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

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

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

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

Approach Establish Source Classification Framework Compile data on sources & releases Classifying using ESs IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

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

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

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

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

SCF tested on a selection of WFD substances IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

Number of ESs for each PP (ab 900 ESs in total) IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

Number of ESs in each urban structure (ab 900 ESs in total) IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

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

Statistics for Denmark year 2007 IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

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

Example of source mapping IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

Emission barriers using GIS IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

Emission barriers using GIS IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

Potential emission barriers for a specific source IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

Potential emission barriers for a specific area IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

Potential sites for an emission barrier IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Size and distribution of stock IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

Fate of emissions IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

Comparing SFA results with measured data Loads (in tonnes/year) SFAMeasured WWTP sludge0.71 WWTP effluent IntroductionSourcesVisualisationStrategiesSubstance flowsConclusions

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

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

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