meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
sector:ippu:chemical_industry:other:start [2022/03/22 08:03] – [Recalculations] kotzulla | sector:ippu:chemical_industry:other:start [2022/03/29 09:46] (current) – [Chlor-alkali industry] reichel | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
==== Chlor-alkali industry ==== | ==== Chlor-alkali industry ==== | ||
- | For the mercury losses from the Chlor-alkali industry, Germany | + | For the mercury |
+ | However, emissions of Hg are still ocurring, because two production sites still continue to uses the amalgam process for the production of certain | ||
+ | As from 2018 PRTR data is used to determine mercury emissions belonging to the alcoholate production. Due to a delay of the 2019 PRTR data the 2018 emission value is used also in 2019 and 2020. | ||
Line 217: | Line 220: | ||
===== Planned improvements ===== | ===== Planned improvements ===== | ||
- | For the mercury losses from the Chlor-alkali industry, because of the BAT conclusion for the Chlor-alkali industry the production has stopped in 2017. However, emissions of Hg are still ocurring, because two plants are still producing alcoholates and dithionite and were so far reported by CEFIC to OSPAR based on BAT regulation for Chlor-alkali production. Since the OSPAR convention does not request to report the Hg-emissions from dithionite and alcoholate production, CEFIC no longer reports these emissions to OSPAR. | + | There are no planned improvements. |
- | Germany is trying to ensure reporting of Hg emissions for that sources. | + | |