Hazardous Substances from Open Burning of Waste in Developing Countries

Transcription

1 Hazardous Substances from Open Burning of Waste in Developing Countries Joint project by UNEP Chemicals Branch, DTIE CENICA / INE, Mexico Tsinghua University, China Umeå University, Sweden EPA, U.S.A.

2 Context To address concerns that emission factors from developed countries are not relevant to developing countries and countries with economies in transition; Toolkit Category 6 Open burning processes to be one of the largest dioxin sources in developing countries; December 2005, UNEP Chemicals / Australian Government DEH Expert Workshop on Dioxin and Furan Releases from Uncontrolled Combustion ; Response to Decision SC-2/5 to improve the Toolkit methodology and provide EFs for the next version of the Toolkit taking into account developing country conditions (expected in 2009 COP-4). 2

3 Outputs Sound methodology for future projects to determine driving parameters for emission factors for the subcategory of open burning of waste (in developing countries); Emission factors for open waste burning in relation to waste composition and burning parameters; First emission factors/unintentional POPs results from open burning of waste in developing countries; Experience in developing countries to design studies for determination of emission factors and capacity to determine them analytically; Experiences in developing countries on communication of scientific results and implementation of BEP measures. 3

4 Project Outline Context: Stockholm Convention on POPs Geographical Scope: Global POPs Addressed: POPs in Annex C of Stockholm Convention: - Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) - Polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF) - Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) - Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) Cooperating Agency: UNEP Chemicals Branch, DTIE Project Coordinator: Dr. Heidelore Fiedler Duration of Project: 24 Months 1 May February 2009 Total Project Costs: USD 1,061,016 from Sweden: USD 647,416 from CCD: USD 89,600 In-kind: USD 324,000 4

5 Project Partners China: Dr. Gang Yu Department of Environmental Science and Engineering Tsinghua University, Beijing Mexico: Ing. Gustavo Solórzano Ochoa SEMARNAT, National Center for Environmental Research and Training (CENICA) México, D.F. Sweden: Dr. Stellan Marklund Umeå University Department of Environmental Chemistry, Umeå USA: Dr. Brian K. Gullett U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory (E305-01), Research Triangle Park, NC Sponsors: Government of Sweden through SIDA Chlorine Chemistry Division, American Chemistry Council, USA 5

6 Main Activities in the Project 1. Waste characterization in all four countries (composition that is actually burned); 2. Site visits to waste dumps for consideration of sampling in the field study; 3. Burn experiments in Swedish and US burn huts end of 2007/early 2008; 4. Field sampling in Mexico and China (2008); 5. Determination of emission factors to improve the Toolkit; 6. Stakeholder workshops and diffusion of project and its results (1 st series: MEX-Feb 2008, CHN-May 2008). 6

7 Activities Undertaken Project approval by PAG (Project Approval Group) Internalization of the project; Presentation at side event, COP-3; Internal planning meetings held: - Feb 2007, Mexico City (meeting report published) - Jun 2007, Beijing (meeting report published) WebSite set-up and accessible Waste characterizations done; Waste collected and ready for shipment to burning huts. 7

8 Samples and Analysis 1. Waste that may burn - from China, Mexico, Sweden, USA 2. Model burns of waste types (flue gases and ashes): CHN/MEX: Urban industrial, Urban residential, Rural SWE/USA: Urban 3. Field sampling in China and Mexico 5 Situations (+5 repetitions) each (flue gases only) Duplicate samples; Cross-over samples (CHN-USA; MEX-SWE) Additional parameters to be analyzed: Flue gas: HCl, HBr; CO 2, CO, O 2, NO x, SO x Ash: Cu, Zn, Pb, Cd, Fe, C org, chloride, bromide All dioxin analyses done in the same laboratory (Model burns - approx 64 analyses; field sampling - approx 20). 8

9 Proposed Matrix Covering Four Extreme Situations Economic develop- Engineered products/ Engineered products/ ment/burning practice organic fraction organic fraction Small urban area Valuables are recycled, Some engineered proorganic fraction low, ducts (high in e-waste) no burning and burned Semi-rural and Some engineered pro- Low in engineered rural area ducts (low in e-waste) products and burned but high in textiles, treated wood, plastics, corrugated paper) and burned 9

10 Definition of Waste Composition of waste at site of generation is not the same as the waste that is burned in the open; For the Toolkit, it would be more interesting to determine what will be burned; Wastes will be classified into two main waste types: 1. Urban waste = Waste high in engineered fractions on qualitative basis with (a) containing engineered products that are thought to be drivers for higher PCDD/PCDF emission factors; e.g., as BFR-containing, PVC, copper parts) = defined as Urban A and (b) Urban B that would contain other engineered products such as plastics, corrugated paper, and perhaps tires; 2. Rural waste = Waste low in engineered fractions on qualitative basis 10

11 China Urban 11

12 Mexico Urban No Burn 12

13 PVC 13

14 Urban Industrial 14

15 Smoldering15

16 Open flame 16

17 Proposed Plan for Burn Huts 16 burn experiments in Umeå + 12 burns in RTP; Twinning of countries/labs: Burn experiments done in duplicate; China-Sweden Mexico-USA Swedish and US waste burned to allow correlation with earlier published results; Cross-over samples to be analyzed; Analysis of flue gases and solid residues (total of 56); Analysis of unburned waste (8 samples). 17

18 Burn Huts Experimental Plan 18

19 WebSite for project: dd_activities/projects/default.htm Thank you very much for your attention. 19