Protocol to the 1979 convention on long-range transboundary air pollution on further reduction of sulphur emissions
Date: 1994-06-14
Institutions: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom
Subjects: air quality, atmospheric pollutant, international convention, pollution control measures, protocol to an agreement, sulphur, transfrontier pollution

3.12.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

L  326/35

PROTOCOL  TO  THE  1979  CONVENTION  ON  LONG-RANGE
FURTHER
TRANSBOUNDARY 

POLLUTION  ON 
REDUCTION  OF  SULPHUR  EMISSIONS

AIR 

L  326/36

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.12.98

PROTOCOL TO THE 1979 CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE TRANSBOUNDARY AIR
POLLUTION  ON  FURTHER  REDUCTION  OF  SULPHUR  EMISSONS

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  minimise  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,

COGNISANT  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 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,

3.12.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

L  326/37

RECOGNISING 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  developmeents  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. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

‘Convention’  means  the  Convention  on  long-range
transboundary  air  pollution,  adopted  in  Geneva  on
13  November  1979;

‘EMEP’  means  the  cooperative  programme  for
monitoring  and  evaluation  of 
long-range
the 
transmission  of  air  pollutants  in  Europe;

‘executive  body’  means  the  executive  body  for  the
Convention  constituted  under  Article  10,  paragraph
1,  of  the  Convention;

‘Commission’  means  the  United  Nations  Economic
Commission  for  Europe;

‘Parties’  means,  unless 
requires,  the  Parties  to  the  present  Protocol;

the  context  otherwise

‘geographical  scope  of  EMEP’  means  the  area
defined in Article 1, paragraph 4, of the Protocol to
the  1979  Convention  on  long-range  transboundary
the
air  pollution  on 
long-term 
and
cooperative  programme 
evaluation  of  the  long-range  transmission  of  air
pollutants in Europe (EMEP), adopted in Geneva on
28  september  1984;

for  monitoring 

financing  of 

‘SOMA’  means  a  sulphur  oxides  management  area
designated  in  Annex  III  under  the  conditions  laid
down  in  Article  2,  paragraph  3;

‘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;

the  exposure 

10.  ‘critical  sulphur  deposition’  means  a  quantitative
estimate  of 
to  oxidised  sulphur
compunds,  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
compunds  expressed  as  kilotonnes  of  sulphur
dioxide (kt SO2) 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  oxidised  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  authorised
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

L  326/38

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.12.98

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  MWth;

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 SO2/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 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.  ‘desulphurisation  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  oxidised  sulphur
compounds  in  receiving  areas,  originating  from  the
emissions  from  specified  areas.

Article  2

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  oxidised  sulphur
compounds  in  the  long  term  do  not  exceed  critical  loads

for  sulphur  given, 
depositions, 
knowledge.

in  Annex  I,  as  critical  sulphur
scientific

in  accordance  with  present 

2. As a first step, the Parties shall, as a minimum, reduce
and  maintain 
in
accordance  with  the  timing  and  levels  specified  in  Annex
II.

sulphur  emissions 

their  annual 

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
30 %,  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:

—  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.

3.12.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

L  326/39

5. Each Party, except those Parties subject to the United
States/Canada  Air  Quality  Agreement  of  1991,  shall  as  a
minimum:

Article  3

Exchange  of  technology

(a)  apply  emission  limit  values  at  least  as  stringent  as
in  Annex  V  to  all  major  new

those  specified 
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  canot  otherwise  be  ensured,  a  State
this
may 
subparagraph  to  a  period  of  up  to  10  years.  In  this
case  it  shall  specify,  in  a  declaration  to  be  deposited
together  with 
ratification,
acceptance,  approval  or  accession,  its  intention  to
extend  the  time  period.

time  period  given 

instrument  of 

extend 

the 

the 

in 

6. The  Parties  may,  in  addition,  apply  economic
instruments 
of
cost-effective  approaches  to  the  reduction  of  sulphur
emissions.

encourage 

adoption 

the 

to 

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.

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
low-sulphur  fuels,  to  reduce  sulphur
processing  of 
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
organisations  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:

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.

(a)  actual  levels  of  sulphur  emissions,  and  of  ambient
concentrations  and  depositions  of  oxidised  sulphur
and other acidifying compounds, taking into account,
for  those  Parties  within  the  geographical  scope  of
EMEP,  the  work  plan  of  EMEP;  and

L  326/40

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.12.98

(b) the  effects  of  depositions  of  oxidised  sulphur  and

other  acidifying  compounds.

Article  5

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.

In  good  time  before  each  annual  session  of  the

3.
executive  body,  EMEP  shall  provide  information  on:

(a)  ambient  concentrations  and  deposition  of  oxidised

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  oxidised  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
optimised  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, 
actual
depositions  of  oxidised  sulphur  compunds  and  critical
load values.

the  difference  between 

Article  6

Research,  development  and  monitoring

The  Parties  shall  encourage  research,  development,
monitoring  and  cooperation  related  to:

(a)  the  international  harmonisation  of  methods  for  the
establishment  of  critical  loads  and  critical  levels  and
the 
such
harmonisation;

elaboration 

procedures 

for 

of 

(b) the 

improvement  of  monitoring 

the  modelling  of 
of 
deposition 

and 

techniques  and
transport,
sulphur

systems  and  of 
concentrations 
compounds;

(c)  strategies 

for 

the 

further  reduction  of  sulphur
emissions based on critical loads and critical levels as
well  as  on 
the
improvement  of  integrated  assessment  modelling  to
internationally  optimised  allocations  of
calculate 
emission  reductions  taking  into  account  an  equitable
distribution  of  abatement  costs;

technical  developments,  and 

(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 

the
environment  and  human  health  resulting  from  the
reduction  of  sulphur  emissions.

for 

Article  7

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.

3.12.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

L  326/41

a 

and 

report, 

consideration  of 

2. Upon 
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.

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

to  Article  10,  paragraph  2(a),  of 

1. The  Parties  shall,  at  sessions  of  the  executive  body,
pursuant 
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  optimised  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 
technological
developments,  changing  economic  conditions  and
the  fulfilment  of  the  obligations  on  emission
levels.

critical 

loads, 

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  intepretation  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 organisation
may  declare  in  a  written  instrument  submitted  to  the
depositary  that,  in  respect  of  any  dispute  concerning  the
interpretation or application of the Protocol, it recognises
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.

is  a  regional  economic 

A  Party  which 
integration
organisation  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.

(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  optimised  allocations  of
emission  reductions  for  that  Party,  required  to

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.

L  326/42

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.12.98

5. Except  in  a  case  where  the  parties  to  a  dispute  have
accepted  the  same  means  of  dispute  settlement  under
paragraph 2, if after 12 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 
render  a
recommendatory  award,  which  the  parties  shall  consider
in  good  faith.

commission 

shall 

Article  10

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 
levels,  sulphur
emission  ceilings  and  percentage  emission  reductions.

its  name,  together  with  emission 

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  90  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 90th 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 90th 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  90  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 16 Parties have not submitted such
a  notification.

from 

the  date  of 

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  90  days 
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  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  90th  day  following  the
date on which the executive secretary of the Commission
notifies  those  Parties  in  writing  of  the  adoption  of  the
adjustment.

Article  12

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
organisations,
by 
constituted  by 
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 organisations concerned are Parties to
the  Convention  and  are  listed  in  Annex  II.

integration 
sovereign  States  members  of 

economic 

regional 

2.
In  matters  within  their  competence,  such  regional
economic  integration  organisations  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
organisations  shall  not  be  entitled  to  exercise  such  rights
individually.

3.12.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

L  326/43

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  organisations
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.

2. For  each  State  and  organisation  referred  to  in  Article
12,  paragraph  1,  which  ratifies,  accepts  or  approves  the
present  Protocol  or  accedes  thereto  after  the  deposit  of
the  16th  instrument  of  ratification  acceptance,  approval
or  accession,  the  Protocol  shall  enter  into  force  on  the
90th  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  90th  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.

Article  15

Entry  into  Force

Article  17

Authentic  texts

1. The  present  Protocol  shall  enter  into  force  on  the
90th  day  following  the  date  on  which  the  16th
instrument  of  ratification,  acceptance,  approval  or
accession  has  been  deposited  with  the  depositary.

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  authorised  thereto,  have  signed  the  present
Protocol.

Done  at  Oslo,  this  thriteenth  day  of  June  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  ninety-four.

L  326/44

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.12.98

ANNEX  I

CRITICAL  SULPHUR  DEPOSITION

(5-percentile  in  centigrams  of  sulphur  per  square  metre  per  year)

3.12.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

L  326/45

ANNEX  II

SULPHUR  EMISSION  CEILINGS  AND  PERCENTAGE  EMISSION  REDUCTIONS

The sulphur emission ceilings listed in the table below give the obligations referred to in paragrphs 2 and 3
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  SO2  per  year

Sulphur  emission  ceilings (a)
kt  SO2  per  year

Percentage  emission  reductions
(base  year  1980) (b)

1980

1990

2000

2005

2010

2000

2005

2010

397
740
828
2 050
4 614
3 245
150
2 257
451
584
3 348
7 494
400
1 632
222
3 800

0,4
24
466
142
4 100
266
7 161
843
235
3 319
507
126
3 850
4 898
25 513

90

443
2 020
3 700

160
1 876
180
260
1 202
5 803
510
1 010
168

78
456
248
1 374
3 200
1 750
133
1 128
90
116
868
1 300
595
898
155
1 330

0,1

0,1

207
54
3 210
284
4 460
539
195
2 316
130
62

3 780

10
106
34
2 583
304
4 440
337
130
2 143
100
60
2 310
2 449
9 598

400
232
1 230

125
902

770
990
580
816

1 042

2 173
294
4 297
295
94

370
215
1 127

117
632

737

570
653

1 397

4 297
240
71

2 118
1 470

1 696
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

Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada  —  national

—  SOMA

Croatia
Czech  Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Russian  Federation (c)
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Ukraine
United  Kingdom
European  Community

Notes
(a)  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  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.

(b)  For  Greece  and  Portugal  percentage  emission  reductions  given  are  based  on  the  sulphur  emission  ceilings  indicated  for  the  year

2000.

(c)  European  part  within  the  EMEP  area.

L  326/46

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.12.98

ANNEX  III

DESIGNATION  OF  SULPHUR  OXIDES  MANAGEMENT  AREAS  (SOMAs)

The  following  SOMA  is  listed  for  the  purposes  of  the  present  Protocol:

South-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.

3.12.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

L  326/47

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 
infrastructure,  economic
circumstances  and  specific  in-plant  conditions.

requirements,  primary  energy  patterns, 

industrial 

5.  The  Annex  mainly  addresses  the  control  of  oxidised  sulphur  emissions  considered  as  the  sum  of
sulphur dioxide (SO2) and sulphur trioxide (SO3), expressed as SO2. 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  (Nx),  particulates,  heavy  metals  and  volatile  organic  compounds
(VOCs), it is worthwhile to consider them in conjunction with pollutant-specific control options in
order to maximise the overall abatement effect and minimise 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:

(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;

L  326/48

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.12.98

(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  (TiO2),  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 SO2  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 (1)

(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 SO2  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.

(1)  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.

3.12.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

L  326/49

(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.

Desulphurisation  of  liquid  fuels  (light  and  middle  fractions)  is  state-of-the-art  technology.

Desulphurisaton of heavy fractions is technically feasible; nevertheless, the crude properties
should  be  kept  in  mind.  Desulphurisation  of  atmospheric  residue  (bottom  products  from
atmospheric  crude  distillation  units)  for  the  production  of  low-sulphur  fuel  oil  is  not,
however,  commonly  practised;  processing 
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.

low-sulphur  crude 

Table  1

Sulphur  content  from  refinery  products

[Sulphur  content  (%)]

Gasoline

Jet  kerosene

Diesel

Heating oil

Fuel  oil

Marine  diesel

Bunker  oil

Typical  present  values

Anticipated  future  values

0,1

0,1

0,05-0,3

0,1-0,2

0,2-3,5

0,5-1,0

3,0-5,0

0,05

0,01

, 0,05

, 0,1

, 1

, 0,5

, 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  desulphurisation.  There  may  be  a  country-specific  optimisation  potential  for  the  best
combination  of  fuel  cleaning  and  flue  gas  cleaning.

(c)  Avanced  combustion  technologies

These  combustion  technologies  with  improved  thermal  efficiency  and  reduced  sulphur
emissions  include:  fluidised-bed  combustion  (FBC):  bubbling  (BFBC),  circulating  (CFBC)
and pressurised (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  SO2  emissions.  However,  major  alterations  to  the
existing  furnace  system  become  necessary.

L  326/50

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.12.98

Fluidised-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  MWth  (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 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  MWel  (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  NOx  emission  control  do
not  exist,  as  during  combustion  the  organically  and/or  inorganically  bound  sulphur  is
almost  completely  oxidised  (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  utilisation  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).

Emissions  of  sulphur  oxides  obtained  from  the  application  of  technological  options  to  fossil-fuelled  boilers

Table  2

Uncontrolled  emissions

Additive injection

Wet  scrubbing (a)

Spray  dry  absorption (b)

Reduction
efficiency (%)

Energy efficiency
(kWel/103  m3/h)

Total  installed  capacity
(ECE  Eur)  (MWth)

Type  of  by-product

Specific investment
(cost  ECU  (1990)/kWel)

up  to  60

0,1-1

95

6-10

194 000

up  to  90

3-6

16 000

Mix  of  Ca  salts  and  fly
ashes

Gypsum  (sludge/waste
water)

Mix  of  CaSO3  x  1/2  H2O
and  fly  ashes

20-50

60-250

50-220

mg/m3 (c)

g/kWhel

mg/m3 (c)

g/kWhel

mg/m3 (c)

g/kWhel

mg/m3 (c)

g/kWhel

Hard coal (d)

1 000-10 000

3,5-35

400-4 000

1,4-14

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,4
, 0,7

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,4
, 0,7

Brown  coal (d)

1 000-20 000

4,2-84

400-8 000

1,7-33,6 ,  400

(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,7
, 0,8

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,7
, 0,8

Heavy oil (d)

1 000-10 000

2,8-28

400-4 000

1,1-11

,  400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,1
, 0,6

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,1
, 0,6

3.12.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

L  326/51

Ammonia scrubbing (b)

Wellman Lord (a)

Activated  carbon (a)

Combined catalytic (a)

Reduction
efficiency (%)

Energy efficiency
(kWel/103  m3/h)

Total  installed  capacity
(ECE  Eur)  (MWth)

up  to  90

3-10

200

Type  of  by-product

Ammonia  fertiliser

Specific investment
(cost  ECU  (1990)/kWel)

230-270 (e)

95

10-15

2 000

95

4-8

700

95

2

1 300

Elemental  S
Sulphuric acid
(99  vol.  %)

200-300 (e)

Elemental  S
Sulphuric acid
(99  vol.  %)

280-320 (e) (f)

Sulphuric acid
(70  wt.  %)

320-350 (e) (f)

mg/m3 (c)

g/kWhel

mg/m3 (c)

g/kWhel

mg/m3 (c)

g/kWhel

mg/m3 (c)

g/kWhel

Hard coal (d)

Brown  coal (d)

Heavy oil (d)

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,4
, 0,7

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,4
, 0,7

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,4
, 0,7

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,4
, 0,7

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,7
, 0,8

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,7
, 0,8

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,7
, 0,8

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,7
, 0,8

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,1
, 0,6

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,1
, 0,6

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,1
, 0,6

, 400
(, 200,  1 %  S)

, 1,1
, 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)  Liquid  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.

(e)  Flue  gas  desulphurisation  (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  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  (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  desulphurisation  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  abovementioned  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.

L  326/52

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.12.98

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
timescale  of  planned  maintenance  cycles.  The  table  thus  gives  only  a  board  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’ specific limitations in the relevant sectors. Important contributors to sulphur emission and
corresponding  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 (1);

(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  or  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 %  O2;

(1)  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.

3.12.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

L  326/53

(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  minimise  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  utilisation  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  is  continuous  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  harmonised.
Harmonisation  is  also  desirable  for  quality  assurance  of  measuring  and  monitoring  systems.  This
should  be  taken  into  account  when  comparing  data.

L  326/54

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.12.98

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 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  by  pass  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.

3.12.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

L  326/55

ANNEX  V

EMISSION  AND  SULPHUR  CONTENT  LIMIT  VALUES

A.  Emission  limit  values  for  major  stationary  combustion  sources (a)

(i)
(MWth)

(ii)
Emission  limit  value
(mg  SO2/Nm3) (b)

(iii)
Desulphurisation  rate
(%)

1.  SOLID  FUELS  (based
on  6 %  oxygen  in  flue
gas)

50-100

2 000

100-500

2 000-400
(linear  decrease)

40  (for  100-167  MWth)
40-90  (linear  increase  for
167-500  MWth)

. 500

400

50-300

1 700

2.  LIQUID  FUELS  (based
on  3 %  oxygen  in  flue
gas)

300-500

1 700-400
(linear  decrease)

. 500

400

90

90

90

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

35

5

800

B.  Gas  oil

Diesel  for  on-road  vehicles

Other  types

Sulphur  content  (%)

0,05

0,2

L  326/56

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.12.98

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  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  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  desulphurisation  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 273 °K and a pressure of 101,3 kPa, after correction for the

water  vapour  content.