1. Possible Options for Improving Heavy Metal Emissions Reductions & Technical and Non-technical Reduction Measures for Particulate Matter Katja Kraus, Federal Environmental Agency, Germany

2. TF Heavy MetalsKatja Kraus, Vienna, June 20072 Current situation Parties apply lower ELVs for PM and HM than in Protocol (Annex V) Abatement techniques employed in UNECE and in particular in EECCA countries are very different For example, – the average daily TSP emission concentration in LCP‘s in Germany is below 20 mg/m 3 –for existing LCP‘s the limit value in the LCP-Directive is 100 mg/m 3 for LCP‘s below 500 MW –BAT in the context of IPPC refers more and more to „ranges of values“ –and efficient fabric filters can reach <1mg/m 3 In some cases IPPC requirements (BAT) are still an ambitious goal and these can be regarded as ‘additional’ in the new member states of the EU (and EECCA countries?) In particular, costs may rise to replace ‘old’ technologies with latest abatement devices

3. TF Heavy MetalsKatja Kraus, Vienna, June 20073 Relevant industry sectors for HM and PM PM Combustion of fossil fuels Small furnaces, residential heating Ferrous metals industry Non-ferrous metals industry Mineral Industry (Glass, Ceramic products, Asphalt production) Waste incineration Fertiliser production Production of Carbon Black etc. HM Combustion of fossil fuels Ferrous metals industry Non-ferrous metals industry Mineral Industry (Glass) Waste incineration

4. TF Heavy MetalsKatja Kraus, Vienna, June 20074 Results of the German Measuring Programme for Stationary Sources Industrial SourcesAbatement technique PM [mg/m 3 ] Share of PM 10 [%] Share of PM 2,5 [%] Share of PM 1 [%] Electric power generation, Industrial power generation, fabric filter0,1 – 20 often< 580 – 99 50 – 80 20 – 60 Crusher for rock, Chemical industry electrostatic precipitator 1 – 30 often < 10 Cement industry Glass industry wet electrostatic precipitator < 3 means: >95 70 45 Iron foundry, Production of fertilizer, high efficient wet scrubber 1 1 - 5 2 1 2 one value 80 3 3 Ceramics- and Asphalt Cyclone 2 16 Small scale firing unit 6 kW ---------8 – 50mean: 90 – 100 mean: 79 – 99 mean: 70 – 95 1 1 amine-scrubber in an iron foundry 2 2 combination with electrostatic precipitator 3 3 combination cyclone with venturi scrubber on a cupola furnace

5. TF Heavy MetalsKatja Kraus, Vienna, June 20075 Size-related Efficiency of Different Dust Abatement Systems (Fritz and Kern, 1990) - Fabric filters and ESP are able to reduce every fraction (size) of particulates, i.e. both PM 10 and PM 2.5 - HM particulates are very fine and bound to every fraction of PM

6. TF Heavy MetalsKatja Kraus, Vienna, June 20076 Removal Efficiencies of Dust Separators for PM 10 Raw gasDust separatorClean gasRemoval Efficiency [%] Industrial Source (e.g.) Share of PM 10 PM [g/m 3 ] Share of PM 10 PM [mg/m 3 ] Industrial power generation, brown coal app. 20%4 – 10electrostatic precipitator80 – 8510 – 2097,9 - 99,6 Fluidized bed combustionapp. 20% 60 – 80fabric filterapp. 8510 - 2099,86 - 99,95 Melting furnaces for zinc scrap app. 20%1 - 3venturi scrubber80 - 98%10 - 4081 - 98,5 Removal efficiency for state of the art dust separator Other industrial sources including power generation 20 – 90 % 1 bis 100 (e.g. 10) fabric filter electrostatic precipitator high efficient wet scrubber 80 – 99% often > 95 0,1 – 30 often <10 95 - 99,999 often >99

7. TF Heavy MetalsKatja Kraus, Vienna, June 20077 Additional Technical Reduction Measures for Primary PM 10 Point sources: Upgrading of implemented reduction systems, designing, maintenance Combining ESP and FF to upgrade undersized ESP‘s (ENTEC) ESP: Removal Improvement by SO 3 or steam conditioning, ultrasonic agglomeration and high voltage pulsation Application of low-emission process technology, i.e. KSR-Technology and low emission poling for secondary copper; Fugitive process-emissions : Optimized collection of fugitive process emissions A German investigation project at a primary copper plant and iron foundry showed that 80% of total PM is emitted via roofline, windows and gates; in a subsequently conducted funded project these emissions were reduced by app. 80% due to a so-called ‘house-in-house’- technology (housing of a converter leads to less off-gas)

8. TF Heavy MetalsKatja Kraus, Vienna, June 20078 Additional Non-Technical Reduction Measures for Primary PM 10 Additional Non- technical Reduction Measures Policy! (New ELVs) Extra energy saving efforts Fuel switch where possible (e.g. to gaseous fuel, to light fuel oil with 0,1% sulphur) gives 30% PM 10 reduction Successful air quality management plans (Duisburger Hafen, local scale, short term) WHO‘s PM health effect studies provide the basis for the cost-benefit arguments in favour of PM/HM reduction In particular in the eastern part of the Convention area adverse health effects are even more significant. From projections based on a current legislation scenario (CLE) an average life expectancy in 2020 within the EU 25 will still be reduced by 6 months. No threshold could be identified below which no adverse effects on human health are to be expected from either fraction. WHO[1] gives an air quality guideline of 10 µg/m3 PM 2,5.[1] [1] www.who.int/phe/air/aqg2006execsum.pdf

9. TF Heavy MetalsKatja Kraus, Vienna, June 20079 Conclusions (concerning PM) 'Additional' measures should not in particular focus on new or emerging technologies 'Additional' also means implementation and improvement of existing abatement techniques Stringent TSP limitation (ELV) is better than requirements on the removal efficiency (measurement time & effort, raw gas, size fraction) In many cases fugitive PM emissions from processes and storage become more relevant than point source emissions Available Fabric Filter, ESP‘s and optimized Wet Systems show high removal efficiency for PM 10 and PM 2,5 'Additional' technical PM abatement means in particular an improvement in the off-gas collection Combined HM and PM reduction improves cost effectiveness (due to health effects)

10. TF Heavy MetalsKatja Kraus, Vienna, June 200710 Conclusions (general) The current level of applied techniques differs within the UN ECE –What possibilities do we have to to support countries to ratify? (Workshop for East Europe and EECCA?) –Longer time-scale to use new abatement techniques Technical options are available to make proposals for an improvement of the technical Annexes of the Protocol To reduce PM effectively means to reduce HM and therefore to lessen health effects