protects the biosphere from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. HCFCs have somewhat lower depleting effects (ODPs) than the CFCs targeted first in the international reduction process. The substitution of HCFCs is closely linked to the substitution of CFCs on one side and on HFC (industrial GHGs) on the other side. HCFCs have been phased in as intermediate substitutes for CFCs. HFCs constitute a next step of intermediate substitutes to CFCs and HCFCs. HFCs have zero ODP, but unfortunately high global warming potentials. In the context of this report, substitution of both HCFCs and HFCs are priority fields due to their ODP and GWP characteristics. The substitution/phase-out options mentioned for refrigeration and foam blowing for HFCs in chapter 6 are therefore also relevant for HCFCs, and a direct substitution to non-ODP, non-GWP substances should be aimed at. Important release reduction measures for refrigeration uses of HCFC are containment, improved maintenance and recycling. While all three countries - Russia, Ukraine and China - have joined the Montreal Protocol, their ratification of the amendments to the Protocol ruling HCFC is lacking behind. Russia has currently not ratified any obligations as regards reductions of HCFCs, while Ukraine has ratified and China is in accession to obligations as regards consumption of HCFCs, but not to obligations on production and exports of HCFCs. Unfortunately strong economic incentives for HCFC reduction - like the ones existing for greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol - are lacking. Denmark has so far played a major role in Eastern Europe preparing large ODS reduction projects for financing by international financing institutions. 1.10 Brominated flame retardantsThe term `Brominated Flame Retardants' (BFRs) covers a diverse group of or-ganic substances having in common that they contain bromine and act as flame retardants. Traditionally the most widely used substances among the brominated flame retardants have been TBBPA (tetrabromo bisphenol A), PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers), PBBs (polybrominated biphenyls) and HBCD (hexabromocyclododecane). Today PBBs are not produced in any country. The environmental fate and effects of the BFRs vary considerably among the BFRs, even within the same substance group. In general congeners with lower bromine content are of more concern than congeners with higher bromine content. Two of the BFRs, hexabromobiphenyl (PBB with 6 bromine atoms) and pentabrominated diphenylether (PBDE with 5 bromine atoms) are considered for possible inclusion in the Stockholm Convention. The two substances are already or can easily be replaced by other flame retardants. BFRs are mainly used in electric and electronic products, textiles and building materials. The electric and electronic products are traded on a global market, and the use of BFRs with finished products will probably be quite similar all over the world. The use of BFRs in building materials and textiles is more variable depending on local tradition and regulation. The main measure for reduction of the releases of the BFRs is to reduce the use of the substances. The most problematic of the BFRs can easily be replaced by other BFRs, and many of the large companies in the electronics industry have phased out the use of PBDEs and PBBs as part of their corporate environmental strategy. For the major use areas non-halogenated alternatives are available, but for some minor areas no alternatives are available today. The EU RoHS directive on the restriction of hazardous substances in electric and electronic products stipulates that these products shall not contain PBBs and PBDEs, but most probably the most used of the substances, deca-PBE will be exempted from the restriction, weakening the effect of the Directive as a driving force for the phase-out of the substances in the EU and other parts of the world. It has not been possible to identify any surveys of BFR use or releases in Russia, Ukraine or China, and most probably they do not exist. Inventory preparation of selected BFR's in the Arctic is included in a new ACAP project with Norway as the lead country. 2 Methodology
In the following the applied methodology for the review is shortly described. 2.1 Release sources and reduction measuresThe main global release sources and reduction measures have been shortly reviewed based on the literature; mainly authorised reports from international or governmental institutions. The use of the substances and releases in Russia, Ukraine and China has been reviewed on the basis of information in English obtained from the Internet and literature. Additionally the information concerning Russia has been supplemented by literature and Internet Search in Russian. For most of the substances only scattered and incomplete information on the use and releases in Russia, Ukraine and China has been available. By combining the scattered information with the information on Global trends it has been attempted to establish a first view of the situation in the countries. A list of main technical measures for reduction of the use, formation and releases of the substances was developed on the basis of information from literature and the general knowledge of the authors. For the technical reduction measures being effective there is in general a need for development of adequate regulation, development of guidelines, enforcement of regulation and promotion of alternative solutions. These additional measures are considered implicit for all proposed technical measures. 2.2 International agreementsThe international agreements addressing the substances have been assessed, and a summary table indicating how the major release source categories and use areas are addressed by the agreements has been prepared. The aim of the table is to demonstrate the source categories or use areas of international concern, the applied types of reduction measures and the time perspective. 2.3 Ongoing activitiesInformation on ongoing and tendered activities was searched via the Internet April/May 2005 from the web-sites of the organisations listed in table 2-1. It is in the table indicated to what extent the list of relevant projects identified can be considered comprehensive. Besides projects specifically addressing the substances, projects addressing hazardous waste management and reduced use of fossil fuels have been identified. Energy-related projects, which indirectly may reduce the releases of a number of the substances have not been listed unless directly relevant to the proposed options for additional initiatives. Table 2-1 Organisations scanned for ongoing projects in Russia, Ukraine and China
2.4 ParadigmAs a first phase of the study, a paradigm for the assessment and reporting was developed using mercury as example. The paradigm was presented for the Steering Committee, revised in accordance with the comments obtained and applied on the remaining substances. 3 International agreements overviewTable 3-1 below presents an overview of which substances are covered in rele-vant international agreements. Further summary aspects are presented in the individual substance sections. In addition, a brief summary description of the objectives, scopes, and addressed substances of some of the included agreements is given in Appendix 1. Table 3-1 International agreements overview
NDI: No data identified; R: Ratification; At: Acceptance; Ap: Approval; Ac: Accession; RID: Ratification instruments deposited *1 Substances on the OSPAR List of Chemicals for Priority Action and the HELCOM list of Selected Substances for Immediate Priority Action are indicated. *2 Substances subject to the Prior Informed Consent procedure are indicated *3 While all three countries have joined the Montreal Protocol, their ratification of the amendments to the Protocol ruling HCFC is lacking behind. Russia has currently not ratified any obligations as regards reductions of HCFCs, while Ukraine has ratified and China is in accession to obligations as regards consumption of HCFCs, but not to obligations on production and exports of HCFCs. 4 Heavy metals4.1 MercuryAbstract Mercury releases sources can be grouped according to two principally different mechanisms: Mobilisation of mercury in trace concentrations in materials exploited in large volumes. Examples of major source categories in this group are coal combustion and extraction of non-ferrous metals and minerals. For this group of sources, end-of-pipe reduction measures are most commonly used. Generally certain mercury reductions can be obtained by multi-pollutant controls (filters etc.) and much can still be done by these means, but for major reduction cuts to occur, mercury specific controls may become necessary. A switch of raw materials or technology is sometimes also an option - for example a switch from coal-fired energy production to renewable energy sources. Intentional use of mercury in products and processes. Examples of source categories in this group are chlor-alkali production with mercury cells, dental amalgam, mercury thermometers, batteries with mercury and mercury switches, among many others. It has been Danish policy for decades to reduce these releases at the primary source by substitution and phase-outs, and promotion of development and commercialisation of adequate alternatives. In many cases end-of-pipe reduction measures have however also been necessary, notably in the industry and in the waste treatment sector, because substitution can generally not be obtained fast, and because end-of-pipe solutions often address several pollutants at the same time. For products the principal types of measures needed today are elimination of mercury in new products, separate collection, mercury specific reduction filters on waste incineration and environmentally safe disposal. 4.1.2 The mercury problemThe following introduction is an extract of the key findings of the Global Mercury Assessment (UNEP, 2002). It was concluded in the assessment report 1) that significant evidence exists of mercury's adverse effects on a global level and 2) that initiatives should be taken to address these effects. These conclusions were later adopted by the Governing Council of UNEP. After two Governing Council meetings in 2003 and 2005 with measures on mercury on the agenda, a number of recommendations for national and international initiatives to enhance mercury release reductions have been agreed on. The Governing Council concluded that, for the time being, no global instrument on mercury reductions should be launched. Environmental mercury levels have increased considerably since the on-set of the industrial age. Mercury is now present in various environmental media and food (especially fish) all over the globe at levels that adversely affect humans and wildlife. Widespread exposures are occurring due to human-generated sources, and past practices have left an inheritance of mercury in landfills, mine tailings, contaminated industrial sites, soils and sediments. Even regions with no significant mercury releases, such as the Arctic, are adversely affected due to the transcontinental and global transport of mercury. The most significant releases of mercury pollution are emissions to air, but mercury is also released from various sources directly to water and land. Once released, mercury persists in the environment, where it circulates between air, water, sediments, soil and biota in various forms. Current emissions add to the global pool; mercury that is continuously mobilised, deposited on land and water, and re-mobilised. Once deposited, the mercury form can change (primarily by microbial metabolism) to methylmercury, which has the capacity to bioaccumulate in organisms and to concentrate up through the food chains (biomagnify), especially in the aquatic food chain (fish and marine mammals). Methylmercury is therefore the form of greatest concern. Nearly all of the mercury in fish is methylmercury. Mercury has caused a variety of documented, significant, adverse impacts on human health and the environment throughout the world. Mercury and its compounds are highly toxic, especially to the developing nervous system. The toxicity to humans and other organisms depends on the chemical form, the amount, the pathway of exposure and the vulnerability of the person exposed. Human exposure to mercury can result from a variety of pathways, including, but not limited to, consumption of fish, occupational and household uses, dental amalgams and mercury-containing vaccines. Some populations are especially susceptible to mercury exposure, most notably the fetus, the new-born, and young children because of the sensitivity of the developing nervous system. Indigenous populations and others, who consume higher amounts of contaminated fish or marine mammals, as well as workers who are exposed to mercury, such as in small-scale gold and silver mining, may be highly exposed to mercury and are therefore at risk. There are also particularly vulnerable ecosystems and wildlife populations. These include top predators in aquatic food webs (such as fish-eating birds and mammals), Arctic ecosystems, wetlands, tropical ecosystems and soil microbial communities. Intervention Mercury pollution has significant impacts at local, national, regional and global levels. These impacts can be addressed through a range of actions at each of these levels, targeting reductions in uses, releases and exposures. Numerous actions implemented in Europe, North America and elsewhere have successfully reduced uses and releases of mercury; for example some reduction of releases from coal combustion and waste incineration. However, inventories are still incomplete in these regions, and some releases are still significant. Also, global releases are not reported as decreasing similarly, probably because of the growth of certain sectors in other parts of the world. The extent of decreases in environmental levels and ecosystem improvements in response to decreased releases of mercury will vary considerably depending on local ecosystem characteristics and other factors, and in some cases may take several decades. However, an evaluation of mercury levels in Swedish lakes indicates that by reducing releases, environmental levels of mercury, such as in freshwater fish, may be reduced significantly in specific locations within one to two decades. 4.1.3 Sources and releasesGlobal release data The following table illustrates the current comprehension of major contributions to atmospheric mercury releases globally. The data should likely be considered best available data, and is subject to considerable uncertainties; not all sources are included in the inventory. Note that releases to other media (water, land) are not included and may in some cases be significant. Table 4-1 Estimates of global atmospheric emissions of mercury from a number of major anthropogenic sources in 1995 (metric tons/year; Pirrone et al., 1996 and 2001, as cited in UNEP, 2002)
Notes *1 Estimates of maximum values, which are regarded as close to the best estimate value by the authors of the inventory. Totals represent total of the sources mentioned in this table, not all known sources. *2 The total emission estimate for 1990 also includes 171.7 metric tons from chlor-alkali production and other “less significant” sources. *3 The authors of the inventory state that releases from waste incineration are most likely underestimated due to lack of national data on wastes (Pirrone et al., 2001). *4 Not including releases from gold extraction (has been estimated by Lacerda (1997) at up to 460 metric tons/year at about 1990, of which most was released to the atmosphere). Also not including releases from chlor-alkali production and "other sources". The uncertainty on the total is significant – the authors mention that an estimation accuracy of less than 50 percent can be assigned for mercury in Europe (Pirrone et al., 2001). Most likely, the inaccuracy is higher for large parts of the world. Russia As part of the ACAP mercury project, ACAP (2005) developed the most detailed inventory of mercury releases, uses and wastes for Russia available so far. The inventory focused on atmospheric releases and total mobilisation (consumption plus releases) of mercury, but presented releases to water, soil, waste etc., where data were available to do so. An overview of reported releases and consumption/mobilisation in the Russia is given in table 4-2. Note that the atmospheric releases values presented for production of thermometers, production of light sources and other products (included in "other intentional uses") do not represent all releases from these products in their life cycle; the releases from the incineration of the spent products after their use are included in the waste treatment entries in the table. Table 4-2 Overview of reported releases and consumption/mobilisation in Russia (from ACAP 2005a)*1
*1 Best estimates; "+ ?" indicates that the value only represents the assessed activities but some categories not been assessed may add significantly to the total. Note that the total may be equally higher than indicated. *2 Direct emissions from the chlor-alkali production processes. In 2002 totally 56 t lost from the process was unaccounted for. A part of this may be emitted to the air. Ukraine According to the available information no national inventories of mercury releases have been made for Ukraine. At UNEP's mercury workshop in Kiev in 2004 a Ukrainian representative expressed a wish for Ukraine being one of the countries where UNEP's Mercury Inventory Toolkit Demo (under development by COWI for UNEP) could be tested. China Much focus has been on China in the discussions of global mercury releases. China is responsible for significant parts of the releases from Asia shown in table 4-1 above. A rough inventory of atmospheric releases in China was developed by Feng Xinbin (2005), see table 4-3 below. Note that gold mining was considered a major mercury release source in 1995. Mercury use in artisanal gold mining became illegal in 2000 in China and may perhaps have been reduced since then. Another aspect which Feng Xinbin describes is that the mercury consumption is increasing, and most of the increase seems to take place in the battery manufacturing sector. This is in spite of an observed steady decrease of the demand for mercury containing batteries in the west due to strict regulation in North America and Europe. Table 4-3 Emission factors and rough inventory of atmospheric mercury releases from China in 1995 (Feng Xinbin, 2005)
Mercury source categories present in China were also summarised by Chengang Lu (2004) as shown in table 4-4 at UNEP's mercury workshop in Thailand in 2004. The source categories are by and large the same categories as identified in Russia, except for the dedicated mercury mining taking place in China. A source category which is not mentioned in the table, but which other information indicates may perhaps still be substantial, is the intentional use of mercury for amalgamation in both artisanal and large-scale gold mining in China. Table 4-4 Mercury source categories identified in China (Chengang Lu, 2004)
4.1.4 Main reduction measuresThe main reduction measures relevant to the Arctic countries, including Russia, were presented and discussed by ACAP (2005b). Suggestions for specific reduction/prevention actions in Russia are under development in cooperation between the Russian Federal Service for Environmental, Technical and Atomic Supervision and the Danish EPA (assisted by COWI). Both of these activities are part of the Arctic Council ACAP mercury project coordinated by the Danish EPA. The measures are listed in table 4-5 below. The list includes most of the generally applicable reduction measures, but is not exhaustive. Note that most products with intentional mercury use are covered under the waste treatment heading in the table, because most of the mercury releases from products take place in the waste treatment phase. In specific cases manufacturing and use of such products may however also result in mercury releases. For a summarised introduction to the main principles of reductions measures for mercury, see the introduction to this section on mercury. Table 4-5 Overview of main release reduction measures for mercury in the Arctic countries (from the ACAP mercury project, including (ACAP, 2005b)
4.1.5 International regulation and agreementsTable 4-6 presents a summarised overview of the coverage in relevant agreements of the main mercury release source categories present in the Arctic countries. The source categories are ranked, the largest first, according to their atmospheric releases across all Arctic countries. Measures in bold are binding with specific deadlines and conditions. CLRTAP-HM One major agreement for mercury in the Arctic and European context, the UNECE CLRTAP HM Protocol, stipulates that each Party shall reduce its total annual mercury emissions into the atmosphere from the level of the emission in a set reference year, taking effective measures, appropriate to its particular circumstances. For specific sources, BAT and limit values should be applied (indicated in the table below), but a Party may, as an alternative, apply different emission reduction strategies that achieve equivalent overall emission reductions. Any Party whose total land area is greater than 6,000,000 km² (e.g. Russia) may, provided it can document that similar reductions have been achieved by other means, notify the secretariat that it wishes to be exempted from the obligations regarding limit values and BAT in existing stationary sources. So far only Canada has used this possibility. Ukraine has ratified the HM protocol, whereas the protocol is still not signed by Russia. UNEP Besides the agreements mentioned in the table, it should be noted that perhaps the most important agreement on mercury globally is the decisions taken in February 2003 and February 2005 by the Governing Council of UNEP (2003, 2005). They are not included in the table, because they address mercury broadly, and not with any particular stress on individual source categories. The 2005 decision strengthens the UNEP mercury programme, requests UNEP to develop a report on the supply, trade and demand for mercury on the global market for consideration at the 2006 session of the Governing Council and calls for partnerships between Governments and other stakeholders as an additional approach to reducing risks to human health and the environment from mercury. The decision encourages Governments, the private sector and international organizations to take immediate actions to reduce the risks to human health and the environment posed on a global scale by mercury in products and production processes. Possible actions mentioned include: application and sharing of information on best available techniques and measures to reduce mercury emissions from point sources, taking action related to mercury in products (such as batteries) and production processes (such as chlor-alkali facilities) through, for example, when warranted, introduction of bans or restrictions of uses and considering curbing primary production and the introduction into commerce of excess mercury supply. The Governing Council will again consider progress and assess, at the 2006 session of the Governing Council, the need for further action on mercury, considering a full range of options, including the possibility of a legally binding instrument, partnerships and other actions. For the Stockholm Convention and the CRLTAP HM protocol, a brief summary on the objectives, scope, and included substances is given in appendix 1. Table 4-6 Summarised overview of the coverage of mercury in relevant agree-ments (based on Danish EPA, 2005?)
*1 NARAP-Hg =The North American Regional Action Plan for Mercury. CLRTAP-HM = The Heavy Metals Protocol of the Convention for Long-Range Transboundary Atmospheric Pollution *2 Note that the primary mercury releases from products happen in the waste treatment phase. Individual products entries in the table do not include releases from the waste treatment phase, but only for manufacture and use. Products constitute large parts of the mercury input to the waste treatment sectors in some countries. *3 Only for new facilities. *4 Limit values for medical waste incineration are not included and are to be evaluated by the parties before December 2005. *5 Annex 1 of the Helsinki Convention states that: "…..the Contracting Parties shall endeavour to minimize and, whenever possible, to ban the use of the following substances as pesticides in the Baltic Sea Area and its catchment area:…..Mercury compounds….". 4.1.6 Overview of existing activitiesAn overview of identified, existing activities conducted by donor organisations and international finance institutions is presented in table 4-7 below. It should be noted that in addition to the mentioned projects, a number of projects exist which may affect mercury releases indirectly. This is particularly the case for a large number of energy related projects being implemented in Russia, Ukraine and China, mainly to address the climate change problem. For example, projects on energy efficiency and renewable energy production have the potential for contributing significantly to mercury release reductions due to reduction of coal combustion. Unless such projects have direct relevance to the specific suggestions given for additional measures in this report, they have not been included in the lists of on-going activities. Table 4-7 Existing initiatives in Russia, Ukraine and China with relation to mercury releases
*1 Reference www.world-bank.org; projects: 77 WB projects in Russia; 0 titles including Hg specifically; * 12 titles with possible source category relevance; * Further 8 titles, of less possible relevance (not read);' Other information about ongoing activities - Russia Russia is taking part in the ACAP Mercury Project ("Reduction of atmospheric releases of mercury from the Arctic States"). A substantial element of the pro-ject is to support mercury reduction activities in the Federation. One action in the ACAP project has been to prepare a national mercury release inventory for Russia (ACAP, 2005). The inventory is the most detailed ever for Russia, and is forming the basis for all other ACAP activities on mercury in Russia. Also, a draft input to priority actions on mercury in Russia was prepared as part of the ACAP Mercury project (ACAP , 2005c). As of April 2005, this document is in finalisation within the ACAP mercury project together with the Russian members of the Steering group (Russian Federal Service for Environmental, Technical and Atomic Supervision "Rostechnadzor"). The catalogue of measures presented in the document has already been used in Rostechnadzor's preparation of input to an expected meeting of the Russian National Safety Council. Also as part of the ACAP Mercury Project, three potential demonstration projects for mercury reductions in the Russian Federation are under evaluation (by April 2005). It is expecting that 1-2 projects may be selected for further demonstration implementation:
China The single source category with the largest reported atmospheric mercury releases globally is coal combustion for power production and other uses. China has been mentioned as one of the major contributors to these releases globally. The power demand is increasing very rapidly in China, and the production capacity is continuously built out. The USA and perhaps other countries have measurement and perhaps inventory activities in progress for coal-fired power combustion in China. The details of the US activities are not known. The study by Feng Xinbin (2005) mentioned above, and a few earlier studies not reviewed here, indicate that a number of studies on mercury pollution have been performed in China over the years, and that a scientific community on the issue exists in China. Most studies address local pollution incidents, but some seam to consider the regional or national level. Most existing studies are only reported in Chinese and have not been published internationally. 4.2 LeadABSTRACT. Lead is a heavy metal with a high toxicity and has no known beneficial effects in living organisms. Lead is toxic at very low exposure levels and has acute and chronic effects on health and the environment. Lead is not degradable in nature and will thus, once released to the environment, stay in circulation. In humans lead can affect the nervous system, the reproductive system, and the heart and blood system. Chronic low exposure is of concern. Lead accumulates in the bone structure in humans and can be released under pregnancy from the bone structure to the blood. Lead is causing concern in particular due to the possible impacts on children. Lead influences the nervous system. This influences learning abilities and behaviour. A source of particular importance to the exposure of the general population has been lead additives to petrol. In the environment lead is known to be toxic to plants, animals and microorganisms. The demonstrated effects of lead on birds ingesting lead shot and sinkers have led to the phase out of lead for these purposes in a number of countries. Lead is, contrary to mercury and the POPs, in general not biomagnified in the food chains. It is characteristic to lead that many different products containing lead will end up in waste management systems and be a source of lead to incineration plants and/or landfills. Significant quantities of lead are continuously stockpiled in landfills and other deposits and represent a potential for future releases to the environment. Long-range transport of lead by air is demonstrated from ice core samples from Greenland. Emissions from Eurasia and North America must be considered important sources for lead to the Arctic Region. 4.2.1 Sources and releasesConsumption The global consumption of lead has during the period 1970 to 2000 increased from 4.5 million tonnes to 6.5 million tonnes (LDAI 2002). In the absence of global consumption figures, the consumption by end uses in the OECD countries in 1970, 1990 and 2000 is shown in table 3.4. The most significant changes in the overall use pattern in the OECD countries are an increased consumption for batteries and a decrease in the areas of cable sheeting and petrol additives. Table 4-8 Lead consumption by end uses in OECD countries (based on Hansen and Lassen 2003a)
Original sources: *1 (OECD 1993) and *2 (LDAI 2002). For details see Hansen and Lassen 2003a. Lead compounds have during the whole period accounted for about 10% of the total, but some major changes within this category have taken place. A breakdown of the production in consumption in OECD countries in 1990 is shown in table 4-9. The major part of the lead compounds is today glass pigments for cathode ray tubes and crystal glass and stabilisers for PVC. Although lead compounds account only for 10% of the consumption, they take up a more significant part of lead disposed of to landfills and releases to the environment as the compounds are, apart from cathode ray tubes, in general not recycled. Table 4-9 Lead compounds consumption by end uses in OECD countries 1990 (derived from /OECD 1993/)
Emission to air In the mid-1990s fuel additives still accounted for 74% of the global lead emission to air (table 4-10). This amount will due to the widespread phase-out today be significantly lower making non-ferrous metal production and stationary fuel combustion (mainly coal combustion) the main source categories. The releases to the atmosphere are of particular concern because of the transboundary nature of the pollution. Table 4-10 Global atmospheric emission of lead in mid-1990s (Pacyna & Pacyna 2001)
Releases to water and soil The global releases of lead to land was in 1983 estimated at 804,000-1,820,000 t/year; the main sources being atmospheric deposition, waste of commercial products (landfilled), mine tailings and smelter slags and wastes (Nriagu and Pacyna 1988). The atmospheric fall-out will be smaller today, whereas the other sources most probably have increased. Lead disposed of in waste products represent a potential release to soil and water environments in the future. The direct releases to water environments excluding atmospheric deposition were estimated at 10,000-67,000 t/year. Russia In 1997, a white paper on lead contamination of the environment and the effect on human health in Russia was prepared by Russian Ecological Federal Information Agency by grants from US AID and the Federal Ecological Fund of the Russian Federation (SCEP 1997). The following is extracted from this document unless otherwise indicated. Total releases to the air and water and waste production in 1995 are shown in table 4-11. Table 4-11 Sources of lead releases to the environment in Russia for 1995 by industry and activity (SCEP 1997) tons of lead)
Notes (as indicated in SCEP 1997): *1 Lead-containing wastes of all branches except those used, neutralized, properly buried at official sites or placed in proper storage. *2 Estimate for 1993. *3 Production of lead minimum (Author's comment: = red lead). *4 Estimate of the amount of lead that leaked into the ground or water as electrolyte and paste from car batteries during their destruction. *5 Worn-out car batteries except for those collected by the Committee for Secondary Non-Ferrous Metals. The major source of atmospheric releases, vehicle transport, has in the meantime ceased as leaded petrol has been phased out 100% in Russia (UNEP 2004). In 1995, approximately 660 tons lead was released to the atmosphere by non-ferrous metallurgical enterprises. Approximately 94% of this was discharged by 5 enterprises: Middle-Ural Copper-Smelting Factory (291 t/yr), JSC Sviatogor-Krasnouralsk Copper-Smelting Plant (170 t/yr); Kirovgrad Copper-Smelting Plant (11 t/yr); JSC Dalpolimetall (28 t/yr); and the Electrozinc factory (16 t/yr). According to the white paper the inadequacy of particle detection systems available at non-ferrous metallurgical enterprises in the Urals is a vital factor that also determines the amount of lead discharges into the atmosphere. The production of car batteries in the machine tool industry consumes half of the lead that was used in the country. In 1995, total discharges into the atmosphere by seven car battery plants in Russia, which form the JSC Elektrozariad, made up approximately 38.2 tons lead; total disposal into bodies of water (through sewers) was 35.3 tons. The releases from glass production were 100-200 t/year. With the transition to using plastic materials for sheets in the production of cables, cable factories had decreased their consumption of lead and lead alloys. In 1995, the consumption of lead within factories of this sub-industry has decreased to 5,000 tons, and the releases from these processes were considered insignificant. According to official Russia statistics, the releases of lead from stationary sources is at the same level today as in 1995. The total releases from stationary sources in 2003 are reported at 632 tonnes lead (MNR 2004). To what extent the releases from other sources has changed significantly has not been investigated, but most probably the main source categories identified in the white paper are also the main categories today. Besides measures to reduce the use of leaded gasoline, the white paper proposes measures targeting recycling of batteries, production of batteries, substitution of lead shot, emissions from the metallurgical sector, lead waste from households and industries, substitution of lead pigments and phase-out of tin cans with leaded soldering. Ukraine No overview on lead consumption and lead releases in Ukraine has been identified. Primary lead is not produced in Ukraine, whereas the secondary production totalled 12,000 t in 2003 (Smith 2003.) The totally reported lead emission to the air from Ukraine in 2004 was 144.5 t (EMEP 2005). Leaded petrol has been phased out 100% in Ukraine as of 2001 (UNEP 2004). China It has not been possible to identify any comprehensive assessments of the use and releases of lead in China. China is the world's second largest producer of primary lead with a mine production of 660,000 t in 2003 (Smith 2003). The refinery production totals 1,100,000 t primary and 230,000 t secondary lead. Further increases in the vehicle fleet, increased exports of automotive batteries, and ongoing investment in the telecommunications and information technology sectors are expected to result in a lead demand growth of 10.5% in 2004 (Smith 2003). Key lead applications in China at present are lead-acid batteries, cable sheets, lead products, chemical products and alloys. Lead-acid battery production is the largest consumer and made up 67% of total lead consumption in China in 1999 (Feng 2005). According to UNEP (2004) leaded petrol is today 100% phased out in China. With the large primary and secondary production of lead it must be expected that the lead releases from this sector may be very significant. The state of the secondary lead sector is indicated by the following quotation: "However, China's lead-recycling industry is underdeveloped, with production lagging far behind that of North America, Europe and Japan, where highly developed auto industries provide adequate raw materials for lead recycling. Most enterprises still use old polluting methods, and, to date, only two have adopted environment-friendly techniques. Experts have called for the strengthening of regulations in the industry, both for development and environmental protection." (China.org 1999) According to articles of China Daily two issues related to lead in electronics are on the agenda: Complying with the EU RoHS Directive (Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment) and collection and recycling of electronics. China exported about USD 380 billion worth of electric and electronic products in 2003 and about 30 per cent of them went into the European market and the complying with the RoHS directive will result in decreased use of lead in the electronic industry. According to China Daily (2004) the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the country's top economic policy planning body, is currently circulating on its website a draft regulation on recycling old or scrap electronics, in a hope to elicit opinions from the public, before it is officially enacted. Currently, only a tiny portion of scrap electronics is being adequately handled, resulting in a huge waste of resources and environmental damage (China Daily 2004). 4.2.2 Main reduction measuresTechnical measures for reduction of lead releases for major source categories are summarised in table 5-3. Contrary to mercury, the main part of lead and cadmium is adhered to particles in the flue gas and effectively captured with air pollution controls for emission of particulate matter (PM) and sulphur/acid flue gases. The driving force for implementing more efficient controls will in power plants, industrial installations (except installations specifically using lead) and waste incinerators primarily be to reduce the emission of particulate matter, acid gases, NOx, mercury and PCDD/PCDFs. By the flue gas treatment system the lead is directed to other media (waste), and the most efficient measures for reducing the lead releases to all media are thus to reduce the lead input to the processes, e.g. by reducing non-essential intentional lead uses and the use of lead containing fuels and raw materials (particularly coal) and improved recycling of lead in waste products. Recovery of lead from batteries and printed circuit boards is without proper emission controls highly polluting processes. Although the lead releases from these processes on a national scale are relatively small, the local impact may be very significant. The options for substitution of lead for 30 different applications have been summarised in Hansen et al. 2002. Only major application areas for which substitution has taken place in many countries is listed in the table below. Table 4-12 Overview of main technical release reduction measures for lead
4.2.3 International regulation and agreementsTable 4-13 presents a summarised overview of the coverage of specific lead release source categories in relevant agreements. Measures in bold are binding with specific deadlines and conditions. The UNECE CLRTAP HM protocol stipulates that each Party shall reduce its total annual lead emissions into the atmosphere from the level of the emission in a set reference year, taking effective measures, appropriate to its particular circumstances. For specific sources, BAT and limit values should be applied (indicated in table 4-13), but a Party may, as an alternative, apply different emission reduction strategies that achieve equivalent overall emission reductions. Any Party whose total land area is greater than 6,000,000 km² (e.g. Russia) may, provided it can document that similar reductions have been achieved by other means, notify the secretariat that it wishes to be exempted from the obligations regarding limit values and BAT in existing stationary sources. So far only Canada has used this possibility. Ukraine has ratified the HM protocol, whereas the protocol is still not signed by Russia. Lead shot used in wetlands is addressed by the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA). AEWA is a multilateral environmental agreement, developed within the framework of the Convention of Migratory Species. The agreement is signed by Ukraine (01.01.2003) but still not ratified. The agreement is not signed by Russia which European part is within the geographic area of the agreement. The "Pan-European Strategy on the Phase Out of Added Lead in Petrol" was presented and adopted at the fourth "Environment for Europe" Ministerial Conference held in June 1998 in Aarhus, Denmark. The Strategy was signed by Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine have phased out the use of lead in petrol for vehicle transport. Table 4-13 Summarised overview of the coverage of lead in relevant agreements
*1 Lead content of petrol for on-road vehicles shall not exceed 0.013 g/l (=unleaded petrol) with some specified exemptions. *2 Recommendation that recovery of metals from all zinc-rich (zinc concentration above 16%) filter dust and filter dust from all stainless steel production should be carried out to promote recycling of cadmium and lead. BAT: Best Available Techniques; ww: waste water, PM-limit (air): limit value for particulate matter emission to air. 4.2.4 Overview of existing activitiesOnly one project specifically addressing lead use or lead releases in Russia, Ukraine or China has been identified. One EBRD loan in 2002 for Chelyabinsk Electrolytic Zinc Plant, Russia, includes improvements that reportedly help to reduce the emission of lead from the plant. Some activities of the ACAP project "Outspread and Implementation of the Cleaner Production Methodology in the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation" mentioned in table 4-7 may indirectly address the lead emission from the Norilsk Nickel smelter, but it has not been investigated. DEPA has supported a project “National System for Collection, Storage, Transportation and Treatment of used Lead Batteries, 2005“ in Bulgaria. The project included preparation of an inventory covering all collection sites for batteries and establishment of a new organisation for environmental safe handling of batteries. Projects addressing the use of fossil fuels may indirectly to some extent reduce lead emissions among other pollutants. Table 4-14 Identified initiatives in Russia, Ukraine and China addressing lead releases
4.3 CadmiumABSTRACT. Cadmium is a heavy metal with a high toxicity. Cadmium is not degradable in nature and will thus, once released to the environment, stay in circulation. Cadmium and cadmium compounds are, compared to other heavy metals, relatively water soluble. They are therefore also more mobile in e.g. soil, generally more bioavailable and tend to bioaccumulate. Cadmium accumulates in the human body, especially in the kidneys. According to current knowledge, kidney damage (renal tubular damage) is probably the critical health effect. Other effects of cadmium exposure are disturbances of calcium metabolism, hypercalciuria, ostoemalaci and formation of stones in the kidney. High exposure can lead to lung cancer and prostate cancer. Atmospheric deposition combined with cadmium impurities in phosphate fertilizers seems continuously to cause an increase of the content of cadmium in agricultural top soil, which by time will be reflected in an increased human intake by foodstuffs and therefore in an increased human risk of kidney damage and other effects related to cadmium. In the marine environment levels of cadmium may significantly exceed background levels causing a potential for serious effects on marine animals and in particular birds and mammals. Significant quantities of cadmium are continuously stockpiled in landfills and other deposits, and represent a significant potential for future releases to the environment. Long-range transport of cadmium by air is demonstrated by ice core samples from Greenland. Emissions from Eurasia and North America must be considered important sources for cadmium to the Arctic Region. 4.3.1 Sources and releasesIntentional consumption Cadmium is produced mainly as a by-product from mining, smelting and refining of sulphide ores of zinc, and to a lesser degree, lead and copper. As it is a by-product of zinc, the production of cadmium is more dependent on zinc refining than on market demand. The general trend in the global cadmium consumption over the last two decades has been a steep increase in the use of cadmium for batteries and a decrease in the use for nearly all other applications. In the absence of global consumption figures, total Western World consumption and EU consumption in 2000 is shown in table 4-15. NiCD batteries take up more than 50% of the total cadmium production. Although the use of cadmium for pigments, PVC stabilisers and plating in some countries by and large has been phased out, these applications at the EU level still account for a significant part of the total cadmium consumption in 2000, a pattern which presumably can also be seen in other parts of the world. Table 4-15 Intentional cadmium consumption by end-uses in Western World 1990 (based on Hansen and Lassen 2003b)
Original sources: *1 (OECD 1994b) and *2 (Scoullos et al. 2001). For details, see Hansen and Lassen 2003a. Unintentional mobilisation as impurity Cadmium is like other heavy metals mobilised as impurity in raw materials and fuels. In products cadmium in zinc and phosphorous fertilisers has been of major concern, and the content of cadmium in zinc products and fertilisers is regulated in many countries. Emission to air From 1983 to mid-1990s the global emission of cadmium to air decreased from about 7,600 tonnes (medium estimates of Nriagu and Pacyna 1988) to 3,000 tonnes (table 4-16). According to the assessment, by far the major source of cadmium emission to the air is non-ferrous metal production followed by stationary fossil fuel consumption (mainly coal utility boilers). The estimates should, however, be treated with caution as some sources may be significantly underestimated due to the methodology of the inventories. In particular waste incineration may be underestimated (AMAP 2002). In countries with extensive waste incineration the pattern may be significantly different. In Denmark, waste incineration accounts for 50% of the total air emission, and combustion of oil products accounts for 35% of the total (Drivsholm et al. 2000). Table 4-16 Global emission of cadmium to air in mid-1990s (Pacyna & Pacyna 2001)
The significant decrease in air emissions noted in table 4-16 is mainly caused by improved flue gas cleaning, which has partly changed a problem of direct release to the environment to an issue of how to control cadmium being stockpiled in landfills and other deposits in the long-term perspective. Russia It has not been possible to identify any assessments of cadmium use or cadmium releases in Ukraine. Russia produced in 2003 about 950 t of cadmium (Plachy 2005). Cadmium in phosphorous fertilizers has in many countries been a problem of concern because of the resulting increased cadmium level in agricultural soils. Russia has a significant mining of phosphate rock for fertilizers. The Russian phosphate rock from the Kola Peninsula has a cadmium content of about 8 g Cd per ton P (phosphorous); the lowest among the major phosphate reserves in the world (Karlsson et al. 2004). Ukraine It has not been possible to identify any assessments of cadmium use or cadmium releases in Ukraine. Ukraine produced in 2003 about 25 t primary cadmium (Plachy 2005). China China is the world's largest producer of cadmium with a production of 2,500 t in 2003 (Plachy 2005). China is today also the major cadmium consumer with an annual consumption of about 5,400 t of cadmium, primarily for production of NiCd batteries. According to a preliminary proposal by the State Environmental Protection Administration of China, domestic battery manufacturers and importers will be required to set up collection networks for discarded batteries, based on their distribution chains (Plachy 2003). Releases of cadmium from two NiCd factories in China have recently been studied by Greenpeace (Brigden and Santillo 2004) demonstrating contamination by heavy metals in environmental samples in the vicinity of both factories. Major Chinese battery producers advertising on the Internet provide both NiCD and NiMH (nickel metal hydride) batteries. 4.3.2 Main reduction measuresContrary to mercury, the main part of lead and cadmium in flue gas is adhered to particles in the flue gas and effectively captured with air pollution controls for emission of particulate matter (PM) and sulphur/acid flue gases. The driving force for implementing more efficient controls will in power plants, industrial installations (except installations specifically processing cadmium) and waste incinerators primarily be to reduce the emission of particulate matter, sulphur/hydrochloric acid, mercury or PCDD/PCDF. By the flue gas treatment system the cadmium is directed to other media (waste), and the most efficient measures for reducing the cadmium releases to all media are thus to reduce the cadmium input to the processes, e.g. by reducing non-essential intentional cadmium uses and the use of cadmium containing fuels and raw materials (particularly coal). The major source of cadmium directed to the waste treatment systems is in many countries NiCd batteries. The releases (today and in the future) from discarded batteries can be reduced by implementation of effective battery collection systems and promotion of cadmium-free batteries, in particularly nickel metal hydride, NiMH. The options for substitution of cadmium for 7 different applications have been summarised in Hansen et al. 2002. Only major application areas, for which substitution has taken place in many countries, are listed in the table below. Table 4-17 Overview of main technical release reduction measures for cadmium
4.3.3 International regulation and agreementsTable 4-18 presents a summarised overview of the coverage of specific cadmium release source categories and cadmium products in relevant agreements. Measures in bold are binding with specific deadlines and conditions. The UNECE CLRTAP HM protocol stipulates that each Party shall reduce its total annual cadmium emissions into the atmosphere from the level of the emission in a set reference year, taking effective measures, appropriate to its particular circumstances. For specific sources, BAT and limit values should be applied (indicated in table 4-18), but a Party may, as an alternative, apply different emission reduction strategies that achieve equivalent overall emission reductions. Any Party whose total land area is greater than 6,000,000 km² (e.g. Russia) may, provided it can document that similar reductions have been achieved by other means, notify the secretariat that it wishes to be exempted from the obligations regarding limit values and BAT in existing stationary sources. So far only Canada has used this possibility. Ukraine has ratified the HM protocol, whereas the protocol is still not signed by Russia. Cadmium is specifically addressed by a number of OSPAR and HELCOM recommendations and the minimised use of cadmium compounds as pesticides (among a list of other pesticides) is included by the Helsinki Convention. UNEP Governing Council adopted at its February 2005 meeting a plan to study lead and cadmium releases to determine the transboundary impacts of the two metals, with a view toward possible international action if found to be warranted. Table 4-18 Summarised overview of the coverage of cadmium in relevant agreements
*1 The parties of the Helsinki Convention shall endeavour to minimize and, whenever possible, to ban lead and cadmium compounds as pesticides in the Baltic Sea Area and its catchment area. *2 Recommendation that recovery of metals from all zinc-rich (zinc concentration above 16%) filter dust and filter dust from all stainless steel production should be carried out to promote recycling of cadmium and lead. BAT: best available techniques; ww: waste water, PM-limits: limit value for particulate matter emission. 4.3.4 Overview of existing activitiesOnly one project specifically addressing cadmium use or releases in Russia, Ukraine or China has been identified (see table 4-19). One EBRD loan in 2002 for Chelyabinsk Electrolytic Zinc Plant, Russia, includes improvements addressing cadmium production by the plant. Projects addressing the use of fossil fuels may to some extent reduce lead emissions among other pollutants. Table 4-19 Identified initiatives in Russia, Ukraine and China addressing cadmium use and releases
5 Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)5.1 PCDD/PCDFsABSTRACT Releases from waste incineration, iron ore sintering, secondary metal production and uncontrolled burning of waste are probably the main PCDD/PCDFs sources in the countries, and reduction of releases from these sources should have high priority. Measurements of PCDD/PCDFs are complicated and expensive, and there is an urgent need for actual measurements and detailed inventories documenting the need for and costs of implementation of reduction measures. PCDD/PCDF-specific air emission controls (e.g. fabric filter and carbon injection) are a prerequisite for reaching acceptable emission levels from the major source categories, and projects implementing such controls may have a significant demonstration effect. Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF) have never intentionally been produced, but they are formed as by-products or impurities in several industrial chemical processes as well as in most combustion processes. Historically PCDD/PCDF formation as impurity in chlorinated chemical compounds like PCP (pentachlorophenol), Agent Orange and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), was of major concern. Due to changed synthesis pathways, and the fact that the production of the chlorinated compounds concerned has ceased in most countries, the focus has changed to the formation of the compounds by combustion processes. PCDD/PCDFs are formed in combustion processes by two mechanisms: formation from precursors (e.g. PCBs) and formation by "de novo" synthesis from their basic elements - carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and chlorine. As dioxins are unintentional by-products, substitution of dioxin furans is not an issue for reducing the releases, but the releases may be reduced by substituting the precursors for formation and chlorine in general. The substances are very toxic, lipophilic (fat-soluble) and persistent, accumulate in organisms and biomagnify in the natural food chains. The main exposure of the general population to dioxins and furans is via food products; in particular fish, meat and diary products. 5.1.1 Sources and releasesUNEP Chemicals have in order to facilitate the comparison of release inventories among countries in its toolkit for PCDD/PCDF release inventories proposed a division on the main PCDD/PCDF sources into 10 main categories - a categorisation that will be followed here (UNEP 2002). UNEP chemicals prepared in 1999 a summary of national and regional PCDD/PCDF release inventories. As illustrated in the figure below, the distribution between the different source categories varies considerably among countries. The global distribution (the bar to the right) shows that waste incineration globally accounted for about 40% of the total releases. However, most probably in many countries the releases from metallurgical processes and uncontrolled burning processes have been underestimated and not included in the inventories (uncontrolled burning processes are in the figure included in "others", but categorised as a particular source category in the UNEP toolkit). Figure 5-1 Percentage contribution per sector and country to the overall PCDD/PCDFs air emission inventory; reference year 1995 (UNEP 1999)
Until now no comprehensive inventory of dioxins sources in Russia, Ukraine or China has been undertaken. PCDD/PCDFs inventory in Poland An inventory of PCDD/PCDF emission in Poland 2002, undertaken by using the toolkit for PCDD/PCDF inventories prepared by UNEP Chemicals (UNEP 2002), may give an indication of the expected distribution among the source categories. Only releases to air and residues, the main and most well described release pathways, are shown here. The distribution among categories reflects the general global trends. Concerning releases to water and products the following two sources within source category 7 not significant in Poland should, however, be considered:
Table 5-1 Potential releases of PCDD/PCDFs from all sources in Poland in 2000 by main source categories (based on Lassen et al. 2002)
* An empty cell indicates that the release route is considered insignificant. '?' indicates that the release route may be significant, but no emission factors have been determined. A "?" after a number indicates that the number may be underestimated, as some subcategories have not been quantified due to lack of emission factors. Russia-US EPA Dioxin Inventory Programme In 1996, a co-operation partnership was initiated between Russian and North American experts and NGOs to address dioxin contamination in Russia. As part of the partnership, an inventory project was started in July 1999. The U.S. EPA has funded the project. Its main objectives were to assess the major dioxin sources in Russia, compile a database of information on dioxin contamination in Russia and draft a white paper document to set priorities for Russia in terms of source reduction and public health protection. Training programmes for Russian laboratories and experts have been carried out as part of the project. The first phase of the inventory project (July 1999 - December 2000) resulted in the estimation of emissions by different sources. According to the initial inventory, total annual dioxin emission to the air from Russian sources was estimated to be within the interval of 6,900 to 10,900 g I-TEQ with hazardous waste incineration as the major source (6,330-10,128 g I-TEQ). Metallurgical processes, uncontrolled burning of waste and a number of minor sources are not included in the inventory, and the inventory must be considered highly uncertain. ACAP Dioxin Project In Phase I of the ACAP dioxin project an inventory as well as standardized sampling and analysis protocols, assessment of relevant RF regulations and standards of dioxin sources has been undertaken in three regions of the Russia: Murmansk, Archangelsk and Komi. Phase 2 will focus on reduction of dioxin emissions from Archangelsk pulp and paper facilities by implementing Cleaner Production techniques. Cleaner Production training at selected facilities in Archangelsk is also in progress. Dioxin pollution The most urgent problems regarding dioxins in Russia have until now been pollution with dioxins within and around chemical plants producing chlorinated and brominated compounds in which dioxins and furans were present as impurities. The dioxin pollution problems in connection with the chemical industry have been studied by a number of institutions and reported on in both Russia and internationally in a large number of publications and is reviewed in the report "Status on POPs in the Russian Federation, January 2002" prepared by DANCEE (COWI 2002). Ukraine No inventory of PCDD/PCDF emission in Ukraine has been identified. An inventory is probably under development as a part of the enabling activities of the Stockholm Convention. China According to a presentation of Gaolai 2004, representative of the State Environmental Protection Administration of China (SEPA), no dioxin inventories exist in China, but chlor-alkali, metallurgy, paper making, organic chemicals production (e.g. PCP) and waste incineration are recognised as sources. Dioxin emission from production of chlorinated chemicals seems to be significant, and Yonglong (2004) provides the table below. It is not clear whether the emission volumes concerns emission from production or the total amount of PCDD/PCDFs in the produced products. In any case the PCDD/PCDFs content of PCP (pentachlorophenol) and PCP-Na (sodium pentachlorophenol), both used as preservative, is very significant even considering the size of the country. PCP has been phased out in most western countries, but is i.a. still produced in the USA using synthesizing pathways resulting in less PCDD/PCDFs formation. Table 5-2 Estimated dioxin emission from chemical production in China (Yonglong, 2004)
5.1.2 Main reduction measuresThe main technical measures can be divided into measures for reducing the formation (primary measures) and measures for reducing the releases (secondary measures) of PCDD/PCDFs. Measures for reducing the formation Formation of PCDD/PCDFs in chemical processes has in most countries been avoided by phase out of relevant substances or by changed synthesis pathways. Primary measures for reducing the formation in thermal processes, which have been implemented in European countries, included reduction of chlorine or chlorinated compounds in raw materials, products and fuels and changes in processes that may lead to formation of dioxins and furans. Measures for reduction of releases The measures for reduction of releases may be divided into measures for destruction of dioxins and furan already formed and measures for reducing the direct releases to the environment by adsorbing the dioxins and furans to the residuals. Primary measures and measures where the formed PCDD/PCDFs are destructed have higher priority than measures moving the formed PCDD/PCDFs from one media to another. PCDD/PCDFs are formed in the temperature range 250-500 °C, and a short residence time for flue gas in this temperature interval is essential for preventing the formation of PCDD/PCDFs. Main measures by source category are shown in table 5-3. A more detailed list of measures can be found in Annex V to the UNECE POPs Protocol and in the draft guidelines on BAT and BEP for substances included in Annex C of the Stockholm Convention (Expert group 2004). Table 5-3 Overview of main release reduction measures for PCDD/PCDFs
* (P): Primary measure; (S) Secondary measure (SD): Secondary measure with destruction 5.1.3 International regulation and agreementsTable 5-4 present a summarised overview of the coverage in relevant agreements of the PCDD/PCDFs release source categories. Subcategories specifically addressed in any of the agreements are indicated. The obligations of the CLRTAP-POPs protocol and the Stockholm Convention are further summarised in Annex 1. The significance of waste incineration as a PCDD/PCDFs source is reflected in the fact that specific emission limit values for this source category are set in several of the agreements. For a number of sub-categories, in the agreements considered most significant (next to waste incineration), it is specified that BAT (best available techniques) should be implemented for reduction of the PCDD/PCDFs emission. The BAT is not specifically defined, but the CLRTAP-POPs protocol lists for these subcategories a number of potential reduction measures. Application of limit values of particulate matter (PM) emission, included in the CLRTAP-HM protocol, will also reduce PCDD/PCDFs emission, as a significant part of the PCDD/PCDFs is released adsorbed to the particles. Table 5-4 Summarised overview of the coverage of PCDD/PCDFs in international agreements (binding obligations indicated in bold)
*1 Annex C Part II lists source categories with potential for comparatively high formation and releases of PCDD/PCDFs (indicated by *1). For these sources the convention requires that BAT is phased in no later than four years after enter into force of the Convention for that party. *2 Annex C Part III lists other source categories with potential for formation and releases of PCDD/PCDFs (indicated by *2). For these sources the convention requires that BAT is phased in no later than four years after enter into force of the Convention for that party. *3 Annex V of the protocol identify BAT for a number of source categories (indicated by *3). Parties shall no later than the specified timescales specified apply BAT to new stationary sources within those categories. More differentiated requirements to existing sources within the same categories. *4 The limit values of the CLRTAP- HM protocol for dust emission may imply reduced PCDD/PCDFs emission BAT: Best available techniques (in some cases combined with BEP (best environmental practices)). All limit values refer to limit of air emissions. 5.1.4 Overview of existing activitiesAn overview of identified, existing activities conducted by donor organisations and international finance institutions is presented in table 5-5 below. PCDD/PCDF specific activities are marked with "PCDD/PCDFs:" In the beginning of the text summarising each project in the table. Other projects which may affect PCDF releases, but do not focus on PCDD/PCDFs, will have no such mark. Table 5-5 Identified initiatives in Russia, Ukraine and China addressing PCDD/PCDFs releases
5.2 PCBsABSTRACT In China a large project on collection and destruction of PCB-containing equipment in selected regions is in preparation, and it is proposed to await the experience of this project, before further activities are initiated. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a class of chlorinated hydrocarbons that have been used extensively since 1930 for a variety of industrial uses. Today PCBs are most probably not produced in any country. PCBs include mobile oily liquids and hard transparent resins, depending on the degree of substitution. The value of PCBs derives from their chemical inertness, resistance to heat, non-flammability, low vapour pressure and high dielectric constancy. The compounds were used in industry as heat exchange fluids, in electric transformers and capacitors, and as additives in paint, carbonless copy paper, and plastics. PCBs consist of two benzene rings joined by a carbon-carbon bond, with chlorine atoms on any or all of the remaining 10 carbon atoms. Many of the individual PCB congeners exhibit toxic properties. PCBs rarely cause acute toxic effects, but most of the effects observed are the result of a repetitive or chronic exposure. There is growing evidence linking PCBs to reproductive and immunotoxic effects in wildlife. Effects on the liver, skin, immune system, reproductive system, gastrointestinal tract and thyroid gland of laboratory rats have been observed, and PCBs are classified as probable human cancer promoters. The PCB issue today first of all concerns collection and environmentally sound elimination of used transformer oils and PCB-containing electric equipment. Unintentional production of PCBs Apart form the intentional use of PCBs, the compounds are also found at trace levels in fossil fuels. Furthermore, PCBs are - like dioxins and HCB - formed in combustion processes. Default emission factors for emission of PCBs from different combustion processes have been developed by EMEP for use in emission inventories. The measures for reduction of releases from unintentional production of PCBs are mainly the same as for PCDDs/PCDFs and are not addressed specifically in this chapter. 5.2.1 Sources and releasesPCBs are not produced today in Russia, Ukraine or China, but are released from PCB-containing products, stockpiles and waste dumps. From transformers PCBs may be released by maintenance operations and leakage from the transformers. Capacitors are closed boxes, and PCBs are only released by corrosion of the capacitors or breakage by disposal. The production and consumption of PCBs in the Soviet Union, and the presence in equipment in use in Russia today, have been assessed in the Multilateral Co-operative Project on Phase-out of PCB Use, and Management of PCB-Contaminated Wastes in the Russian Federation (ACAP 1999; 2003). The application and consumption, which are quite well in accordance with the global PCB consumption pattern, are summarised below. PCBs in the Soviet Union PCBs were in the Soviet Union produced by two factories located in Dzerzhinsk and Novomoskovsk, Russia. During the period from 1939 to 1993 they produced a total of about 180,000 tonnes. Table 5-6 Application of PCBs in the former Soviet Union
PCBs in equipment in Russia Based on an inventory carried out within the framework of Phase 1 of the ACAP PCB project it was concluded that in Russia in year 1999 about 10,000 transformers and about 500,000 capacitors were either in operation, in reserve, or removed from operation, but not destroyed. The transformers contained about 19,000 tonnes of PCBs (Sovtol), whereas the capacitors contained about 10,000 tons of trichlorobiphenyl (TCB). The distribution of the PCB-containing equipment among branches is summarised in table 5-7. Table 5-7 Approximate distribution of PCB-containing equipment among branches in Russia (based on ACAP 2003)
An adequate system for management of PCB-containing equipment and final destruction of equipment does not exist in Russia today. PCBs in China The following information on PCBs in China is summarised from the Project Information Document and Environmental Impact Assessment for PCB sites cleanup in the Zhejiang. China prepared it as part of the project preparation of a GEF "PCB Disposal and Management Demonstration Project" (WB 2005, SEPA 2005). In China, PCBs were mainly used in electric appliances and as an additive in paint. China began to produce PCBs in 1965 and stopped in early 1974. The total production amounted to about 10,000 tons, including 9,000 tons of trichlorobiphenyl (TCP) and 1,000 tons of pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB5). PCB5 oils were mostly used in a wide variety of open systems, such as in oil paints and exterior dopes. While some wastes may remain at production or formulation facilities, it is reasonable to assume that most of this material has been released into the environment. TCP was principally used in manufacturing capacitors that were used in the electrical supply industry. An estimated 12 kg of PCB3 was used in each capacitor and, based on a production of 9,000 tonnes, it is estimated that about 750,000 PCB-containing capacitors were produced in China. However, estimates based on the installed transmission capacity in China in 1975 indicate that 1.15 million capacitors would have been required, suggesting that as many as 400,000 PCB-containing capacitors were imported into China. If this estimate were correct, then an estimated 4,000-4,500 tonnes of TCP oils would have been imported with this equipment, so that a total of 13,000-13,500 tonnes of TCP would have been introduced into China as a result of the manufacture and import of capacitors. Transformers containing PCB oils were never produced in China, but an unknown number was imported. While 30 PCB-containing transformers have so far been found and disposed of, there is no basis to estimate how many PCB-containing transformers may remain in China, either in service or in storage for disposal. Since the lifetime of capacitors made in China is estimated to be 15 years, it follows that most of the 1.15 million PCB-containing capacitors have now been retired from service. Some specialized transformers were imported into China in the 1970s and 1980s, and their lifetime is expected to be 25-40 years. Therefore approximately 1 million capacitors and an unknown number of transformers are in storage and on disposal sites throughout China. During the 1980s, pieces of electrical equipment taken out of service were collected at temporary storage sites prior to disposal in accordance with the requirements proposed by relevant Ministries. Surveys and investigations conducted in recent years indicate that discarded PCB-containing equipment remain in some temporary storage facilities. Few of the sites were recorded on files and many of those for which file details have been found are no longer marked on the ground. An adequate system for management of PCB-containing equipment and final destruction of equipment does not exist in China today, but a new large GEF financed project will address these issues. PCBs in Ukraine An inventory in 2003 undertaken as part of the Stockholm Convention enabling activities based on enquiries to 5000 enterprises identified 960 PCB-containing transformers in Ukraine, of which 760 were still in use, the remaining being stored (Sukhoreba 2004). In total 92,500 capacitors were identified, of these 70,000 in use. Engineering industry and metallurgy were the main sectors with 576 and 900 tonnes PCBs in the hold equipment respectively. 5.2.2 Main reduction measuresIntentional use of PCB The main reduction measures for reduction of releases of PCBs are listed in table 5-8. Table 5-8 Overview of main release reduction measures for PCBs
Unintentional production of PCB PCBs is formed unintentionally by the same processes and mechanisms as PCDD/PCDFs and the measures mentioned for PCDD/PCDFs also apply to PCBs. The driving force for implementation of the measures will usually be PCDD/PCDF release reduction, with PCB release reduction as a desirable side-effect. 5.2.3 International regulation and agreementsTable 5-9 presents a summarised overview of the coverage in relevant agreements concerning PCB. The obligations of the CLRTAP-POPs protocol and the Stockholm Convention are further summarised in Annex 1. Table 5-9 Summarised overview of the coverage of intentionally used PCBs in relevant agreements
*1 For countries in transitions no later than 31 Dec 2005 *2 For countries in transition no later than 31 Dec 2020 *3 For countries in transition no later than 31 Dec 2015 *4 Phase out and destroy PCBs by the end of 1999 at the latest, for Iceland and the Contracting Parties which are riparian to the North Sea; by the end of 2010 at the latest, for the remaining Contracting Parties. (PARCOM DECISION 92/3) '*5 Prohibition of the use in the Baltic Sea area its catchment area is included as a binding obligation of the Helsinki Convention. 5.2.4 Overview of existing activitiesAn overview of identified, existing activities conducted by donor organisations and international finance institutions is presented in table 5-5 below. Table 5-10 Identified initiatives in Russia, Ukraine and China addressing PCBs management and releases
5.3 HCBABSTRACT Further HCB is unintentionally produced by some specific chemical and metallurgical processes. HCB is, when certain techniques are applied, produced as by-product by the production of chlorinated solvents, chlorinated aromatics and pesticides, by production of aluminium and magnesium and by production of chlor-alkali. The measures for reduction of HCB releases are changed production processes. Comprehensive inventories of HCB formation and releases in Russia, Ukraine and China have not been identified, and it is not known to what extent the processes specifically forming HCB are used. The first step in the awareness raising and identification of priory measures may be to assist Russia in undertaking a detailed HCB inventory. The obtained information would also be relevant for other countries from the former Soviet Union. HCB is in China used for production of PCP (pentachlorophenol), which today has been phased out in most countries because of the presence of PCDD/PCDFs as impurity, and because PCP acts as a precursor for PCDD/PCDFs formation. Phase-out of PCP production consequently addresses more of the POPs. Alternatives to the use of PCP for wood preservation are readily available Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), consisting of a benzene ring with six chlorine atoms, does not occur naturally. It is both produced intentionally and unintentionally by anthropogenic processes, and both the intentional and unintentional production have been addressed by international agreements. HCB was formerly used extensively as a seed dressing to prevent fungal disease on grains, but this use was discontinued in most western countries in the 1970s. The use of HCB as pesticide has continued in some countries, among these China, until today. The use of HCB as pesticide is included in section 2.4 on POPs pesticides. HCB is a highly persistent environmental toxin. It undergoes long-range transport in the atmosphere and bioaccumulates in fish, marine animals, birds, and animals that feed on fish. HCB accumulates significantly in the fatty tissues and is resistant to biodegradation. The primary route of exposure for the general population is dietary ingestion of foods that contain residue levels of HCB. HCB is toxic by all routes of exposure. Both the US EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have listed HCB as a possible carcinogen for humans. Acute high-dose exposures can lead to kidney and liver damage, central nervous system excitation and seizures, circulatory collapse and respiratory depression. Chronic low-dose exposures may damage a developing foetus, cause cancer, lead to kidney damage, liver damage and fatigue, and cause skin irritation. Unintentional formation and emissions of HCB result from the same type of thermal processes as those emitting PCDD/PCDF, and HCB is formed by a similar mechanism. Measures for PCDD/PCDF releases reduction consequently also reduce HCB releases. In Denmark, specific reduction of HCB releases has not been on the agenda, and no detailed description of HCB formation and releases in Denmark has been undertaken. A short survey from 1995 concludes that the release of HCB is insignificant, but the survey included intentional uses only (Hansen 1995). For a comprehensive description of HCB sources, environmental fate and risk characterisation, see Jones 2005. 5.3.1 Sources and releasesUse of HCB The use of HCB as pesticide is included in section 5.4. The draft Basel Convention guidelines mention that HCB is used as a chemical intermediate in the manufacture of other substances (Basel 2005). According to the guidelines it is believed that these chemical intermediate applications have ceased in most countries except for China and Russia. HCB has in western counties been used as a peptising agent in the production of nitroso and styrene rubbers for use in vehicle tyres. Other uses as a chemical intermediate have included the manufacture of certain dyestuffs, the production of pentachlorophenol and the production of aromatic fluorocarbons. In Russia HCB is still used in pyrotechnical compounds (Jones 2005). Formation of HCB HCB is unintentionally formed in a number of processes, of which the main process seems to be (Environment Canada 2005; Jones 2005; Bailey 2001, GLBTS. 2000):
The US draft national action plan for HCB mentions manufacturing of silicone products as the major source of HCB emission in the USA, but this source category is not mentioned in other assessments and reports (US EPA 2000). Atmospheric releases Annual atmospheric emission of HCB in Europe, USA and globally is shown in table 5-11. Globally, non-ferrous metal industry, waste incineration and pesticide use are the major sources. Table 5-11 Annual atmospheric emission of HCB in Europe, USA and globally (based on Jones 2005)
*1 Source: Berdowski et al. 1997. *2 Source: Bailey 2001. HCB as by-product in chemical industry Organic chemical industry accounts globally for about 6% of the atmospheric emission, but this source category may regionally be more significant depending on the presence of the relevant industry. Besides the direct atmospheric release significant unaccounted releases may occur from waste products. HCB is formed as byproduct and/or impurity in several chemical processes, such as the manufacture of chlorinated solvents, chlorinated aromatics and pesticides (Jones 2005). Jones (2005) refers that in the USA from 1980 to 1983 approximately 4,130 tonnes HCB were generated annually as a waste product and 3,178 tonnes of this was produced from the manufacture of perchlorethylene, trichloroetylene and tetrachloride. Similar data are referred from Germany and Japan. Compared with the total atmospheric emission in table 5-11, which is in the order of magnitude of 1000 times lower, the data indicate that the releases via waste streams may be significant. The fate of the HCB in the waste is highly dependent on whether the waste is treated by incineration of dumped in landfills. Since the 1980s, HCB levels in products have decreased dramatically, at least in Western countries. Russian Federation HCB is reported to be used in Russia as feedstock for pyrotechnical compounds used by the Army (Jones 2005). No information on HCB releases in Russia by source categories has been identified. China HCB is in China according to UNIDO/GEF (2003) produced in quantities of 1000-10000 t/year. HCB is not used as pesticide in China. In China, HCB is mainly used as the chemical mediate of pentachlorophenol (PCP) and sodium pentachlorophenate (PCP-Na), and something which in the report is designated "chemical dissolvent and other chemical assistant" (UNIDO/GEF 2003). The usages in different purposes of HCB need according to UNIDO/GEF a thorough survey. PCP and PCP-Na are in general used as disinfectant for wood and textile preservation and have been phased out in most western countries. As shown in chapter 5.1.1 on PCDD/PCDFs the annual releases of PCDD/PCDFs by production of PCP and PCP-Na in China are very significant. The applied synthesis pathway using HCB result in significantly higher formation of PCDD/PCDFs than other pathways applied e.g. in the USA, which is one of the few western countries still producing PCP. Ukraine The Basel Convention draft technical guidelines in HCB (Basel 2005) mentions without reference that there are in the World at least two identified stockpiles of over 10,000 tonnes of waste HCB from past production of chlorinated solvents, in particular perchloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethylene. One of these is in Ukraine. No further information on the issue has been identified. 5.3.2 Main reduction measuresFor the discussion of reduction measures it is relevant to distinguish between unintentional formation from combustion and other thermal processes and formation by other processes; first of all chemical processes. Combustion and other thermal processes HCB is formed unintentionally by the same thermal processes and mechanisms as PCDD/PCDFs, and the measures mentioned for PCDD/PCDFs in table 5-3 also apply to HCB. The driving force for implementation of the measures would usually be PCDD/PCDF release reduction, with HCB release reduction as a desirable side-effect. HCB formed as by-product/impurity by the production of chlorine and chlorinated chemicals can be reduced by process changes. Such measures have been implemented with success the last two decades and as mentioned above resulted in a dramatic reduction of the formation. When formed, the release of HCB from the waste can be reduced by adequate waste management, e.g. hazardous waste incineration. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS 2000) has identified a number of measures for reduction of the formation and releases of HCB from both thermal and chemical processes. The proposed measures, as regards production of chemicals in table 5-12, are based on this assessment. Table 5-12 Overview of main release reduction measures for HCB
5.3.3 International regulation and agreementsTable 5-13 presents a summarised overview of the coverage in relevant agreements of the HCB release source categories. Subcategories specifically addressed in any of the agreements are indicated. The source categories developed by UNEP for PCDD/PCDF emission have been used. The obligations of the CLRTAP-POPs protocol and the Stockholm Convention are further summarised in Annex 1. Both instruments include HCB in a group of unintentionally produced substances including PCDD/PCDFs and PCBs, and stipulate requirements for the group of substances as a whole. None of the agreements mention measures specifically addressing unintentionally produced HCB, and for this reason the specific sources mentioned in the previous sectors (e.g. aluminium and magnesium production) are not mentioned specifically in the table. HCB is not specifically addressed by any OSPAR or HELCOM recommendation or decision. HCB is not included in the OSPAR list of substances of possible concern, but included in the OSPAR 1998 list of candidates for selection, assessment and prioritisation. HCB is included in the HELCOM list of selected substances for immediate priority action. Agreements concerning the use of HCB as a pesticide are included in section 5.4. Table 5-13 Summarised overview of the coverage of unintentionally produced HCB in international agreements (binding obligations indicated in bold)
*1 Annex C Part II lists source categories with potential for comparatively high formation and releases of PCDD/PCDFs, PCBs and HCB (indicated by *1). For these sources the convention requires that BAT is phased in no later than four years after enter into force of the Convention for that party. *2 Annex C Part III lists other source categories with potential for formation and releases of PCDD/PCDFs, PCBs and HCB (indicated by *2). For these sources the convention requires that BAT is phased in no later than four years after enter into force of the Convention for that party. *3 Annex V of the protocol identify BAT for a number of source categories (indicated by *3). Parties shall no later than the specified timescales specified apply BAT to new stationary sources within those categories. More differentiated requirements to existing sources within the same categories. *4 The limit values of the CLRTAP- HM protocol for dust emission may imply reduced PCDD/PCDFs emission *5 Avoiding halogenated scavengers is in the CLRTAP POPs protocol more specifically described as a PCDD/PCDFs emission control, but may also reduce HCB emission. BAT: Best available techniques (in some cases combined with BEP (best environmental practices)) 5.3.4 Overview of existing activitiesAn overview of identified, existing activities conducted by donor organisations and international finance institutions specifically addressing HCB releases is presented in table 5.14 below. It has not been possible to identify any projects specifically addressing non-pesticidal HCB use. This reflects the fact that the HCB releases in general is considered a less important issue than PCBs and PCDD/PCDFs. As HCB is released from the same sources as PCDD/PCDFs, all projects described in the PCDD/PCDFs section will also have relevance to HCB. Table 5-14 Identified initiatives in Russia, Ukraine and China addressing HCB releases (apart from pesticides uses)
5.4 POPs pesticidesABSTRACT Nine pesticides are included in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, in the following designated the POPs pesticides. The POPs pesticides are all toxic persistent substances. They bioaccumulate in fatty tissues in the food chain and are transported over long distances in the atmosphere. The pesticides included in the Stockholm Convention are the following:
Besides these pesticides the UNECE POPs protocol includes two pesticides: chlordecone and lindane (99% gamma HCH, hexachlorocyclohexane). Most of the POP pesticides are banned or subject to restrictions in most countries today. However, the use of particularly DDT, chlordane, mirex and heptachlor is still reported. The POP pesticides have mainly been used for control of disease-carrying insects and for protection of crops, buildings and constructions against pests. 5.4.1 Sources and releasesRussia At present POP pesticides are not produced in Russia. Production of DDT was discontinued in 1998. The production facilities still exist and may resume production of DDT in quantities needed for disease vector control (malaria) in accordance with the provisions of the Stockholm Convention on POPs. Production and use would be under strict control of environmental protection, health and other authorities. DDT was, and still is, considered a strategic military chemical in many countries that might have to operate in a tropical climate. Table 5-15 Production, import and use of POPs pesticides in Russia (Based on COWI 2002)
The recorded use of hexachlorobenzene was 7,000 tonnes in 1987 against 15,000 tonnes in 1981. The Russian authorities have estimated the use of DDT at 1,300 tonnes in 1981, down from 12,000 tonnes in 1970. In 1988 it was permitted to use 126 tonnes of DDT and 333 tonnes hexachlorobenzene for disease vector control (COWI 2002). Releases of POPs pesticides to the environment today are primarily generated though in-secured stockpiles of obsolete pesticides (OP). Stockpiles of obsolete pesticides in Russia and Ukraine are shown in table 5-16. New experience indicates that the volumes may quite well be underestimated. Table 5-16 Estimated amounts (tonnes) of OPs, POPs (including PCBs) and hazardous waste in general based on extrapolation of obsolete pesticide data (DANCEE 2004)
Notes (as in DANCEE 2004): *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 amount 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”. China The POPs pesticide situation in China is summarised in a background document for the Project Brief for the GEF financed Stockholm Enabling Activities project (UNIDO/GEF 2003). Table 5-17 gives an overview of the situation, although the presentation is somewhat inconsistent and difficult to interpret. Four of the POPs pesticides are still used in China: DDT, HCB, chlordane and mirex. DDT is used for disease (malaria) vector control and has been prohibited for use in agriculture since 1983. HCB is not used as pesticide in China. In China, HCB is mainly used as the chemical mediate of pentachlorophenol and sodium pentachlorophenate, and something which in the report is designated "chemical dissolvent and other chemical assistant" (UNIDO/GEF 2003). The usages in different purposes of HCB need according to UNIDO/GEF a thorough survey. The use and reduction measures are further described in section 5.3.1. Chlordane and Mirex are used for termite control. Contrary to the situation on Russia and Ukraine, stockpiles of obsolete pesticides seem not to have been an issue in China, and no information on stockpiles have been available. However, stockpiles of obsolete pesticides may be widespread as indicated by UNIDO: "Considering less sound management and treatment capacity, it could be deduced tentatively that a lot of stockpiles or waste of pesticidal POPs still remained across the China." (UNIDO/GEF 2003). Table 5-17 Pesticidal POPs in China (UNIDO/GEF 2003)
Note: "--" denotes no detailed data, and the sources and notes are in the footnotes and text Ukraine Obsolete pesticide stocks in Ukraine is shown in table 5-16. 5.4.2 Main release reduction measuresThe main measures for reducing the releases of POPs pesticides to the environment are listed in table 5-18. Only the use of DDT, Chlordane and Mirex is mentioned, because these are the only POPs pesticides used in the countries addressed. The substances cannot simply be replaced by the use of other substances; there is a need for alternative strategies for pest and vector management. It is beyond the limits of this report to review all these different management options, but reference is made to UNEP (2000) and Mörner et al. (2000). Table 5-18 Overview of main measure for reduction of release from production, use and stockpiles of POPs pesticides
5.4.3 International regulation and agreementsTable 5-19 presents a summarised overview of the coverage in relevant agreements of the POPs pesticides. Binding agreements are indicated in bold. The obligations of the CLRTAP-POPs protocol and the Stockholm Convention are further summarised in Annex 1. Both instruments aim at eliminating the production and use of the substances, but list a number of exemptions. The Stockholm Convention includes more exemptions than the POPs Protocol reflecting the fact that more of the pesticides have essential applications in developing countries in tropical areas, for which substitution is not straightforward. A register is established for identifying Parties that have specific exemptions and all exemptions shall expire five years after the data of entry into force of the Convention. The POPs protocol includes two substances, chlordecone and HCH (linadane), not included in the Stockholm Convention. The Parties to the Stockholm Convention agreed, however, May 2005 that HCH and chlordecone should be considered for possible inclusion on the convention's list. The Helsinki Convention (July 2004 version with amendments) stipulates that Parties shall prohibit DDT for all uses (except for drugs). For a list of pesticides including the POPs pesticides (except mirex and HCB) the Parties "shall endeavour to minimize and, whenever possible, to ban the use" in the Baltic Sea Area and its catchment area. Mirex and HCB are included in the HELCOM list of substances for immediate priority action. The HELCOM list includes also a number of pesticides not covered by the Stockholm Convention and the POPs protocol. The HELCOM recommendations regarding procedures for approval of pesticides in the catchment area of the Baltic Sea indirectly set up procedures that would imply that the POPs pesticides most probably could not be approved for use (HELCOM recommendations 20/2). None of the substances are included in the OSPAR list of chemicals for priority action, but are all included in the OSPAR 1998 list of candidates for selection, assessment and prioritisation. Table 5-19 Summarised overview of the coverage of POPs pesticides in international agreements
*1 Eliminate by entry into force of the protocol. *2 Eliminate production within one year of consensus by the parties that suitable alternatives are available. '3* Restricted use for public health protection from diseases such as malaria encephalitis: Use allowed only as a component of an integrated pest management strategy and only to the extent necessary and only until one year after the date of the elimination of production. As a chemical intermediate to produce Dicofol: Such use shall be reassessed no later than two years after the date of entry into force of the present Protocol (Dicofol is a organochlorine acaricide (a chemical that kills mites) that is structurally similar to DDT. *4 A register is established for the purpose of identifying Parties that have specific exemptions. *5 Parties shall endeavour to minimize and, whenever possible, to ban the use of the substances as pesticides in the Baltic Sea Area and its catchment area. *6 Not specifically covered by the Convention, but the substances may indirectly be addressed by the recommendation regarding procedures for approval of pesticides. *7 "PARCOM Decision to Phase Out the Use of Aldrin, Dieldrin and Endrin" (1985) has been revoked of OSPAR Convention Parties (OSPAR Decision 98/1). 5.4.4 Overview of existing activitiesAn overview of identified, existing activities conducted by donor organisations and international finance institutions specifically addressing POPs pesticides is presented in table 5-20 below. Table 5-20 Identified initiatives in Russia, Ukraine and China addressing POPs pesticides
6 Industrial greenhouse gases
ABSTRACT The most important environmental property of these fluorinated compounds is the contribution to global climate change. Though the nominal contributions to global warming from these gases are currently in the range of a few percent, the emission reduction amounts that can be reached by reduction of industrial GHGs lie in the same order of magnitude as individual measures on CO2, because in principle a 100% substitution is possible for the major uses of industrial GHGs. HFCs and SF6 are deliberately produced and used in equipment and in products. Releases are primarily generated when using the substances or during the disposal of equipment or products. Substitution/phase-out is therefore the main type of measure for these substances. HFCs are also released as a pollutant from production of the ODS HCFC. These releases may decrease as a result of HCFC reductions stipulated in the Montreal Protocol and its amendments; see section 1.9 and Chapter 7. PFCs are also produced deliberately, but the major releases are generated as unwanted pollutants from the production of primary aluminium. For aluminium production improved technology and release reduction measures are the important types of measures. Most of the descriptive text in sections 6.1-6.3 is extracted from a recent authoritative review for the German Umweltbundesamt (UBA, 2004). Where other references were used, this is noted in the text. 6.1 Introduction to industrial greenhouse gasesPerspective From an environmental point of view, of all of the fluorinated compounds' properties, the contribution to global climate change is by far the most significant one. The biological impact of fluorinated compounds is low. Only high concentrations lead to adverse effects. Although today's additional greenhouse effect caused by fluorinated gases is low, it will increase enormously owing to the replacement of CFCs and HCFCs. This will pose a significant problem in the future. Today, fluorinated greenhouse gases account for approximately 1-2 % of the total emissions of climate-damaging gases. On the other hand, it should be taken into account that emissions of industrial GHG can often be reduced by 100%, if suitable measures are taken - e.g. substitution. Where traditional greenhouse gases are concerned, this is almost never the case. The emission reduction amounts that can be reached with CO2 for example, by applying individual measures lie in the same order of magnitude as those that can be achieved with fluorinated gases. HFCs, PFCs and SF6 have high Global Warming Potentials (GWP, unit reflecting the global warming effect compared to the effect of CO2), meaning that per kg emitted they contribute much more than per kg CO2 emitted. The global warming potential (GWP100) of HFCs ranges between 140 and 7,000, the GWP100 of PFC ranges between 6,000 and 9,000, and SF6 has a GWP100 of 23,900 (UBA, 2004). Table 6-1 below gives an overview of GWP, atmospheric lifetime etc. for individual HFCs, PFCs, SF6 and some other GHG for reference. Note the high GWP and lifetimes of the industrial GHGs, particularly PFCs and SF6. Reduction measures Generally, HFCs and SF6 are deliberately produced and used in equipment and in products. Releases are primarily generated when using the substances or during the disposal of equipment or products. Substitution/phase-out is therefore the main type of measure for these substances. PFC releases, on the other hand, are mainly generated as unwanted pollutant formation from the production of primary aluminium. Here, improved production technology and release reduction measures are the important types of measures. Since HFCs and PFCs were developed as substitutes for ODSs, their application areas are almost identical. Particularly HFCs have contributed in several areas to a fast ODS phase-out. On the other hand, halogen-free ODS substitutes established themselves right from the beginning in many areas of application, for example, as solvents or cleaning agents, as refrigerants, as fire extinguishing agents and in many application areas of the foam industry. However, some products and processes based on halogen-free substances have only in recent years reached a technical level which makes their use economically and ecologically viable. This applies to the use of CO2 as refrigerant and the use of halogen-free blowing agents in the foam production. Today, these techniques can fully replace processes and products that were based on fluorinated gases and were indispensable at the time. Comparative release trends The relative importance of releases from the addressed industrial GHGs has shifted in the EU over the last decades. The GWP contributions from HFC releases have doubled due to their role as substitutes for ODSs, while releases of PFCs and SF6 have shown a downward trend. HFCs now clearly constitute the major contributions to global warming from the industrial GHGs (EEA, 2004). Table 6-1 Overview of the Global Warming Potential, Radiative Forcing Values and Atmospheric Lifetime (IPCC 1994; IPCC 1995; WMO 1999: From: Harnisch et al. 2003; IPCC 2001: From: Harnisch et al.)
The GWP values indicated in table 6-1 have been agreed upon by the countries that are party to the UNFCCC. The only exceptions are the values indicated for newer substances. For them, no GWP has been determined so far. It may be possible that other publications list other GWP values, because they are based on other models. Current data are based on improved spectroscopic data and modified atmospheric lifetime values. 6.2 Sources and releasesNo data adequately describing releases distributed on major source categories were identified for the global situation, for Russia, Ukraine or China. Relevant data on releases for Germany, Denmark, Ireland and the USA were reviewed. Fragmented data from some Russian and Ukrainian sources were however identified and reviewed. Based on the review, the emission patterns in all these countries appear relatively similar, except for some major industrial source categories not present in Denmark and Ireland (UBA, 2004; Poulsen, 2004; Pedersen, 2003; Irish EPA, 2003; US EPA, 2004). As the German data illustrate the widest range of sources and the most suitable data series, these data are presented below. Though national and regional differences exist, these data are considered relevant indicators of the general importance of the major source categories. One potential difference could be that consumption/emissions of gases used for air conditioning and refrigeration may be relatively more important in warm climates, such as in China. On the other hand, the high economic activity per capita in Western countries may perhaps partly outweigh such a potential difference. This issue has not been investigated in more detail for this report. While in open systems emission and consumption rates are identical, closed systems generate large amounts of stored gas (stock). From this yearly growing stock, the substances are - completely or partially – emitted throughout the entire lifetime of the product and during disposal. Reports on fluorinated greenhouse gases therefore distinguish between actual and potential emissions. Table 6-2 presents time series for the releases of industrial greenhouse gases from various sources in Germany. A listing in text form of applications (and formation sources) is also given below the table. Table 6-2 Emissions of industrial greenhouse gases in Germany 1995-2002, by gas and application (from UBA, 2004, quoting BReg, 2004)
Notes: * Data in the column "2002*" designate potential emissions, that is stocks of the substance built up in products and processes in that year. The column "2002" designates actual releases in 2002. Major intentional uses and other source categories HFCs Application areas of HFCs include mainly the following:
Other applications include the following:
Another source of HFC releases is by-product formation in production of HCFCs. This source is decreasing in the western world due to ongoing substitution of HCFC uses, but may be increasing in the developing world due to their need for it as a transitional substitute for CFCs. Misuse of (CDM) funding for establishment of new HCFC production facilities with lower HFC releases is reported; apparently because the trading of associated CO2 credits alone enables such transactions economically. This is counterproductive to the goals of Montreal Protocol. PFCs Despite comprehensive upgrade and emission reduction measures, the largest PFC emission source in Germany is the aluminium industry. Unlike other PFC emission sources, the aluminium industry does not use PFCs, but generates them in the production process. The main application area of PFCs is the production of semi-conductors (BReg 2004). The global emissions of CF4 (one of the PFCs) was appr. 15,000 tonnes in 1990 and fell to appr. 10,500 tonnes in 1995. The annual global emission of C2F6 was about 2,000 tonnes in 1990 and 1995 (Pedersen, 2003). PFCs are specifically used for the following applications:
SF6 SF6 is not a substitute for ODSs. It has been used since the late 1960s (UBA, 2004). The global consumption is about 7,500 tons annually, of which approximately 6,000 tons are used as dielectric (insulating) gas in high-voltage electrical installations. Much of this is applied in the growing energy sector in Asia. The consumption is relatively lower now in western countries, because the sector here was built out earlier, and existing stocks are recycled. Magnesium production is the second largest application field globally; app. 500 tons annually (Pedersen, 2003). SF6 is used in a large variety of applications:
Until a few years ago, the major emission source in Germany was car tyres. Today, major emission sources include soundproof windows, electrical equipment, magnesium foundries and production of semi-conductors. All other applications are of less relevance as emission sources (BReg 2004). The various applications make use of the different properties of SF6. 6.2.1 Available release data from Russia and UkraineThe data shown in table 2-1 below was extracted from the Third National Communication of the Russian Federation (2002). The Third National Communication of the Russian Federation on activities under the Convention was compiled by the Federal Service of Russia for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring (Institute of Global Climate and Ecology under Roshydromet and the Russian Academy of Sciences was the leading contributor) at the request of the Inter-Agency Commission of the Russian Federation on Climate Change. This Communication was prepared in accordance with the decisions, methodological guidelines and recommendations of the UNFCCC. Federal Ministries and Agencies participating in the Federal Target Programme “Prevention of Dangerous Changes of Climate and their Adverse Effects”, many organizations, and scientific institutions of the Russian Federation have been involved in its preparation. Total anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases from the territory of Russia in 1999 (in CO2-equivalent) amounted to 61.5 % of the 1990 emission. Table 6-3 presents GHG emission trends in 1990 - 1999 (without CO2 removal by forests). Table 6-3 Anthropogenic emission of GHGs (million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents) in the Russian Federation
Note: *1: Calculated using un-rounded emission figures The US EPA (2001) calculated rough estimates and projections of industrial GHG releases from a number of countries including the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The estimates and projections were for most countries based on emission profiles derived from the US situation, and should therefore likely be considered as associated with significant uncertainties. The US estimates operate with a term called "ODS substitution". This category of release sources includes applications of HFCs and, to a lesser extent, PFCs, and hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) which are replacing ODSs in a wide variety of applications, including as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, solvents, foam blowing agents, medical sterilization carrier gases, and fire extinguishing agents. A further split of emissions of industrial GHG in Russia is provided in based on personal communication from the Russian Institute of Global Climate and Ecology. Table 6-4 Fluorinated gases emissions in the Russian Federation by gas, 1990–1999 (tonnes CÎ2 equivalent)
NA stands for Not Available The US EPA (2001) estimates thus derived for Russia and Ukraine are presented in table 6-5. Table 6-5 Industrial GHG releases in Russia and Ukraine roughly estimated/projected by US EPA (2001)
Note: n.a.: releases from the source were not estimated. Russian and Ukrainian data submitted for UNFCCC secretariatRussia No national emission inventory report (so-called NIR) for greenhouse gases for the Russian Federation had been posted on the UNFCCC inventory web site by May 2005 (UNFCCC 2005). Parties are expected to submit their fourth national communication to the secretariat by 1 January 2006. Ukraine A national emission inventory report (so-called NIR) for greenhouse gases for Ukraine is also available from the UNFCCC inventory web site (UNFCCC 2005). Of the industrial GHG, the report only mentions PFC releases from aluminium production (an unintended formation of pollutants). These GHG releases from aluminium production in Ukraine are shown in table 6-6. Table 6-6 GHG releases from aluminium production in Ukraine (tonnes CO2 equivalents)
China No information on industrial GHGs in China was identified at authoritative web sites on the issue (IPCC and UNFCCC). It cannot be ruled out however that information exists which could be identified through a more extensive data search. 6.3 Main reduction measuresSubstitution/phase-out The main measure for emission reduction for the addressed industrial greenhouse gases is substitution of intentional uses. The alternatives available are other substances and adjusted techniques - see table 6-7 below. For most applications the alternatives are commercially available today. Release reductions For a few major source categories, the emissions are generated through unintended formation in industrial processes. This is the case for PFC emissions from aluminium production and HFC emissions from production of HCFCs. The latter has been reduced significantly in the EU over the last decade due to the substitution of the ozone depleting HCFCs, which are covered by the Montreal Protocol and its amendments (EEA, 2004). This development may likely be expected in Russia, Ukraine and China at a later stage too, if they eliminate their production/use of HCFC in accordance with the Montreal protocol and its amendments. General reduction measures Table 6-8 overleaf gives a quite detailed overview of general measures applicable for the reduction of industrial GHG releases by substance (group) and sector. Table 6-7 Main alternatives for halogenated industrial greenhouse gases in important applications (from UBA, 2004, unless noted)
*1 R-codes are used for refrigerants only. Table 6-8 Overview of general release reduction measures for HFCs, PFCs and SF6 (based on UBA, 2004, and Pedersen, 2003)
*1 For many applications HCFCs and CFCs have also been used, and in some cases substitution has happened directly from theses substances to non-GHG substitutes. 6.4 International regulation and agreements6.4.1 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)HFCs, PFCs and SF6 are addressed in the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Other substances covered by the Protocol are the high volume gases CO2, methane and N2O. The Protocol defines binding reduction targets for the total emission of all addressed greenhouse gases, calculated by use of so-called carbon dioxide equivalents, for each of the Parties to the Protocol. The targets are expressed as a percentage of the total emission of the Party in question in 1990 (or another predefined baseline year), and are defined for each of the Parties individually. The reduction targets for the countries of primary interest here are presented in table 6-9. The target must be met as an annual average over the years 2008-2012 (incl.). Table 6-9 Reduction targets for GWP releases of the addressed countries (based on the Kyoto Protocol, Annex B, unless noted)
*1 A reduction of 0% actually means conserving status quo for releases in spite of expected increases in the economical activity. Denmark's reduction target is 8% according to what is presented in Annex B to the Protocol. As a result of Danish commitments within the EU (which is also a party to the Protocol), Denmark's actual reduction target is 21%. *2 China is a so-called Annex II Party (a developing country). No reduction target for China is presented in the Protocol. Carbon dioxide equivalents - also called global warming potential, GWP - are units reflecting the ability of a substance to contribute to the greenhouse effect relative to the contribution of the same amount of carbon dioxide (which by definition has GWP =1) over a specified time period. In the context of the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, the international community has agreed to use 100 years (GWP100) as a standard to enhance comparability. Meeting the reduction target for a country can be achieved by cutting emissions of the addressed substances, or by increasing greenhouse gas removals in predefined so-called "sinks", for example by planting forests which accumulate CO2 from the atmosphere. It is important to understand that all the addressed substances contribute to the same adverse effect, though at different rates per amount, and reduction targets are not defined individually for the substances. This means that the Parties may decide for themselves which substances in which sectors they prefer to address with reduction measures. Reducing the overall national emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents through reductions of emissions of HFCs, PFCs or SF6 are just some of the options available. Besides national reductions on a Party's own territory, the Protocol also establishes three “mechanisms” for bilateral or multilateral cooperation to cut releases known as joint implementation (with parties to the Protocol), the clean development mechanism (with developing countries including China), and emissions trading. These are designed to help Parties cut the cost of meeting their individual emission targets by taking advantage of opportunities to reduce releases, or increase greenhouse gas removals, that cost less in other countries than at home. With joint implementation (JI) a party to the Kyoto Protocol can implement reduction initiatives in other parties to the Protocol which fulfil certain documentation and registration requirements. Most JI projects are expected to take place in countries with economies in transition in Eastern Europe. The financing country can subtract the achieved reductions on its own climate gas budget and thereby reduce the need for reduction efforts on their own territory. A system has been developed whereby such reduction efforts can be traded commercially through what could be called "carbon credits". For example, Denmark calls for tenders from industry and other commercial partners, for such projects that reduce climate gas emissions in other countries, and the tenders can be evaluated according to how many tons of CO2 equivalents reductions can be achieved per US dollar, Euro or DKK. A JI project might involve, for example, replacing a coal-fired power plant with a more efficient combined heat and power plant. The clean development mechanism (CDM) works in a similar manner, but applies only to developing countries (which have not committed themselves to specific CO2 reduction targets stated in the Protocol). CDM projects must be evaluated and approved in a special forum set up under the Protocol and its later accords. More information on the Kyoto Protocol, the UNFCCC and later documents laying down rules for the mentioned mechanisms is available at the UNFCCC homepage at http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php 6.4.2 Other agreementsThe addressed industrial greenhouse gases are not covered in other agreements assessed in this project. 6.5 Overview of existing activitiesAn overview of identified, existing activities conducted by donor organisations and international finance institutions is presented in table 6-10. Table 6-10 Existing initiatives in Russia, Ukraine and China with relation to industrial GHG releases
Notes: *1: Various other UNIDO projects in China may include the phase-in of HFCs in refrigeration units with the aim of phase-out of ODSs. Not all ODS substitution projects were checked for industrial GHG relevance. Other information about ongoing activities Ukrainian activities pertaining to climate change are described on the web site of the so-called "Climate Change Initiative" (http://www.climate.org.ua/index.html). The web page is funded by USAID assisted by the Canadian International Development Agency. The web page describes the overall organisation set up for developing and implementing Ukrainian policies on GHG, initiated HGH reduction projects, and elements of a national inventory for CO2, methane and N2O for selected sectors. Except for the release data for PFCs from aluminium production shown in table 6-8 above, the web site does not mention industrial greenhouse gases explicitly. The web page lists various potential projects related to general implementation of the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol requirements. The (anticipated?) organisations funding/financing the projects are USAID, CIDA (Canada), The World Bank, Switzerland and the GEF (via UNDP). 7 HCFCs
ABSTRACT The substitution of HCFCs is closely linked to the substitution of CFCs on one side and on HFC (industrial GHGs) on the other side. HCFCs have been phased in as inter006Dediate substitutes for CFCs. HFCs constitute a next step of intermediate substitutes to CFCs and HCFCs. HFCs have zero ODP, but unfortunately high global warming potentials. In the context of this report, substitution of both HCFCs and HFCs are priority fields due to their ODP and GWP characteristics. The substitution/phase-out options mentioned for refrigeration and foam blowing for HFCs in chapter 6 are therefore also relevant for HCFCs, and a direct substitution to non-ODP, non-GWP substances should be aimed at. Important release reduction measures for refrigeration uses of HCFC are containment, improved maintenance and recycling. While all three countries - Russia, Ukraine and China - have joined the Montreal Protocol, their ratification of the amendments to the Protocol ruling HCFC is lacking behind. Russia has currently not ratified any obligations as regards reductions of HCFCs, while Ukraine has ratified and China is in accession to obligations as regards consumption of HCFCs, but not to obligations on production and exports of HCFCs. Denmark has so far played a major role in Eastern Europe preparing large ODS reduction projects for financing by international financing institutions. Most of the descriptive text in this chapter is extracted from recent authoritative reviews (UNEP-RTOC, UNEP-TEAP, 2002). Where other references were used, this is noted in the text. 7.1 Introduction to HCFCsPerspective The so-called Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS), of which HCFCs are one group, interfere in certain atmospheric physio-chemical reactions taking place in the stratospheric ozone layer, resulting in a lowering of ozone concentrations in this layer; so-called "holes" in the ozone layer. The ozone layer protects the biosphere from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Intergovernmental negotiations for an international agreement to phase out ozone depleting substances started in 1981 and concluded with the adoption of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer in March 1985 (UNEP, Ozone 2005). In 1987, the Montreal Protocol to the convention was adopted. The Protocol sets quantitative goals for the reduction of production and use of selected ODSs. Periodically the Protocol has been amended, whereby more substances have been included in the Protocol and other adjustments and supplements have been made. HCFCs were introduced in the Protocol by amendments in 1992 and in 1999. HCFCs have somewhat lower ODPs than the CFCs targeted first in the international process (see table below). Table 7-1 Name, formula, ODP and GWP for selected HCFCs and a few CFCs and a halon for reference
*1 Intervals indicate the range of ODPs for several isomers with the same name and net overall formula. *2 Indicates that the data in question have not been collected for this report. Consumption trends CFC use has dropped 87% globally since 1989 largely due to the phase-out of its use in developed countries. With the current cap in developing ("Article 5") countries and reductions in use during the rest of this decade, this use will continue to drop. HCFC production has concurrently increased. It is expected that this will begin a downturn, as use in developed countries will be reducing due to current regional and national regulations that are even more restrictive than those of the Montreal Protocol. The latter would mandate reductions in consumption of 35% in developed countries by 2004. This may have been slightly offset due to expected increases in developing countries as HCFCs play an important role in facilitating CFC phase-out in those countries. HFC-134a has emerged as the key agent in replacing CFC use in many applications. Its production has levelled due to improved product stewardship in selection of uses, minimisation of emissions during use, and, in certain regions recovery and recycling. The net impact of these activities is to reduce the net ozone depletion by about 83% as compared to the levels seen in 1989 (UNEP, TEAP, 2002). A major use of HCFCs is as foam blowing agents. Historically, the foam blowing agent selection made by the foam plastics manufacturing industry was based heavily on CFCs. The first technology transition in the early 1990s led to the introduction of transitional substances such as HCFCs as well as the increasing use of hydrocarbons and other non-ODSs. This transition is still taking place in developing countries. In developed ("non-Article 5") countries, particularly in Europe and North America, attention is now firmly focused on the second phase of technology transition out of the transitional substances. This transition is concentrating attention on the emerging HFC-based technologies, although it should be stressed that much consideration is still being given to the optimisation of hydrocarbon and CO2 technologies and these technologies are gaining market share in several sectors. The technical acceptability of hydrocarbons, particularly in polyurethane formulations, has expanded as several previous shortcomings have been overcome. In several key sectors market penetration now exceeds 50%. 7.2 Sources and releasesIn the global scale official data presented via the UNEP Ozone Secretariat are mainly production data and consumption data, and not emission data. This is because the Montreal Protocol works with quantitative reductions of production and consumption and not emissions. This is relevant, because by far the most of the ODSs used are ultimately emitted - in many cases the emission is however somewhat delayed, because it is contained in refrigeration systems, closed cell polymer foams etc. This means that stocks are build up which will have impacts in the future. Some emission data may exist, but they have for this reason not been searched for systematically. Global HCFC consumption distributed on sectors A sector analysis of HCFC use is provided in table 7-2. These data represent about 86% of global consumption. The largest consumption of HCFCs was in the closed cell foam application as blowing agents and represents 53% of all HCFC on an ODP-weighted basis. This was due to the use of HCFC-141b. This application is declining and may by now have been phased out in Europe and the USA. Therefore, total consumption in this sector should be decreasing. This will be somewhat offset by growth in developing countries. Use in refrigerants was nearly as large on an ODP-weighted basis with 47% of the total. The vast majority of this was from HCFC-22 with minor amounts from the use of HCFC-124 and HCFC-142b mostly as components in refrigerant blends. It is expected that blends will grow somewhat in the future, as these are service replacements, which can be used for CFC installations with minor modifications. The use of HCFCs for other purposes seems marginal and is therefore not given priority here. Table 7-2 Industry data on consumption of HCFCs in 1999 distributed on applications - data here represent about 86% of total global consumption; in % of HCFC and in tonnes ODP (AFEAS, as cited by UNEP- TEAP, 2002) *1
*1 The reported AFEAS (industry) data do not include HCFC-123, and do not include use of any HCFC in China, India and Korea. RAC means refrigeration and air conditioning. HCFC production data Global data for production and consumption are given emphasis here because they illustrate the important contributions from especially China, and they show how production and consumption have evolved dramatically in the regions of interest due to the successive substitution of CFCs with HCFCs. Data for global HCFC production are presented in table 7-3. China, India and Korea made sharp increases in HCFC production in 1993 and 1994 and then again in 1999. The total increase was from 249 ODP-tonnes in 1989 to 5013 ODP-tonnes in 1999 and to 6713 ODP-tonnes in the year 2000 (of which about 6000 ODP-tonnes are produced in China. If one compares it to the consumption, it makes China and India net exporters of HCFC chemicals at about 1,300 ODP-tonnes per year. The almost 30-fold increase has made particularly China (and to a lesser extent, India) a significant source of HCFCs. HCFC consumption data (1989-2000) Global HCFC consumption data are included in table 7-4. Total consumption for all Parties has increased on a fairly continuous basis (except for 1996 during which there was a dip; however, this was a year for which consumption data reported might be incomplete). Consumption increased about 160% for the years 1989-2000. HCFC consumption in Central and Eastern Europe decreased during 1989-1999 by 36%; however, significant increases during 2000 suggest transition from CFC use. Consumption in China, India and Korea increased 540% over the period 1989-2000. The increase had appeared to peak in 1995 with declines during following years. There were dramatic increases in HCFC consumption between 1998, 1999 and 2000 going from 1,756 to 5,355 ODP-tonnes in just two years. Over the period 1989-1999, the proportion of HCFCs consumed by OECD countries has averaged about 80% of the total global consumption. Most recently, this has fallen to 61% in 2000 largely due to consumption growth in China, India and Korea and a significant reduction in such use in the OECD countries in 2000. It is expected that the proportion of HCFC global consumption used in developing countries will increase as the HCFC use restrictions will have serious impacts on the consumption in Europe and the USA. Table 7-3 Reported HCFC production in selected regions and globally 1989-2000 (tonnes ODP as aggregated by UNEP (UNEP- TEAP, 2002)
Table 7-4 Reported HCFC consumption in selected regions and globally 1989- 2000 (tonnes ODP as aggregated by UNEP (UNEP, TEAP, 2002)
Russia Un-official data for production and imports of HCFCs in the Russia are presented in table 7-5 below (anonymous, 2005). Keeping in mind that on the global scale, HCFC-22 represents the most of the consumption used for refrigeration purposes, these data could perhaps indicate that the majority of the currently reported Russian production and import is used in the refrigeration sectors (if the Russian export is smaller than its consumption). These data do however not reflect whether foaming with HCFC-141b is done or not in the Russian Federation. Table 7-5 HCFCs production and import in the Russian Federation 2000-2003; tonnes of substance
Ukraine According to UNEP (2004), the 1989 base year HCFC production (82 t ODP) in Ukraine had been terminated in 2003, and consumption had dropped to 49% (80.4 t ODP) in 2003 from a consumption in the base year 1989 of 164 t ODP. China According to UNEP (2004), the 2003 HCFC production in China was 11,745 t ODP, and consumption was 7,809 t ODP); that means China was a net exporter of HCFCs. 7.3 Main reduction measuresSubstitution/phase-out The substitution of HCFCs is closely linked to the substitution of CFCs on one side and on HFC on the other side (see chapter 6 on industrial greenhouse gases). HCFCs have been - and perhaps still are - phased in as intermediate substitutes for CFCs, because HCFCs can be used more or less directly in some applications designed for CFC use. For some uses, of which refrigeration is a major category, HFCs are also technically quite suitable alternatives to CFCs and HCFCs, and HFCs have zero ODP. In the context of this report, substitution of both HCFCs and HFCs are priority fields due to their ODP and GWP characteristics. The substitution/phase-out options mentioned for refrigeration and foam blowing for HFCs in chapter 6 are therefore also generally relevant for HCFCs, and a direct substitution to non-ODP, non-GWP substances should be aimed at. Such substitutes include hydrocarbons, CO2, ammonium, DME and water depending on application. Release reductions For refrigeration uses containment, improved maintenance and recycling are important release reduction measures; primarily for existing units and technologies/geographical regions where non-ODS, non-GWP alternatives development and commercialisation is slow. Refrigeration applicationsNew equipment As per 2002, the primary zero ODP/low GWP solutions for substitution of CFCs in new refrigeration equipment were summarised by application by (UNEP-RTOC, 2002) as shown in table 7-6 below. Table 7-6 Primary zero ODP/low GWP solutions for substitution of CFCs and HCFCs in new refrigeration equipment (UNEP-RTOC, 2002)
The above solutions are also being applied in developing countries (so-called Article 5(1) countries), where in several sectors the conversion is not complete, however, the number of conversions is steadily increasing. As per 2002, there still were a certain amount of new equipment manufactured with CFCs, also in domestic, but particularly in commercial and transport refrigeration. Existing equipment Worldwide, a significant amount of installed refrigeration equipment still uses CFCs and HCFCs. As a consequence, service demand for CFCs and HCFCs remains high. The refrigerant demand for these service needs is best minimised by preventive service, containment, retrofit, recovery and recycling. Recovery at decommissioning or scrapping of equipment, not only in the case of refrigerators, is an important topic, which receives increasing attention now that the ODS consumption in developed countries has been restricted to essential uses. The first step in addressing the refrigerant conservation topics cited above is through training of installers and service technicians, together with certification and regulations. Countries where programs have been successful have had comprehensive regulations requiring recovery and recycling. Foam blowing agents Table 7-7 Zero ODP, low GWP foaming agents (UNEP-TEAP, 2002)
LCD: Liquid carbon dioxide; GCD: Gaseous carbon dioxide; "water": Intrinsic chemical reaction between water and isocyanate to form CO2; see text above. A broader 2002 description of the anticipated substitution development for foaming agents in the period 2005-2010 is given in table 7-8 below. The table illustrates how HCFCs and HFCs are expected to serve as intermediate (or permanent?) substitutes for CFCs in the near future. Discussion of options The phase-out of ODS in the foam sector has forced the industry to innovate. The first technology transition in the early 1990s led to the introduction of transitional substances such as HCFCs as well as the increasing use of hydrocarbons and other non-ODSs. This transition step is still taking place in developing countries. Meanwhile, attention in developed countries is on phasing out transitional HCFCs. This is concentrating attention on the emerging HFC-based technologies as well as the further optimisation and use of hydrocarbon and CO2 technologies, which are continuing to gain market share in several sub-sectors. The phase-out of CFC use in the polyurethane flexible foam sector is now largely complete, even in developing countries, although some small discontinuous processes still represent a challenge. In the flexible sector there has been little use of transitional technologies. In the appliance polyurethane rigid foam sector, there has been a tendency to switch in one-step transition to hydrocarbons. CFC usage has been totally phased out in the construction-foam markets. As annual consumption of ODSs decreases, the focus is shifting towards the management of emissions from delayed release sources such as closed cell foams. Both Japan and Europe have already taken steps related to ODS recovery and destruction from appliances. However, recovery of ODSs from buildings is likely to pose a more significant and costly challenge. This may be a further driver towards HC or CO2 options or wider changes in building practice to facilitate recovery. The technical and economic feasibility of the recovery of blowing agents from foam at end-of-life will continue to be an area of significant study over the next few years. For SMEs and particularly low volume users, there is no economically feasible solution unless the financial implications of investments are overcome. In many foam sectors, the alternative blowing agents are hydrocarbons, which are less expensive than HFC blowing agents but require expensive investments to satisfy safety requirements. A solution might be interest-free loan schemes, even in developed countries, where the investment cost is repaid from savings in blowing agent expense. However, no such schemes are yet being considered. The requirements of the Montreal Protocol and most national implementation procedures provide little economic incentive. However, recovery and destruction would be economic if credit was given to mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions also, in addition to the direct benefit to the ozone layer. Regulatory or trading schemes would have to reclassify ODS destruction to engage the necessary economic drivers. Table 7-8 Anticipated development in substitution of foaming agents in developed and developing countries according to (UNEP - TEAP, 2002); polyurethane foams first and other foams last
7.4 International regulation and agreements7.4.1 Montreal Protocol and Vienna ConventionHCFCs are covered since 1994 by the Montreal Protocol (1987) to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985). The Montreal Protocol addresses a number of other substance groups with ozone depleting properties (CFCs, halons, etc.). The Vienna Convention encourages intergovernmental cooperation on research, systematic observation of the ozone layer, monitoring of CFC production, and the exchange of information. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was adopted in September 1987. It was designed so that the phase out schedules could be revised on the basis of periodic scientific and technological assessments. The Protocol was adjusted to accelerate the phase out schedules. It has also been amended to introduce other kinds of control measures and to add new controlled substances to the list. While most governments have ratified the Protocol, ratification of the Amendments and their stronger control measures lag behind. The Copenhagen Amendment was adopted in 1992 and entered into force on 14 June 1994. The amendment introduced control measures for consumption only for HCFCs (Annex C, Group I substances). The amendment further introduced control measures for both production and consumption for two new groups of substances, namely HBFCs (Annex C, Group II substances) and methyl bromide (Annex E, Group I). The Montreal Amendment was adopted in 1997 and entered into force on 10 November 1999. This is the only amendment that did not introduce new substances to the protocol. Instead, the amendment introduced the requirement for licensing systems to allow control and monitoring of trade in substances controlled under the protocol. The Beijing Amendment was adopted in 1999 and entered into force on 25 February 2002. The amendment introduced control measures for production for HCFCs (Annex C, Group I substances) and imposed restrictions on trade with non-Parties for these HCFCs. The amendment further introduced control measures for both production and consumption for one new group of substances, namely bromochloromethane or BCM (Annex C, Group III substance). China and Ukraine have not ratified the last two amendments (Montreal and Beijing amendments). Russia has not ratified the last three amendments (Copenhagen, Montreal and Beijing amendments); (UNEP, Ozone, 2005). This means that Russia has currently not ratified any obligations as regards reductions of HCFCs, while Ukraine has ratified and China is in accession to obligations as regards consumption of HCFCs, but not to obligations on production and exports of HCFCs. Requirements to HCFC of the Montreal Protocol as amended (per 2005) As mentioned above, the current version of the Protocol as amended defines binding requirements regarding consumption, production, imports and exports of HCFCs. The Protocol provides special conditions for developing countries which had a limited consumption of CFCs (below specific thresholds) before 1999 ("article 5 Parties"). According to documents accessed on the Ozone secretariat homepage (UNEP-Ozone, 2005) China falls under this category. HCFC consumption For non-article 5 Parties, the Protocol defines a set of binding, consecutive reduction targets relative to a baseline consumption. The baseline consumption is the sum of the consumption of HCFCs calculated in ODP (ozone depletion potential) in the country in 1989, and 2.8% of the consumption of CFCs calculated in ODP in the country in that same year (presumably to allow for intermediate substitution of CFCs with HCFCs during the overall substitution process). The annual consumption of HCFCs must not exceed 65% of this baseline consumption in and after 2004, 35% in and after 2010, 10% in and after 2015, 0.5% in and after 2020 (and may only be used for servicing of refrigeration/AC systems), and from 2030 and thereafter HCFC consumption must not exceed zero (must be completely eliminated). For developing (article 5) countries (China among others), the consumption of HCFCs must after 2015 not exceeds its 2015 consumption level, and must be eliminated by 2040. The Protocol defines a mechanism by which developing (article 5) countries can be provided with specific financial and technical assistance paid by developed parties (non-article 5 parties). In case the developing country (party) has not been able to meet its deadlines, it has the possibility of claiming that this assistance has not been made adequately available to the country. This will initiate scrutiny among the assembly of parties, as for deciding appropriate steps to be taken. HCFC production In and after 2004, the annual HCFC production in non-article 5 countries (parties) must not exceed a baseline production calculated as the average of the consumption baseline (1989) calculated as described above, and a production baseline calculated as the sum of the production of HCFCs calculated in ODP in the country in 1989, and 2.8% of the production of CFCs calculated in ODP in the country in that same year. For developing (article 5) countries (China among others), the annual production of HCFCs in and after 2015 must not exceed a 2015 baseline production calculated according to the principles described above, but with 2015 as the baseline year. However, in order to satisfy basic domestic needs, article 5 countries may exceed the 2015 baseline production by up to 15%. Other principles The Protocol defines a number of other important principles and requirements which will however not be described in detail here. These include (among others) principles/requirements for:
7.4.2 Other agreementsHELCOM By the Helcom Recommandation 11/11 on "Measures to reduce the emissions of harmful chlorofluorocarbons from ships" adopted in 1990, the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) recommends that the Governments of the Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention cooperate within the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to promote early and effective global measures for minimizing air pollution from ships, including in particular decisions on reduction objectives and target dates, and to take actions:
Other agreements Besides these, HCFCs are not covered by any other agreements addressed in this study. 7.5 Overview of existing activitiesAn overview of identified, existing activities conducted by donor organisations and international finance institutions is presented in table 7-9. Table 7-9 Identified initiatives in the Russian Federation, Ukraine and China addressing HCFC
Other information about ongoing activities The homepage of the Ozone Secretariat (UNEP-Ozone, 2005) provides a large number of meeting documents etc. which may provide additional information on the implementation status at various years of ODS-reducing activities in various countries. It has been beyond the framework of this study to investigate these large amounts of information in detail. Such documents may however be one data source that could be investigated further prior to initiation of projects on HCFCs in the countries addressed in this report. 8 Brominated flame retardants
ABSTRACT The environmental fate and effects of the BFRs vary considerably among the BFRs, even within the same substance group. In general congeners with lower bromine content are of more concern than congeners with higher bromine content. Two of the BFRs, hexabromobiphenyl (PBB with 6 bromine atoms) and pentabrominated diphenylether (PBDE with 5 bromine atoms) are considered for possible inclusion in the Stockholm Convention. The two substances are already or can easily be replaced by other flame retardants. BFRs are mainly used in electric and electronic products, textiles and building materials. The electric and electronic products are traded on a global market, and the use of BFRs with finished products will probably be quite similar all over the world. The use of BFRs in building materials and textiles is more variable depending on local tradition and regulation. The main measure for reduction of the releases of the BFRs is to reduce the use of the substances. The most problematic of the BFRs can easily be replaced by other BFRs, and many of the large companies in the electronics industry have phased out the use of PBDEs and PBBs as part of their corporate environmental strategy. For the major use areas non-halogenated alternatives are available, but for some minor areas no alternatives are available today. The EU RoHS directive on the restriction of hazardous substances in electric and electronic products stipulates that these products shall not contain PBBs and PBDEs, but most probably the mostly used substance, deca-PBE will be exempted from the restriction, weakening the effect of the Directive as a driving force for the phaseout of the substances in the EU and other parts of the world. It has not been possible to identify any surveys of BFR use or releases in Russia, Ukraine or China, and most probably they do not exist. An assessment of the uses of BFRs in the Arctic including Russia is included in a new ACAP project on BFRs. It is proposed to wait for the result of the survey, before new initiatives in Russia are launched. It is deemed to premature to start initiatives in the other countries before some of the used BFRs are included in international agreements. The term `Brominated Flame Retardants' (BFRs) covers a diverse group of organic substances having in common that they contain bromine and act as flame retardants. Bromine has an inhibitory effect on the formation of fire in organic materials. Flame retardants are added to plastics and textiles in order to comply with fire safety requirements. Because of the diversity of the group it is necessary to discuss the properties of the flame retardants in relation to specific sub-groups. Traditionally the most widely used substances among the brominated flame retardants have been TBBPA (tetrabromo bisphenol A), PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers), PBBs (polybrominated biphenyls) and HBCD (hexabromocyclododecane). TBBPA, the PBDEs and the PBBs contain two chlorinated carbon rings, making them very stable and efficient in a large number of plastics. HCBD contains another type of cyclic structure making this substance stable. The chemical stability of the substances is also one of the reasons why brominated flame retardants for years have been of environmental concern. PBDEs and PBBs, particularly the lower brominated congeners, are spread widely in the environment, are bioaccumulated and accumulated in sediments, where they are degraded only very slowly. Some of the frequently used brominated flame retardants, TBBPA, HBCD and PBDEs, are present in sediment, mussels and fish. PBDEs have been found in whales and seals. Some of the PBBs and the PBDEs are highly hydrophobic and resistant to degradation processes. It is therefore possible that these chemicals may accumulate in aquatic sediments or bioconcentrate in living organisms. Signs of toxicity of individual PBB and PBDE to early life stages in rainbow trout were reported. The presence of some of the PBBs and PBDEs in mussels, fish, seals and dolphins as well as in sperm whales, which normally stay and feed in deep ocean water, combined with the ongoing industrial production of these compounds indicates that an environmental problem is rising (Simonsen et al. 2000). In the Arctic, PBDEs have been detected in air and in biological samples from remote areas, although their levels are much lower than levels of some other POPs, such as PCBs (AMAP/ACAP 2003). The toxicity varies considerably among the BFRs, even within the same subgroup. The effects of PBBs on laboratory animals include body weight loss, skin disorders, nervous system effects and injuries of livers, kidneys, thyroid glands, and immune systems (ATSDR 2004). In general little is known about the long-term effects of low level exposure (ATSDR 2004). The lower brominated congeners are of more concern that the higher brominated, e.g. penta-BDE (five bromine) and octa-BDE (eight bromine) are considered more problematic than deca-BDE (ten bromine). Brominated flame retardants may further act as precursors or bromine donors for the formation of polybrominated dioxins and furans (PBDD/PBDFs) by incineration of the flame retarded materials. In particular the BFR with carbon ring structures, which may act as a precursor, is of concern. 8.1 Introduction to brominated flame retardantsThe following is extracted from an assessment of BFRs and their alternatives published by the Danish EPA (Lassen et al. 1999) unless otherwise indicated. A distinction is made between reactive and additive flame retardants. Additive flame retardants Additive flame retardants are incorporated in the plastic either prior to, during, or, more frequently, following polymerisation. They are used especially in thermoplastics and thermoplastic polyesters. They act as plasticizers or fillers and are not built into the molecular structure of the plastics. They are sometimes volatile and can tend to bleed, so their flame retardancy may be gradually lost. High molecular weight products are developed to enable plastics to be made more permanently fire retardant by the additive method. The most used additive brominated flame retardants are polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), tetrabromobispehol A (also used as reactive BFR) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), but a large number of different compounds are used addtively. Reactive flame retardants Reactive flame retardants are built chemically into the polymer molecule together with the other starting components. They are used mainly in thermosets, especially polyesters, epoxy resins and polyurethanes (PUR), in which they can be easily incorporated. The result is a brominated plastic with the original flame retardant present only at trace level as un-reacted constituent. The most used reactive brominated flame retardant is TBBPA, the main use of which is in printed circuit boards of electronic products. PBDEs The polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are a group of aromatic brominated compounds formed by substituting bromine for hydrogen in diphenyl oxide. The bromine content can vary between two and ten. Three different flame retardants are commercially available. They are referred to as penta-BDE, octa-BDE and deca-BDE, but each product is a mixture of different brominated diphenyl ethers. They are additive flame retardant, i.e. they are physically combined with the material being treated rather than chemically combined. Penta-BDE is of most international concern, and the Parties to the Stockholm Convention have agreed that penta-BDE should be considered for possible in-clusion on the Convention's list of substances for elimination. Penta-BDE is nearly 100% used an additive flame retardant in flexible polyurethane foam used for mattresses, car seats and other products. Octa-BDE is mainly used in housing for electronic products. DecaBDE ether is used for a wide range of applications in plastic and textiles. PBBs Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) are a group of halogenated hydrocarbons which are formed by substituting bromine for hydrogen in biphenyl. The bromine content can vary between two and ten. Three different flame retardants have been commercially available. They are referred to as hexa-PBBs, octa/nona-PBBs and deca-PBBs, but each product is a mixture of different brominated diphenyl ethers (WHO 1994). Hexa-PBBs were widely used in the USA in 1970s, but the use of all PBBs in the USA ceased in the late 1970s (WHO 1994). Decabromobiphenyl (DeBB) was in 1998 the only brominated biphenyl in commercial use (Lassen et al. 1999). DeBB has traditionally been used as additive flame retardant for styrenic polymers and engineering plastics. Of most international concern has been hexabromobiphenyl (the pure substance, which makes up the main part of the commercial hexa-PBBs), which is covered by the CLRTAP POPs protocol. No use of hexabromobiphenyl has been identified. HBCD HBCD has traditionally been used as additive flame retardant for textiles coatings and production of flame retarded expanded polystyrene used for insulation in the building industry. TBBPA Tetrabromobisphenol A is mainly used as reactive flame retardant. In countries where the PBDEs have been phased out (e.g. Denmark) additively used TBBPA has to some extent been used as substitute for the PBDEs. Besides the Tetrabromobisphenol A, a number of derivates of the substance is used as flame retardants. 8.2 Sources and releasesGlobal consumption The market volume of the major BFRs by region in 2001 is shown in table 8-1. The total demand for PBDEs was 67,000 tonnes, of which deca-BDE accounted for 56,000 tonnes. Asia represents the largest market, particularly for TBBPA, reflecting the significance of the production of electronic products in the Asian countries. Table 8-1 Market volume of the major BFRs by region in 2001 in tonnes (BSEF 2005)
It has not been possible to identify any detailed survey of the global market for the remaining brominated flame retardants. The total BFR market in Western Europe in 1998 is shown in table 8-2. The volumes of TBBPA, PBDEs and HBCD are at the same level as the 2001 volumes shown in table 8-1, but these BFRs represent only about 46% of the total volume, the remaining part taken up by a large number of other flame retardants. This may also be the fact for other parts of the world. The table clearly demonstrates the variety of substances used. The PBBs (in the form of decabromobiphenyl) were in 1999 used in Western Europe in volumes of 600 t/years. The production of PBBs ceased in 2001, and PBBs are today according to BSEF (2005) not used in any part of the world. Table 8-2 Western European market for brominated flame retardants, 1998 (IAL Consultants as quoted in Lassen et al. 1999)
Notes: (as indicated in Lassen et al. 1999) *1 Some of these flame retardants may actually be used as additives. The TBBPA derivatives are cf. OECD 1994 used as additives (see table 3.1). *2 Includes TBPA diester/ether diol and brominated polyetherpolyol in appendix 3. *3 Presumably identical to TBBPA epoxy oligomer in table 3.1 and appendix 3. *4 Include polydibromostyrene and brominated polystyrene in table 3.1 and appendix 3. *5 The market analysis says by mistake amides. Applications of the BFRs The main application areas of BFRs are electric and electronic products, building materials (insulation sheets) and textiles. The use of BFRs by end-use area in Denmark in 1997 is shown in table 8-3. The use of the substances in electric and electronic products most probably reflects the application pattern in most countries, as the electric and electronic products are traded on a global market. Contrary to this, the use of BFRs for building materials (expanded polystyrene) and textiles may vary considerably among countries dependent on tradition and national regulation. Imported products accounted for about 90% of the BFRs in products sold in Denmark reflecting the extensive import and export of BFR-containing products. Table 8-3 Consumption of brominated flame retardants with end products in Denmark 1997(based on Lassen et al. 1999)
Releases of BFRs to the environment The sources of releases to the environment are dependent on the actual applications of each flame retardant. The total releases have until now only been estimated with high uncertainty, and no overview of the releases by substance is available from any country. As an example of the releases of the PBDEs, the estimated worst-case releases to the environment and wastes of the EU Risk Assessment of deca-BDE are shown in table 8-5. The main source of releases to air is releases from products in use, and the levels of the emission are of same size as the worst-case scenario used in the Danish substance flow analysis. Textile washing is by far the main source of deca-BDE releases to wastewater. The releases will be highly dependent on whether the substance is used for textile application, and the releases by this pathway are estimated to be significantly lower in e.g. Denmark because BFRs are replaced by other flame retardants in most textiles used in Denmark (Lassen et al. 1999). The main sources of releases to soil and surface water are flame retarded textiles and plastics remaining as waste in the environment. The releases by this pathway are in the Risk Assessment higher than the releases to air. These releases are highly dependent on the actual efficiency of the waste management systems and the public behaviour. Table 8-4 Estimated worst-case releases of deca-BDE to waste and the environment (ECB 2002)
In a recent Japanese study the releases to the atmosphere from Japan are estimated by the use of the emission factors of i.a. the European Risk Assessment and the Danish substance flow analysis. The estimated emission is compared to emission estimated on the basis of actually observed air concentrations and a dissipation model. The authors conclude that the worst-case emission of the EU Risk Assessment is probably overestimated by a factor of 4 to 25 (Hirail and Sakail 2004). Russia It has not been possible to identify any information on the use and releases of BFRs in Russia. A survey of the use of BFRs in the Arctic countries including Russia has recently been approved by the Arctic Council. The ACAP project with Norway as the lead country will identify and develop safe waste-handling and recycling practices for BFR-containing products, identify alternative flame retardant chemicals and technologies and promote safe alternatives. China It has not been possible to identify any information on the use and releases of BFRs in China. According to Bromine Science and Environment Forum (BSEF 2005) ICL Industrial Products (Dead Sea Bromine Group) has production of BFRs in China. A number of Chinese manufacturers advertise different BFRs on the Internet. Ukraine It has not been possible to identify any information on the use and releases of BFRs in Ukraine. 8.3 Main reduction measuresThe main measure for reduction of the releases of BFRs is to reduce the use of the BFRs. The substitution of BFRs can take place at three levels:
For specific BFRs of concern (e.g. PBBs or PBDEs) in practice the BFRs have often been replaced by other BFRs with less problematic environmental characteristics or with less described environmental characteristics. As an example PBDEs have for some purposes been replaced by additively used TBBPA. Many of the large companies in the electronics industry have phased out the use of PBDEs and PBBs as part of their corporate environmental strategy. The PBBs and PBDEs can for all applications be replaced by other BFRs, but for some applications as indicated in table 8-5 alternatives to BFRs are not available. The information shown in table 8-5 is about 6 years old, but it is deemed that the information on alternatives still applies. The availability of halogen-free flame retardants for the major application areas has been reviewed in Lassen et al. 1999 (table 8-5). For several of the alternatives, however, only few data are available on the potential environmental and health effects, and some of the alternatives are themselves of environmental concern (Stuer-Lauridsen et al. 2000). Table 8-5 Halogen-free flame retardants in commercial materials (Lassen et al. 1999)
Notes (as indicated in Lassen et al. 1999) *1 The list of halogen-free flame retardants is not complete, but indicates flame retardants in known commercial products cf. chapter 9. For some specific applications the flame retardants may not be immediately useful. *2 Alternative materials are only mentioned where no flame retardants grades of the material are commercially available, or where alternative materials actually are chosen in order to substitute BFRs. 8.4 International regulation and agreementsTable 8-6 presents a summarised overview of the coverage in relevant agreements of the brominated flame retardants. The CLRTAP - POPs protocol includes hexabromobiphenyl (one of the PBBs) for elimination. Hexabromobiphenyl is today most probably not produced in any country. The Parties to the Stockholm Convention agreed at their meeting May 2005 that hexabromobiphenyl and penta-BDE should be considered for possible inclusion on the Convention's list of substances for elimination. Penta-BDE is nearly 100% used as additive flame retardant in flexible polyurethane foam used for mattresses, car seats and other products. The penta-BDE was in 2001 primarily used in the Americas, whereas it was widely replaced by other flame retardants on the other markets (see table 8-1). PBCDs, PBBs and HBCD are included in the OSPAR List of Chemicals for Priority Action, but release reduction of BFRs is not specifically addressed in the Convention text or any recommendation. Hexabromobiphenyl is included in the HELCOM list of substances for immediate priority action, and substitution of BFRs in the leather industry is addressed by one recommendation. EU RoHS Directive It is beyond the present study to review EU instruments addressing the substances. However, the EU ROHS Directive may significantly influence the use of the PBDEs and PBBs also in other parts of the world. The Directive stipulates that Member States shall ensure that electrical and electronic equipment put on the market after 1 July 2006 does not contain PBDEs and PBBs (among other substances). The Commission has in recent years evaluated whether deca-BDE should be exempted from the Directive. On a Commission-proposed vote on 19 April 2005, a majority of the EU Member States voted in favour of exempting Deca-BDE from the Directive. The required qualified majority of 72.3% for immediate adoption was however not reached, so the proposal has now been sent to the EU Council of Ministers. They have a maximum of three months to come up with a decision. EU has adopted a general restriction on the marketing and use of penta-BDE and octa-BDE in all products from 15 August 2004. Table 8-6 Summarised overview of the coverage of brominated flame retardants in relevant agreements
8.5 Overview of existing activitiesOnly one project specifically addressing the use and releases of brominated flame retardants has been identified (table 8-7). Table 8-7 Identified initiatives in the Russian Federation, Ukraine and China addressing brominated flame retardants
9 ReferencesACAP. 2000. PCB in the Russian Federation: Inventory and proposals for priority remedial actions. Executive summary. Multilateral Co-operative Project on Phase-outPhaseoutPhase-out of
PCB Use, and Management of PCB-contaminated Wastes in the Russian Federation. Published by: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP); Ministry of Industry, Science and Technologies
of the Russian Federation; Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; Center for International Projects (CIP), Moscow. ACAP. 2003. Environmentally sound management and elimination of PCBs in Russia. Executive summary. Multilateral Co-operative Project on Phase-outPhaseoutPhase-out of PCB Use, and
Management of PCB-contaminated Wastes in the Russian Federation. Published by: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP); Ministry of Industry, Science and Technologies of the Russian
Federation; Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; Center for International Projects (CIP), Moscow. ACAP. 2005a. Assessment of mercury releases from the Russian Federation. Russian Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Atomic Supervision and Danish Environment Protection Agency for Arctic Council. Lassen et al. for Danish EPA, December 2004. Available at http://www.mst.dk/udgiv/Publications/2005/87-7614-539-5/pdf/87-7614-540-9.PDF AMAP 2002. Arctic Pollution 2002. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo. AMAP/ACAP. 2003. Brominated flame retardants briefing note for SAOs Prepared by AMAP/ACAP, 23 March 2003. ATSDR. 2004. Toxicological profile for polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta. Bailey, R.E. 2001. Global hexachlorobenzene emissions. Chemosphere: 43:167-82. BASEL. 2005. Draft technical guidelines on HCB. Basel Secretariat, Geneva, February 2005. http://www.basel.int/techmatters/hcb/guidelines/techguid020205.doc Berdowski, J.J.M., Baas, J., Bloos, J.P.J., Visschedijk, A.J.H., and Zandveld, P.Y.J. 1997. The European emission inventory of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants for 1990. , Rep. UBA-FB, TNO Inst. of Environ. Sci., Apeldoom, The Netherlands. BReg. 2004. BReg - Bundesregierung (2004): Berichterstattung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland gemäß Artikel 5, 7 und 8 des Kyoto-Protokolls der UN-Klimarahmenkonvention zu fluorierten Treibhausgasen an das Sekretariat der Klimarahmenkonvention im Jahr 2004. (http://unfccc.int/program/mis/ghg/submis2003.html 8.1.2004). As quoted by UBA (2004). Brigden, K and D. Santillo. 2004. Environmental heavy metal contamination arising from the Xianjin and GP NiCd battery manufacturing facilities Huizhou, Guangdong, China, 2004. Greenpeace Research Laboratories, Technical Note 08/2004. http://www.greenpeace.to/publications_pdf/NiCd_China_2004.pdf BSEF. 2005. Major brominated flame retardants volume estimates. Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, Brussels. China Daily. 2004. Gov't Brewing Law to Recycle Old Electronics. China Daily October 14, 2004. http://service.china.org.cn/link/wcm/Show_Text?info_id=109389&p_qry=lead%20and%20recycling China.org. 1999. Huge Potential of Lead-Recycling Industry http://www.china.org.cn/Beijing-Review/Beijing/BeijingReview/99Jun/ COWI. 2002. Status on POPs in the Russian Federation. COWI for DANCEE, January 2002, unpublished. DANCEE. 2004. Detailed Review of Selected Non-Incineration and Incineration POPs Elimination Technologies for the CEE Region. Danish EPA, Copenhagen.
http://www.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2005/87-7614-543-3/ ACAP, Danish EPA and Rostechnadzor. 2005c. Preliminary Priority Setting on Mercury Release Reductions (for the Russian Federation). Draft in progress. May 2005. ACAP, 2005d: Background document on mercury in existing agreements. Drafted by Maag J., COWI, for the Danish EPA, on behalf of ACAP. Draft in progress. May 2005. Drivsholm, T., E. Hansen, J. Maag and S. Havelund. 2000. Massestrømsanalyse for cadmium [Substance flow analysis for cadmium]. Environmental Project No. 557. The Danish EPA, Copenhagen. (In Danish) ECB. 2002. European Union Risk Assessment Report: Bis(pentabromophenyl)ether. European Chemicals Bureau, European Communities, 2002. EEA, European Environment Agency. 2004. Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2002 and inventory report 2004. Copenhagen. For the European Comission. EMEP. 2005. Detailed information for Ukraine for 2004. Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of Long-Range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe (EMEP). http://www.msceast.org/countries/Ukraine/ Environment Canada. 2005. The four new groupings of ATH substances - Substance-specific context hexachlorobenzene (HCB). (http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_hcb_e.cfm) Eurometaux. 1997. Comments to the Danish EPA's draft to Statutory order regarding lead. Eurometaux, European Association of Metals, Intersectorial Lead Group, Bruxelles. Expert Group. 2005. Guidelines on Best Available Techniques (BAT) and Guidance on Best Environmental Practice (BEP) relevant to the provisions of Article 5 and Annex C of the Stockholm Convention. Advance Draft, December 2004. Prepared by Expert Group on Best Available Techniques and Best Environmental Practices established by the sixth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an International Legally Binding Instrument for Implementing International Action on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants, http://www.baselpretoria.org.za/Documents/Draft-BAT-BEP.pdf Feng, J. 2003. Industrial profile: Lead sector promises huge market potential. TDC trade.com. http://www.tdctrade.com/report/indprof/indprof_031104.htm Gaolai, L. 2004. Preliminary plan for POPs program in China. Presentations at the seminar described in Yonglong, 2004. GLBTS. 2000. Draft report for hexachlorobenzene (HCB): Reduction options. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/baphcb/HCB_Rdcn.html Hansen, E. and C. Lassen. 2003a. Lead review. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Hansen, E. and C. Lassen. 2003b. Cadmium review. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Hansen, E., C. Lassen, F. Stuer-Lauridsen and J.Kjølholt. 2002. Heavy metals in waste. European Commission DG ENV. E3 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/studies/heavy_metalsreport.pdf Hansen, J.H. 1995. Nationale og industrielle emissioner af 38 stoffer. Arbejdsrapport fra Miljøstyrelsen 65/1995. Danish EPA, Copenhagen. Hirai1, Y. and S. Sakai1. 2004. Atmospheric emission of BDE-209 in Japan. Organohalogen Compounds 66: 3761-3766. IAL Consultants. 1999. The European flame retardant chemical industry 1998. IAL Consultants, London. ILZSG. 2002. International Lead and Zinc Study Group, London. http://www.ilzsg.org/ilzsgframe.htm IPCC. 1996. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. 2000. Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCS. 1997. Flame retardants: A general introduction. Environmental Health Criteria 192. WHO, Geneva. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc192.htm Irish EPA. 2003. CLIMATE CHANGE - Emissions of Industrial Greenhouse Gases (HFCs, PFCs and Sulphur Hexafluoride). University of Bristol and Clean Technology Centre, Cork Institute of Technology, for the Irish Environment Protection Agency. Westford, Ireland, 2003. Jones, K. 2005. Hexachlorobenzene - Sources, environmental fate and risk characterisation. Eurochlor, Brussels. http://www.eurochlor.org/chlorine/science/HCB-Main-final.pdf Karlsson, S., F. Fredrikson and J. Holmberg. 2004. Future redistribution of cadmium to arable Swedish soils: A substance stock analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 8: 41 - 58. Lacerda, L.D. 1997. Global mercury emissions from gold and silver mining. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 97: pp 209-221, 1997, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. Lassen C., E. Hansen, A.A. Jensen, K. Olendrzynski, W. Kolsut, J. Zurek, I. Kargulewicz, B. Debski, J. Skoskiewicz, M. Holtzer, A. Grochowalski, E. Brante, H. Poltimae, T. Kallaste and J. Kapturauskas. 2003. Survey of dioxin sources in the Baltic region. Extended Summary. ESPR – Environmental Sci-ence & Pollution Research 10: 49 – 56. Lassen, C., S. Løkke L.I. Andersen. 1999. Brominated flame retardants. Substance flow analysis and assessment of alternatives. Environmental Project. No. 494. The Danish EPA, Copenhagen LDAI. 2002. Lead Development Association International, London. http://www.ldaint.org/default.htm Lu, C. 2004. In: Regional awareness-raising workshop on mercury pollution - A global problem that needs to be addressed. Bangkok, Thailand, 26 - 29 April 2004. Proceedings available at http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/workshops/Bangkok-proceedings-final.pdf ACAP 2005b. Reduction of atmospheric mercury releases from Arctic States - Arctic Mercury Releases Inventory. ACAP project coordinated by the Danish EPA for the Arctic Council. Drafted
by Maag J., COWI, for Danish EPA, Copenhagen. http://www.mst.dk/udgiv/Publications/2005/87-7614-515-8/ MNR. 2004. Yearbook on Pollutant Emissions to the Atmosphere of Cities and Regions of the Russian Federation in 2003. Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation, Research Institute for Air Protection, St. Petersburg. Mörner, J. R. Bos and M. Fredrix. 2002. Reducing and eliminating the use of persistent organic pesticides. Guidance on alternative strategies for sustainable pest and vector management. Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC), Geneva. http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pdf/redelipops/redelipops.pdf Nriagu, J. and J. Pacyna. 1988. Quantitative assessment of worldwide contamination of air, water and soils by trace metals. Nature. 333: 134-139. OECD. 1993. Risk Reduction Monograph No.1: Lead. OECD/GD (93) 67. OECD Environment Directorate, Paris. OECD. 1994a. Risk Reduction monograph no. 3: Selected brominated flame retardants. OECD Environment Monograph Series no. 102, Paris.
http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1994doc.nsf/ OECD. 1994b. Risk Reduction Monograph No. 5: Cadmium. OECD Environment Monograph Series No. 104. OECD Environment Directorate, Paris Pacyna J.M. and E.G. Pacyna. 2001. An assessment of global and regional emissions of trace metals to the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources worldwide. Environmental Reviews 9: 269-298. Pedersen, P.H. 2003. Evaluation of the possibilities of substituting potent greenhouse gases (HFCs, PFCs and SF6). Environmental Project No. 771 2003, Danish Environmental protection Agency. Copenhagen. Available at www.mst.dk, publications. Pirrone, N., G.J. Keeler and J.O. Nriagu, JO. 1996. Regional differences in world-wide emissions of mercury to the atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment Vol. 30, No. 37, pp. 2981-2987, 1996. Pirrone, N., J. Munthe, L. Barregård, H.C. Ehrlich, G. Petersen, R. Fernandez, J.C. Hansen, P. Grandjean, M. Horvat, E. Steinnes, R. Ahrens, J.M. Pacyna, A. Borowiak, P. Boffetta and M. Wichmann-Fiebig. 2001. EU Ambient Air Pollution by Mercury (Hg) - Position Paper. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001. Submitted by Italy. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/background.htm#mercury Plachy, J. 2003. Cadmium. Minerals Yearbook. US. Geological Survey. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cadmium/cadmimyb03.pdf Poulsen, T.S. 2004. Ozone depleting substances and the greenhouse gases HFCs, PFCs and SF6 - Danish consumption and emissions 2002. Environmental Project No. 890 2004, Danish Environment protection Agency, Copenhagen. Available at www.mst.dk, publications. SCEP. 1997. White paper: Lead contamination of the environment in the Russian Federation and its effect on human health. State Russian Committee for Environmental Protection of the Russian Federation, Moscow. (In Russian) English summary available at: http://www.refia.ru/html/18-e/ Scoullos, M., G. Vonkeman,I. Thornton & Z. Makuch. 2001. Mercury, cadmium, lead: Handbook for sustainable heavy metals policy and regulation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht SEPA. 2005. EIA for PCB Sites Cleanup in the Zhejiang.China. GEF PCB Disposal and Management Demonstration Project (P082993) Province, China (see WB 2005) Simonsen, F.A., L.M. Møller, T. Madsen and M. Stavnsbjerg. 2000. Brominated flame retardants: Toxicity and ecotoxicity. Environmental Project No. 568. Danish EPA, Copenhagen. http://www.mst.dk/udgiv/Publications/2000/87-7944-288-9/pdf/87-7944-289-7.pdf Skaarup, J., J. Lauridsen, E. Hansen and A. Elbæk-Jørgensen. 2005. Detailed review of selected non-incineration and incineration POPs elimination technologies for the CEE region. Danish EPA, Copenhagen. http://www.mst.dk/udgiv/Publications/2005/87-7614-543-3/pdf/87-7614-544-1.pdf Smith, R.S. 2003. Lead. Minerals Yearbook. US. Geological Survey. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lead/lead_myb03.pdf Stuer-Lauridsen, F., S. Havelund and M. Birkved. 2000. Alternatives to brominated flame retardants. Screening for environmental and health data. Working Report 17/2000. Danish EPA, Copenhagen. Sukhorebra, S.A. 2004. PCBs inventory in Ukraine: provisional results and conclusions. Consultation Meeting on PCB Management and Disposal under the Stockholm Convention on POPs. Geneva, 9–10 June 2004 Third National Communication of the Russian Federation (2002). (Submitted in accordance with articles 4 and 12 of the United Nations framework convention on Climate Change). Available from: UBA. 2004. Fluorinated greenhouse gases in products and processes - Technical climate protection measures. Umweltbundesamt (German Federal Environment Protection Agency), Berlin. UN ECE. 2003. Progress report on the implementation of the Pan-European Strategy to Phase out Added Lead in Petrol. (Executive summary). UNECE Committee on Environmental Policy. http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2003/cep/cep.2003.15.e.pdf UNEP 2000. Finding alternatives to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) for termite management. Prepared by members of the UNEP/FAO/Global IPM Facility Expert Group on Termite Biology and Management. http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/termites/termite_fulldocument.pdf UNEP Ozone Secretariat. 2005. Status of ratification of Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol and amendments. Accessed May 2005 at http://www.unep.org/ozone/Treaties_and_Ratification/index.asp UNEP, RTOC. 2002. 2002 Report of the Refrigeration, Air Condition and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee. UNEP Ozone Secretariat, accessed 2005 at http://www.unep.org/ozone/teap/reports/RTOC/RTOC2002.pdf UNEP, TEAP. 2002. 2002 Report of the Technology and Economy Assessment Panel. UNEP Ozone Secretariat, accessed 2005 at http://www.unep.org/ozone/teap/Reports/TEAP_Reports/TEAP2002.pdf UNEP. 1999. Dioxin and furan inventories. National and Regional Emissions of PCDD/PCDFs. UNEP Chemicals, Geneva. http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pdf/dioxinfuran/difurpt.pdf UNEP. 2001. Standardized toolkit for identification of dioxin and furan releases. UNEP Chemicals, Geneva. UNEP. 2002. Global Mercury Assessment. United Nation Environment Programme, Geneva. http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Report/Final%20Assessment%20report.htm UNEP. 2003. UNEP Governing Council decisions from its meeting in 2003. United Nation Environment Programme, Geneva. http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/mandate-2003.htm UNEP. 2004. Lead matrix. Central and Eastern Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Dec. 2004. UNEP Partnership for Clean Fuel and ehicles. http://www.unep.org/PCFV/documents/MatrixCEELead.pdf; http://www.unep.org/pcfv/Documents/LeadMatrix-Asia-Pacific.pdf UNEP. 2005. UNEP Governing Council decisions from its meeting in 2005. United Nation Environment Programme, Geneva. http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/GC23-results.htm UNFCCC. 2005. http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/ UNIDO/GEF. 2003. Project Brief to the project "Building the Capacity of the People's Republic of China to implement the Stockholm Convention on POPs and develop a National
Implementation Plan." Appendix 1: Primary assessment report on pesticidal POPs in China.
http://www.gefonline.org/ProjectDocs/POPs/ US EPA. 2000. Draft PBT National Action Plan For Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) for Public Review. Prepared by The USEPA Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Pollutants (PBT) HCB Workgroup December 8, 2000 http://www.epa.gov/pbt/hcbactionplan.pdf US EPA. 2004. INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS: 1990 – 2002. United States Environment Protection Agency. Washington DC. Available at http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/emissions WB. 2005. China -PCB management and disposal. Project Information Document, Concept stage. February 2-4, 2005
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2005/02/18/ WHO. 1994. Polybrominated biphenyls. Environmental Health Criteria 152. WHO, Geneva. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc152.htm Xinbin, F. 2005. Mercury pollution in China - an overview. In: Dynamics of Mercury Pollution on Regional and Global Scales: Atmospheric Processes, Human Exposure Around the World, N. Pirrone and K. Mahaffey (Editors), Springer Publisher, Norwell, MA, USA. Chapter-27, pp. 657-678 Yonglong, L. 2004. POPs pollution and environmental management in China. Presentations at the seminar: "Strengthening Science-Based Decision Making to Reduce Risks from Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs)", hosted by the State Environmental Protection Administration of China (SEPA), Scope of China, The Chinese Academy of Sciences and the US National Academy of Sciences, Beijing,
China, June 7-10, 2004. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/sustainabilityroundtable/ Appendix 1 International agreements in shortA1-1 The Stockholm ConventionThe Stockholm Convention requires that all Parties endeavour to develop and implement a plan for meeting their obligations under the Stockholm Convention. The plan is to be transmitted to the Conference of the Parties within two years of the date on which the Convention enters into force. Further, the plan is to be reviewed and updated, as appropriate, on a periodic basis and in a manner to be specified by a decision of the Conference of the Parties. The Stockholm Convention does not specify what should be the size and coverage of a survey, action plan or any other of the NIP elements. It is fully up to the country to decide how comprehensive and detailed they should be. The only condition is that they should serve as appropriate tools for meeting the obligations of the Stockholm Convention listed below. PCBs. Concerning intentional uses of PCBs the Stockholm Convention requires that all Parties must:
Unintentional releases of PCDD/PCDFs, PCB and HCB. Releases of unintentionally produced by-products listed in Annex C (dioxins, furans, PCBs and HCB) are subject to continuous minimisation with, as objective, the ultimate elimination where feasible. The main tool for this is the National Action Plans, which should cover the source inventories and release estimates as well as plans for release reductions. The Stockholm Convention requires that all Parties must:
Pesticides. The POPs pesticides covered by the Stockholm Convention consist of mainly chlorinated insecticides and include aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene (HCB), mirex and toxaphene (Annex A, Part I) and DDT (Annex B). The Stockholm Convention requires that all Parties must:
A1-2 CLRTAP HM and POPs protocolsThe objective of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) is to protect man and his environment against air pollution and to endeavour to limit and, as far as possible, gradually reduce and prevent air pollution including long-range transboundary air pollution. The Convention sets up an institutional framework, bringing together policy and research components. It establishes a number of co-operative programmes for assessing and monitoring the effects of air pollution. The Convention requires Parties to develop policies and strategies that will serve as a means of combating the discharge of pollutants, by means of exchanges of information, consultation, research and monitoring. Parties are also required to co-operate in the conduct of research into and/or development of technologies for reducing emissions of major air pollutants, instrumentation and other techniques for monitoring and measuring emission rates and ambient concentrations of air pollutants, improved models for understanding the transmission of long-range transboundary air pollutants, the effects of major air pollutants on human health and the environment and education and training programmes related to the environmental aspects of pollution by major air pollutants. Implementation of the Convention has already contributed successfully in reducing sulphur emissions across Europe, and there has also been progress in reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. The Convention and its protocols are open to member States of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), as well as States having consultative status with the UNECE and regional economic integration organizations, constituted by sovereign States Members of the UNECE. The UNECE has 55 member States, mainly from Central and Eastern Europe, but also includes Canada and the United States of America as members. The Convention entered into force on 16 March 1983 and had 49 Parties as of 1 October 2002. Since its entry into force, it has been extended by eight protocols, of these the 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals and the 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The CLRTAP HM-Protocol The Executive Body of the Convention adopted the Protocol on Heavy Metals on 24 June 1998 in Aarhus, Denmark. It targets three particularly harmful metals: cadmium, lead and mercury, and requires Parties to the Protocol to reduce their releases for these three metals. It aims to cut emissions from industrial sources (iron and steel industry, non-ferrous metal industry), combustion processes (power generation, road transport) and waste incineration. It lays down stringent limit values for emissions from stationary sources and suggests best available techniques for these sources. The Protocol requires Parties to phase out leaded petrol and introduces measures to lower heavy metal releases from other products. Emission levels must be reported using as a minimum methodologies specified by the Steering Body of EMEP, the Cooperative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe. Article 3 describes the following basic obligations set out in the Protocol: A) Reduction of total annual emissions of the substances into the atmosphere, compared to the reference year for the Party (1990, or an alternative year between 1985 and 1995 set when becoming a Party), through application of best available techniques, product control measures or other emission reduction strategies. B) Use of best available techniques for stationary sources - for new plants within 2 years, for existing plants within 8 years. The standards for best available techniques are given as examples in Annex III to the Protocol, and include both cleaning technology and substitution of the substances, e.g. substitution of mercury based technology, for example in chlor/alkali plants. C) Application of limit values to control emissions from major stationary sources, both new and existing – Limit values for a number of sources are specified in Annex V of the Protocol, for example for particulate emissions from combustion plants, mercury emissions from chlor-alkali plants and mercury emissions from municipal, medical and hazardous waste incineration. D) Application of product control measures concerning mercury – The Protocol requires Parties to achieve specific mercury levels in alkaline manganese batteries within 5 years, or 10 years for Parties with economies in transition. Alkaline manganese button cells and batteries composed of button cells are exempted from this obligation. In addition, Parties should consider applying additional product control measures as described in Annex VII of the Protocol. Recommendations are given for mercury-containing products such as electric equipment, electrical components (thermostats, switches), measuring devices (thermometers, manometers, barometers), fluorescent lamps, dental amalgam, pesticides including seed dressings, paints and batteries other than alkaline manganese batteries, and include prohibition of specific products, voluntary agreements and recycling programmes. The CLRTAP POPs Protocol The Executive Body of the Convention adopted the Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants on 24 June 1998 in Aarhus, Denmark. The basic obligations of the Protocol stipulate a wide range of actions ranging from production and use bans and phase-outs, restricted uses and emission controls, and conditions for the disposal of POPs. The 16 substances included in the present Protocol are:
PCBs. Concerning intentional uses of PCBs the POPs protocols requires that all Parties must:
Unintentional releases of PCDD/PCDFs, PAHs and HCB. Releases of unintentionally produced by-products listed in Annex III of the Protocol (PCDD/PCDFs, PAHs and HCB) are su bject to continuous minimisation with, as objective, the ultimate elimination where feasible. The POPs Protocol requires that all Parties must:
Aldrin, chlordecone, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene (HCB), mirex, toxaphene and PCBs. The POPs Protocol requires that all Parties must:
DDT and hexachlorocyclohexane The POPs Protocol requires that all Parties must:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
