COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(94) 177 final 
BrusseIs, 17.05.1994 
'4 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL DECISION 
ON THE SIGNING BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY 
OF THE PROTOCOL TO THE 1979 CONVENTION 
ON LONG-RANGE TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION, 
ON FURTHER REDUCTION OF SULPHUR EMISSIONS 
(presented by the Commission) 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. The European Community and all the Member States are 
parties to the Convention on long-range transboundary 
air pollution (Geneva. 1979). drawn up by the UN 
Eoonomio Commission for Europe. 
A first SOg protoool was proposed for signature by 
the contracting parties in 1985, providing for a 30% 
reduction in emissions by 1993 compared with 1980 
levels. The European Community was not a party to this 
protoool, which expired at the end of 1993. 
A seoond protoool on sulphur emissions has now been 
drawn up and will be put to the contracting parties for 
signature in June 1994. 
2. The European Community has long recognized the need to 
control and reduce sulphur emissions in order to 
protect public health and the environment against the 
harmful effects of such emissions, and in particular of 
acidification. 
To this end, the Community adopted the following 
legislation designed to reduce SOg emissions: 
Directive 75/716/EEC on the approximation of the 
laws of the Member States relating to the sulphur 
content of certain liquid fuels,* as last amended 
by Directive 93/12/EEC;2 
Directive 80/779/EEC on air quality limit values 
and guide values for sulphur dioxide and suspended 
particulates ;3 
Directive 84/360/EEC on the combating of air 
pollution from industrial plants;4 
1 OJ No L 307, 27.11.1975, p. 22. 
2 OJ No L 74. 27.3.1993. p. 81 
3 OJ No L 229. 30.8.1980. p. 30. 
4 OJ No L 188. 16.7.1984. p. 20. 
Directive 88/609/EEC on the limitation of 
emissions of certain pollutants into the air from 
large oombustion plants;5 
Directive 89/369/EEC on the prevention of air 
pollution from new muniolpal waste incineration 
plants ;6 
Directive 89/429/EEC on the reduction of air 
pollution from existing municipal waste 
incineration plants.7 
3. On 15 November 1993 the Commission received a mandate 
from the Council to participate in the activities of 
the working party responsible for drawing up the 
protocol and to negotiate on behalf of the Community, 
in close consultation with the Member States. 
4. In view of the responsibilities which the European 
Community already has in this area and the need to 
promote aotion to oombat air pollution in a broader 
international context, the Commission believes that the 
Union should sign the new SO2 protocol. 
Accordingly, the Commission requests the Council to 
approve the signing of this protocol, and to appoint a 
representative to sign it. 
5 OJ No L 336. 7.12.1988. p. 1. 
6 OJ No L 163. 14.6.1989. p. 32. 
7 OJ No L 203. 15.7.1989. p. 50. I 
Counoil Décision of on the signing by the 
European Community of the Protoool to the 1979 
Convention on long-range transboundary air pollution, on 
further reduction of sulphur emissions 
THE COUNCIL OP THE EUROPEAN UNION. 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Community 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission. 
Whereas one of the objectives identified by the Treaty in 
the sphere of environmental polioy is the promotion of 
measures at International level to deal with regional or 
worldwide environmental problems; whereas the Treaty oalls 
for active coopération by the European Community and the 
Member States in international measures to protect the 
environment ; 
Whereas the European Community is a contracting party to 
the Convention of the United Nations Eoonomio Commission for 
Europe on long-range transboundary air pollution (Geneva, 
1979J. CD to one of its protocols on the financing of 
EMEPC2) (Cooperative programme for monitoring and 
evaluation of the long-range transmission of air pollutants 
in Europe), and, since 17 December 1993, to the Protoool on 
the reduotlon of emissions of nitrogen oxides or their 
transboundary fluxes (NOx Protocol)C3) 
Whereas the Commission of the European Communities 
participated on the Community's behalf in the negotiations 
oonduoted within a working party set up under the auspioes 
of the United Nations Eoonomio Commission for Europe 
leading to a draft second protoool to the Convention on 
long-range transboundary air pollution, oonoerning the 
control of sulphur emissions; 
Whereas the S02 protoool is to be opened for signature by 
the oontraoting parties to the Convention on long-range 
transboundary air pollution at the speoial session of the 
exeoutive body for the Convention to be held in Oslo on 13 
and 14 June 1994, 
(1) OJ n* L 171. 27.06.1981 p. 11 
(2) OJ n* L 181. 04.07.1986 p. 1 
(3) OJ n* L 149, 17.05.1993 p. 14 3 
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: 
Article 1 
The European Community shall sign the Seoond Protocol to 
the 1979 Convention on long-range transboundary air 
pollution, concerning the control of sulphur emissions. 
Article 2 
The President of the Council shall appoint a representative 
empowered to sign the protocol on behalf of the European 
Community. 
Done at Brussels. 
For the Council 
The President 
^M 
Distr. 
RESTRICTED 
EB.AIR/R.84 
11 March 1994 
Original: ENGLISH 
EXECUTIVE BODY FOR THE CONVENTION ON 
LONG-RANGE TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION 
(Special session, Oslo, 13-14 June 1994) 
Item 2 of the provisional agenda 
DRAFT PROTOCOL 
TO THE 1979 CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION 
ON FURTHER REDUCTION OF SULPHUR EMISSIONS 
Documents prepared under the auspices or at the request of the Executive Body 
for the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution are RESTRICTED 
for use by Governments and organizations taking part in the work of the 
Executive Body, and should not be given to newspapers or periodicals, unless 
DERESTRICTED by the Executive Body. 
GE.94-
4~ 
EB.AIR/R.34 
page 2 
The. Parties, 
Determined to implement the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air 
Pollution, 
Concerned that emissions of sulphur and other air pollutants continue to 
be transported across international boundaries and, in exposed parts of Europe 
and North America, are causing widespread damage to natural resources of vital 
environmental and economic importance, such as forests, soils and waters, and 
to materials, including historic monuments, and, under certain circumstances, 
have harmful effects on human health, 
Resolved to take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or 
minimize emissions of air pollutants and mitigate their adverse effects. 
Convinced that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, 
lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing 
such measures, taking into account that such precautionary measures to deal 
with emissions of air pollutants should be cost-effective. 
Mindful that measures to control emissions of sulphur and other air 
pollutants would also contribute to the protection of the sensitive Arctic 
environment, 
Considering that the predominant sources of air pollution contributing to 
the acidification of the environment are the combustion of fossil fuels for 
energy production, and the main technological processes in various industrial 
sectors, as well as transport, which lead to emissions of sulphur, nitrogen 
oxides, and other pollutants, 
Conscious of the need for a cost-effective regional approach to combating 
air pollution that takes account of the variations in effects and abatement 
costs between countries. 
Desiring to take further and more effective action to control and reduce 
sulphur emissions, 
Cognizant that any sulphur control policy, however cost-effective it may 
be at the regional level, will result in a relatively heavy economic burden on 
countries with economies that are in transition to a market economy, 
Bearing in mind that measures taken to reduce sulphur emissions should 
not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a 
disguised restriction on international competition and trade, 
Taking into consideration existing scientific and technical data on 
emissions, atmospheric processes and effects on the environment of sulphur 
oxides, as well as on abatement costs, 
Aware that, in addition to emissions of sulphur, emissions of nitrogen 
oxides and of ammonia are also causing acidification of the environment, 
Noting that under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 3 
Change, adopted in New York on 9 May 1992, there is agreement to establish 
national policies and take corresponding measures to combat climate change, 
which can be expected to lead to reductions of sulphur emissions. 
Affirming the need to ensure environmentally sound and sustainable 
development. 
Recognizing the need to continue scientific and technical cooperation to 
elaborate further the approach based on critical loads and critical levels, 
including efforts to assess several air pollutants and various effects on the 
environment, materials and human health. 
Underlining that scientific and technical knowledge is developing and 
that it will be necessary to take such developments into account when reviewing 
the adequacy of the obligations entered into under the present Protocol and 
deciding on further action, 
Acknowledging the Protocol on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions or Their 
Transboundary Fluxes by at least 30 per cent, adopted in Helsinki on 8 July 
1985, and the measures already taken by many countries which have had the 
effect of reducing sulphur emissions, 
Have agreed as follows: 
Article 1 
DEFINITIONS 
For the purposes of the present Protocol, 
1. "Convention" means the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air 
Pollution, adopted in Geneva on 13 November 1979; 
2. "EMEP" means the Cooperative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of 
the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe; 
3. "Executive Body" means the Executive Body for the Convention constituted 
under article 10, paragraph 1, of the Convention; 
4. "Commission" means the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; 
5. "Parties" means, unless the context otherwise requires, the Parties to 
the present Protocol; 
6. "Geographical scope of EMEP" means the area defined in article 1, 
paragraph 4, of the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary 
Air Pollution on Long-term Financing of the Cooperative Programme for 
Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in 
Europe (EMEP), adopted in Geneva on 28 September 1984; 
7. "SOMA" means a sulphur oxides management area designated in annex III 
under the conditions laid down in article 2, paragraph 3; 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 4 
8. "Critical load" means a quantitative estimate of an exposure to one or 
more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive 
elements of the environment do not occur, according to present knowledge; 
9. "Critical levels" means the concentration of pollutants in the atmosphere 
above which direct adverse effects on receptors, such as human beings, plants, 
ecosystems or materials, may occur, according to present knowledge; 
10. "Critical sulphur deposition" means a quantitative estimate of the 
exposure to oxidized sulphur compounds, taking into account the effects of base 
cation uptake and base cation deposition, below which significant harmful 
effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur, 
according to present knowledge; 
11. "Emission" means the discharge of substances into the atmosphere; 
12. "Sulphur emissions" means all emissions of sulphur compounds expressed as 
kilotonnes of sulphur dioxide (kt S02) to the atmosphere originating from 
anthropogenic sources excluding from ships in international traffic outside 
territorial waters; 
13. "Fuel" means any solid, liquid or gaseous combustible material with the 
exception of domestic refuse and toxic or dangerous waste; 
14. "Stationary combustion source" means any technical apparatus or group of 
technical apparatus that is co-located on a common site and is or could be 
discharging waste gases through a common stack, in which fuels are oxidized in 
order to use the heat generated; 
15. "Major new stationary combustion source' means any stationary combustion 
source the construction or substantial modification of which is authorized 
after 31 December 1995 and the thermal input of which, when operating at rated 
capacity, is at least 50 MWth. It is a matter for the competent national 
authorities to decide whether a modification is substantial or not, taking into 
account such factors as the environmental benefits of the modification; 
16. "Major existing stationary combustion source" means any existing 
stationary combustion source the thermal input of which, when operating at 
rated capacity, is at least 50 MWch; 
17. "Gas oil" means any petroleum product within HS 2710, or any petroleum 
product which, by reason of its distillation limits, falls within the category 
of middle distillates intended for use as fuel and of which at least 85% by 
volume, including distillation losses, distils at 350° C; 
18. "Emission limit value" means the permissible concentration of sulphur 
compounds expressed as sulphur dioxide in the waste gases from a stationary 
combustion source expressed in terms of mass per volume of the waste gases 
expressed in mg S02/Nm3, assuming an oxygen content by volume in the waste gas 
of 3% in the case of liquid and gaseous fuels and 6% in the case of solid 
fuels ; 
19. "Emission limitation" means the permissible total quantity of sulphur 
f 
EB.AIR/R.34 
page 5 
compounds expressed as sulphur dioxide discharged from a combustion source or 
group of combustion sources located either on a common site or within a defined 
geographical area, expressed in kilotonnes per year; 
20. "Desulphurization rate" means the ratio of the quantity of sulphur which 
is separated at the combustion source site over a given period to the quantity 
of sulphur contained in the fuel which is introduced into the combustion source 
facilities and which is used over the same period; 
21. "Sulphur budget" means a matrix of calculated contributions to the 
deposition of oxidized sulphur compounds in receiving areas, originating from 
the emissions from specified areas. 
Article 7 
BASIC OBLIGATIONS 
1. The Parties shall control and reduce their sulphur emissions in order to 
protect human health and the environment from adverse effects, in particular 
acidifying effects, and to ensure, as far as possible, without entailing 
excessive costs, that depositions of oxidized sulphur compounds in the long 
term do not exceed critical loads for sulphur given, in annex I, as critical 
sulphur depositions, in accordance with present scientific knowledge. 
2. As a first step, the Parties shall, as a minimum, reduce and maintain 
their annual sulphur emissions in accordance with the timing and levels 
specified in annex II. 
3. In addition, any Party: 
(a) Whose total land area is greater than 2 million square kilometres; 
(b) Which has committed itself under paragraph 2 above to a national 
sulphur emission ceiling no greater than the lesser of its 1990 
emissions or its obligation in the 1985 Helsinki Protocol on the 
Reduction of Sulphur Emissions or Their Transboundary Fluxes by at 
least 3 0 per cent, as indicated in annex II; 
(c) Whose annual sulphur emissions that contribute to acidification in 
areas under the jurisdiction of one or more other Parties originate 
only from within areas under its jurisdiction that are listed as 
SOMAs in annex III, and has presented documentation to this effect; 
and 
(d) Which has specified upon signature of, or accession to, the present 
Protocol its intention to act in accordance with this paragraph, 
shall, as a minimum, reduce and maintain its annual sulphur emissions in the 
area so listed in accordance with the timing and levels specified in annex II. 
4. Furthermore, the Parties shall make use of the most effective measures 
for the reduction of sulphur emissions, appropriate in their particular 
circumstances, for new and existing sources, which include, inter alia: 
% 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 6 
Measures to increase energy efficiency; 
Measures to increase the use of renewable energy; 
Measures to reduce the sulphur content of particular fuels and to 
encourage the use of fuel with a low sulphur content, including the 
combined use of high-sulphur with low-sulphur or sulphur-free fuel; 
Measures to apply best available control technologies not entailing 
excessive cost, 
using the guidance in annex IV. 
5. Each Party, except those Parties subject to the United States/Canada Air 
Quality Agreement of 1991, shall as a minimum: 
(a) Apply emission limit values at least as stringent as those specified 
in annex V to all major new stationary combustion sources; 
(b) No later than 1 July 2004 apply, as far as possible without 
entailing excessive costs, emission limit values at least as stringent as those 
specified in annex V to those major existing stationary combustion sources the 
thermal input of which is above 500 MWth taking into account the remaining 
lifetime of a plant, calculated from the date of entry into force of the 
present Protocol, or apply equivalent emission limitations or other appropriate 
provisions, provided that these achieve the sulphur emission ceilings specified 
in annex II and, subsequently, further approach the critical loads as given in 
annex I; and no later than 1 July 2004 apply emission limit values or emission 
limitations to those major existing stationary combustion sources the thermal 
input of which is between 50 and 500 MWth using annex V as guidance; 
(c) No later than two years after the date of entry into force of the 
present Protocol apply national standards for the sulphur content of gas oil at 
least as stringent as those specified in annex V. In cases where the supply of 
gas oil cannot otherwise be ensured, a State may extend the time period given 
in this subparagraph to a period of up to ten years. In this case it shall 
specify, in a declaration to be deposited together with the instrument of 
ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, its intention to extend the 
time period. 
6. The Parties may, in addition, apply economic instruments to encourage the 
adoption of cost-effective approaches to the reduction of sulphur emissions. 
7. The Parties to this Protocol may, at a session of the Executive Body, in 
accordance with rules and conditions which the Executive Body shall elaborate 
and adopt, decide whether two or more Parties may jointly implement the 
obligations set out in annex II. These rules and conditions shall ensure the 
fulfilment of the obligations set out in paragraph 2 above and also promote the 
achievement of the environmental objectives set out in paragraph 1 above. 
8. The Parties shall, subject to the outcome of the first review provided 
for under article 8 and no later than one year after the completion of that 
review, commence negotiations on further obligations to reduce emissions. 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 7 
Article 1 
EXCHANGE OF TECHNOLOGY 
1. The Parties shall, consistent with their national laws, regulations and 
practices, facilitate the exchange of technologies and techniques, including 
those that increase energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy and the 
processing of low-sulphur fuels, to reduce sulphur emissions, particularly 
through the promotion of: 
(a) The commercial exchange of available technology; 
(b) Direct industrial contacts and cooperation, including joint 
ventures; 
(c) The exchange of information and experience; 
(d) The provision of technical assistance. 
2. In promoting the activities specified in paragraph 1 above, the Parties 
shall create favourable conditions by facilitating contacts and cooperation 
among appropriate organizations and individuals in the private and public 
sectors that are capable of providing technology, design and engineering 
services, equipment or finance. 
3. The Parties shall, no later than six months after the date of entry into 
force of the present Protocol, commence consideration of procedures to create 
more favourable conditions for the exchange of technology to reduce sulphur 
emissions. 
Article 4 
NATIONAL STRATEGIES, POLICIES, PROGRAMMES, MEASURES AND INFORMATION 
1. Each Party shall, in order to implement its obligations under article 2: 
(a) Adopt national strategies, policies and programmes, no later than 
six months after the present Protocol enters into force for it; and 
(b) Take and apply national measures 
to control and reduce its sulphur emissions. 
2. Each Party shall collect and maintain information on: 
(a) Actual levels of sulphur emissions, and of ambient concentrations 
and depositions of oxidized sulphur and other acidifying compounds, taking into 
account, for those Parties within the geographical scope of EMEP, the work plan 
of EMEP; and 
(b) The effects of depositions of oxidized sulphur and other acidifying 
compounds. 
\0 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 8 
Article S 
REPORTING 
1. Each Party shall report, through the Executive Secretary of the 
Commission, to the Executive Body, on a periodic basis as determined by the 
Executive Body, information on: 
(a) The implementation of national strategies, policies, programmes and 
measures referred to in article 4, paragraph 1; 
(b) The levels of national annual sulphur emissions, in accordance with 
guidelines adopted by the Executive Body, containing emission data 
for all relevant source categories; and 
(c) The implementation of other obligations that it has entered into 
under the present Protocol, 
in conformity with a decision regarding format and content to be adopted by the 
Parties at a session of the Executive Body. The terms of this decision shall 
be reviewed as necessary to identify any additional elements regarding the 
format and/or content of the information that are to be included in the 
reports. 
2. Each Party within the geographical scope of EMEP shall report, through 
the Executive Secretary of the Commission, to EMEP, on a periodic basis to be 
determined by the Steering Body of EMEP and approved by the Parties at a 
session of the Executive Body, information on the levels of sulphur emissions 
with temporal and spatial resolution as specified by the Steering Body of EMEP. 
3. In good time before each annual session of the Executive Body, EMEP shall 
provide information on: 
(a) Ambient concentrations and deposition of oxidized sulphur compounds; 
and 
(b) Calculations of sulphur budgets. 
Parties in areas outside the geographical scope of EMEP shall make available 
similar information if requested to do so by the Executive Body. 
4. The Executive Body shall, in accordance with article 10, paragraph 2 (b), 
of the Convention, arrange for the preparation of information on the effects of 
depositions of oxidized sulphur and other acidifying compounds. 
5. The Parties shall, at sessions of the Executive Body, arrange for the 
preparation, at regular intervals, of revised information on calculated and 
internationally optimized allocations of emission reductions for the States 
within the geographical scope of EMEP, with integrated assessment models, with 
a view to reducing further, for the purposes of article 2, paragraph 1, of the 
present Protocol, the difference between actual depositions of oxidized sulphur 
compounds and critical load values. 
l\ 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 9 
Art-icle 6 
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND MONITORING 
The Parties shall encourage research, development, monitoring and 
cooperation related to: 
(a) The international harmonization of methods for the establishment of 
critical loads and critical levels and the elaboration of procedures for such 
harmonization; 
(b) The improvement of monitoring techniques and systems and of the 
modelling of transport, concentrations and deposition of sulphur compounds; 
(c) Strategies for the further reduction of sulphur emissions based on 
critical loads and critical levels as well as on technical developments, and 
the improvement of integrated assessment modelling to calculate internationally 
optimized allocations of emission reductions taking into account an equitable 
distribution of abatement costs; 
(d) The understanding of the wider effects of sulphur emissions on human 
health, the environment, in particular acidification, and materials, including 
historic and cultural monuments, taking into account the relationship between 
sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, volatile organic compounds and 
tropospheric ozone; 
(e) Emission abatement technologies, and technologies and techniques to 
enhance energy efficiency, energy conservation and the use of renewable energy; 
(f) The economic evaluation of benefits for the environment and human 
health resulting from the reduction of sulphur emissions. 
COMPLIANCE 
1. An Implementation Committee is hereby established to review the 
implementation of the present Protocol and compliance by the Parties with their 
obligations. It shall report to the Parties at sessions of the Executive Body 
and may make such recommendations to them as it considers appropriate. 
2. Upon consideration of a report, and any recommendations, of the 
Implementation Committee, the Parties, taking into account the circumstances of 
a matter and in accordance with Convention practice, may decide upon and call 
for action to bring about full compliance with the present Protocol, including 
measures to assist a Party's compliance with the Protocol, and to further the 
objectives of the Protocol. 
3. The Parties shall, at the first session of the Executive Body after the 
entry into force of the present Protocol, adopt a decision that sets out the 
structure and functions of the Implementation Committee as well as procedures 
for its review of compliance. 
% 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 10 
4. The application of the compliance procedure shall be without prejudice to 
the provisions of article 9 of the present Protocol. 
Article 8 
REVIEWS BY THE PARTIES AT SESSIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE BODY 
1. The Parties shall, at sessions of the Executive Body, pursuant to 
article 10, paragraph 2 (a), of the Convention, review the information supplied 
by the Parties and EMEP, the data on the effects of depositions of sulphur and 
other acidifying compounds and the reports of the Implementation Committee 
referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the present Protocol. 
2. (a) The Parties shall, at sessions of the Executive Body, keep under 
review the obligations set out in the present Protocol, including: 
(i) Their obligations in relation to their calculated and 
internationally optimized allocations of emission reductions 
referred to in article 5, paragraph 5; and 
(ii) The adequacy of the obligations and the progress made towards the 
achievement of the objectives of the present Protocol; 
(b) Reviews shall take into account the best available scientific 
information on acidification, including assessments of critical loads, 
technological developments, changing economic conditions and the fulfilment of 
the obligations on emission levels; 
(c) In the context of such reviews, any Party whose obligations on 
sulphur emission ceilings under annex II hereto do not conform to the 
calculated and internationally optimized allocations of emission reductions for 
that Party, required to reduce the difference between depositions of sulphur in 
1990 and critical sulphur depositions within the geographical scope of EMEP by 
at least 60%, shall make every effort to undertake revised obligations; 
(d) The procedures, methods and timing for such reviews shall be 
specified by the Parties at a session of the Executive Body. The first such 
review shall be completed in 1997. 
Article 9 
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES 
1. In the event of a dispute between any two or more Parties concerning the 
interpretation or application of the present Protocol, the Parties concerned 
shall seek a settlement of the dispute through negotiation or any other 
peaceful means of their own choice. The parties to the dispute shall inform 
the Executive Body of their dispute. 
2. When ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to the present Protocol, 
or at any time thereafter, a Party which is not a regional economic integration 
organization may declare in a written instrument submitted to the Depositary 
that, in respect of any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of 
\b 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 11 
the Protocol, it recognizes one or both of the following means of dispute 
settlement as compulsory ipso facto and without agreement, in relation to any 
Party accepting the same obligation: 
(a) Submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice; 
(b) Arbitration in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the 
Parties at a session of the Executive Body as soon as practicable, 
in an annex on arbitration. 
A Party which is a regional economic integration organization may make a 
declaration with like effect in relation to arbitration in accordance with the 
procedures referred to in subparagraph (b) above. 
3. A declaration made under paragraph 2 above shall remain in force until it 
expires in accordance with its terms or until three months after written notice 
of its revocation has been deposited with the Depositary. 
4. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration 
shall not in any way affect proceedings pending before the International Court 
of Justice or the arbitral tribunal, unless the parties to the dispute agree 
otherwise. 
5. Except in a case where the parties to a dispute have accepted the same 
means of dispute settlement under paragraph 2, if after twelve months following 
notification by one Party to another that a dispute exists between them, the 
Parties concerned have not been able to settle their dispute through the means 
mentioned in paragraph 1 above, the dispute shall be submitted, at the request 
of any of the parties to the dispute, to conciliation. 
6. For the purpose of paragraph 5, a conciliation commission shall be 
created. The commission shall be composed of an equal number of members 
appointed by each party concerned or, where parties in conciliation share the 
same interest, by the group sharing that interest, and a chairman chosen 
jointly by the members so appointed. The commission shall render a 
recommendatory award, which the parties shall consider in good faith. 
ANNEXES 
The annexes to the present Protocol shall form an integral part of the 
Protocol. Annexes I and IV are recommendatory in character. 
Article 11 
AMENDMENTS AND ADJUSTMENTS 
1. Any Party may propose amendments to the present Protocol. Any Party to 
the Convention may propose an adjustment to annex II to the present Protocol to 
add to it its name, together with emission levels, sulphur emission ceilings 
and percentage emission reductions. 
IM-
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 12 
2. Such proposed amendments and adjustments shall be submitted in writing to 
the Executive Secretary of the Commission, who shall communicate them to all 
Parties. The Parties shall discuss the proposed amendments and adjustments at 
the next session of the Executive Body, provided that those proposals have been 
circulated by the Executive Secretary to the Parties at least ninety days in 
advance. 
3. Amendments to the present Protocol and to its annexes II, III and V shall 
be adopted by consensus of the Parties present at a session of the Executive 
Body, and shall enter into force for the Parties which have accepted them on 
the ninetieth day after the date on which two thirds of the Parties have 
deposited with the Depositary their instruments of acceptance thereof. 
Amendments shall enter into force for any other Party on the ninetieth day 
after the date on which that Party has deposited its instrument of acceptance 
thereof. 
4. Amendments to the annexes to the present Protocol, other than to the 
annexes referred to in paragraph 3 above, shall be adopted by consensus of the 
Parties present at a session of the Executive Body. On the expiry of ninety 
days from the date of its communication by the Executive Secretary of the 
Commission, an amendment to any such annex shall become effective for those 
Parties which have not submitted to the Depositary a notification in accordance 
with the provisions of paragraph 5 below, provided that at least sixteen 
Parties have not submitted such a notification. 
5. Any Party that is unable to approve an amendment to an annex, other than 
to an annex referred to in paragraph 3 above, shall so notify the Depositary in 
writing within ninety days from the date of the communication of its adoption. 
The Depositary shall without delay notify all Parties of any such notification 
received. A Party may at any time substitute an acceptance for its previous 
notification and, upon deposit of an instrument of acceptance with the 
Depositary, the amendment to such an annex shall become effective for that 
Party. 
6. Adjustments to annex II shall be adopted by consensus of the Parties 
present at a session of the Executive Body and shall become effective for all 
Parties to the present Protocol on the ninetieth day following the date on 
which the Executive Secretary of the Commission notifies those Parties in 
writing of the adoption of the adjustment. 
Article U 
SIGNATURE 
1. The present Protocol shall be open for signature at Oslo from 13 June 
1994 until 14 June 1994 inclusive, then at United Nations Headquarters in New 
York until 12 December 1994 by States members of the Commission as well as 
States having consultative status with the Commission, pursuant to paragraph 8 
of Economic and Social Council resolution 36 (IV) of 28 March 1947, and by 
regional economic integration organizations, constituted by sovereign States 
members of the Commission, which have competence in respect of the negotiation, 
conclusion and application of international agreements in matters covered by 
the Protocol, provided that the States and organizations concerned are Parties 
r:> 
EB.AIR/R-84 
page 13 
to the Convention and are listed in annex II. 
2. In matters within their competence, such regional economic integration 
organizations shall, on their own behalf, exercise the rights and fulfil the 
responsibilities which the present Protocol attributes to their member States. 
In such cases, the member States of these organizations shall not be entitled 
to exercise such rights individually. 
Article 13 
RATIFICATION, ACCEPTANCE, APPROVAL AND ACCESSION 
1. The present Protocol shall be subject to ratification, acceptance or 
approval by Signatories. 
2. The present Protocol shall be open for accession as from 12 December 1994 
by the States and organizations that meet the requirements of article 12, 
paragraph 1. 
Article 14 
DEPOSITARY 
The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall 
be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who will perform 
the functions of Depositary. 
Article 15 
ENTRY INTO FORCE 
1. The present Protocol shall enter into force on the ninetieth day 
following the date on which the sixteenth instrument of ratification, 
acceptance, approval or accession has been deposited with the Depositary. 
2. For each State and organization referred to in article 12, paragraph 1, 
which ratifies, accepts or approves the present Protocol or accedes thereto 
after the deposit of the sixteenth instrument of ratification, acceptance, 
approval or accession, the Protocol shall enter into force on the ninetieth day 
following the date of deposit by such Party of its instrument of ratification, 
acceptance, approval or accession. 
Article 16 
WITHDRAWAL 
At any time after five years from the date on which the present Protocol 
has come into force with respect to a Party, that Party may withdraw from it by 
giving written notification to the Depositary. Any such withdrawal shall take 
effect on the ninetieth day following the date of its receipt by the 
Depositary, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of 
the withdrawal. 
EB.AIR/R-84 
page 14 
Article 17 
AUTHENTIC TEXTS 
The original of the present Protocol, of which the English, French and 
Russian texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the 
Secretary-General of the United Nations. 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, have 
signed the present Protocol. 
DONE at Oslo, this thirteenth day of June one thousand nine hundred and 
ninety-four. 
H 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 15 
Ann<=;x T 
CRITICAL SULPHUR DEPOSITION 
(5-percentile in centigrams of sulphur per square metre per year) 
12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 38 37 38 
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 27282930 3132339496 
EB.AIR/R-84 
page 16 
Annex II 
SULPHUR EMISSION CEILINGS AND PERCENTAGE EMISSION REDUCTIONS 
The sulphur emission ceilings listed in the table below give the 
obligations referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 2 of the present 
Protocol. The 1980 and 1990 emission levels and the percentage emission 
reductions listed are given for information purposes only. 
Emission 
levels 
kt S02 per year 
1980 1990 Sulphur emission 
ceilings*7 
kt S02 per year 
2000 2005 2010 Percentage emission 
reductions 
(base year lgSO*2') 
2000 2005 2010 
Austria 397 90 
Belarus 740 
Belgium 828 443 
Bulgaria 2050 2020 
Canada - national 4614 3700 
- SOMA 3245 
Croatia 150 160 
Czech Republic 2257 1876 
Denmark 451 180 
Finland 584 260 
France 3348 1202 
Germany 7494 5803 
Greece 400 510 
Hungary 1632 1010 
Ireland 222 168 
Italy 3800 
Liechtenstein 0.4 0.1 
Luxembourg 2 4 
Netherlands 466 207 
Norway 142 54 
Poland 4100 3210 
Portugal 266 284 
Russian Federation**7 7161 4460 
Slovakia 843 539 
Slovenia 235 195 
Spain 3319 2316 
Sweden 507 13 0 
Switzerland 126 62 
Ukraine 3850 
United Kingdom 4898 3780 
European Community 25513 78 
456 
248 
1374 
3200 
1750 
133 
1128 
90 
116 
868 
1300 
595 
898 
155 
1330 
0.1 
10 
106 
34 
2583 
304 
4440 
337 
130 
2143 
100 
60 
2310 
2449 
9598 400 370 
232 215 
1230 1127 
125 
902 
770 
990 
580 
816 
1042 117 
632 
737 
570 
653 
2173 1397 
294 
4297 4297 
295 240 
94 71 
2118 1696 
1470 980 80 
38 
70 
33 
30 
46 
11 
50 
80 
80 
74 
83 
0 
45 
30 
65 
75 
58 
77 
76 
37 
0 
38 
60 
45 
35 
80 
52 
40 
50 
62 46 
72 
40 
17 
60 
77 
87 
3 
50 
73 
47 
3 
40 
65 
60 
45 
70 50 
74 
45 
22 
72 
78 
4 
60 
66 
40 
72 
70 
56 
80 
Notes 
ay If, in a given year before 2005, a Party finds that, due to a 
particularly cold winter, a particularly dry summer and an unforeseen short-
term loss of capacity in the power supply system, domestically or in a 
neighbouring country, it cannot comply with its obligations under this annex, 
it may fulfil those obligations by averaging its national annual sulphur 
V\ 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 17 
emissions for the year in question, the year preceding that year and the year 
following it, provided that the emission level in any single year is not more 
than 20% above the sulphur emission ceiling. 
The reason for exceedance in any given year and the method by which the 
three-year average figure will be achieved, shall be reported to the 
Implementation Committee. 
Jb/ For Greece and Portugal percentage emission reductions given are 
based on the sulphur emission ceilings indicated for the year 2000. 
Sj European part within the EMEP area. 
2o 
EB.AIR/R-84 
page 18 
Annex TTT 
DESIGNATION OF SULPHUR OXIDES MANAGEMENT AREAS (SOMAS) 
The following SOMA is listed for the purposes of the present Protocol: 
gnnth-east Canada SOMA 
This is an area of 1 million km2 which includes all the territory of the 
provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, all the 
territory of the province of Quebec south of a straight line between Havre-
St.Pierre on the north coast of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and the point where 
the Quebec-Ontario boundary intersects the James Bay coastline, and all the 
territory of the province of Ontario south of a straight line between the point 
where the Ontario-Quebec boundary intersects the James Bay coastline and 
Nipigon River near the north shore of Lake Superior. 
H 
EB.AIR/R.34 
page 19 
Annex IV 
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SULPHUR EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The aim of this annex is to provide guidance for identifying sulphur 
control options and technologies for giving effect to the obligations of the 
present Protocol. 
2. The annex is based on information on general options for the reduction of 
sulphur emissions and in particular on emission control technology performance 
and costs contained in official documentation of the Executive Body and its 
subsidiary bodies. 
3. Unless otherwise indicated, the reduction measures listed are considered, 
on the basis of operational experience of several years in most cases, to be 
the most well-established and economically feasible best available 
technologies. However, the continuously expanding experience of low-emission 
measures and technologies at new plants as well as of the retrofitting of 
existing plants will necessitate regular review of this annex. 
4. Although the annex lists a number of measures and technologies spanning a 
wide range of costs and efficiencies, it cannot be considered as an exhaustive 
statement of control options. Moreover, the choice of control measures and 
technologies for any particular case will depend on a number of factors, 
including current legislation and regulatory provisions and, in particular, 
control technology requirements, primary energy patterns, industrial 
infrastructure, economic circumstances and specific in-plant conditions. 
5. The annex mainly addresses the control of oxidized sulphur emissions 
considered as the sum of sulphur dioxide (S02) and sulphur trioxide (S03), 
expressed as S02. The share of sulphur emitted as either sulphur oxides or 
other sulphur compounds from non-combustion processes and other sources is 
small compared to sulphur emissions from combustion. 
6. When measures or technologies are planned for sulphur sources emitting 
other components, in particular nitrogen oxides (NOx) , particulates, heavy 
metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) , it is worthwhile to consider them 
in conjunction with pollutant-specific control options in order to maximize the 
overall abatement effect and minimize the impact on the environment and, 
especially, to avoid the transfer of air pollution problems to other media 
(such as waste water and solid waste). 
II. MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES FOR SULPHUR EMISSIONS 
7. Fossil fuel combustion processes are the main source of anthropogenic 
sulphur emissions from stationary sources. In addition, some non-combustion 
processes may contribute considerably to the emissions. The major stationary 
source categories, based on EMEP/CORINAIR'90, include: 
XI 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 2 0 
(i) Public power, cogeneration and district heating plants: 
(a) Boilers; 
(b) Stationary combustion turbines and internal combustion 
engines; 
(ii) Commercial, institutional and residential combustion plants: 
(a) Commercial boilers; 
(b) Domestic heaters; 
(iii) Industrial combustion plants and processes with combustion: 
(a) Boilers and process heaters; 
(b) Processes, e.g. metallurgical operations such as roasting and 
sintering, coke oven plants, processing of titanium dioxide 
(Ti02), etc.; 
(c) Pulp production; 
(iv) Non-combustion processes, e.g. sulphuric acid production, specific 
organic synthesis processes, treatment of metallic surfaces; 
(v) Extraction, processing and distribution of fossil fuels; 
(vi) Waste treatment and disposal, e.g. thermal treatment of municipal 
and industrial waste. 
8. Overall data (1990) for the ECE region indicate that about 88% of total 
sulphur emissions originate from all combustion processes (20% from industrial 
combustion), 5% from production processes and 7% from oil refineries. The 
power plant sector in many countries is the major single contributor to sulphur 
emissions. In some countries, the industrial sector (including refineries) is 
also an important S02 emitter. Although emissions from refineries in the ECE 
region are relatively small, their impact on sulphur emissions from other 
sources is large due to the sulphur in the oil products. Typically 60% of the 
sulphur intake present in the crudes remains in the products, 30% is recovered 
as elemental sulphur and 10% is emitted from refinery stacks. 
III. GENERAL OPTIONS FOR REDUCTION OF SULPHUR EMISSIONS FROM COMBUSTION 
9. General options for reduction of sulphur emissions are: 
(i) Energy management measures: •i/ 
ZJ Options (i) (a) and (b) are integrated in the energy structure and 
policy of a Party. Implementation status, efficiency and costs per sector are not 
considered here. 
"23 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 21 
(a) Energy saving 
The rational use of energy (improved energy efficiency/process operation, 
cogeneration and/or demand-side management) usually results in a reduction in 
sulphur emissions. 
(b) Energy mix 
In general, sulphur emissions can be reduced by increasing the proportion 
of non-combustion energy sources (i.e. hydro, nuclear, wind, etc.) to the 
energy mix. However, further environmental impacts have to be considered. 
(ii) Technological options: 
(a) Fuel switching 
The S02 emissions during combustion are directly related to the sulphur 
content of the fuel used. 
Fuel switching (e.g. from high- to low-sulphur coals and/or liquid fuels, 
or from coal to gas) leads to lower sulphur emissions, but there may be certain 
restrictions, such as the availability of low-sulphur fuels and the 
adaptability of existing combustion systems to different fuels. In many ECE 
countries, some coal or oil combustion plants are being replaced by gas-fired 
combustion plants. Dual-fuel plants may facilitate fuel switching. 
(b) Fuel cleaning 
Cleaning of natural gas is state-of-the-art technology and widely applied 
for operational reasons. 
Cleaning of process gas (acid refinery gas, coke oven gas, biogas, etc.) 
is also state-of-the-art technology. 
Desulphurization of liquid fuels (light and middle fractions) is state-
of-the-art technology. 
Desulphurization of heavy fractions is technically feasible; 
nevertheless, the crude properties should be kept in mind. Desulphurization of 
atmospheric residue (bottom products from atmospheric crude distillation units) 
for the production of low-sulphur fuel oil is not, however, commonly practised; 
processing low-sulphur crude is usually preferable. Hydro-cracking and full 
conversion technology have matured and combine high sulphur retention with 
improved yield of light products. The number of full conversion refineries is 
as yet limited. Such refineries typically recover 80 to 90% of the sulphur 
intake and convert all residues into light products or other marketable 
products. For this type of refinery, energy consumption and investment costs 
are increased. Typical sulphur content for refinery products is given in 
table 1 below. 
*t-
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 2 2 
Tahl» 1 
Sulphur content from r^finerv products 
(S content (%)) 
Typical present values Anticipated futur* values 
Gasoline 0.1 0.05 
Jet kerosene 0.1 0.01 
Diesel 0.05 - 0.3 < 0.05 
Heating oil 0.1 - 0.2 < 0.1 
Fuel oil 0.2 - 3.5 < 1 
Marine diesel 0.5 - 1.0 < 0.5 
Bunker oil 3.0 - 5.0 < 1 (coastal areas) 
< 2 (high seas) 
Current technologies to clean hard coal can remove approximately 50% of 
the inorganic sulphur (depending on coal properties) but none of the organic 
sulphur. More effective technologies are being developed which, however, 
involve higher specific investment and costs. Thus the efficiency of sulphur 
removal by coal cleaning is limited compared to flue gas desulphurization. 
There may be a country-specific optimization potential for the best combination 
of fuel cleaning and flue gas cleaning. 
(c) Advanced combustion technologies 
These combustion technologies with improved thermal efficiency and 
reduced sulphur emissions include: fluidized-bed combustion (FBC): bubbling 
(BFBC), circulating (CFBC) and pressurized (PFBC); integrated gasification 
combined-cycle (IGCC) ; and combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGT) . 
Stationary combustion turbines can be integrated into combustion systems 
in existing conventional power plants which can increase overall efficiency by 
5 to 7%, leading, for example, to a significant reduction in S02 emissions. 
However, major alterations to the existing furnace system become necessary. 
Fluidized-bed combustion is a combustion technology for burning hard coal 
and brown coal, but it can also burn other solid fuels such as petroleum coke 
and low-grade fuels such as waste, peat and wood. Emissions can additionally 
be reduced by integrated combustion control in the system due to the addition 
of lime/limestone to the bed material. The total installed capacity of FBC has 
reached approximately 30,000 MWch (250 to 350 plants), including 8,000 MWth in 
the capacity range of greater than 50 MWth. By-products from this process may 
cause problems with respect to use and/or disposal, and further development is 
required. 
The IGCC process includes coal gasification and combined-cycle power 
generation in a gas and steam turbine. The gasified coal is burnt in the 
Is 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 23 
combustion chamber of the gas turbine. Sulphur emission control is achieved by 
the use of state-of-the-art technology for raw gas cleaning facilities upstream 
of the gas turbine. The technology also exists for heavy oil residues and 
bitumen emulsions. The installed capacity is presently about 1,000 MW#1 (5 
plants). 
Combined-cycle gas-turbine power stations using natural gas as fuel with 
an energy efficiency of approximately 48 to 52% are currently being planned. 
(d) Process and combustion modifications 
Combustion modifications comparable to the measures used for N0X emission 
control do not exist, as during combustion the organically and/or inorganically 
bound sulphur is almost completely oxidized (a certain percentage depending on 
the fuel properties and combustion technology is retained in the ash) . 
In this annex dry additive processes for conventional boilers are 
considered as process modifications due to the injection of an agent into the 
combustion unit. However, experience has shown that, when applying these 
processes, thermal capacity is lowered, the Ca/S ratio is high and sulphur 
removal low. Problems with the further utilization of the by-product have to 
be considered, so that this solution should usually be applied as an 
intermediate measure and for smaller units (table 2). 
2C 
EB.AIR/R-84 
page 2 4 
Table 2 
Finissions of ^ilnhur oxides nhfained from the application of technological 
options to fossil-fuelled boilers 
Unoontrolod en neons Addnve fifecson Wet scrubbing a/ Spray dry absorption b/ 
Reducfan efficiency (%) 
Energy efficiency 
(kW/103 m3/h) 
Total «staled capacity 
(ECE Eur) (MW,,) 
Type of by-product 
Specific investment 
(cost ECU(1990ykWJ up to 60 
0.1-1 
Mix of Ca salts and fly 
ashes 
20-50 95 
6-10 
194,000 
Gypsum (sludge/ waste 
«alar) 
60-250 
mg/m3©/ gfcWh,, mo/m3ç/ gkWr^j mg/m3c/ up to 90 
3-6 
16,000 
Mix of Casa, * 1/2 Hf) 
and fly ashes 
50-220 
mg/m3 ç/ yVWh„ o/kWh„ 
Haid coal d/ 1,000-10000 15-35 4004,000 1.4-14 «400 
(<200, 1% S) <1.4 
«3.7 «400 <1.4 
(<200. 1% S) «3.7 
Brown coal d/ 1,000-20,000 42-84 4004,000 1.7-316 <400 
(<200, 1% S) <1J 
«18 «400 <1.7 
(<200, 1% S) «3.8 
Heavy oil d/ 1,000-10,000 Z8-28 4004,000 1.1-11 «400 
(<200, 1% S) <1.1 
«3.6 <400 <1.1 
(<200, 1% S) «3.6 
Ammonia scrubbing b/ Wellman Lord a/ Activated carbon a/ Combined catalytic a/ 
Reduction efficiency (%) 
Energy «fficiency 
(kW^IO3 m%) 
Total instated capacity 
(ECE Eur) (MWjj 
Type of by-product 
Specific nvestment 
(cost ECU(1990ykVVJ up to 90 
3-10 
200 
Ammoma fertilizer 
230-270©/ 
mgrnrc/ 95 
10-15 
zooo 
DemsntaJS 
Sulphuric acid (99 voL%) 
200-300 e/ 95 
44 
700 95 
1.300 
Elemental S 
Sulphuric acid (99 voL%) 
280-320 e/y Sulphuric acid (70 wl%) 
320-350 e/y 
oAWh„ rngftn3c/ gkWh^ mg/m3e/ gkVVh, mg/m3^ gfrWh, 
Hard coal d/ •o400 
(<200,1%S) «0.7 «400 <1.4 
(<200. 1% S) «0.7 «400 <1.4 
(<20a 1% S) «3.7 «400 
(«200, 1%S) <1.4 
«3.7 
Brown coal d/ «400 
(«300,1%S) <1.7 
«3.8 «400 <1.7 
(<200, 1%S) «3 J «400 <1J 
(«200, 1% S) «3 £ «400 
(<2oa 1% s) <1.7 
Heavy oil d/ «400 
(<200,1%S) <1.1 «400 <1.1 
(<200, 1%S) «3.6 «400 
(<200, 1% S) <1.1 
«3£ «400 
(<200. 1% S) <1.1 
«3.6 
â/ 
b/ 
£/ 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%. 
Liquid applicability for high-sulphur fuels. 
Emission in mg/m3 (STP), dry, 6% oxygen for solid fuels, 3% oxygen 
for liquid fuels. 
Conversion factor depends on fuel properties, specific fuel gas 
volume and thermal efficiency of boiler (conversion factors 
(m3/kWh#1, thermal efficiency: 36%) used: hard coal: 3.50; brown 
coal: 4.20; heavy oil: 2.80). 
Specific investment cost relates to a small sample of installations 
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. 
It 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 2 5 
(e) Flue gas desulphurization (FGD) processes 
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 C02, N0X 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); Wellroan Lord process (WL); 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 
n 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 2 6 
reduction measures are presented in table 3 below. 
Table 3 
Source Reduction measures 
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; •ii/ 
(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% 02; 
(e) Coke ovens are achieving less than 400 mg SOx/Nm3 at 6% 02; 
(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 
Zl/ 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. 
in 
EB.AIR/R.34 
page 27 
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. 
.%C 
EB.AIR/R-84 
page 28 
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. 
M 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 29 
Annex V 
EMISSION AND SULPHUR CONTENT LIMIT VALUES 
A. EMISSION LIMIT VALUES FOR MAJOR STATIONARY COMBUSTION SOURCES a./ 
1. SOLID FUELS 
(based on 6% oxygen in 
flue gas) 
2. LIQUID FUELS 
(based on 3% oxygen in 
flue 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 (i) 
(MWth) 
50-100 
100-500 
>500 
50-300 
300-500 
>500 (ii) 
Emission limit value 
(mg S02/Nm3 b./) 
2000 
2000-400 
(linear decrease) 
400 
1 700 
1 700-400 
(linear decrease) 
400 
35 
5 
800 (iii) 
Desulphurization rate 
(%) 
40 (for 100-167 MWth) 
40-90 (linear increase 
for 167-500 MWth) 
90 
90 
90 
B. GAS OIL Sulphur content (%) 
Diesel for on-road vehicles 0.05 
Other types 0 .2 
Notes 
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 1700 mg S02/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 
VI 
EB.AIR/R.84 
page 3 0 
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 furnaces; 
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 S02/Nm3 (although preferably not more than 
650 mg S02/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. 
by mg S02/Nm3 is defined at a temperature of 273° K and a pressure of 
101.3 kPa, after correction for the water vapour content. 
IX 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(94) 177 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN il M 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-190-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-68409-7 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
3tv