CELEX: 51994PC0177
Language: de
Date: 1994-05-17
Title: Vorschlag für einen BESCHLUSS DES RATES zur Unterzeichnung durch die Europäische Gemeinschaft des Protokolls zu dem Übereinkommen von 1979 über weiträumige grenzüberschreitende Luftverunreinigung eine weitere Verringerung von Schwefelemissionen betreffend

KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN
                                               K0M(94) 177 endg.
                                               Brüssel, den 17.05.1994
                            Vorschlag für einen
                            BESCHLUSS DES RATES
      ZUB UHTEBZEICEinjRG DUBCB S I S EUROPÄISCHE GBNBIHSCEAFT DES
               PBQTOKOLLS ZU fiEK ÖBERECTEOMMEir VOIT 1 9 7 a ÜBER
            YEXSBXOHXGS GBEBZUBFRSCHBBITgHDB LUfTVKRUHBEJJUCUHG
      S U S WEITERE VEBBTHGERUEG VOH GGEVEFELEHISSIQlIEff BETREFFEND.
                      (von der Kommission v o r g e l e g t )
 ---pagebreak---                          BEGRÜNDUNG
1. Die    Europäische      Gemeinschaft          sowie          sämtliche
   Mitgliedstaaten    sind     Vertragsparteien            des       Genfer
   Übereinkommens      von       1979         über           weiträumige
   grenzüberschreitende Luftverunreinigung, das im Rahmen
   der Wirtschaftskommission für Europa der Vereinten
   Nationen ausgearbeitet wurde.
   1985 wurde den Vertragsparteien zunächst ein erstes
   SOg-Protokoll    zur     Unterzeichnung          vorgelegt,            das
   gegenüber dem Stand von 1960 eine Verminderung der
   Schwefelemissionen um 30 % bis zum Jahre 1993 vorsah.
   Die Europäische Union war nicht Vertragspartei dieses
   Protokolls, das Ende 1993 außer Kraft getreten 1st.
   Im Rahmen dieses Übereinkommens wurde ein zweites
   Protokoll zur Bekämpfung von Schwefelemissionen (SOg)
   ausgearbeitet, das den Vertragsparteien im Juni 1994
   zur Unterzeichnung vorgelegt werden soll.
2. Die Europäische Gemeinschaft ist sich seit langem
   darüber im klaren, daß die Schwefelemissionen im
   Hinblick auf den Schutz der Gesundheit und Umwelt vor
   den   schädlichen     Auswirkungen        dieser          Emissionen,
   Insbesondere    der     Versauerung,         kontrolliert              und
   vermindert werden müssen.
   In diesem Sinne hat die Gemeinschaft bereits folgende
   Rechtsvorschriften erlassen, die zu einer Verminderung
   von SOg-Emissionen führen sollen:
        Richtlinie     75/716/EWG       zur       Angleichung             der
        Rechtsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten über den
        Schwefelgehalt bestimmter flüssiger Brennstoffe1,
        zuletzt geändert durch die Richtlinie 93/12/EWG2;
        Richtlinie     80/779/EWG       über        Grenzwerte            und
        Leitwerte der Luftqualität für Schwefeldioxyd und
        Schwebestaub3;
        Richtlinie     84/360/EWG        zur       Bekämpfung             der
        Luftverunreinigung durch Industrieanlagen4;
                                    1      ABl. Nr. L 307 von 27.11.1975. S. 22.
                                      2      ABI. Nr. L 74 von 27.3.1993, S. 8 1 .
                                     3      ABI. Nr. L 229 von 30.8.1980. S. 30.
                                     4      ABI. Nr. L 188 von 16.7.1984. S. 20.
                        4-
 ---pagebreak---         Richtlinie    88/609/EWG      zur       Begrenzung             von
        Schadstoffemissionen von Großfeuerungsanlagen in
        die Luft5;
        Richtlinie 89/369/EWG über die Verhütung der
        Luftverunreinigung durch neue Verbrennungsanlagen
        für SledlungsmüllB;
        Richtlinie 89/429/EWG über die Verringerung der
        Luftverunreinigung           durch                 bestehende
        Verbrennungsanlagen für Siedlungsmüll7.
3. Die Kommission wurde am 15. November 1993 vom Rat
   beauftragt, sich an den Arbeiten der mit der Erstellung
   dieses   Protokolls    beauftragten       Arbeitsgruppe               zu
   beteiligen und im Namen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft
   in enger Beratung mit den Mitgliedstaaten Verhandlungen
   zu führen.
4. Angesichts   der    Zuständigkeiten       der        Europäischen
   Gemeinschaft auf      diesem       Gebiet           sowie           der
   Notwendigkeit, die Bekämpfung der Luftverunreinigung
   auch im internationalen Rahmen zu fördern, hält es die
   Kommission für erforderlioh, daß die Europäische Union
   das neue SOg-Protokoll unterzeichnet.
   Die Kommission fordert daher den Rat auf, diese
   Unterzeichnung zu beschließen und einen Vertreter zu
   bestellen, der dieses Protokoll unterzeichnet.
                                    5     ABI. Nr. L 336 van 7.12.1988. S. 1.
                                   6     ABI. Nr. L 163 van 14.6.1989. S. 32.
                     2            7     ABI. Nr. L 203 van 15.7.1989. S. 50.
 ---pagebreak--- Beschluß des Rates vom               zur Unterzeichnung durch
die   Europäische     Gemeinschaft des Protokolls zu                    dem
Übereinkommen von 1979 über veitraumige grenzüberschreitende
Luftverunreinigung      eine     weitere     Verringerung               von
Sohwefelemlssionen betreffend
DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION -
gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der       Europäischen
Gemeinschaft,
gestützt auf den Vorschlag der Kommission,
in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
Laut Vertrag ist eines der Ziele der gemeinschaftlichen
Umweltpolitik    die       Förderung    von       Maßnahmen             auf
internationaler Ebene zur Bewältigung regionaler oder
globaler   Umweltprobleme.      Das   erfordert        eine        aktive
Beteiligung der Europäischen Union und ihrer Mitgliedstaaten
an   internationalen      Aktionen    auf     dem       Gebiet          des
Umweltschutzes.
Die   Europäische    Gemeinschaft ist       Vertragspartei              des
Übereinkommens der Wirtschaftskommission für Europa der
Vereinten Nationen über weiträumige grenzüberschreitende
Luftverunreinigung (Genfer Übereinkommen, 1979),(D eines
seiner Protokolle über die Finanzierung von EMEp(2)
(Programm über die Zusammenarbeit bei der Messung und
Bewertung      der       weiträumigen       Übertragung                 von
luftverunreinigenden Stoffen in Europa) sowie seit dem 17.
Dezember 1993 Vertragspartei des Protokolls über die
Bekämpfung     von       Stickoxidemissionen          oder           ihres
grenzüberschreitenden Flusses (NOx-Protokoll).(3)
Die Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften beteiligte
sich im Namen der Union an den Verhandlungen im Rahmen einer
Arbeitsgruppe      unter       der     Schirmherrschaft                 der
Wirtschaftskommission für Europa der Vereinten Nationen über
den Entwurf eines zweiten Protokolls zum Übereinkommen über
weiträumige grenzüberschreitende Luftverunreinigung durch
Schwefelemissionen.
Das    SOg-Protokoll      soll    den    Vertragsparteien               des
Übereinkommens     über     weiträumige     grenzüberschreitende
Luftverunreinigung auf der Sondersitzung des Exekutivorgans
dieses Übereinkommens am 13. und 14. Juni 1994 in Oslo zur
Unterzeichnung vorgelegt werden -
                                        (1)  ABI. Nr. L 171, 27.08.1981. S. 11
                                        (2)  ABI. Nr. L 181. 04.07.1986. S. 1
                                       (3)  ABI. Nr. L. 149. 17.05.1993, S. 14
 ---pagebreak--- BESCHLIESST:
                          Artikel 1
Die Europäische Gemeinschaft unterzeichnet       das   zweite
Protokoll     zum     Übereinkommen     über      weiträumige
grenzüberschreitende Luftverunreinigung von 1979 betreffend
die Bekämpfung von Schwefelemissionen.
                          Artikel 2
Der Präsident des Rates bestellt einen Vertreter, der befugt
1st, das Protokoll im Namen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft
zu unterzeichnen.
Geschehen zu Brüssel am
                                          Im Namen der Rates
                                               Der Präsident
                        3 > ^
 ---pagebreak---                                                                Distr.
                                                               RESTRICTED
                                                               EB.AIR/R.84
                                                               11 Harch 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 FÜRTHER 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-
                                                                                     »F
 ---pagebreak--- EB.AIR/R.84
page 2
      The Partifts,
      net-ermined to implement the Convention on Long-range Transboundary    r
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,
      Convineed that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponinc
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.
      Desi -ring 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 minn 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,
      Npting that under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
 ---pagebreak---                                                           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,
      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.
      Under! ining 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:
                                   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;
 ---pagebreak---  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 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 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
                                                                               q-
 ---pagebreak---                                                           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 kilo tonnes 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 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 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 198S Helsinki Protocol on the
             Reduction of Sulphur Emissions or Their Transboundary Fluxes by at
             least 30 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;
 ---pagebreak--- 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 MW t h 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 MW t h 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.
 ---pagebreak---                                                           EB.AIR/R.84
                                                          page 7
                                    Article 3
                             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.
      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.
 ---pagebreak---  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.
                                                                                  u
 ---pagebreak---                                                           EB.AIR/R.84
                                                          page 9
                                     Article 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.
                                     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.
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.
                                                                                 \J
 ---pagebreak---  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 ?
                              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
                                                                                 \l
 ---pagebreak---                                                           EB.AIR/R.84
                                                          page 11
the Protocol, it recognizes one or both of the following means of dispute
settlement as compulsory ipso factg 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.
                                   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.
                           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.
                                                                                Ill-
 ---pagebreak--- 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 S 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 13
                                   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
 ---pagebreak---                                                           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.
                                    AruicjLe is
                                 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.
                                                                                U
 ---pagebreak--- EB.AIR/R.84
p a g e 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.
                                                                                 \}
 ---pagebreak---                                                   ES.AIR/R.84
                                                  page 15
                             Annex T
                  CRITICAL SULPHUR DEPOSITION
(5-percentile in centigrams oE sulphur per square metre per year)
                                                                  \%
 ---pagebreak--- EB.AIR/R.84
page 16
                                      Annftx TT
          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          Sulphur emission   Percentage emission
                           levels               ceilings*7          reductions
                      kt S02 per year        kt S02 per year    (base year 1980^')
                         1980      1990       2000 2005 2010      2000 2005 2010
Austria                   397        90         78                  80
Belarus                   740                  456   400   370      38     46    50
Belgium                   828       443        248   232   215      70     72    74
Bulgaria                 2050      2020       1374 1230 1127        33     40    45
Canada - national        4614      3700       3200                  30
        - SOMA           3245                 1750                  46
Croatia                   150       160        133   125   117      11     17    22
Czech Republic           2257      1876       1128   902   632      50     60    72
Denmark                   4SI       180         90                  80
Finland                   584       260        116                  80
France                   3348      1202        868   770   737      74     77    78
Germany                  7494      5803       1300   990            83     87
Greece                    400       510        595   580   570       0      3     4
Hungary                  1632      1010        898   816   653      45     50    60
Ireland                   222       168        155                  30
Italy                    3800                 1330 1042             65     73
Liechtenstein             0.4       0.1        0.1                  75
Luxembourg                 24                   10                  58
Netherlands               466       207        106                  77
Norway                    142        54         34                  76
Poland                   4100      3210       2583 2173 1397        37     47    66
Portugal                  266       284        304   294             0      3
Russian Federation^7     7161      4460       4440 4297 4297        38     40    40
Slovakia                  843       539        337   295   240      60     65    72
Slovenia                  235       195        130    94    71      45     60    70
Spain                    3319      2316      2143                   35
Sweden                    507       130        100                  80
Switzerland               126        62         60                  52
Ukraine                  3850                2310 2118 1696         40     45    56
United Kingdom           4898      3780      2449 1470     980      50    70     80
European Community      25513                9598                   62
                                        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
                                                                                    \4
 ---pagebreak---                                                          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.
       by 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.
                                                                               1 r>
 ---pagebreak--- EB-AIR/R.84
page 18
             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.
 ---pagebreak---                                                            EB.AIR/R.34
                                                           p a g e 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 (S0 3 ),
expressed as S0 2 . 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 (NO x ), 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:
                                                                                ;;
 ---pagebreak---  EB.AIR/R.84
 page 20
       (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 S0 2 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: ^
        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.
                                                                                  vi
 ---pagebreak---                                                           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 S0 2 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.
                                                                                7».
 ---pagebreak--- EB.AIR/R.84
page 2 2
                                      Tahl» 1
                     Snlnhur content from rofinerv products
                                  (S content (%))
                       Typical present values     Anticipated future 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 S0 2 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 MW ch (250 to 350 plants), including 8,000 MW th 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
 ---pagebreak---                                                           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 N0 X 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 ) .
                                                                                 )C-
 ---pagebreak---   EB.AIR/R.84
  page 24
                                                                 Table 2
       Emissions of snlnhnr ovides ohtainoH from the application of technoloaical
                                              option* to fossil-fuelled boilers
                             UhoontoMd to usons      Addrave >i|8CBon          Wet scrubbing*/         Spray dry absorption b/
  neducton efficiency (%)                            uptoGO                   95                       up to 90
  energy efficiency
  (kW/lo'näh)
                                                     ai-1                     6-10                     3-6
 Total instated capacity
                                                                               194.000                 16,000
 (ECE Eur) (MW,,)
                                                     Mtx of Ca salts and      Gypsum (sludge/waste    MixdCaSOj-I^HjO
 Type of by-product
                                                     ashas                    water)                  andflyashes
 Specific nvestnont
                                                     20-50                    60-250                  50-220
 (coat ECU(1990yVWJ
                            mo/rrrc/        ç/kWh^   mo/nrç/         g/kWh^   mu/inr o/       g/kWh^  mg/m3c/             gfcWh,,
Hardcoal d/                 IjOOO-lflUOOO    3*35    400-4.000       1.4-14   «400             <1.4   <400                <1.4
                                                                              (<200,1%S)        <û.7  ( < 2 0 0 . 1 % S ) <0.7
Brown coal o/               1.000-20.000     42-84   4004,000         U«33J6  4400             <1J    4400                <1.7
                                                                              (<200,1%S)              (<200. 1 % S) <D J
Heavy oi a/                 1,000-10.000     2jt^28  400-4,000       1.1-11   «400              <1.1  «400                <1.1
                                                                              (<200, 1 % S)           («200, 1%S)          <0£
                            Anmonà scrubbing b/      Wsftnan Lord a/          Activatsd carbon a/     Combined catalytic a/
Reduction efficiency (%)    upto90                   95                       95                      95
Energy efficiency
                            3-10                     10-15                    4-8
( W y i O 3 m3/h)
Total instated capacity
                            200                      ZOOO                     700                     1.300
(ECE Eur) (MwJ
                                                     Elemental S              BementalS
Type of by-product          Aim i uiva fertfzer                                                       Sulphuric acid (70 wt%)
                                                     Sulphuric acid (99 voL%) Sulphuric add (99 voL%)
Specific investment
                            230270 a/                200-300 e/               280-320 e / y           320050 e / y
(«st çcmmoywjj
                                                            3
                            rnp/nrc/          oAWh«  ino/rn ^        gftWh,   mg/fii c/       oAWh,,  mg/m3 g/             gftWrg
Hard coal 6/                «400               <M    «400           <1.4      4400             <1.4   <400
                            (<200,1%S)        «ÖJ    (<200,1%S) «Û.7          (<2oai%s)        43.7   (<2oai%s)             <0.7
Brown coal d/               <o400              <1J   <400            <1J      4400             <1J    4400                  <1.7
                            (<2oai%s)                (<200,1%S)      «A8      (<2oai%s)        <0J    (<2oai%s)            4)J
Heavy oi a/                 4400               <1.1  4400            <1.1     4400             <1.1   4400                  <1.1
                            (<2oai%s)          <0J6  (<20ai%S)        <0£     (400,1%S)         <X6   («200.1% S)           <Û.6
            &/         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.
            £./        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).
            fi/        Specific investment cost relates to a small sample of installations
            1/         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.
                                                                                                                                  !)}
 ---pagebreak---                                                            EB.AIR/R.84
                                                           page 25
             (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); 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 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
                                                                                *\ C/
 ---pagebreak--- EB.AIR/R.84
page 26
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; 11/
       (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 m 3 /h units have been reported (depending
            on the process);
       (d)  For one iron ore sintering plant, an FGD unit of 320,000 srVh
            capacity achieves a clean gas value below 100 mg SOx/Nm3 at 6% 0 2 ;
       (e)  Coke ovens are achieving less than 400 mg SOjj/Nm3 at 6% 0 2 ;
       (f)  Sulphuric acid plants achieve a conversion rate larger than 99%;
       (g)  Advanced Claus plant achieves sulphur recovery of more than 99%.
V.  BY-PRODUCTS AND SIDE-EFFECTS
14.   As efforts to reduce sulphur emissions from stationary sources are
increased in the countries of the ECE region, the quantities of by-products
will also increase.
15.   Options which would lead to usable by-products should be selected.
Furthermore, options that lead to increased thermal efficiency and minimize the
waste disposal issue whenever possible should be selected. Although most
        **/ 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.
                                                                                  ^
 ---pagebreak---                                                            EB.AIR/R.84
                                                           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.
 ---pagebreak---  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.
                                                                                i\
 ---pagebreak---                                                               EB.AIR/R.84
                                                              page 29
                                      Annex y
                     EMISSION AND SULPHUR CONTENT LIMIT VALUES
 A.    EMISSION LIMIT VALUES FOR MAJOR STATIONARY COMBUSTION SOURCES a/
                               (i)             (ii)                   (iii)
                                     Emission limit value Desulphurization rate
                             <MWth)     (mg S02/Nra3 h/)               (%)
 1.    SOLID FUELS           50-100           2000
 (based on 6% oxygen in     100-500         2000-400          40 (for 100-167 MW th )
 flue gas)                             (linear decrease)     40-90 (linear increase
                                                                for 167-500 MW th )
                              >500             400                     90
 2.    LIQUID FUELS          50-300           1 700
 (based on 3% oxygen in     300-500        1 700-400                   90
 flue gas)                             (linear decrease)
                              >500             400                     90
 3.    GASEOUS FUELS
 (based on 3% oxygen in
 flue gas)
Gaseous fuels in general                        35
Liquefied gas                                    5
Low calorific gases from                       800
gasification of refinery
residues, coke oven gas,
blast-furnace gas
B.     GAS OIL                                           Sulphur content (%)
Diesel for on-road vehicles                                      0.05
Other types                                                      0.2
      a./   As guidance, for a plant with a multi-fuel firing unit involving the
simultaneous use of two or more types of fuels, the competent authorities shall
set emission limit values taking into account the emission limit values from
column (ii) relevant for each individual fuel, the rate of thermal input
delivered by each fuel and, for refineries, the relevant specific
characteristics of the plant. For refineries, such a combined limit value
shall under no circumstances exceed 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
                                                                                   ±O
 ---pagebreak--- 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.
      12/   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.
                                                                                3>2>
 ---pagebreak---                                                                     ISSN 0254-1467
                                                          KOM(94)177endg.
                                                     DOKUMENTE
DE                                                                        11 14
                                 Katalognummer : CB-CO-94-190-DE-C
                                                           ISBN 92-77-68407-0
Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaften
L-2985 Luxemburg
                                                                                   '^r