The following text is a piece of an article that has appeared in "The Den" (The Day). It shows that the problem is known to the Kiev City Council but much more information is needed to fully understand the problem. Herewith we start collecting articles concerning the problem for spreading information and discussion of this severe problem.
1st article
|
“Green” catastrophe - Kyiv losing 400 hectares of green spaces because of imperfect legislation In European countries urban green spaces in cities and the countryside are treated with great respect. According to data compiled by ecologists, by the year 2010 Great Britain will turn into an oasis. One million trees will be planted in the UK, where green spaces belong to the so-called A zone and are protected by law. In Ukraine, especially in Kyiv, there is a completely different situation. In the last seven years the capital has lost 400 hectares of green spaces, and trees are being cut down on the central streets. Even the ecological commission of the Kyiv City Council, headed by Anatolii Kovalenko, is not aware of the reasons behind this “green” catastrophe. The commission members only “assume” that this has happened because of the lack of money for planting greenery or the lack of modern watering techniques. ................................. ............................. |
| 2nd article |
January, 2006
Prepared in cooperation with the City of Austin, Texas
1 U.S. Geological Survey USGS Home Contact USGS
2 City of Austin
Collaborative studies by the City of Austin and the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) have identified coal-tar based sealcoat—the black, shiny emulsion painted or sprayed on asphalt pavement such as parking lots—as a major and previously unrecognized source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination. Several PAHs are suspected human carcinogens and are toxic to aquatic life. Studies in Austin, Texas, showed that particles in runoff from coal-tar based sealcoated parking lots had concentrations of PAHs that were about 65 times higher than concentrations in particles washed off parking lots that had not been sealcoated. Biological studies, conducted by the City of Austin in the field and in the laboratory, indicated that PAH levels in sediment contaminated with abraded sealcoat were toxic to aquatic life and were degrading aquatic communities, as indicated by loss of species and decreased numbers of organisms. Identification of this source of PAHs may help to improve future strategies for controlling these compounds in urban water bodies across the Nation where parking lot sealcoat is used.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (or PAHs) are a group of organic contaminants that form from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons, such as coal and gasoline. PAHs are an environmental concern because they are toxic to aquatic life and because several are suspected human carcinogens.
Coal tar is a byproduct of the coking of coal, and can contain 50 percent or more PAHs by weight.
Sealcoat is a black liquid that is sprayed or painted on asphalt pavement in an effort to protect and beautify the asphalt. Most sealcoat products are coal-tar or asphalt based. Many coal-tar sealcoat products contain as much as 30 percent coal tar by weight. Product analyses by the City of Austin indicated that coal-tar sealcoat products have median concentrations of total PAHs about 70 times higher than concentrations in asphalt-based sealcoat products.
Sealcoat is used commercially and by homeowners across the Nation. It is applied to residential driveways and to parking lots associated with commercial businesses (including strip malls and shopping centers), apartment and condominium complexes, churches, schools, and business parks. The City of Austin, Texas, estimates that about 600,000 gallons of sealcoat are applied every year in the greater Austin area. National use numbers are not available, but commercial availability suggests that asphalt-based sealcoat is commonly used on the West Coast and coal-tar based sealcoat is commonly used in the Midwest, the South, and on the East Coast.
USGS researchers sampled runoff at 13 parking lots in Austin. They also took scraping samples of parking lot surfaces to compare source materials to particles in the runoff. Scraping samples and the water and particles in the runoff samples were analyzed for a suite of PAHs, major elements, and trace elements. The researchers sprayed water on four different types of parking lot surfaces: lots sealed with coal-tar based sealcoat (left photo), lots sealed with asphalt-based sealcoat, unsealed asphalt lots, and unsealed concrete lots. The runoff was collected behind spill berms, pumped into containers (middle photo) and filtered through Teflon filters to collect the particulates for analysis (right photo). The particulates, the filtered water, and samples of sealcoat scraped from the parking lot surfaces were analyzed for PAHs at the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in Denver, Colorado. Concentrations and yields (the amount of PAHs coming off a parking lot per unit area) were used to determine levels of contamination in runoff from each type of parking lot and the importance of sealed lots as a source of PAHs to urban streams.
Vehicle tires abrade parking lot sealcoat into small particles. These small particles are washed off parking lots by precipitation and into storm sewers and streams. Sealcoat "wear and tear" is visible in high traffic areas within a few months after application. Sealcoat manufacturers recommend reapplication every 2 to 3 years.
PAHs are toxic to mammals (including humans), birds, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, and plants. Aquatic invertebrates, the insects and other small animals that live in streams and lakes, are particularly susceptible to PAH contamination, especially the bottom dwellers (benthic invertebrates) that live in the mud where PAHs tend to accumulate. They are an important part of the food chain and are often monitored as indicators of stream quality (analogous to the "canary in the coal mine" concept). Possible effects of PAHs on aquatic invertebrates include inhibited reproduction, delayed emergence, sediment avoidance, and mortality, and possible adverse effects on fish include fin erosion, liver abnormalities, cataracts, and immune system impairments. PAHs tend to attach to sediment; the Probable Effect Concentration (PEC)—a widely used sediment-quality guideline that is the concentration of a contaminant in bed sediment expected to adversely affect benthic (or bottom-dwelling) biota—is 22.8 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram) for total PAHs.
Studies by USGS and City of Austin did not evaluate human-health risk from exposure to sealcoat. Human-health risk from environmental contaminants is often evaluated in terms of exposure pathways. For example, people could potentially be exposed to PAHs in sealcoat through skin contact with abraded particles from parking lots, inhalation of wind-blown particles, and inhalation of fumes that volatilize from sealed parking lots. PAHs in streams and lakes rarely pose a human-health risk via drinking water because of their tendency to attach to sediment rather than dissolve in water. In addition, because PAHs do not readily bioaccumulate within the food chain, possible human-health risks associated with consumption of fish are low.
Concentrations of PAHs in particles (including abraded sealcoat along with urban dust and other sediment) washed off from each of the different surface types—including the unsealed parking lots—were greater than the PEC of 22.8 mg/kg. The average concentration in particles washed off parking lots that were not sealcoated was 54 mg/kg. This is not surprising because runoff from parking lots is likely to contain PAHs from many sources, including leaking motor oil, tire particles, vehicle exhaust, and atmospheric deposition.
Concentrations of PAHs were much higher in particles in runoff from parking lots sealed with coal-tar based sealcoat than from all other types of parking lot surfaces. Specifically, the average concentration of PAHs from coal-tar sealed lots was 3,500 mg/kg, about 65 times higher than the average concentration in particles washed off unsealed parking lots. The average concentration in particles washed off parking lots sealed with asphalt-based sealcoat was 620 mg/kg, about 10 times higher than the average concentration from unsealed parking lots and 6 times less than the average concentration from coal-tar sealed lots.
The large differences between concentrations associated with sealed and unsealed parking lots indicate that abraded sealcoat is a major and previously unrecognized contributor to PAH contamination.
Studies by USGS scientists demonstrated possible connections between PAHs in particles washed off sealed parking lots and PAHs in suspended sediment in four streams in Austin and Fort Worth, Texas. The total mass of PAHs (or "load") expected to wash off sealed parking lots was compared to the load of PAHs measured in suspended sediment in the four streams after rainstorms. The load of PAHs estimated to come from the sealed parking lots was comparable to the measured load in the streams, indicating that runoff from sealed parking lots could account for the majority of PAHs in these streams. Findings also showed that PAHs in suspended sediment in the streams were chemically similar to those in particles washed off parking lots sealed with coal-tar based sealcoat. What would be the effect on PAH loading to the streams if parking lots were not sealed? Estimates from the USGS study indicate that total loads of PAHs coming from parking lots in the studied watersheds would be reduced to about one-tenth of their current levels if all of the parking lots were unsealed.
Studies by City of Austin biologists showed that PAHs in sediment contaminated with abraded sealcoat could be adversely affecting aquatic communities. Specifically, toxicity testing of organisms in the laboratory showed large increases in mortality as sealcoat amounts and PAH concentrations were increased, and that sediment contaminated with coal-tar sealcoat was toxic to aquatic life at PAH concentrations observed in Austin waterways. Controlled experiments that used aquariums with diverse natural biological communities showed significant biological degradation in response to the addition of sealcoat particles. Finally, field assessments in selected Austin streams showed loss of species and decreases in the number of aquatic organisms downstream from inflows of runoff from coal-tar sealcoated parking lots. These effects coincided with increases in concentrations of PAHs in stream sediment below sealcoated parking lots. Overall, City of Austin scientists have reported PAH contamination at levels predicted to be toxic to benthic invertebrates in about 13 percent of sampled Austin creeks.
City of Austin biologists conducted laboratory and field studies to evaluate the effects of sealcoated parking lots on aquatic communities in area streams. These studies included toxicity testing in controlled laboratory experiments that exposed organisms to sediment spiked with coal-tar and asphalt-based sealcoat (left photo); controlled experiments that used aquariums with diverse natural biological communities to which sealcoat was added (middle photo); and field assessments of aquatic communities in streams upstream and downstream from inflows of runoff from sealcoated parking lots (right photo).
The concentrations of PAHs in lakes and reservoirs across the Nation are increasing, as indicated by USGS studies of 38 reservoirs and lakes conducted in 18 metropolitan areas across the country (Van Metre and Mahler, 2005). Sediment cores (vertical tubes of mud) were collected from reservoir and lake bottoms (see photo below); analysis of these cores provides a reconstruction of historical water quality over time, much like using tree rings to reconstruct historical climate. Runoff carries soil, debris, and attached contaminants to lakes and reservoirs, which settle to the bottom; as the sediment builds up, changes in water quality are recorded in the successive sediment layers.
USGS findings show that concentrations of total PAHs in the majority of lakes and reservoirs in urban and suburban areas across the Nation increased significantly from 1970 to 2001. The increases were greatest in lakes with rapidly urbanizing watersheds (urban sprawl); for example, over the last 10 years, the concentrations of PAHs in Lake in the Hills (suburban Chicago, Illinois) increased ten-fold as the watershed was rapidly developed. Further study is needed to assess direct links between the use of sealcoat and PAH trends in these urban lakes and reservoirs across the Nation.
The study of parking lot surfaces by the USGS and the City of Austin show that abraded sealcoat could be a major source of PAHs to urban and suburban water bodies in watersheds across the Nation where sealcoat is used. Such findings have implications that extend beyond Texas as sealcoat is used nationwide; further studies would help to evaluate the potential impacts of sealcoat on the aquatic environment in other parts of the country. Identification of this source may influence future strategies for controlling PAHs in urban environments. In the past, sources of PAHs in urban watersheds were thought to be dominated by numerous nonpoint sources, such as leaking motor oil, tire wear, vehicular exhaust, and atmospheric deposition. Such sources are difficult to quantify or control because of their diffuse nature. In contrast, sealcoated parking lots are specific areas that contribute directly to urban stormwater runoff (see photo below), and the use of sealcoat is voluntary and controllable. To address PAH contamination in streams, the City of Austin Council banned the use of coal-tar based sealcoat, effective January 2006 (Nancy McClintock, written communication, City of Austin, November 2005).
Possible alternatives to coal-tar based sealcoating of parking lots and driveways include the use of concrete and unsealed asphalt pavement, and the use of asphalt-based sealcoat that contains lower levels of PAHs.
Currently, the use of coal-tar based sealcoat is not federally regulated. In 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency excluded coke product residues, including coal tar, from classification as hazardous wastes if they are recycled. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, coal-tar based pavement sealants are products that contain recycled coal tar and, therefore, are not regulated.
II.) IN BOOMING ECONOMIES LIKE UKRAINE'S, CEMENT IS CRUCIAL FOR GROWTH BUT IS AN ENEMY OF GREEN:
International Herald Tribune, by Elisabeth Rosenthal, October 21, 2007
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/21/business/cement.php>
In booming economies from Asia to Eastern Europe, cement is the glue of progress. The material that binds the ingredients of concrete together, cement is essential for constructing buildings and laying roads in much of the world.
Some 80 percent of cement is made in and used by emerging economies; China alone makes and uses 45 percent of global output. Production is doubling every four years in places like Ukraine.
But making cement creates pollution, in the form of carbon dioxide emissions, and the greenest of technologies can reduce that by only 20 percent.
Cement plants already account for 5 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming.
Compounding the problem, cement has no viable recycling potential, as the abandoned buildings that line roads from Tunisia to Mongolia demonstrate. Each new road, each new building, needs new cement.
"The big news about cement is that it is the single biggest material source of carbon emissions in the world, and the demand is going up," said Julian Allwood, a professor of engineering at Cambridge University.
"If demand doubles and the best you can do is to reduce emissions by 30 percent, then emissions still rise very quickly."
Worse yet, green incentives may be allowing the industry to pollute even more. The European Union subsidizes Western companies that buy outmoded cement plants in poor countries and refit them with green technology.
The emissions per ton of cement produced do go down. But the amount of cement produced often goes way up, as does the pollution generated.
Many of the world's producers acknowledge the conundrum. "The cement industry is at the center of the climate change debate, but the world needs construction material for schools hospitals and homes," said Olivier Luneau, head of sustainability at Lafarge, the Paris-based global cement giant.
"Because of our initiatives, emissions are growing slower than they would without the interventions."
Cement manufacturers have invested millions of dollars in programs like the Sustainable Cement Initiative, yet many engineers like Allwood see "sustainable cement" as something of a contradiction in terms, like vegetarian meatballs.
Lafarge, a leader in introducing green technology to its field, has improved efficiency to reduce its emissions from 763 pounds, or 347 kilograms, of CO2 per ton of cement in 1990 to 655 in 2006. Its goal is to get to 610 by 2010, but it expects it will be difficult to get much below that number.
Lafarge, which bought 17 cement plants in China in 2005 and has holdings throughout eastern Europe and Russia, acknowledges that its emissions are growing year by year.
"Total emissions are growing because the demand is growing so fast and continues to grow and you can't cap that," Luneau said. "Our core business is cement, so there is a limit to what we can change."
Cement is certainly a good investment these days.
"The construction market is booming in Eastern Europe, so cement factories are booming," said Lennard De Klerk, director of Global Carbon, a Budapest firm that arranges investments in Ukraine, Russia and Bulgaria. "All the big cement companies, like Lafarge and Heidelberg Cement, have bought existing facilities there that generally use fairly outdated technology and that waste a lot of energy."
Carbon trading schemes - green incentives created by the European Union and the Kyoto Protocol - encourage such purchases. But they also allow manufacturers to increase overall cement production, both in the developing world and at home.
The European Union effectively limits production of European cement makers in their home countries by capping their allowed yearly emissions. In places like Ukraine, meanwhile, there are no limits, so cement production can increase there without regulatory caps.
Moreover, European companies get allowances known as carbon credits to pollute more for use at home by undertaking green cleanup projects elsewhere. So buying an old Soviet factory and investing in converting it to green technology can bring multiple paybacks.
"They can invest in Ukraine and Russia, clean up, and earn carbon credits - the investment is much more attractive than it used to be," said De Klerk, whose company brokers such "carbon" investments. Factoring the value of the carbon credits into the cost of refitting a factory in Ukraine, the predicted rate of return rises from 8.8 per cent to close to 12 per cent, he said.
Once outmoded plants are refitted with "clean technology," their emission per ton of cement produced does decline. The Podilsky plant in Ukraine is being refitted with greener kilns - financed by the Irish cement manufacturer CRH to earn carbon credits - and energy consumption per ton of production is forecast to drop 53 percent.
But even that sharp drop may not be enough to stop the inexorable growth in cement emissions in the aggregate, or compensate for the new lease on life that refitting provides old factories that otherwise might have shut their doors. Production went up over 10 percent in Ukraine in 2005 and again in 2006. At Heidelberg Cement's Doncement plant in Ukraine, output soared 55 percent in the first nine months of last year.
Old factories that for years were running at half capacity are now churning out cement as never before, propelled by booming economies and foreign investment.
And cement, which used to be produced and used locally, is increasingly shipped long distances. On the Internet, cement brokers are now selling relatively cheap Ukrainian cement to all corners of the world. Demand is particularly high in the Middle East.
Unlike many industries, cement has a basic chemical problem: The chemical reaction that creates cement releases large amounts of CO2 in and of itself. Sixty percent of emissions caused by making cement are from this chemical process alone, Luneau said.
The remainder is produced from the fuels used in production, which may be mitigated by the use of greener technology. So to "go green," cement makers try to cut the fuel side of the equation.
When they buy plants in the developing world they often turn from a water-intensive system to a more energy efficient "dry" system. Ten percent of the fuel used by Lafarge is biomass and alternative fuels.
One industry project called the Cement Sustainability Initiative suggests that concrete should be mixed using smaller portions of cement to reduce emissions, and that cement buildings be given better insulation so that they are more energy efficient. But there is less incentive for cement manufacturers to take on fundamental changes in how to make buildings and roads.
Western cement manufacturers emphasize that the emissions problem cannot be solved until China and India and other booming economies realize that they must limit emissions as well. "Trying to solve emissions in the EU or G-8 will not solve the problem unless emerging economies and their cement production are included," Luneau said.
Peter Van Metre and Barbara Mahler
U.S. Geological Survey
8027 Exchange Drive
Austin, Texas 78754-4733
(512) 927-3506 or pcvanmet@usgs.gov
(512) 927-3566 or bjmahler@usgs.gov
Mateo Scoggins
City of Austin
Watershed Protection and Development Review Department
505 Barton Springs Road, 11th Floor
Austin, Texas 78704
(512) 974-1917 or
mateo.scoggins@ci.austin.tx.us
City of Austin Coal Tar Sealant
Information—
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/bs_coaltar.htm
USGS frequently asked question—
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/asphalt_sealers.html
Basic information on the toxicity of PAHs to biological organisms,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)—
http://www.epa.gov/R5Super/ecology/html/toxprofiles.htm#pahs
General information on PAH
exposure, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)—
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs69.html
Mahler, B.J., Van Metre, P.C., Bashara, T.J., Wilson, J.T., and Johns, D.A., 2005. Parking lot sealcoat: An unrecognized source of urban PAHs: Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 39, no. 15, p. 5560-5566.
Van Metre, P.C. and Mahler, B.J., 2005. Trends in hydrophobic organic contaminants in urban and reference lake sediments across the United States, 1970-2001: Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 39, no. 15, p. 5567-5574.
City of Austin. 2005. PAHs in Austin, Texas. (http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/downloads/coaltar_draft_pah_study.pdf)
| Fact Sheets | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home Page | Environment | Hazards | Information Management |
Resources | State |
| AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices | |
last updated 04. Jan. 2010