国内外生活垃圾焚烧烟气排放与监管标准比较分析

我国生活垃圾焚烧发电规模占全球的66.1%，环境风险不容忽视，需要制定适宜的烟气污染物排放限值与监管措施，可参考欧盟、美国、日本等较早应用生活垃圾焚烧处理的国家 (地区) 的有益经验。但是，现有的国内外对比研究仅关注了排放限值的差异，忽略了国内外标准在历史沿革、基准条件、适用对象、执行尺度等方面的差异及原因。本研究基于2017年以来国内生活垃圾焚烧行业专项整治取得的成效，深入分析国内外标准的差异及原因，得出以下结论：1) 烟气排放限值落地执行需要与之配套的监管措施，自动监测手段有利于实现对生活垃圾焚烧烟气常规污染物及炉温的全天候监管，在欧盟、美国已广泛应用，在我国的应用已取得良好成效；2) 与国外相比，我国生活垃圾焚烧烟气排放限值未考虑焚烧炉规模与技术差异化的影响，在排放与监管标准中未兼顾小型焚烧炉，但实际上有必要给予小型焚烧炉适度的、合理的差异化要求，以规范市场并增强环境监管的严肃性；3) 与国外相比，我国生活垃圾焚烧烟气排放限值总体上处于严格行列，监管刚性很强但柔性不足，部分省市制定的地方标准限值严于欧盟，但缺乏类似欧盟标准B类限值的达标评价方式，有必要在探索“正面清单”等更为灵活的监管方式的同时，基于自动监测手段表现出的精准监管能力，进一步优化和拓展更具弹性的排放限值与监管措施。本研究有利于识别我国生活垃圾焚烧行业环境监管政策和模式与发达国家 (地区) 的差异，可为进一步优化固定源环境监管政策和模式提供依据。

A comparison of emission and supervision standards on exhaust gas from municipal solid waste incineration in China and developed countries

The scale of municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration of China accounts for 66.1% of the global total. The environmental risks cannot be neglected and appropriate emission limits and relevant supervision for exhaust gas pollutants should be established. Valuable experiences from countries (regions) that had earlier applications of waste incineration, such as European Union, the United States and Japan, can be considered. However, existing domestic and international comparative studies have only focused on the differences in emission limits stated by the standards, overlooking the differences and reasons for the historical evolution, baseline conditions, applicable targets, and severity of implementation. Based on the achievements of the rectification in waste incineration industry in China since 2017, this study thoroughly analyzed the differences and reasons for standards in China and foreign countries (regions), and drew the following conclusions. 1) The implementation of emission standards requires accompanying supervision measures. Automated monitoring methods were advantageous for achieving round-the-clock supervision of pollutants in exhaust gas. They have been widely adopted in Europe and the United States, and positive success was achieved in China as well. 2) Compared to foreign standards, the emission limit values for MSW incineration exhaust gas in China did not take into account the influences of scale differentiation. Small scale incinerators haven’t been adequately considered in standards for emissions and supervision. But it was necessary to provide moderate and rational differentiated requirements for them, in order to regulate the market and enhance the seriousness of environmental supervision. 3) Compared to foreign standards, the emission limit values for MSW incineration exhaust gas in China are relatively strict, with strong rigidity but insufficient flexibility. Some regional standards were more stringent than those in the European Union. However, there was a lack of benchmark assessment similar to the limits of Class B in EU standards. It was necessary to explore more flexible approaches such as "white lists" while further optimizing and expanding current emission standards and supervision methods based on the precision demonstrated by automated monitoring methods. This article is beneficial for clarifying the confidence in China’s supervision system in realms of waste incineration, and it provides a basis for further optimization in the policies and patterns for the environmental supervision of stationary sources.