Possible Options for Improving Heavy Metal Emissions Reductions

&Technical and Non-technical Reduction

Measures for Particulate Matter

Katja Kraus, Federal Environmental Agency, Germany

TF Heavy Metals Katja Kraus, Vienna, June 2007 2

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/m3

– for existing LCP‘s the limit value in the LCP-Directive is 100 mg/m3 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/m3

• 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

TF Heavy Metals Katja Kraus, Vienna, June 2007 3

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

TF Heavy Metals Katja Kraus, Vienna, June 2007 4

Results of the German Measuring Programme for Stationary Sources

Industrial Sources Abatement technique

PM

[mg/m3]

Share of PM 10 [%]

Share of PM 2,5 [%]

Share of PM 1 [%]

Electric power generation,

Industrial power generation,

fabric filter 0,1 – 20

often< 5 80 – 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

11 - 52

one value 803

Ceramics-

and Asphalt

Cyclone2 16

Small scale firing unit

6 kW

--------- 8 – 50 mean:

90 – 100

mean:

79 – 99

mean:

70 – 951 amine-scrubber in an iron foundry2 combination with electrostatic precipitator3 combination cyclone with venturi scrubber on a cupola furnace

TF Heavy Metals Katja Kraus, Vienna, June 2007 5

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

TF Heavy Metals Katja Kraus, Vienna, June 2007 6

Removal Efficiencies of Dust Separators for PM 10

Raw gas Dust separator Clean gas Removal Efficiency [%]

Industrial Source

(e.g.)

Share of PM 10

PM

[g/m3]Share of PM 10 PM [mg/m3]

Industrial power generation, brown coal

app. 20% 4 – 10 electrostatic precipitator 80 – 85 10 – 20 97,9 - 99,6

Fluidized bed combustion app.

20%

60 – 80 fabric filter app. 85 10 - 20 99,86 - 99,95

Melting furnaces for zinc scrap

app. 20% 1 - 3 venturi scrubber 80 - 98% 10 - 40 81 - 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

TF Heavy Metals Katja Kraus, Vienna, June 2007 7

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 SO3 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)

TF Heavy Metals Katja Kraus, Vienna, June 2007 8

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] www.who.int/phe/air/aqg2006execsum.pdf

TF Heavy Metals Katja Kraus, Vienna, June 2007 9

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)

TF Heavy Metals Katja Kraus, Vienna, June 2007 10

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