| Reduction efficiency (%) | up to 60 | 95 | up to 90 | |||||
| Energy efficiency (kWel/103 m3/h) | 0,1 - 1 | 6 - 10 | 3 - 6 | |||||
| Total installed capacity (ECE Eur) (MWth) | 194,000 | 16,000 | ||||||
| Type of by-product | ||||||||
| Specific investment (cost ECU (1990)/kWel) | ||||||||
| Hard coal d/ | 1,000 - 10,000 | 3.5 - 35 | 400 - 4,000 | 1.4 - 14 | <400 | <1.4 | <400<1.4 | |
| (<200,1% S) | <0,7 | (<200,1% S) | <0.7 | |||||
| Brown coal d/ | 1,000 - 20,000 | 4.2 - 84 | 400 - 8,000 | 1.7 - 33.6 | <400 | <1.7 | <400 | <1.7 |
| (<200,1% S) | <0.8 | (<200,1% S) | <0.8 | |||||
| Heavy oil d/ | 1,000 - 10,000 | 2.8 - 28 | 400 - 4,000 | 1.1 - 11 | <400 | <1.1 | <400 | <1.1 |
| (<200,1% S) | <0.6 | (<200,1% S) | <0.6 | |||||
| Reduction efficiency (%) | up to 90 | 95 | 95 | 95 | ||||
| Energy efficiency (kWel/103 m3/h) | 3 - 10 | 10 - 15 | 4 - 8 | 2 | ||||
| Total installed capacity (ECE Eur) (MWth) | 200 | 2,000 | 700 | 1,300 | ||||
| Type of by-product | ||||||||
| Specific investment (cost ECU (1990)/kWel) | ||||||||
| Hard coal d/ | <400 | <1.4 | <400 | <1.4 | <400 | <1.4 | <400 | <1.4 |
| (<200,1% S) | <0.7 | (<200,1% S) | <0.7 | (<200,1% S) | <0.7 | (<200,1% S) | <0.7 | |
| Brown coal d/ | <400 | <1.7 | <400 | <1.7 | <400 | <1.7 | <400 | <1.7 |
| (<200,1% S) | <0.8 | (<200,1% S) | <0.8 | (<200,1% S) | <0.8 | (<200,1% S) | <0.8 | |
| Heavy oil d/ | <400 | <1.1 | <400 | <1.1 | <400 | <1.1 | <400 | <1.1 |
| (<200,1% S) | <0.6 | (<200,1% S) | <0.6 | (<200,1% S) | <0.6 | (<200,1% S) | <0.6 | |
a/ For high sulphur content in the fuel the removal efficiency
has to be adapted, However, the scope for doing so may be process-specific.
Availability of these processes is usually 95%.
b/ Limited applicability for high-sulphur fuels.
c/ Emission in mg/m3 (STP), dry, 6% oxygen for
solid fuels, 3% oxygen for liquid fuels.
d/ Conversion factor depends on fuel properties, specific
fuel gas volume and thermal efficiency of boiler (conversion factors
(m3/kWhel, thermal efficiency: 36%) used:
hard coal: 3.50; brown coal: 4.20; heavy oil: 2.80).
e/ Specific investment cost relates to a small sample of
installations.
f/ Specific investment cost includes denitrification process.
The table was established mainly for large combustion installations
in the public sector. However, the control options are also valid
for other sectors with similar exhaust gases.
These processes aim at removing already formed sulphur oxides,
and are also referred to as secondary measures. The state-of-the-art
technologies for flue gas treatment processes are all based on
the removal of sulphur by wet, dry or semi - dry and catalytic
chemical processes.
To achieve the most efficient programme for sulphur emission reductions
beyond the energy management measures listed in (i) above a combination
of technological options identified in (ii) above should be considered.
In some cases options for reducing sulphur emissions may also
result in the reduction of emissions of CO2, NOX
and other pollutants.
In public power, cogeneration and district heating plants, flue
gas treatment processes used include: lime/limestone wet scrubbing
(LWS); spray dry absorption (SDA); Wellman Lord process (W); ammonia
scrubbing (AS); and combined NOX/SOX removal
processes (activated carbon process (AC) and combined catalytic
NOX/SOX removal).
In the power generation sector, LWS and SDA cover 85% and 10%,
respectively, of the installed FGD capacity.
Several new flue gas desulphurization processes, such as electron
beam dry scrubbing (EBDS ) and Mark 13A, have not yet passed the
pilot stage.
Table 2 above shows the efficiency of the above-mentioned secondary
measures based on the practical experience gathered from a large
number of implemented plants. The implemented capacity as well
as the capacity range are also mentioned. Despite comparable characteristics
for several sulphur abatement technologies, local or plant-specific
influences may lead to the exclusion of a given technology.
Table 2 also includes the usual investment cost ranges for the
sulphur abatement technologies listed in sections (ii) (c), (d)
and (e). However, when applying these technologies to individual
cases it should be noted that investment costs of emission reduction
measures will depend amongst other things on the particular technologies
used, the required control systems, the plant size, the extent
of the required reduction and the time-scale of planned maintenance
cycles. The table thus gives only a broad range of investment
costs. Investment costs for retrofit generally exceed those for
new plants.
IV. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR OTHER SECTORS
10. The control techniques listed in section 9 (ii) (a) to (e)
are valid not only in the power plant sector but also in various
other sectors of industry. Several years of operational experience
have been acquired, in most cases in the power plant sector.
11. The application of sulphur abatement technologies in the industrial
sector merely depends on the process s specific limitations in
the relevant sectors. Important contributors to sulphur emissions
and corresponding reduction measures are presented in table 3
below.
| Roasting of non-ferrous sulphides | Wet sulphuric acid catalytic process (WSA) |
| Viscose production | Double-contact process |
| Sulphuric acid production | Double-contact process, improved yield |
| Kraft pulp production | Variety of process-integrated measures |
12. In the sectors listed in table 3, process-integrated measures,
including raw material changes (if necessary combined with sector-specific
flue gas treatment), can be used to achieve the most effective
reduction of sulphur emissions.
13. Reported examples are the following:
(a) In new kraft pulp mills, sulphur emission of less than 1 kg
of sulphur per tonne of pulp AD (air dried) can be achieved; [Control
of sulphur-to-sodium ratio is required, i.e. removal of sulphur
in the form of neutral salts and use of sulphur-free sodium make-up.]
(b) In sulphite pulp mills, 1 to 1.5 kg of sulphur per tonne of
pulp AD can be achieved;
(c) In the case of roasting of sulphides, removal efficiencies
of 80 to 99% for 10,000 to 200,000 m3/h units have
been reported (depending on the process);
(d) For one iron ore sintering plant, an FGD unit of 320,000 m3/h
capacity achieves a clean gas value below 100 mg SOX/Nm3
at 6% O2;
(e) Coke ovens are achieving less than 400 mg SOX/Nm3
at 6% O 2;
(f) Sulphuric acid plants achieve a conversion rate larger than
99%;
(g) Advanced Claus plant achieves sulphur recovery of more than
99%.
V. BY-PRODUCTS AND SIDE-EFFECTS
14. As efforts to reduce sulphur emissions from stationary sources
are increased in the countries of the ECE region, the quantities
of by-products will also increase.
15. Options, which would lead to usable by-products should be
selected. Furthermore, options that lead to increased thermal
efficiency and minimize the waste disposal issue whenever possible
should be selected. Although most by-products are usable or recyclable
products such as gypsum, ammonia salts, sulphuric acid or sulphur,
factors such as market conditions and quality standards need to
be taken into account. Further utilization of FBC and SDA by-products
have to be improved and investigated, as disposal sites and disposal
criteria limit disposal in several countries.
16. The following side-effects will not prevent the implementation
of any technology or method but should be considered when several
sulphur abatement options are possible:
(a) Energy requirements of the gas treatment processes;
(b) Corrosion attack due to the formation of sulphuric acid by
the reaction of sulphur oxides with water vapour;
(c) Increased use of water and waste water treatment;
(d) Reagent requirements;
(e) Solid waste disposal.
VI. MONITORING AND REPORTING
17. The measures taken to carry out national strategies and policies
for the abatement of air pollution include: legislation and regulatory
provisions, economic incentives and disincentives; as well as
technological requirements (best available technology).
18. In general, standards are set, per emission source, according
to plant size, operating mode, combustion technology, fuel type
and whether it is a new or existing plant. An alternative approach
also used is to set a target for the reduction of total sulphur
emissions from a group of sources and to allow a choice of where
to take action to reach this target (the bubble concept).
19. Efforts to limit the sulphur emissions to the levels set out
in the national framework legislation have to be controlled by
a permanent monitoring and reporting system and reported to the
supervising authorities.
20. Several monitoring systems, using both continuous and discontinuous
measurement methods, are available. However, quality requirements
vary. Measurements are to be carried out by qualified institutes
using measuring and monitoring systems. To this end, a certification
system can provide the best assurance.
21. In the framework of modern automated monitoring systems and
process control equipment, reporting does not create a problem.
The collection of data for further use is a state-of-the-art technique;
however, data to be reported to competent authorities differ from
case to case. To obtain better comparability, data sets and prescribing
regulations should be harmonized. Harmonization is also desirable
for quality assurance of measuring and monitoring systems. This
should be taken into account when comparing data.
22. To avoid discrepancies and inconsistencies, key issues and
parameters, including the following, must be well defined:
(a) Definition of standards expressed as ppmv, mg/Nm3,
g/GJ. kg/h or kg/tonne of product. Most of these units need to
be calculated and need specification in terms of gas temperature,
humidity, pressure, oxygen content or heat input value;
(b) Definition of the period over which standards are to be averaged,
expressed as hours, months or a year;
(c) Definition of failure times and corresponding emergency regulations
regarding bypass of monitoring systems or shut-down of the installation;
(d) Definition of methods for back - filling of data missed or
lost as a result of equipment failure;
(e) Definition of the parameter set to be measured. Depending
on the type of industrial process, the necessary information may
differ. This also involves the location of the measurement point
within the system.
23. Quality control of measurements has to be ensured.
| 1. SOLID FUELS based on 6% oxygen in flue gas) | |||
| 2. LIQUID FUELS (based on 3% oxygen in glue gas) | |||
| 3. GASEOUS FUELS (based on 3% oxygen in flue gas) | |||
| Gaseous fuels in general | |||
| Liquefied gas | |||
| Low calorific gases from gasification of refinery residues, coke oven gas, blast-furnace gas | |||
| Diesel for on-road vehicles | 0.05 |
| Other types | 0.2 |
a/ As guidance, for a plant with a multi-fuel firing unit
involving the simultaneous use of two or more types of fuels,
the competent authorities shall set emission limit values taking
into account the emission limit values from column (ii) relevant
for each individual fuel, the rate of thermal input delivered
by each fuel and, for refineries, the relevant specific characteristics
of the plant. For refineries, such a combined limit value shall
under no circumstances exceed 1,700 mg SO2/Nm3.
In particular, the limit values shall not apply to the following
plants:
- Plants in which the products of combustion are used for direct
heating, drying, or any other treatment of objects or materials,
e.g. reheating furnaces, furnaces for heat treatment;
- Post-combustion plants, i.e. any technical apparatus designed
to purify the waste gases by combustion which is not operated
as an independent combustion plant;
- Facilities for the regeneration of catalytic cracking catalysts;
- Facilities for the conversion of hydrogen sulphide into sulphur;
- Reactors used in the chemical industry;
- Coke battery furnsces;
- Cowpers;
- Waste incinerators;
- Plants powered by diesel, petrol and gas engines or by gas turbines,
irrespective of the fuel used.
In a case where a Party, due to the high sulphur content of indigenous
solid or liquid fuels, cannot meet the emission limit values set
forth in column (ii), it may apply the desulphurization rates
set forth in column (iii) or a maximum limit value of 800 mg SO2/Nm3
(although preferably not more than 650 mg SO2/Nm3).
The Party shall report any such application to the Implementation
Committee in the calendar year in which it is made.
Where two or more separate new plants are installed in such a
way that, taking technical and economic factors into account,
their waste gases could, in the judgement of the competent authorities,
be discharged through a common stack, the combination formed by
such plants is to be regarded as a single unit.
b/ mg SO2/Nm3 is defined at a temperature
of 2730 K and a pressure of 101.3 kPa, after correction
for the water vapour content.
The Executive Body,
Having agreed upon and adopted the Protocol to the 1979
Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution on Further
Reduction of Sulphur Emissions,
Resolved to act as early as possible to ensure effective
monitoring of the operation of the new Protocol,
Decides, with reference to article 7, paragraph 3, of the
new Protocol, to approve the attached text on the "Structure
and Functions of the Implementation Committee, as well as Procedures
for its Review of Compliance"; and
Urqes the Parties to the new Protocol to adopt the attached
text at the first session of the Executive Body after the entry
into force of the Protocol.
1. The Committee shall consist of eight Parties. The Parties shall,
at the first session of the Executive Body after the entry into
force of this Protocol, elect four Parties to the Committee for
a term of two years and four Parties for a term of one year. At
each session thereafter they shall elect four new Parties for
a term of two years. Outgoing Parties may be re-elected for one
immediately consecutive term. The Committee shall elect its own
chairman and vice- chairman.
2. The Committee shall, unless it decides otherwise, meet twice
a year. The secretariat shall arrange for and service its meetings.
3. If one or more Parties have reservations about another Party´s
implementation of its obligations under the present Protocol,
these concerns may be addressed in writing to the secretariat.
Such a submission shall be supported by corroborating information.
The secretariat shall, within two weeks of its receiving a submission,
send s copy of that submission to the Party whose implementation
of a particular provision of the Protocol is at issue. Any reply
and information in support thereof are to be submitted to the
secretariat and to the Parties involved within three months of
the date of the dispatch or such longer period as the circumstances
of any particular case may require. The secretariat shall transmit
the submission, the reply and the information provided by the
Parties to the Committee, which shall consider the matter as soon
as practicable.
4. Where the secretariat, in particular upon reviewing the reports
submitted in accordance with article 5, becomes aware of possible
non - compliance by any Party with its obligations under the Protocol,
it may request the Party concerned to furnish necessary information
about the matter. If there is no response from the Party concerned
within three months or such longer period as the circumstances
of the matter may require or the matter is not resolved through
administrative action or through diplomatic contacts, the secretariat
shall inform the Committee accordingly.
5. Where a Party concludes that, despite having made its best
bona fide efforts, it is or will be unable to comply fully with
its obligations under the present Protocol, it may address to
the secretariat a submission in writing, explaining, in particular,
the specific circumstances that it considers to be the cause of
its non-compliance. The secretariat shall transmit such a submission
to the Committee, which shall consider it as soon as practicable.
6. The Committee shall:
(a) Subject to policy guidance by the Parties at sessions of the
Executive Body, synthesize and evaluate the information reported
by Parties in accordance with article 5 of the Protocol;
(b) Subject to policy guidance by the Parties at sessions of the
Executive Body, analyse and evaluate on a periodic basis, the
progress that has been made in the implementation of the Protocol;
(c) Consider any matter brought before it in accordance with paragraphs
3, 4 and 5 above with a view to securing a constructive solution
of the matter; and
(d) Ensure that the quality of data reported by a Party in accordance
with article 5 (Reporting) is evaluated by the EMEP technical
centres, and/or by an independent expert nominated by the Implementation
Committee. In areas outside the geographic scope of EMEP, evaluation
procedures appropriate to the particular circumstances of the
Parties concerned shall be used.
7. The Committee may:
(a) Request, through the secretariat, further information on matters
under its consideration;
(b) Undertake, upon the invitation of the Party concerned, information
gathering in the territory of that Party; and
(c) Consider any information forwarded by the secretariat concerning
compliance with the provisions of the present Protocol.
8. The Committee shall report annually to the Parties at sessions
of the Executive Body on its activities and in particular any
recommendations it considers appropriate regarding compliance
with the Protocol. Each such report shall be finalized by the
Committee no later than ten weeks in advance of the session of
the Executive Body at which it is to be considered.
9. Where a Party that is not a member of the Committee is identified
in a submission under paragraph 3, or makes itself a submission
under paragraph 5, it shall be entitled to participate in the
consideration of that submission by the Committee.
10. No Party, whether or not a members of the Committee, involved
in a matter under consideration by the Committee, shall take part
in the elaboration and adoption of recommendations on that matter
to be included in the report of the Committee.