Non-toxic denitration catalyst dispute upgraded. Six enterprises submited a joint letter to the Ministry of Environmental Prote
January 9, 2015 China Denitrification Network News: In the past few days, disputes caused by non-toxic denitrification catalysts have intensified in the market. After Shandong Province Environmental Protection Agency enforced local standards for catalysts and was greeted by the industry, it was recently learned that six domestic vanadium-titanium denitrification catalyst companies have collectively submitted a letter to the Ministry of Environmental Protection of China for “Disposal of Waste Flue Gas Denitrification Catalysts The review guide formally questioned.
On August 19, 2014, the Ministry of Environmental Protection officially issued the Guidelines for the Examination of Hazardous Waste Operation Licenses for Waste Flue Gas Denitrification Catalysts (Announcement No. 54 of 2014). The announcement clearly categorizes waste flue gas denitrification catalysts as hazardous wastes and only specifically refers to vanadium-titanium systems. The subtlety is that this will mean that non-vanadium-titanium-based denitration catalysts will not be listed as hazardous wastes after they have failed. As a result, the vanadium-titanium denitration catalyst will be in a very unfavorable position in the market competition.
Therefore, the six large vanadium and titanium denitration catalyst companies questioned this, and argued that:
1. The "Notice on Strengthening the Supervision of Detoxification of Waste Flue Gases (Draft for Soliciting Opinions)" and "Guidelines for the Examination of Waste Gas Denitrification Catalyst Hazardous Waste Operation License" issued by the Ministry of Environmental Protection on May 22, 2014 (Consultation Draft Neither has specifically indicated that the flue gas denitration catalyst is vanadium-titanium, but the flue gas denitration catalyst (vanadium-titanium) was added in the officially released review guideline. The reasons and basis for changes before and after are not known.
2. The “Manual for the Examination Guideline for the Operation License of Waste Flue Gas Denitrification Catalysts” (15 January 2014) clearly states: “According to the Chinese Academy of Environmental Sciences, the denitration catalyst for waste flue gas produced by some coal-fired power plants in China Hazard analysis results show that the waste gas is removed
The main hazardous characteristic of the nitration catalyst is leaching toxicity. The leaching concentrations of bismuth, copper and arsenic are generally higher than the leaching concentration of the new denitration catalyst. The leaching concentrations of bismuth, arsenic and mercury in the waste flue gas denitration catalyst of some enterprises exceed the identification of hazardous wastes. Standard leaching toxicity identification (GB5085.3-2007) related requirements. If it can not properly carry out resource and harmless treatment, it will easily cause environmental pollution. “The reason why the waste flue gas denitration catalyst is listed as hazardous waste is that the denitration catalyst has leaching toxicity after being used under the flue gas conditions generated by some coal-fired power plants and the concentration exceeds the relevant provisions of the “identification of the leaching toxicity of the identification standard for hazardous waste”. The indicators of the project, toxic substances such as antimony, arsenic and mercury are brought into the catalyst by the flue gas.From the microstructural characteristics of the denitration catalyst, whether or not it contains vanadium and titanium, as long as it is a denitration catalyst, in order to meet sufficient denitrification performance The porous structure will lead to the adsorption of toxic substances in the flue gas. Therefore, all the denitration catalysts, whether or not they contain vanadium and titanium, will have leaching if used under the flue gas conditions of coal-fired power plants containing antimony, arsenic and mercury. Toxic, the waste flue gas denitrification catalyst that it produces should be regarded as hazardous waste.
Third, if only because of the difference in vanadium, then the new denitration catalyst (vanadium-titanium system) and the flue gas denitration catalyst (vanadium-titanium system) are basically the same, generally used in coal-fired flue gas The vanadium pentoxide content of the denitration catalyst is below 1.5%.
When converted to vanadium, it accounts for only 0.84% of the total amount of the catalyst. According to the “Determination of Toxic Substances in the Identification Standard of Hazardous Wastes” (GB5085.6-2007), when the vanadium content is greater than or equal to 3%, it can be determined as hazardous waste. The reason why only vanadium-titanium waste flue gas denitration catalysts are classified as hazardous wastes is not sufficient.
4. The “Guidelines for the Examination of Waste Flue Gas Denitrification Catalyst Hazardous Waste Operation License” classifies waste flue gas denitration catalysts as hazardous wastes. The specific reason is that the catalyst adsorbs thorium, copper, arsenic, etc. in the flue gas of coal-fired power plants. Concentration exceeds "leaching of identification criteria for hazardous wastes"
Toxicity identification (GB 5085.3-2007) requires that if the flue gas is free of antimony, copper, arsenic, etc. or its content is extremely low (such as burning natural gas power plants and stainless steel plants, chemical plant flue gas, etc.), after the use of denitrification catalyst The leaching concentration does not exceed the relevant requirements of the “Differentiation Criteria for the Identification of Hazardous Wastes” (GB 5085.3-2007). Therefore, the denitration catalysts for flue gas in these fields, whether or not they contain vanadium and titanium, should not be classified as hazardous wastes. To sum up, in order to ensure that hazardous wastes are treated in a standard manner to avoid environmental hazards, while avoiding the increase in social costs caused by over-treatment, under the existing data conditions, denitration catalysts for waste flue gas from coal-fired power plants should be used (vanadium-titanium system And non-vanadium-titanium systems are identified as hazardous waste.
It is not difficult to see from the above queries that the denitration catalyst cannot be defined as hazardous waste simply because it contains vanadium. Regardless of vanadium-titanium-based or non-vanadium-titanium-based denitration catalysts, the root cause of environmental hazards is that they all have leaching toxicity after being used under the flue gas conditions of coal-fired power plants containing antimony, arsenic, and mercury, and should therefore be identified as hazardous wastes. This has nothing to do with vanadium-titanium or non-vanadium-titanium.
The current status of the denitrification catalyst industry is that almost all companies produce vanadium-titanium-based denitration catalysts and almost all of them use vanadium-titanium-based denitration catalysts internationally. The production of non-vanadium-titanium-based products is only produced by Shandong Tianyu Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Beijing Yuntong (SH, 601908). According to the Ministry of Environmental Protection's policy, Tianzhu Environmental Protection will become the only exemption for this policy, and all other manufacturers will be bound by this policy.
According to the introduction of non-toxic denitrification catalyst, this product is said to be a new rare earth-based high-efficiency non-toxic flue gas denitration catalyst. This technology “fills the blank of non-toxic and denitrification catalyst technology for flue gas at home and abroad, and its technical performance has reached the international advanced level. ". However, in fact, the current application of the product in the industry has very limited performance and has not been represented in the industry. Even without considering the toxic substances that the catalyst adsorbed from the flue gas, the product could not prove its non-toxic concept because of lack of sufficient convincing performance and toxic data analysis that can be publicly researched after failure.
It is worth noting that three of the six companies that collectively signed the letter to the Ministry of Environmental Protection are the catalyst companies of the Big Five, and the other three are catalyst companies that have a significant influence in the industry. Therefore, the fight between toxic and non-toxic will continue, and the game of interests behind it will continue. The scientificity and rationality of relevant policy formulation are worthy of discussion!