Chapter 5, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVE STUDY ON PERIPHERAL SEWER DISTRICT ARRANGEMENT

Four treatment districts were proposed in the Sewerage M/P, namely Central, Saraj, Novo Selo (currently called as North Gorce Petrov), and Dracevo. The Central and Dracevo Treatment Districts were planned to be treated as one sewerage system with one WWTP. The remaining two districts were planned to be separate and independent with one WWTP each.

Based on the proposed plan, further study and construction works were conducted in each district by these . In Saraj, the preliminary D/D on the prioritized projects selected through the F/S is scheduled to be completed in February 2008. In North Gorce Petrov, the construction of the main collector started in 2006 and will be completed in 2008. On the other hand, planned its system with an independent treatment district for Dracevo, which is not in conformity with the Sewerage M/P. In this chapter, these three districts are reviewed from the viewpoint of technical, environmental and municipalities' policy. As a result of the review, the study team proposes four treatment districts, namely Central, Saraj, North Gorce Petrov and Dracevo.

5.1 Progress of Project Realization

This alternative study was conducted on February 2008. Since then, the situation of three sewer districts are progressed, Macedonian side expressed their opinions for three sewer districts in S/C held on 3rd December 2008. 1. The budget for 2009 (January to December 2009) is allocated to priority areas in Saraj and North Gorce Petrov district. 2. The Trunk sewers (both right and left) in central district are included in the budget for 2009. 3. However, the budget is not approved (as of October 2008), the trunk sewers are the target of the Feasibility Study. 4. The responsible organization is MTC and MEPP.

Dracevo district is not included in the budget for 2009 because of the political confusion.

5.2 Saraj Sewer District

5.2.1 Outline of F/S The F/S and preliminary D/D on sewerage development in Saraj has been conducted with financial assistance of Norway. The report for F/S was completed in November 2007. Preliminary D/D on the prioritized settlements/projects was completed in February 2008. The salient features of F/S and the proposal of the Study Team are compared in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Salient Features of Saraj Sewer District Planning Parameter Plan by Municipality Study Team Proposal Pipe 2035 2030 Target Year WWTP 2025 2020 Population Equivalent Domestic 56,721 52,500 Industrial 5,672 0 Total 62,393 52,500 Per Capita Wastewater Generation 210 lpcd 200 lpcd Planned Wastewater Generation 13,100 m3/d 10,500 m3/d Treatment Level Secondary (Biological) ---

Treatment Process Bio-aeration pools ---

Source: F/S for Saraj (REC)

The population in settlements by Saraj F/S is shown in Table 5.2.

Part I: 5-1 Chapter 5, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 5.2 Population of Settlement in Saraj (Persons) Pipe Network Selected for No Settlement 2002 2025 2035 Existing or Not Preliminary DD 1 Dolna Matka and Weekend Houses No Yes no data 697 847 2 Gorna Matka No Yes 468 697 847 3 Glumovo No Yes 1,683 2,508 3,046 4 Sisevo No Yes 3,376 5,030 6,111 5 Grcec No Yes 1,900 3,267 3,986 6 Krusopek and Laka No Yes 1,902 2,834 3,443 7 Yes 2,044 3,046 3,700 8 Saraj Yes 5,232 7,796 9,470 9 Gorna & Dolna , No 1,077 1,605 1,949 10 Caljane No 580 864 1,050 11 Semeniste No 559 833 1,012 12 Bukovic No 1,723 2,567 3,119 13 Panicari No 261 389 472 14 Raovic No 213 317 386 15 Bojane Yes 2,230 3,323 4,036 16 Laskarce No 1,190 1,773 2,154 17 Kopanica No 1,714 2,554 3,102 18 Dvorce No 249 371 451 19 Radusa &Rudnik Radusa Yes 2,103 3,133 3,806 20 No 712 1,061 1,289 21 No 2,010 2,995 3,638 22 Rasce Yes 2,697 4,019 4,882 23 Kondovo Yes 3,384 5,042 6,125 Total: 37,307 56,721 68,921 Average Annual Change of Population 2.26 % 2.15 % Industrial Load based on PE - 5,672 - Total Design PE 62,394 Source: F/S for Saraj (REC)

In the F/S, three alternatives were compared (see Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.3). Differences in three alternatives are number of WWTPs: the alternative A has 1 centralized WWTP while the alternative C has 17 decentralized WWTPs. The number of WWTPs in alternative B lies in between. Reflecting scattered large number of settlements, decentralized WWTP of the alternative C, which does not require main collectors, is selected as the most economical option (see Table 5.3). Following this conclusion, the preliminary D/D has been carried out for the 6 settlements selected as the priority projects (see Table 5.2)1.

Table 5.3 Summary of Alternatives Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Cost Cost Cost Quantity Quantity Quantity (Million EUR) (Million EUR) (Million EUR) Secondary Pipe 74.6 km 6.9 74.6 km 6.9 74.6 km 6.9 Main Collector 25.7 km 3.1 16.2 km 1.7 5.8 km 0.6 WWTP, Decentralized 4 6 17 3.5 3.7 4.0 WWTP, Centralized 1 3 0 Total 13.5 12.3 11.4 Note: including VAT and other taxes Source: F/S for Saraj (REC)

Aerobic biological treatment (Bio-aeration pools) process was selected for all WWTPs. This process is similar to CASP (see Figure 5.4). Bio-aeration basin is operated with a HRT of 8 hr, which is the same as in case of CASP. The remaining units are also similar to CASP.

1 Costs of 6 treatment plants are listed in the draft government budget of the year 2009 as of October 2008.

Part I: 5-2 Chapter 5, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Figure 5.1 Saraj Sewerage Development - Alternative A

Figure 5.2 Saraj Sewerage Development - Alternative B

Part I: 5-3 Chapter 5, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Figure 5.3 Saraj Sewerage Development - Alternative C

Primary Final Grit Oil Bioaeration Settling Chlorination Effluent Influent Screen Settling Basin Tank Chamber Separator Tank Tank

Figure 5.4 Flow Sheet of Aerobic Biological Wastewater Treatment (Bio-aeration Pools)

5.2.2 Technical Review Applied to this Study Feasibility study conducted by concluded that the Alternative C in which lots of WWTPs are constructed avoiding long trunk sewers is most economical because settlements in the municipality are scattered, which results in long and expensive trunk sewers in other two alternatives. However, it is not certain whether 17 small scale WWTPs with 4,000 thousand population equivalent for each can be operated or not. Though the Feasibility Study assumes inexpensive O&M costs expecting several staff members in charge of each WWTP’s O&M, treatment processes adopted have to be easily operated with assured performance.

5.2.3 Environment and Feasibility of the Project The whole of Saraj municipality is designated as water resource protection area of Rasce spring. Besides, Treska River area, a tributary of the River, is also designated as nature reservation area. These situations are the reasons why the Feasibility Study was conducted and Saraj municipality environment activity plan was established with the support of MEPP. From the origins of these studies and small scale implementation, it is expected that the early implementation based on these studies would be realized.

5.2.4 Municipality's Policy Saraj municipality has already announced that the sewerage there would be implemented separately from central sewer district and that it will operate constructed sewerage facilities for themselves.

Part I: 5-4 Chapter 5, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Local autonomy law admits that Saraj municipality can construct and operate sewerage facilities themselves. On the other hand, City Law of Skopje consisting of 10 municipalities including Saraj stipulates that any public works that can not be divided into municipalities have to be implemented by the City. It is not certain whether sewerage in Saraj can be separated or not, but the issue would be finally settled by the consultation between Governor of Skopje and Mayor of Saraj. It is expected that the sewerage in Saraj would be politically separated because account for the majority of Saraj citizen.

5.2.5 Recommendation by this Study Though there are some technical issues for Saraj municipality to solve in advancing its sewerage scheme for itself, it has an existing WWTP and the design of a new WWTP is in progress. Besides, additional construction cost for the trunk sewer crossing the Vardar River is needed if Saraj sewer district is incorporated into central sewer district. It is judged from these aspects that Saraj municipality has its own sewer district according to its sewerage plan.

5.3 North Gorce Petrov Sewer District

5.3.1 Outline The south part of Gorce Petrov Municipality, a part of urban area in Skopje City, is served as a part of Central Treatment District. However, North Gorce Petrov (formerly Novo Selo), out of Central Treatment District, does not have any sewerage network. Currently, based on the D/D on sewerage development, the construction of a main collector (length: 2.5km, diameter: 600mm) has been started and will be completed in 2008. Secondary sewer pipe will be constructed after the main collector. Residents have agreed to the terms of payment by beneficiary with the municipality. Regarding a site for the WWTP, the municipality has decided the location, and has also negotiated with land owners. If the land owners do not agree to the municipality's plan, the municipality has a plan to sue the land owners. Under such a policy of the municipality, the sewerage development in North Gorce Petrov has been carried out independently from Central Treatment District. However, the project cost for the WWTP has not been prepared. The salient features of F/S and the proposal of the Study Team are compared in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Salient Features of North Gorce Petrov Sewer District Planning Parameter Plan by Municipality Study Team Proposal Pipe 2030 2030 Target Year WWTP 2030 2020 13,200 (2020) Population Equivalent (Person) 16,000 16,100 (2030) Per Capita Wastewater Generation 688 lpcd 200 lpcd Planned Wastewater Generation 2,640 m3/d (2020) Domestic 11,000 m3/d 3,220 m3/d (2030) Industrial 6,000 m3/d 0 m3/d 2,640 m3/d (2020) Total 17,000 m3/d 3,220 m3/d (2030) Treatment Level ------Treatment Process ------Project Cost 21.8 Million MKD --- (only for Primary Collector)

5.3.2 Technical review applied to this study North Gorce Petrov sewer district is planned to be independent with wastewater treatment plant according to the Gorce Petrov municipality. However, the district is rather close to the south Gorce Petrov which is already a part of the central sewer district and topographically it is higher than the south so that connecting the north with the south could be considered.

Wastewater generation is planned as 17,000 m3/d with per capita generation of 688 lpcd and

Part I: 5-5 Chapter 5, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje population of 16,000 in the Municipality plan. On the other hand, the study team proposes 3,220 m3/d with per capita generation of 200 lpcd and population of 16,100. Using the proposed figures, combined plan is analyzed.

 Planned Population (2030): 16,100 person  Average Daily Wastewater Generation: 3,220 m3/d  Maximum Hourly Wastewater Generation: 6,440 m3/d (=0.075 m3/s)(assuming peak factor of 2)  Primary Collector Diameter: 450 mm (assuming 1.0 m/s velocity)

There is a primary collector for the south with 900 mm diameter, 1.5 km from the planned North Gorce Petrov WWTP. The planned population in the south is 41,300 persons in 2030. It is found that the primary collector can accommodate the flow from the north.

 Planned Population (2030): 41,300 person  Daily Wastewater Generation: 10,821 m3/d  Domestic: 8,260 m3/d  Industrial: 2,561 m3/d (assuming 31% of domestic)  Hourly Wastewater Generation: 21,642 m3/d (=0.251 m3/s)(assuming peak factor as 2.0)  Primary Collector Diameter: 900 mm (Existing)  Flow Capacity of the above: 0.382 m3/s (assuming 1.2 m/s velocity)

The existing primary collector can accommodate the flow from the north. The existing main sewers starting from the Vardar River to the main outlet totaling about 20 km can accommodate the flow from North Gorce Petrov without pipe expansion. Therefore, 4.5 km of newly installed pipe including a siphon is required in case North Gorce Petrov sewer district is connected to the Central one. Figure 5.5 presents the comparison of Alternative A planned by Gorce Petrov Municipality and Alternative B connected to the Central one.

Only a connecting collector starting from the planned north Gorce Petrov to the existing 900 mm dia. collector is required with 1.5 km length. This plan is called as alternative B while the municipality plan is called as A (see Figure 5.5).

Main collector

North Gorce Petrov

Alt A Alt B

Figure 5.5 Comparison of Alternative North Gorce Petrov Sewerage Development Plan

Part I: 5-6 Chapter 5, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

The alternative B (combined with the central sewer district) is economically superior to the alternative A as shown in Table 5.5. Cost breakdown is shown in Appendix Part I, 5.1.

Table 5.5 Cost Comparison for Two Alternatives Independent Combined (Alternative “A”) (Alternative ”B”) Construction Cost (Euro) Collector (Diameter 450 mm, Length 1.5km) 0 180,000 N.G.P. WWTP (3,220 m3/d) 1,771,000 - Increase Central WWTP (+3,220 m3/d, +2 %) - 1,328,000 1,771,000 1,508,000 Total (Large) (Small)

5.3.3 Environment and Municipality's Policy In this area, residents do not have provision of utility services (water supply, collection of solid waste, etc.) from city and therefore, they do not need to pay communal tax. Referendum was held regarding the sewerage project in the area, with conclusion of residents’ contribution of 500 Euros per household. In addition, Skopje City and the municipality are contributing to the project, 60 % by the City and 40 % by the municipality. If the plan prepared by the municipality is modified, the following issues will arise: 1) financial support for new pipe installation cost, 2) revision of agreement with residents, and 3) administration process and necessary approvals. It is expected that considerable time would be required for working out these issues.

At the junction of the Vardar River and the Lepenec River, there are wells for serving drinking water to Skopje City during dry season, generally in summer. Considering groundwater quality aspect, sewerage development in this area is very important. Therefore, the project is needed to be implemented as soon as possible.

5.3.4 Recommendation by this Study Despite an economical advantage of the combined plan, this study proposes sewerage development plan prepared by the municipality taking into the following factors:  Land acquisition for the WWTP is under process  Cost allocation agreement between the residents and the municipality  Early completion required for well preservation However, if the above factors change, the combined arrangement is worth consideration.

The bypass road (a section of the East-West Corridor) has been completed in the north of this region. According to Gorce Petrov Municipality, there is a development plan for residential land converting from agricultural and bare land located between the bypass and North Gorce Petrov. If the plan is successfully implemented, population together with wastewater generation in this area will increase significantly. The Gorce Petrov municipality expresses that this plan will be included in the revised GUP, starting its revision in year 2008. In this case, a new pipe with a length of 17 km would be required to connect to the central WWTP because of the insufficient capacity of the existing pipes. In this case, it is appropriate for North Gorce Petrov to have own WWTP rather than connected to the central WWTP.

5.4 Dracevo Sewer District

5.4.1 Outline of the Municipality Plan The Dracevo Treatment District is located at the edge of . It includes not only entire Dracevo area but also part of settlement in the Aerodrom municipality of the Skopje city. It further includes adjacent settlements in Studeniciani, Morani and Batinti which are out of the Skopje city but supplied area of Vodovod. In the center of the district, at Naselba Dracevo, there is an existing pumping station and a WWTP (inhoff tank). The plant was constructed in 1965 but has not been operated for a long period. Replacement of relevant parts is required for its operation. At present,

Part I: 5-7 Chapter 5, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje sewage is discharged to the Vardar River through a pumping station, an open channel, and a stream.

Kisela Voda Municipality, administrative office of Dracevo, has prepared the D/D on sewerage development in Dracevo. The municipality has already applied for the financial support from the donor agencies.

Table 5.6 Salient Features of Dracevo Sewer District Planning Parameter Plan by municipality Study Team Proposal Pipe --- 2030 Target Year WWTP --- 2020 39,900 (2020) Population Equivalent (Person) 30,000 43,200 (2030) Per Capita Wastewater Generation 540 lpcd 200 lpcd 7,980 m3/d (2020) Planned Wastewater Generation 16,200 m3/d 8,640 m3/d (2030) Dia. 700 mm, Main Collector --- Length 944 m Treatment Level Secondary Treatment --- Contact Stabilization Treatment Process --- Process Project Cost (only for Main Collector) 3,534,000 EUR ---

Flow chart of contact stabilization process is presented in Figure 5.6.

Grit Chlorination Influent Contact Sedimentation Effluent Screen Chamber Tank Tank Tank

Stabilization Digester Drying Bed Tank

Figure 5.6 Flow Sheet of Contact Stabilization Process

Figure 5.6 shows the flow schematic of contact stabilization process that is modified CASP. In CASP, organics contained in the influent are adsorbed in the aeration tank and the adsorbed organics are slowly decomposed by indogenous respiration of activated sludge. Contact stabilization process utilizes the adsorption process in the contact tank. Sedimentation tank follows contact tank but organics are not fully decomposed. Considerable decomposition takes place in stabilization tank receiving the liquid returned from contact tank. The process is said to be appropriate for small scale plants because large stabilization tank is needed for large scale plants.

5.4.2 Technical review applied to this study In technical review, two alternatives are compared: alternative A, to have own WWTP in Dracevo prepared by Kisela Voda Municipality, and alternative B, connecting to the Central WWTP (see Table 5.7 and Figure 5.7). Alternative B requires 7 km of pipe installation and three pumping stations, which results in considerable amount of the project cost. On the other hand, alternative A has advantage with respect to topographic condition. Sewage is conveyed to WWTP and discharged to the Vardar River by gravity. In addition, there is high possibility to utilize sludge and treated wastewater for agricultural activities owing to no industries within the sewer district. Thus, the plan to have its own WWTP for Dracevo is recommended rather than connecting to the Central WWTP. Refer to Appendix Part I, 5.1 for the detail.

Part I: 5-8 Chapter 5, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 5.7 Cost Comparison for Two Alternatives Independent Combined (Alternative “A”) (Alternative ”B”) Construction Cost (EUR) Dracevo WWTP (8,000 m3/d) 4,400,000 - Increase Central WWTP (+8,000 m3/d) - 3,300,000 Collector (Diameter 1500 mm, Length 7.0km) 0 2,520,000 Pumping Station (3 nos.) - 1,200,000 4,400,000 7,020,000 Total (Small) (Large) Operation and Maintenance Cost (EUR/year) WWTP 73,000 73,000 Pumping Station (3 nos.) 0 47,000 73,000 120,000 Total (Small) (Large)

Figure 5.7 Comparison of Sewerage Development Plan in Dracevo

5.4.3 Environment and Municipality's policy Kisela Voda Municipality has the policy to install Dracevo WWTP to treat sewage from this area, not to connect to the Central WWTP. As mentioned earlier, the municipality has applied for the financial support from donor agencies. The site for WWTP has also been already reserved. Treated wastewater is planned to be used for irrigation. If sewage is transported to the Central WWTP, this area might not be able to use treated effluent for agricultural activity.

5.4.4 Recommendation by this Study The municipality has put in efforts for installing new WWTP. The preparation of D/D has been completed. Currently, the municipality is looking for the financial supports. Treated effluent is planned to be utilized for irrigation, which is needful considering condition of water availability in the area.

Considering surrounding settlements, it is preferable to include domestic wastewater from these neighboring settlements (belonging to other municipalities) in Dracevo sewerage development plan. However, Kisela Voda Municipality and the other municipalities have not agreed on the common project. Therefore, some time may be required for the realization. As a result of discussion with Vodovod, the sewerage B/P recommends that Dracevo includes surrounding settlements considering the future developments.

Part I: 5-9

Chapter 6, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje CHAPTER 6 SEWERAGE FACILITY PLANNING ON CENTRAL SEWER DISTRICT

6.1 Framework of Central Sewer District

Table 6.1 shows design parameters for collection system in its target year of 2030 and treatment system in its target year of 2020, respectively. Population equivalent calculated by dividing BOD generation by unit per capita per day BOD loading of 60 g is 660,380 in 2020 and 691,350 in 2030, respectively.

Table 6.1 Design Parameter of Central Sewer District 2020 2030 District Area (km2) 72.8 Population 513,570 555,650 Population Equivalent 660,380 691,350 Sewage Flow (average daily) (m3/d) Domestic 102,720 111,130 Industrial 32,300 34,840 Stormwater 31,000 31,000 166,020 176,970 Total ≒166,000 ≒177,000 Pollutant loading in BOD (kg/d) Domestic 30,814 33,339 Industrial 5,399 4,732 Stormwater 3,410 3,410 Total 39,623 41,481 Pollutant loading in SS (kg/d) Domestic 23,111 25,004 Industrial 9,175 8,041 Stormwater 12,400 12,400 Total 44,686 45,445 Influent Concentration (mg/l) 239 234 BOD ≒240 ≒230 269 257 SS ≒270 ≒260 Note: (1) Area includes Sopiste and Soncev Grad communities outside Skopje City. (2) Population equivalent is calculated supposing per capita per day loading is 60 gpcd stipulated by EU.

Figure 6.1 shows general layout plan of Central Sewer District.

Part I: 6-1 Chapter 6, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Figure 6.1 General Layout Plan of Central Sewer District

Part I: 6-2 Chapter 6, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

6.2 Plan of Trunk Sewer

6.2.1 Design Framework Trunk sewers planned in the B/P are two lines at both sides of the river that connect two manholes from which the collected sewage is discharged to the river at present with the treatment plant. Trunk sewers are planned with the target year of 2030. Chapter 3 discusses planned population and average daily sewage flow. Table 6.2 shows design parameters in 2030. Table 6.3 shows planned population on municipality basis and right/left bank side basis.

Hourly maximum flow is two times average daily flow assuming the followings.

(Average daily flow) / (Maximum daily flow = 1:1.25 (experience in water supply) (Maximum daily flow) / (Maximum hourly flow) = 1:1.4 (Babbit M curve for the population of 550,000) (Maximum hourly flow) / (Average daily) = 1.25 × 1.4 = 1.75 ≒ 2.0

As for industrial wastewater, it is assumed that maximum daily flow is the same as average daily flow and that maximum hourly flow is 1.5 times the average daily flow taking average operation hours of factories of 17 hours into account (24/17 being approximately 1.5). Stormwater is assumed to flow in the margin of flow capacity of 50 to 100% and hence is not taken into account in designing trunk sewers.

Table 6.2 Design Parameters of Trunk Sewer in 2030 Parameter Remarks Left bank side: 36.5 km2 Area (km2) 72.8 Right bank side: 36.3 km2 Left bank side: 237,550 Population (Person) 555,650 Right bank side: 318,100 Av. Daily Max. Daily Max. Hourly Design flow (m3/d) Domestic 111,130 138,910 222,260 Ratios:= 1:1.25:2.0 Industrial 34,840 34,840 52,260 Ratio= 1:1:1.5 Total 145,970 173,750 274,520 -

Table 6.3 Planned Population on Right/Left Bank Sides Basis (2030) Planned Population Right Bank Left Bank Total Skopje city Aerodrom 87,350 0 87,350 Butel 0 45,500 45,500 Gazi Baba 0 73,500 73,500 Gorce Petrov 41,300 0 41,300 Karpos 71,420 1,380 72,800 Kisela Voda 54,640 0 54,640 Centar 49,230 7,970 57,200 Cair 0 81,500 81,500 Suto Orizari 0 27,700 27,700 Total 303,940 237,550 541,490 Outside Skopje City Sopiste 8,160 0 8,160 Soncev Grad 6,000 0 6,000 Total 14,160 0 14,160 Grand Total 318,100 237,550 555,650

Part I: 6-3 Chapter 6, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

6.2.2 Selection of Trunk Sewer Route (1) Trunk sewer route in Sewerage M/P Sewerage M/P proposes one trunk sewer on the left bank side and the other on the right bank side as shown in Figure 6.2. The left bank side trunk sewer is planned partly under the existing road near the manholes of 106 and 111, and is to be laid under the planned road at the downstream after manhole 111. On the other hand, the right bank side trunk sewer is to be laid under the planned road after a large scale housing complex. For the time being, it is not certain when the planned road will be constructed.

N

0 500m 106

111 Left Bank Trunk Sewer

65 Apartment Block 126 Right Bank Trunk Sewer Central WWTP

69

Trunk sewer route (existing road) Trunk sewer route (planned road) Railway embankment Figure 6.2 Route of Trunk Sewers (Sewerage M/P 99)

(2) Alternative routes of trunk sewer As shown in Figure 6.3, the other route (Alternative 2) for left bank side trunk sewer is possible against Alternative 1 (in Sewerage M/P 99), but Alternative 2 is 400 m longer than Alternative 1 and hence more expensive and the construction work is considerably difficult due to the narrow road width. It is judged that Alternative 1 is better than Alternative 2. On the other hand, there is no existing road on the right bank side for another route.

Part I: 6-4 Chapter 6, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

N Alternative 2 of Left Bank 0 500m 106 Trunk Sewer L= 3,600m Alternative 1 of Left Bank Trunk Sewer L=3,200m

65

Right Bank 126 Trunk Sewer

Central WWTP

69

Railway embankment Figure 6.3 Alternative Routes of Trunk Sewers

(3) Comparison of river and railway crossing methods The Central WWTP site is located at the left bank side of the Vardar River and the right bank side trunk sewer has to cross the river. Two roads crossing the river near the site are planned to be constructed as shown in Figure 6.4. Some crossing points are compared to choose the most appropriate one. Both right and left side bank trunk sewers have to cross the railway embankment because the WWTP site is located beyond the embankment.

Vardar River N

0 500m

Planned Road

WWTP Site

Railway Embankment Proposed Vardar River Crossing Point

Figure 6.4 Planned Road and Railway Embankment near WWTP Site

Tables 6.4 and 6.5 compare these alternatives in terms of the stretch, crossing points, construction costs and so forth for the right bank and left bank sides, respectively.

Part I: 6-5 Chapter 6, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 6.4 Route Selection at the Right Bank Side Alternative A Alternative B Explanation The sewer crosses the Vardar River at the western The sewer crosses the railway under the road bridge side of railway and reaches WWTP after crossing the at the south-east of railway bridge and reaches railway at railway bridge WWTP after crossing the river at the eastern part of railway. Stretch 3.6 km 4.4 km River Crossing Crossing at the western part of railway Crossing at the eastern part of railway River section and its flow nearly the same River section and its flow nearly the same Have experience of sewer laying crossing the Have experience of sewer laying crossing the Vardar River Vardar River Railway The sewer is laid at the high water level dyke under The sewer is laid under the road located at 400 m Crossing the railway bridge crossing the Vardar River. It is south-west of the railway bridge (20m). not necessary to excavate the railway embankment and thus the construction work is not difficult. The return period of the high water level is 300 years that is far longer than the life time of sewers of 50 years. Even if the sewer is destroyed, its life time would have ended at that time. The sewer bottom at the destination is higher than Its total length of the sewer is 800 m longer than Level of Sewer that of Alternative B and hence its pump head at that of Alternative A and hence its sewer bottom at Bottom at Its WWTP is smaller than that of Alternative B. the destination is lower, which results in larger Destination pump head at WWTP than that of Alternative A. y y a a w w l l i i

Conceptual (Layout) (Layout) a a R Drawing R 路 線 Planned Road Planned Road 路 A 線 WWTPPSSititee WWTP Site Left Bank Left Bank Vardar River Vardar River B A Right Bank Right Bank Trunk Sewer Trunk Sewer B

(Section A-A) (Section B-B) Railway Railway

High Water Bed Vardar River

Conclusion Viable Not Viable

Part I: 6-6 Chapter 6, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 6.5 Route Selection at the Left Bank Side Alternative C Alternative D Explanation This is the route in which the sewer crosses the This is the route in which the sewer crosses the railway under the railway bridge at the Vardar railway embankment at the north of WWTP site River and reaches WWTP. and reaches WWTP. Stretch 5.3 km 5.2 km River Not required Not required Crossing Railway The same as in right bank side route The sewer crosses the railway embankment but the Crossing construction work is technically difficult for the The sewer is laid at the high water level dyke under following reasons. the railway bridge crossing the Vardar River. It is not necessary to excavate the railway embankment ・Pipe diameter is as large as 1,800 mm. and thus the construction work is not difficult. ・The soil is of gravel and the groundwater level The return period of the high water level is 300 is high. Drainage is difficult. years that is far longer than the life time of sewers ・ Pipe jacking has not been experienced in of 50 years. Even if the sewer is destroyed, its life Macedonia. time would have ended at that time. Level of Sewer The sewer bottom is nearly the same as that of The sewer bottom is nearly the same as that of Bottom at Its Alternative B. Alternative A. Destination y

Conceptual (Layout) (Layout) a y w a l

Drawing i w a l B i R a R Trunk Sewer Trunk Sewer WWTP Site WWTP Site A B Left Bank Left Bank Vardar River Vardar River Right Bank Right Bank A Planned Road Planned Road

(Section A-A) (Section B-B)

Railway Railway

Vardar River High Water Bed

Conclusion Viable Not Viable

6.2.3 Layout and Section Plans of Trunk Sewer Table 6.6 outlines right and left bankside trunk sewers. See Appendix Part I, 6.1 for sewage flows at respective connection points, flow calculation at right and left bank sides. Figure 6.5 shows layout plan of right bank and left bank side trunk sewers. Right bank side trunk sewer starts at the existing manhole or connection point 65, collects most wastewater generated at the right bank side and heads for the east along the planned road (partly constructed) and finally reaches connection point 69. It further receives the wastewater from Aerodom and Kisela Voda, heads for the north and joins left bank side trunk sewer after crossing the Vardar River. River crossing part is of siphon structure with two lines.

The left bank side trunk sewer receives most of the sewage generated at the left bank side at the existing manhole or connection point 106, heads for the east along the planned road and goes down to the south until it reaches connection point 126. It further receives the sewage from Gazi Baba at

Part I: 6-7 Chapter 6, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje connection point 126 and goes down to the south along the bank of the railway. It joins the right bank side trunk sewer at the lower bank of the river under the railway, heads for the east and reaches the treatment plant.

There are existing sewers from existing manholes No. 65 and 106 which discharge the sewage to the river. These sewers will be used only for emergency stormwater discharge in case of heavy rain after trunk sewers connected to the treatment plant are constructed.

Diameters of trunk sewers were approved by GUP as 1,800 mm for right side bank sewer and as 1,500 mm, 1,600 mm and 1,800 mm from the upstream for the left side bank sewer. It is possible to design trunk sewers with necessary diameters as calculated diameters as shown in Table 6.6 but Vodovod insisted that it is really difficult to change the diameters once approved. It was concluded that trunk sewers would be designed as approved.

Table 6.6 Outline of Right Bank and Left Bank Trunk Sewers Manhole Calculated Design Length (Connecting point) Diameter Diameter Gradient Remarks (m) Starting Reaching (mm) (mm) Right Bank Side Trunk 65 69 1,500 1,800 1/1,000 3,000 69 A 1,500 1,800 1/1,000 300 Siphon crossing A B 1,000×double 1,000×double Level 130 the river Total 3,430 Left Bank Side Trunk 106 111 1350 1,500 1/1,000 1,390 111 126 1,350 1,600 1/1,000 2,930 126 B 1,500 1,800 1/1,000 780 Treatment B 1,800 1,800 1/1,000 130 Plant Total 5,230 Note: Manhole A is the starting point of siphon at the left bank side. Manhole B is the reaching point of siphon at the right bank side. Number of connecting points 65, 69, 106, 111 and 126 are the same as those shown in existing plan by Vodovod.

Part I: 6-8 Chapter 6, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

dia. of 1350 mm

106

Emergency Stormwater Discharge 111 Dia. of 1600 mm Left Bank Emergency Stormwater Trunk Sewer Discharge 5,230 m 65

Right Bank Trunk Sewer 3,430 m Dia. of 1800 mm 126 Dia. of 1800 mm

Central WWTP Siphon Crossing Vardar River 69 Dia. of 1800 mm 1000mm × double Dia. of 1800 mm

Railway embankment

Figure 6.5 Layout Plan of Right Bank and Left Bank Side Trunk Sewer

Part I: 6-9 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Figure 6.6 and Figure 6.7 show longitudinal profiles of right bank and left bank trunk sewers,

respectively.

t

r

e

v

l

u

t

C

r

e n

v

o

l

h

u

p

i C

S

n

f

o

o

h

t

p

i n

i

S

o

f

P o

t g

n n

i i

o d

P n

E g

n :

i

233.42

t 3,430 B

2.04.52 227.80 r

3,400

a l t .

0 e S m a 2

0

i

v

0

: 0 e

x

3 5.19 227.80 D

1 234.09

3,300 3,300 A L 1 3.41.24 231.04

234.65 3,200 . 0 m a

5 i 0

6 234.33

0 3,100 D

9 1

1

6

.

o

3.40.11 231.34

233.25 N

3,000 3,000 3.90.11 231.49

232.93 2,900

233.80 2,800

231.25 2,700

233.45 2,600

234.78 2,500

1000

234.59 2,400

234.96 2,300

234.83 2,200

235.31 2,100

235.80 2,000

236.28 1,900

235.50 1,800

236.11 1,700 0 0

0 ,

236.92 1 1,600 / 1 0

0

m 5 237.18 0 1,500

1

0 . 1000 0

a ,

i

3

237.23 D 1,400

236.76 1,300

237.02 1,200

237.73 1,100

237.45 1,000

237.85 900

)

r

o

t

237.79 800

c

e

l

l

o

C 237.99 700

n

i

a

M

238.20 600

k

n

a

)

t B

238.40 500 n t

i

h

o

g

i p R

R g O

238.77 400

f n

T i

o

d C

t

n

E

n

e i

L

o B 240.29 300

L ( p

O g

C n

i

t

239.22 200

K r

a

N t

A S

(

B

238.46 100

5

T

6

H .

o

1.80 236.13

G

239.58 0 0 I N R m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... l 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 l e y 4 4 3 3 5 2 2 m e e ) v t e 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 g v e v h g n h 1 e - n + + + + + + + r ) . t L ) i e a ) ) ) ) ) ) i u L 6 w g r x n m / ( d d i S e t 3 n m m m m m m 1 n a ( ( r ( ( ( ( a v 2 m e e ( o ( r e u o z h + L i p v o G C C o S r n I T G

Figure 6.6 Longitudinal Profile of Right Bank Side Trunk Sewer

Part I: 6-10 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P)

Wastewater Management in Skopje

)

m

0

0

)

5

,

m

3

0

= 7

h 2

,

C 3

(

=

n h

o

C

h

(

p

y P

S

T

e

s

W

r

e

W

v

l

e

a

R

r

t f

n

o

e

t

233.00

5,230 3,270 C n

227.67 3.13 i

3,300 o P . 0

m

a

d 0

i

0

n 0

3.42

3 227.80

D

233.42

3,400 2 5,100 E 1 230.10 2.41

237.29

234.16 3,500 r m o 0

t

8

c . 234.12 e 3,600 7 l l 2 o

2

C

+

234.21 n 3,700 i a 0

0

M

5 m 234.30 1 3,800 k 0 . 8 n a 7 a i

B D 234.42 3,900 t h

g

i

234.58

R 4,000

6

2

234.60 4,100

1

.

1000

o

230.88 1.25

N

4,320

231.03 1.27 233.78 4,200

234.13 4,300

234.45 4,400

234.60 4,500

234.44 4,600

234.30 4,700

235.83 4,800

235.49 4,900

235.56 5,000

1000

235.17 5,100

235.43 5,200

235.61 5,300

235.61 5,400

235.82 5,500 )

l

e

n

n

a

0 235.99 5,600 h

5

C m

3

r 0

1

e 3

t .

237.40 a 9 5,700 a ,

i

2 W

D l

a

r

236.94

5,800

u

t

l u

0 c

i 0 l

237.57 5,900 g 0

, A 1

/

d 1 l

237.81 6,000

O

g

n

i

s

238.10 6,100 s

o

r

C

(

237.79 6,200

237.80 6,300

237.83 6,400

238.73 6,500

240.01 6,600

239.37 6,700

239.77 6,800

240.22 6,900

240.56 7,000 1

1

1

.

o

235.25 3.82

7,100 N 240.55

1,390 235.25 3.82

240.07 7,200

3000

)

t 239.79

7,300

n

i

o

p

g

240.09 7,400

n

i

d

n

e

240.36 7,500

B (

241.03 7,600

246.05 7,700

0

5

)

m 246.83 7,800 r 3

0

o 1

t 9 c .

3

e a , l

l i

1 245.76 o

D 7,900 c

k

n

a

246.57 8,000 b

t

f

e

l

f

R

o 243.25 8,100

t O

n

T i

o C

p

E 242.77 8,200

L g

n L

i

t

O

r

243.53 8,300

C a

t

S K

(

N

6

A

243.67 8,400

0

B

1

.

T

o

F 239.13 5.35

245.96 0 N E 8,500 L m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... l 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 e l y 4 4 3 3 2 2 5 m e v e t e 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 r 3 v g e v e g n h + + + 1 + + + + e n ) t r . t L ) i e a ) ) ) ) ) ) i e L g u 9 x r n m / d d i e t S 3 n m m m m m m m 1 a ( n ( ( ( a ( ( r v m e 2 ( a o ( r e i u o h + L p v o D G C C o n r I T G

Figure 6.7 Longitudinal Profile of Left Bank Side Trunk Sewer

Part I: 6-11 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

6.3 Facility Plan of Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

6.3.1 Planning Policy

(1) Target year is 2020. (2) All the domestic wastewater generated in the central sewer district is treated. (3) All the industrial wastewaters except for six large scale factories are to be treated at central WWTP. (4) Stormwater in the area where no storm sewers are implemented is partly treated depending on the conditions. (5) Effluent BOD and SS are 25 mg/l and 35 mg/l, respectively, according to relevant EU Directives and the results of pollution analysis described in Chapter 4. (6) Generated sewage sludge is disposed of at the designated disposal site but its storage space is taken into account. (7) The site is 57 ha excluding the protected area and others from the allocated 106 ha in “Water Economy Facility Area” established in GUP.

6.3.2 Framework of central WWTP

Table 6.7 shows framework of central WWTP. The flow to the plant is 166,000 m3/d including domestic and industrial wastewaters and stormwater.

Table 6.7 Framework of Central WWTP in 2020 Flow Rate in Pollutant Load Influent Quality Design Population Average Daily (kg/d) (mg/l) Population Equivalent (m3/d) BOD SS BOD SS Domestic 513,570 513,570 102,720 30,814 23,111 300 225 Wastewater Industrial - 89,980 32,300 5,399 9,175 167 284 Wastewater Stormwater - 56,830 31,000 3,410 12,400 110 400 166,020 239 269 Total 513,570 660,380 39,623 44,686 ≒166,000 ≒240 ≒270 Notice: (1) Sewer district includes Sopiste and Soncev communities outside Skopje city. (2) Population equivalent is calculated by dividing total pollutants by per capita per day BOD loading of 60 g/c/d stipulated in EU directives pertaining to domestic wastewater.

6.3.3 Effluent Qualities Macedonia has promoted environmental improvement policy according to EU directives in principle. Sewerage M/P 99 also recommends the application of EU Directives in the future sewerage implementation. It is judged that the implementation of sewerage facilities needs to be in line with relevant EU Directives.

Table 6.8 shows treatment level on population size basis to be met in a short period required by EU Directives in which effluent receiving water bodies are classified into three categories of normal, sensitive and less sensitive.

Long term target is applied when legal and executing systems pertaining to sewage works are established and operated according to EU Directives, until that time short term target is applied. Population equivalent of central sewer district is 630,000 and secondary level treatment is required with the effluent BOD of less than 25 mg/l and effluent SS of less than 35 mg/l, respectively.

Part I: 6-12 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 6.8 Scale Basis Required Sewerage Facilities by EU Scale of City Required Facilities Remarks (PE) - Sewage collection system Less than 2,000 - Sewage treatment system with adequate treatment process - Sewage collection system Standard for secondary treatment facilities - Sewage treatment system at secondary Effluent Min. Removal More than 2,000 level Standard Efficiencies BOD 25 mg/l 70-90 % SS 35 mg/l 90 %

Water quality of the Vardar River in the vicinity of Central WWTP is categorized as type II stipulated in water quality standard, which is less than 7 mg/l for BOD and less than 30 mg/l for SS, respectively. Pollution analysis in Chapter 4 proposes that industrial wastes be regulated and sewage be treated in order to comply with the standard. Treatment level is secondary with the effluent BOD of less than 25 mg/l and treatment efficiency of more than 90%.

6.3.4 Treatment Process

Table 6.9 lists several treatment processes that can treat the sewage to the effluent BOD of less than 25 mg/l and with the treatment efficiency of more than 90%. Flow schematics of candidate processes are shown in Figure 6.8. Processes in the table are listed taking into account the followings:

- required treatment level - low impact on the environment - site availability - necessity of digestion process for safe sludge production and easier handling - less expensive sludge dewatering process

Table 6.9 Removal Efficiencies of Various Processes Treatment Treatment Process BOD SS level Conventional activated sludge process (CASP) Oxygen activated sludge process (OASP) Oxidation ditch process (ODP) Around Around Secondary Extended aeration process (EAP) 90％ 90% Sequencing batch reactor process (SBRP) Aerated lagoon process (ALP) Conventional trickling filter process (CTFP) Source: Sewerage facilities planning design guidelines by Japan Sewage Works Association

Pretreatment Primary Reactor Secondary Settling Tank Secondary Treatment Settling Tank

CASP OASP CTFP ODP EAP

SBRP

Source: Sewerage facilities planning/design guidelines by Japan Sewage Works Association

Figure 6.8 Flow Schematic of Secondary Treatment Processes

Part I: 6-13 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Central WWTP receives domestic sewage and no industrial wastes including high organics concentrations are expected be to flow in. Hence, oxygen activated sludge process is not suitable to adopt. Besides, sequencing batch reactor process is not appropriate because of its suitability for smaller scale plants.

Table 6.10 compares five processes including aerated lagoon and conventional trickling filter process. Figure 6.9 through Figure 6.13 show how necessary facilities are allotted for five processes. CASP is judged to be the most economic for its least construction cost and least O&M cost among activated sludge processes. It has been used in many places providing plenty of experiences in medium to large scale plants, which leads to established O&M guidelines. Though aerated lagoon and conventional trickling filter processes require smaller O&M costs in spite of their greater construction costs, their adoptions to central WWTP are not possible mainly due to their site constraints. ALP requires conversion of nature conservation area into treatment site as well as river route diversion.

Annual cost shown in Table 6.10 includes construction cost divided by life time of respective structure and equipment (50 years for concrete structures and 15 years for mechanical/electrical equipment) and annual operation & maintenance cost.(see Appendix Part1,6.2 and 6.3 in detail)

Reuse of treated effluent The sewage flowing into Central WWTP contains various kinds of industrial wastewaters and careful check of influent constituents is required for effluent reuse after the plant begins its operation. New Water Law stipulates that treated effluent and generated sludge have to be used if they comply with certain standards and that their use has to be approved by state level agency in charge of water management (the Law recommends Ministry of Environment and City Planning).

Part I: 6-14 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 6.10 Comparison of Treatment Processes Conventional Activated Sludge Process Oxidation Ditch Process Extended Aeration Process Aerated Lagoon Process Conventional Trickling Filter Process (CASP) (ODP) (EAP) (ALP) (CTFP) Performance Susceptible to flow fluctuation in both quality and Stable organics removal is possible even if flow Stable organics removal is possible even if flow Stable treatment is possible for its longer retention Comparatively resistant to influent fluctuations quantity due to its higher loading (BOD-SS fluctuates in both quality and quantity for its fluctuates in both quality and quantity for its time. However, attention has to be paid to such as flow rate and water temperature. loading of 0.2 to 0.4 kg/kg/d) than that of ODP lower loading operation (BOD-SS loading of 0.03 lower loading operation (BOD-SS loading of 0.05 allotment of aerators and inlet and outlet of Effluent is not as clear as that of suspended and EAP. Nitrification is not likely to occur even to 0.05 kg/kg/d). Anoxic zone might be needed to to 0.1 kg/kg/d) Anoxic zone might be needed to lagoons. growth processes including CASP. in summer when the water temperature is high for avoid low pH effluent due to inevitable avoid low pH effluent due to inevitable Existing facilities are abandoned if an advance Existing facilities are abandoned if an advance its smaller SRT. nitrification for its longer ASRT. No primary nitrification for its longer ASRT. Attention should treatment (denitophication) is required. treatment (denitophication) is required Existing facilities can be upgraded to an advanced settling tanks are installed. be paid to sludge dispersion caused by excessive treatment facilities by adding aeration tank and Existing facilities can be upgraded to an advanced aeration and lowered sludge activity. No primary secondary settling tank. treatment facilities by adding aeration tank and settling tanks are installed. secondary settling tank. Existing facilities can be upgraded to an advanced treatment facilities by adding aeration tank and secondary settling tank.

Operation and O&M technology has been established for its In spite of its stable performance, it is most Stable operation is possible for its lower loading Easier maintenance is expected due to the absence Maintenance easier due to the absence of sludge Maintenance prevailing adoption to medium to large scale applicable to small scale plants, and hence it rate. Different from ODP, the capacity of one of sludge return to the reactor. Sludge level in return as well as DO control. plants. It is possible to design larger capacity for shows smaller economy of scale. train can be large, which leads to higher economy settling lagoons has to be periodically checked to one train, which leads to higher economy of scale. of scale. decide when the sludge will be withdrawn. From this point, the process is efficient to adopt to Central WWTP with large capacity. Sludge Production Larger compared with ODP and EAP. Smaller than that of CASP for its longer SRT. Smaller than that of CASP for its longer SRT. Considerably small because sludge accumulated Smaller than that of CASP due to digestion of at the bottom of settling lagoons has been microbes attached to filter media. Sludge consolidated for years and digested to a greater production is similar to that of ODP if primary extent. It is assumed that its sludge production sludge is digested. is as low as a half of CASP. Loading to Secondary Overflow rate of secondary settling tank can be set Settling velocity of sludges is smaller because of Settling velocity of sludges is smaller because of Overflow rate similar to that of CASP is needed. Humus separated from filter media is not readily Settling Tank at 20 - 30 m3/m2//d for its good solid liquid larger MLSS concentration of 3,000 - 4,000 mg/l. larger MLSS concentration of 3,000 - 4,000 mg/l. settleable. Hence, smaller overflow rate is separation due to its lower MLSS concentration of It requires smaller overflow rate at SST of 8 - 12 It requires smaller overflow rate at SST of 8 - 12 required. 1,500 - 2,000mg/l. m3/m2/d. m3/m2/d. Oxygen Requirement Primary effluent contains lower BOD loading to Loading to the reactor is high because of the Loading to the reactor is high because of the Similar to that of CASP in principle. Oxygen is taken during the spraying of primary the reactor because of expected BOD removal of absence of PST. Nitrification rate is also high due absence of PST. Nitrification rate is also high due influent on filter media. Hence, no equipment and 40% at primary settling tank. Higher energy to longer ASRT. Because of these, oxygen to longer ASRT. Because of these, oxygen associated energy is required. efficiency is expected because of lower BOD requirement is as high as three times of CASP. requirement is as high as three times of CASP. loading and consequent less oxygen requirement Surface aerators commonly used in ODP shows as well as smaller nitrification rate due to smaller lower oxygen transfer rate, which further ASRT. increases energy consumption. Outline of Facilities PST: Dia. 23m × 8 tanks OD: 32m × 173m × 3m × 10 tanks AT: 30m × 116m × 3m × 8 tanks AL: West: 61,000 m2×3m PST: Dia. 16m × 16 tanks AT: 16m × 65m × 5m × 8 tanks SST: Dia. 32m × 10 tanks SST: Dia. 26m × 16 tanks East: 216,000 m2×3m TF: Dia. 47m × 2m × 48 tanks SST: Dia.23m × 16 tanks CT: 10m × 17m × 2m × 1 tank CT: 10m × 86m × 2m × 1 tank Total: 277,000 m2 SST: Dia. 23m × 16 tanks CT: 10m × 86m × 2m × 1 tank 10m × 69m × 2m × 1 tank ST: Dia. 16m × 2 tanks SL: West: 49,000 m2×1.5 m CT: 10m × 86m × 2m ×1 tanks ST: Dia. 21m × 2 tanks ST: Dia. 16m × 2 tanks SDB: 10 ha East: 172,000 m2×1.5 m ST: Dia. 21m × 2 tanks SD: Dia. 23m × 11m × 4 tanks SDB: 10 ha Total: 221,000 m2 SD: Dia. 23m × 11m × 2 tanks GH: 12m × 10m × 2 tanks CT: 10m × 86m × 2m ×1 tanks GH: Dia. 12m × 10m × 1 tank SDB: 10 ha SDB: 5 ha SDB: 10 ha Allotment of Facilities West of planned Pumps, wastewater treatment West of Pumps, wastewater treatment West of planned Pumps, wastewater treatment West of planned Pumps, administration West of planned Pumps, wastewater treatment and Area Requirement road: facilities, administration planned road: facilities (8/10), administration road: facilities, administration road building, power substation road: facilities (2/8), administration (about 8 ha) building, power substation (about 12.7 ha) building, power substation (about 12.7 ha) building, power substation (about 12.8 ha) (about 10.8 ha) building, power substation East of planned Sludge treatment facilities, gas East of planned Wastewater treatment facilities East of planned Sludge treatment facilities, East of planned Aerated lagoon, settling East of planned Wastewater treatment road holder, sludge drying bed road (2/10), sludge treatment road sludge drying bed road lagoon, sludge drying bed road: facilities (6/8), sludge (about 22 ha) (about 22.4ha) facilities, sludge drying bed (about 22.0 ha) (about 60 ha) (about 51.0 ha) treatment facilities, gas holder, sludge drying bed No ceding of natural protection area required for No ceding of natural protection area required for No ceding of natural protection area required for River improvement is inevitable unless protected No ceding of natural protection area required for allotment of facilities. Major facilities are allotment of facilities. allotment of facilities. Major facilities are area can be partly appropriated to treatment allotment of facilities. concentrated on the west side of planned road. concentrated on the west side of planned road. facilities. Sludge drying bed only is constructed at eastern Sludge drying bed only is constructed at eastern side of planned road. side of planned road.

Environmental impact (represented by Medium (200%) High (280%) High (260%) Low (120%) Low (100%) 1) CO2 Emission)

Part I: 6-15 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Conventional Activated Sludge Process Oxidation Ditch Process Extended Aeration Process Aerated Lagoon Process Conventional Trickling Filter Process (CASP) (ODP) (EAP) (ALP) (CTFP) Construction Cost 50.2 million EUR (100%） 54.5 million EUR (109%） 53.0 million EUR (106%） 68.4 million EUR (136%) 69.5 million EUR (138%)

O&M Cost 1.62 million EUR (100%） 2.66 million EUR (164%） 2.24 million EUR (138%） 0.89 million EUR (55%) 0.95 million EUR (59%)

Annual Cost 4.37 million EUR (100%） 5.64 million EUR (126%） 5.07 million EUR (114%） 3.44 million EUR (79%) 4.55 million EUR (104%)

Site Area 30 ha （100%） 35 ha （117%） 35 ha （117%） 73 ha (243%) 62 ha (207%) Evaluation A C B E D Note: PST: Primary Settling Tank SST: Secondary Settling tank OD: Oxidation Ditch SD: Sludge Digester Tank GH: Gas Holder Tank AL: Aeration Lagoon AT: Aeration Tank CT: Chlorination Tank TF: Trickling Filter ST: Sludge Thickening Tank SDB: Sludge Drying Bed SL: Settling Lagoon

1) Calculation of CO2 emission are shown in Appendix 6.5

Part I: 6-16 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

N

Future facility

Primary Settling Tank Aeration Tank Administration building Temporary Sludge Storage Yard Secondary Settling Tank

Chlorination Tank Pumping Station Sludge Thickener Sludge Digester Gas Tank

Sludge Drying Bed

Future facility

0 1km

Figure 6.9 Layout of Conventional Activated Sludge Process Facilities

N

Secondary Settling Tank

Aeration Tank

Administration building

Chlorination Tank Pumping Station Temporary Sludge Storage Yard Chlorination Tank

Sludge Drying Bed

Future facility

0 1km

Figure 6.10 Layout of Oxidation Ditch Process Facilities

Part I: 6-17 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

N

Secondary Settling Tank

Aeration Tank

Administration Building

Chlorination Tank Temporary Sludge Storage Yard Pumping Station

Future facility

Sludge Drying Bed

Future facility

0 1km

Figure 6.11 Layout of Extended Aeration Process Facilities

N

Chlorination Tank

Pumping Station Administration building

Future facility Sludge Drying Bed

Temporary Sludge Chlorination Tank Storage Yard 0 1km

Figure 6.12 Layout of Aerated Lagoon Process Facilities

Part I: 6-18 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

N

Secondary Settling Tank Primary Settling Tank Administration building Tricking Tank Sludge Thickener Sludge Digester Gas Tank

Chlorination Tank Temporary Sludge Pumping Station Storage Yard

Sludge Drying Bed

0 1km Chlorination Tank Future facility

Figure 6.13 Layout of Trickling Filter Process Facilities

6.3.5 Sludge Treatment Sludge is inevitably generated through sewage treatment and it needs to be treated in an efficient and sustainable manner. Sludge treatment is somewhat related to global warming in the sense that warming gases such as methane and carbon dioxide are emitted through sludge processing.

(1) Sludge treatment processes Sludge is treated based on the followings. - To reduce its amount by decreasing its moisture content - To stabilize its physical as well as chemical properties - To process and condition its properties to use it as resources

Use of sludge follows its qualitative stabilization including digestion process to get rid of bacteria. Unit processes to fulfill these requirements are as follows. - Reduction of amount: thickening, dewatering, drying - Reduction of solids: digestion, incineration, melting - Qualitative stabilization: digestion, composting, incineration, melting

(2) Comparison between sludge drying and mechanical dewatering Natural drying and mechanical dewatering are compared in terms of mechanism of dewatering, required site area, cost and characteristics of final product and easiness of operation. In both cases, digestion is done prior to dewatering because of less odor emission of digested sludge.

In spite of its much larger site area, natural drying is much more viable for central WWTP in terms of energy consumption, sludge production, operation and maintenance, handling of the final product and costs. (see Table 6.11 and appendix Part1, 6.4).

Part I: 6-19 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 6.11 Comparison of Sludge Treatment Processes Natural Drying Mechanical Dewatering Remarks Natural dewatering by gravity Mechanical dewatering using Mechanical dewatering Mechanism followed by drying through tension of two layer filter cloth consumes considerable amount evaporation by wind between which the sludge is put of energy and chemicals. Required Site Mechanical dewatering requires Area 100,000 1,100 a building for dewatering (m2) equipment. Moisture Naturally dried sludge is easier Content of About 65％ About 80％ to handle because of lower Product moisture content Amount of Difference in moisture content 80 m3/d 142 m3/d Product causes difference in quantity Laborious sludge scraping is Skilful operators are needed. Easiness of needed but little skill is Operation required. Construction Including land acquisition and 7,100,000 EUR 12,000,000 EUR Cost compensation cost Operation Cost 345,000 EUR/year 1,438,000 EUR/year Including sludge disposal cost Supposing life time of 50 years for civil works and of 15 years Annual Cost 457,000 EUR/year 2,120,000 EUR/year for mechanical and electrical equipment Note: Breakdown of costs are shown in Appendix 6.4.

Figure 6.14 shows the proposed combination of unit processes mentioned above.

Natural Raw Sludge Thickening Digestion Storage Drying

Landfill or Reuse

Figure 6.14 Sludge Treatment Process

The influent to central WWTP includes industrial wastewaters. Macedonia has established water quality standard for influent to sewerage facilities in Official Gazette No. 99 which stipulates that industrial wastes have to be treated prior to the discharge to public sewerage system. The influent flowing into central WWTP, however, possibly contains harmful substances and it is necessary to check whether the produced sludge there contains these substances prior to disposal at Drisla disposal site and/or reuse of the sludge. For the time being, it might happen that sludge will not be able to be disposed of at Drisla, and some site might be needed for temporary storage within the plant. Some structure such as concrete wall might be needed for sludge storage from environmental viewpoints. Sludge disposal cost is MKD 680 per ton. The annual disposal cost is computed to be MKD 19.9 (32 thousand Euros, 52.2 million Yen). In order to reduce the cost as much as possible, it is worth discussing reuse of dried sludge.

(3) Reuse of sludge Some 80 tons of dried sludge is produced everyday. Taking its considerable disposal cost into account, it is desirable to use it as much as possible from cost saving and effective resource use viewpoints. Dried sludge contains certain concentrations of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous and its inorganic properties are similar to those of cement. Thus, it can be used as fertilizer, soil conditioner and possibly cement in the future. Digestion process produces methane gas which can be used to heat digesters in lower temperature season and to generate power in higher temperature season.

Directives 86/278/EEC stipulates that metal concentrations of the soil to be amended by sewage sludge should be lower than the standard, that metal concentrations of the sludge should be lower than the standard and that accumulated metal concentrations in the soil lower that the standards. In this

Part I: 6-20 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje regard, agricultural use of sludges requires an in depth consultation with environmental and agricultural authorities after checking actual metal concentrations of sludges. Composting dried sludges might be needed depending on the agricultural requirements.

B/P recommends the use of methane gas for heating digesters taking lower atmospheric temperature and easier application into account. Unused excess methane gas in higher temperature season will be burnt to decrease global warming potential and to prevent explosion as well. Table 6.12 shows the constituents of digester gas. Methane gas accounts for 60 to 65 % of the gas. Figure 6.15 shows how to uses methane gas. In colder season, most of methane gas is used to heat digesters for more efficient digestion.

Table 6.12 Constituents of Digester Gas (v/v %) Hydrogen Methane Carbon Dioxide Hydrogen Nitrogen Sulphide 60~65 33~35 0~2 0~3 0.02~0.08

Heating

Thickened Digester Gas Heater Sludge Tank Holder

Burner for Excess Gas

Figure 6.15 Schematic of Methane Use

6.3.6 Wastewater/Sludge Treatment Processes Schematic Figure 6.16 illustrates wastewater and sludge treatment processes including anaerobic digestion.

Grit Chamber PST AT SST CT Influent Main Pump Raw Return sludge Discharge sludge Excess sludge

ST SD SDB Disposal Figure 6.16 Overall Flow Schematic of Central WWTP

6.3.7 Conditions of WWTP site and allotment of treatment facilities Figure 6.17 illustrates WWTP site and its surroundings. The area surrounded by red line of about 106 ha is designated as Water Economy Facility site that is allotted to central WWTP site. The southern border of the site is in conformity with the improved Vardar River course. As shown in the figure, the river currently passes through the plant site. The river improvement in the area has not been scheduled and hence the area at the right bank side is substantially not available.

The western side of the plant site faces the railway embankment. The road of 25 m width is planned to be constructed from north to south at 300 m east from the western edge of the site. In other words, the site is divided into two by the planned road. At the center-north of the plant site, there is forest area of about 20 ha at the former river area and is designated as nature protection area. It should be avoided to construct any structure of sewerage facilities in the protection area. Two power lines of high tension and one power line of low tension pass through the plant site. Seven pylons exist at the site to support these power lines and it is needed to transfer these pylons along with the lines to allot

Part I: 6-21 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje treatment facilities with fewer constraints. Though gas pipes and optical fiber cables are laid at the western edge of the site, they do not have to be transferred because sewerage facilities can be allotted staying out of them.

Table 6.13 shows substantially available plot for WWTP that is about 57 ha.

N

Power line

Gas Pipe Protection area

Optical cable

Power line Planned road

Vardar River 0 500m

Figure 6.17 Central WWTP Site Conditions

Table 6.13 Available Area of WWTP Site Area Remarks Water economy facility zone 106 ha River area and dyke -8 ha River improvement is not foreseeable. Right bank side of the Vardar River -18 ha River improvement is not foreseeable. Planned road -3 ha W32m × L850m Protection area -20 ha Substantially available land 57 ha

Table 6.14 shows necessary areas to allot to respective facilities and Figure 6.18 shows the location of allotted facilities.

Table 6.14 Necessary Areas to be Allotted to Respective Treatment Facilities Necessary Areas Name of Zone Major Facilities Location (ha) Administration building, Power substation Common Western side 2.0 ha Grit chamber/Pumping Wastewater Treatment PST, AT, SST, CT Western side 6.0 ha Sludge Treatment ST, SD and its associated equipment, GH Western side 2.0 ha Drying Bed SDB Eastern side 18.0 ha Green Buffer Road within the plant, trees Whole - 28.0 ha Total +Green buffer zone

Part I: 6-22 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

N

Wastewater treatment Common facility zone facilities

Sludge treatment facilities

Sludge drying bed

Green buffer

0 500m

Figure 6.18 Facilities Allotment of Central WWTP

6.3.8 Access Road The land for the access road construction is difficult to secure because the plant site is surrounded by railway embankment at northern and western sides and by the Vardar River at southern and eastern sides as detailed in Table 6.15.

The consultation with Skopje City concluded that the access road for temporary use would be constructed from the north-eastern side of the WWTP site to the site crossing the railway at the same level as that of the railway embankment.

Table 6.15 Conditions of Access Road Constraints Explanation Northern Side Railway Embankment Railway embankment is situated 400m north of the site boundary. There is a road crossing under the railway and trucks can pass. However, the clearance is not enough for large construction machineries to pass. It is needed to construct the access road between the trunk road at north and the railway and between the railway and the site boundary. Western Side Railway Embankment There exists railway embankment along the site boundary. There is no path under the embankment and it is impossible to access. Southern and Vardar River It might be possible to use the path at the high water level bank of the river. Eastern Sides It is not easy for heavy construction machineries to pass under the railway bridge because of small clearance. Besides, it is necessary for vehicles to get across the river embankment of 1000 year return period from the existing road to the path at high water level embankment. (very steep slope)

Part I: 6-23 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

6.4 Outline of Sewerage Facilities and Project Cost

6.4.1 Outline of Facilities Sewerage facilities for Feasibility Study include interceptors to collect and convey sewage, wastewater treatment facilities to treat the sewage at the required level and sludge treatment facilities to treat generated sludge. Table 6.16 outlines above mentioned facilities.

Table 6.16 Outline of Facilities No. Specifications Quantity 1. Collection system 1.1 Left bank side trunk sewer R. C. pipe φ1500 1,390 m R. C. pipe φ1600 2,930 m R. C. pipe φ1800 910 m 1.2 Right banks side trunk sewer R. C. pipe φ1800 3,300 m R. C. pipe φ1000 130 m 2. Central WWTP 2.1 Wastewater treatment facilities 2.1.1 Grit chamber and pumps Main pumps Q=44m3/m 5（including one for standby） 2.1.2 Primary settling tank Circular dia. 24m × water depth 3m 8 tanks（2/train×4trains） 2.1.3 Aeration Tank Rectangular W16m × L67m × D5m 8 tanks (2/train×4trains) 2.1.4 Secondary settling tank Circular dia. 24m × water depth 3m 16 tanks (4/train×4trains) 2.1.5 Chlorine contact tank Rectangular W10m × L86m × water depth 2m 1 tank 2.2 Sludge treatment facilities 2.2.1 Gravity thickener Circular dia. 21m × water depth 4m 2 tanks 2.2.2 Anaerobic digester Cylindrical dia. 26m × water depth 14m 4 tanks Gas holder volume 2,000m3 4 tanks 2.2.3 Sludge drying bed W10m × L20m × D0.2m 500 beds (10/train×50trains) 2.2.4 Temporary Sludge Storage Yard 80m × 200m 1 place

6.4.2 Breakdown of the Project Cost Breakdown of the project cost is as follows.

 Project cost consists of construction cost, administration cost, engineering cost, contingencies (physical and price), land acquisition and compensation cost and relevant taxes.  Project cost is estimated for each of LC (local currency portin) and FC (foreign currency portion).  Project administration cost in Macedonia is 2% of construction cost.  Engineering cost is 10% of construction cost.  Physical contingency is 10% of the total of construction cost, administration and engineering costs, since civil works account for the major part of the construction cost.  Price contingency is 2.3% per year; 3.2% for local currency portion taking anuual price increase index in Macedonai into account and 2.3% for foreign currency portion taking the index in EU countries into account.  Customs rate is in the range between 3 and 15% for imported goods taking import tax rate applied in Macedonia into account. Tax ratio is 18%, which is the same as VAT (value added tax) in Macedonia.

Part I: 6-24 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

 The exchange rate of Japanese Yen to Euro is 163.11 based on the latest average rates in the period between May and August 2008. The exchange rate of Macedonian Denar to Euro is 62.03 based on the average value in the same period.  The present currency of Macedonia is Denar, but is strongly affected by Euro.

6.4.3 Assumptions in the Estimate of Construction Cost Construction cost is estimated based on the following assumptions.

 Civil and architectural materials, labor and general construction machineries are domestically procured in principle.  Mechanical and electrical equipment are not manufactured in Macedonia and it is assumed that the equipment is imported in principle.  Land acquisition and compensation cost is estimated for the area of 57 ha including the one for future extension.  The costs needed for additional construction works including river embankment, access road and the transfer of pylons are estimated.  No pumping station is needed along the interceptor route because the available elevation data shows that sewage can be conveyed to WWTP site by gravity.

6.4.4 Project cost The total project cost is 116 million EUR (18.9 billion Yen) including customs and tax and 97.7 million EUR (15.9 billion Yen) excluding customs and tax, respectively. Table 6.17 shows the breakdown of the project cost.

Table 6.17 Breakdown of Project Cost Local Currency Foreign Currency Total No. Item (EUR) (EUR) (Euro) 1. Construction Cost A Collection System A.1 Trunk Sewers 7,430,000 0 7,430,000 B Treatment System B.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 15,182,000 14,605,000 29,787,000 B.2 Sludge Treatment Facilities 11,808,000 6,555,000 18,363,000 Sub-total (1) 34,420,000 21,160,000 55,580,000 2. Administration Cost 1,434,000 0 1,434,000 3. Engineering Cost 4,438,000 2,610,000 7,048,000 4. Physical Contingency 3,442,000 2,116,000 5,558,000 5. Price Contingency 8,631,000 3,716,000 12,347,000 6. Land Acquisition and Compensation Cost 8,550,000 0 8,550,000 7. Others (Accesses Road and Others) 948,000 0 948,000 8. Customs/tax 18,376,000 0 18,376,000 9. Interest during Construction 4,907,000 1,875,000 6,782,000 Sub-total (2) 49,545,000 10,931,000 60,476,000 Total (including customs/tax) 83,965,000 32,091,000 116,056,000 Total (excluding customs/tax) 65,589,000 32,091,000 97,680,000

6.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Costs Operation and maintenance costs are estimated based on the following assumptions.

 Personnel cost is estimated for the staff members needed for the operation and maintenance of the facilities proposed in the B/P  Consumables include electricity, chemicals and spare parts of mechanical and electrical equipment.  Sludge disposal cost is estimated supposing all the dried sludge is disposed of at the designated sludge disposal site.  Sewer cleaning is done for the sewers proposed in the B/P.

Part I: 6-25 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 6.18 Operation and Maintenance Costs O& M Costs Item (EUR/year) Personnel Cost 165,000 Consumables Cost 753,800 Sludge disposal Cost 320,100 Spare parts Cost 285,600 Sewer cleaning Cost 2,200 Total 1,526,700

6.5 Dimensions of Advanced Treatment Facilities and Their Roughly Estimated Cost

Sewerage facilities to treat at advanced level are roughly designed and their dimensions are computed. Advanced treatment modifying proposed CASP, nitrogen is to be removed by biological nitrification/denitrification process and phosphorous is to be removed by chemical addition. Aeration tanks have to be extended for nitrification/denitrification and secondary settling tanks have to be extended to decrease overflow rate to cope with lowered sludge settleabilty due to longer aeration period.(see Figure 6.19) Sand filtration might be needed if effluent standard for phosphorous is stringent. However, the standard is yet to be formulated and no sand filtration is planned in the B/P.

circulating pump coagulation equipment For advanced treatment AT SST (additional) (additional) Grit Chamber PST AT SST CT Influent Main Pump Raw Return sludge Discharge sludge Excess sludge

ST SD SDB Disposal Figure 6.19 Overall Flow Schematic of Central WWTP (Advanced Treatment)

Advanced treatment Treatment Process: Polymer added biological nitrification and denitrification process Average daily flow: 166,000m3/d

Table 6.19 Dimensions of Additional Facilities Criteria Criteria Area or Area or Additional for Additional for BOD Volume Volume Volume Advanced Size Removal (1) (2) (2)－(1) Treatment Overflow Overflow PST rate: 3,320 m2 rate: 3,320 m2 － Dia24m × 8tanks 50 m3/m2/d 50 m3/m2/d

16m×67m×5.0m×10 Reactor HRT: 6hr 41,500 m3 HRT: 14hr 96,800 m3 55,300 m3 tanks

Overflow Overflow SST rate: 6,640 m2 rate: 8,300 m2 1,660 m2 Dia 24m×4tanks 25 m3/m2/d 20 m3/m2/d

From above discussions, the area for advanced treatment facilities are allotted as shown in Figure 6.20

Part I: 6-26 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Additional facility for Advanced treatment

N

0 100m

Figure 6.20 Location of Advanced Treatment Facilities

Project and O&M costs for advanced treatment facilities are estimated and shown in Table 6.20 and Table 6.21, respectively.

Table 6.20 Breakdown of Project Cost (Advanced Treatment) Local Currency Foreign Currency Total No. Item (EUR) (EUR) (EUR) 1. Construction Cost A Collection System A.1 Trunk Sewers 7,430,000 0 7,430,000 B Treatment System B.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 23,144,000 21,103,000 44,247,000 B.2 Sludge Treatment Facilities 11,808,000 6,555,000 18,363,000 Sub-Total (1) 42,382,000 27,658,000 70,040,000 2. Administration Cost 1,807,000 0 1,807,000 3. Engineering Cost 5,465,000 3,412,000 8,877,000 4. Physical Contingency 4,238,000 2,766,000 7,004,000 5. Price Contingency 9,208,000 5,660,000 14,868,000 Land Acquisition and Compensation 6. Cost 8,550,000 0 8,550,000 7. Others (Accesses Road and Others) 948,000 0 948,000 8. Customs/Tax 22,788,000 0 22,788,000 9. Interest during Construction 5,920,000 2,451,0000 8,371,000 Sub-Total (2) 58,924,000 14,289,000 73,213,000 Total (including customs/tax) 101,306,000 41,947,000 143,253,000 Total (excluding customs/tax) 78,518,000 41,947,000 120,465,000

Part I: 6-27 Chapter 6, PART I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 6.21 Operation and Maintenance Costs (Advanced Treatment) O& M Costs Item (EUR/year) Personnel Cost 165,000 Consumables Cost 2,851,600 Sludge disposal Cost 332,100 Spare parts Cost 305,500 Sewer cleaning Cost 2,200 Total 3,656,400

6.6 Project Evaluation

City of Skopje is a major actor of Macedonian economic and industrial activities with the population of around 520,000. Its activities are accompanied by a lot of domestic and industrial wastewaters. Some 80% of the central area of the city is assumed to be sewered. The improvement in living and water environment is strongly desired along with the lower sewered ratio in the surroundings. As mentioned in the review of the existing plans, municipalities of Saraj, North Gorce Petrov and Dracevo have tried to improve environmental condition including the preparation of public sewerage master plan. Collected sewage, however, is mostly discharged to the river or channels untreated except for a small part of Saraj. The Vardar River, the largest river in Macedonia as well as an international river, passes through the city. This river is provided with a number of water quality monitoring points and the monitored water quality is recorded as “the water quality of the Vardar River”. The water qualities monitored at After Ohis and Trubarevo Bridge located in the downstream of the river sometimes do not comply with the standard, which is said to deteriorate environmental and public sanitary conditions at the downstream. Further development of the city will surely increase domestic and industrial wastewaters in the future. It is inevitable to treat the sewage at secondary level to achieve the environmental water quality standard, which is clearly shown in the estimated water quality of the Vardar River.

Though the master plan for sewerage implementation was prepared in November 1999 with the assistance of EU, the actual implementation has not been materialized to date. The Study reviewed the said master plan and prepared the B/P. If the B/P is put into practice, the water qualities of the Vardar River will be surely improved and the living and water environment of the city will be remarkably improved as well.

Macedonia, on the other hand, has implemented environment related laws and regulations in compliance with EU directives in order to be one of EU member countries. Comprehensive review of the plan is prioritized including future prospect of sewerage implementation, more efficient operation and maintenance of sewerage facilities and streamlining of sewage works. The B/P will surely fulfill these requirements and the implementation according to the B/P will facilitate Macedonia’s joining with EU members.

Part I: 6-28 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje CHAPTER 7 ENVIRONMENTALAND SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Purpose and Level of Environmental and Social Considerations

7.1.1 Purpose The purpose of the Environmental and Social Considerations (IEE Level 1 ) is to ensure that development options under consideration are environmentally and socially sound and sustainable and that the environmental consequences of the project are recognized early and taken into account in the project design. The procedure should follow the Macedonian Laws and Regulations, and JICA’s Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations (2004) should also be taken into account.

The JICA Study Team is assisting the Skopje City as an investor to consider the environmental and social aspects of this study. The role of the JICA Study Team is to:  Help Skopje City implement the proper environmental and social considerations,  Prepare the Basic Plan and select priority project(s) which will not cause significant negative environmental or social impacts,  Assist Skopje City to consult with stakeholders while preparing the Basic Plan and conducting the Feasibility Study to foster support for the projects,  Ensure positive information disclosure for accountability and promotion of participation of various stakeholders.

7.1.2 Level of Consideration Required by JICA The Preparatory Study (which was conducted by JICA in 2007) concluded that this study requires considerations of environmental and social assessment. The categorization2 is in accordance with JICA’s Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations, which were revised in 2004. In the assessment conducted in Preparatory Study, some environmental items were evaluated as ‘A’ such as water pollution and involuntary resettlement. In addition to this, the project will require an environmental impact assessment according to the laws and regulations in Macedonia. Therefore, this project is evaluated as “Category A” in the preliminary assessment.

7.1.3 EIA Requirement by Macedonia The projects which are subject to EIA are specified by Macedonian Laws and Regulations (See section 6.2.1 for detail). According to the laws and regulations, wastewater treatment plants with a capacity exceeding 100,000 person equivalents are subjects to EIA and EIA should be carried out in the Feasibility Study stage3. The priority project(s) which is selected at the end of the Basic Plan stage include the wastewater treatment plant with capacity more than 100,000 persons equivalent, thus EIA level study4 should be carried out at the Feasibility Study stage according to Macedonian laws and regulations.

7.1.4 Implementation Schedule The implementation schedule of environmental and social considerations based on Macedonian laws and regulations and JICA’s Guidelines is illustrated in Figure 7.1.

1 “Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) level study” means a study including analysis of alternative plans, prediction and assessment of environmental impacts, and preparation of mitigation measures and monitoring plans on the basis of secondary data and simple field surveys. 2 Based on the JICA Guidelines, the proposed projects are classified into one of three categories: A, B or C. The project classified as Category A is likely to have significant adverse impacts, and the project classified as Category B is likely to have less adverse impacts than those of Category A project. The project classified as Category C is likely to have minimal or no adverse impacts. 3 The timing of EIA is mentioned as “Projects that are subject to environmental impact assessment before development consent can be given”, and “EIA shall be carried out before decision on approval or non approval of the application for project realization is taken by the MEPP”. JICA Study Team discussed with MEPP about the timing of EIA for this project and it is concluded that EIA should be conducted during F/S stage. 4 “Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) level study” means a study including analysis of alternative plans, prediction and assessment of environmental impacts, and preparation of mitigation measures and monitoring plans on the basis of detailed field surveys.

Part I: 7-1 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Report ・Collection of information/data Environmental and Social Considerations ・Establishment of basic policy Review report to be submitted to n Sep 07

a ・

l Preparing IC/R

P JICA c

i IC/R

s 1）Draft Scoping of B/P a

B ・Collection of information/existing First Stakeholder : 1 data related to this project Oct 07 Meeting e s

a ・investigation on existing condition h P of sewerage, water quality control 2）Rough Outline of B/P IEE ・Public awareness & water usage survey, Water quality analysis, industry survey ・Environmental and social 3）Summary of Draft Final of Second Stakeholder considerations FebPR/R 08 M/P ・Selection of priority project 4）Draft Scoping of F/S Meeting

・Survey for sewerage development - Topographic survey, soil survey Jun 08 S / ・Design on sewerage facility 5）Rough Outline of F/S F IT/R : ・ 2 Preparation of construction Aug 08 EIA e

s schedule and material procurement a

h ・ P Preparation of O&M plan Third Stakeholder ・Estimation of project and O&M cost Nov 08 Meeting ・Environmental and social 6）Summary of Draft Final of DF/R considerations F/S

Preparing F/R F/R

Figure 7.1 Implementation Schedule of Environmental and Social Considerations

The stakeholder meetings were organized two times in the B/P, and one time in the F/S period and, the schedule and agenda of each stakeholder meeting are shown in table below.

Table 7.1 Stakeholder Meetings in Basic Plan and F/S Stage First Second Third Basic Plan Stage F/S Stage Schedule 9 Nov. 2007 22 Feb. 2008 16 Oct. 2008 Agenda  Introduction of JICA  Contents of Basic Plan  Results of F/S Study (background,  Results of IEE level  Results of EIA study objectives, schedule, study (alternative study, (alternatives, impact and etc.) impact and mitigation mitigation measure,  Explanation of measure, monitoring monitoring plan, risk environmental and social plan, etc.) analysis, etc.) considerations  Priority project for F/S (objectives, content,  Results of draft scoping schedule, etc.) of F/S and TOR  Results of draft scoping of Basic Plan and TOR Participant  Central government (MTC, MEPP, MAFWE)  Skopje City, Municipalities, Vodovod  People who live near proposed WWTP, people who will be affected by project  Industries  NGOs working in environmental field, university, institutions  International Donor Agencies

Part I: 7-2 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

7.2 Legal Framework of Environmental and Social Considerations

7.2.1 Laws and Regulations on EIA EIA of certain projects is required to be carried out in Macedonia in accordance with Articles 76-94 of the Law on Environment of June 2005 (Official Gazette No. 53/2005). The types of projects that require an EIA are to be determined in accordance with Article 77 of the Law on Environment which are specified in the “Decree for Determining Projects for which and criteria on the basis of which the screening for an environmental impact assessment shall be carried out” (Official Gazette No. 74/2005). Projects are classified in two groups: all the projects listed in Annex I are subject to compulsory EIA while the projects listed in Annex II require screening procedure based on whether the project, because of its type, scale or location, is likely to have significant potential negative impacts on environment. EIA shall be carried out before decision on approval or non-approval of the application for project realization is taken by the MEPP.

7.2.2 EIA Process in Macedonia The EIA procedure consists of several steps or phases, which includes notification on the intention of the project implementation, screening, scoping, assessment and evaluation of the direct and indirect impact on the environment resulting from the project implementation or non-implementation. The impact of the project on the environment is assessed in accordance with the status of the environment in affected area at the time of submission of the notification on the intention to carry out the project. For assessing the project environmental impact, the following points are taken into consideration:  the project preparation, execution, implementation and completion, including the results and effects arising from the implementation of the project,  removal of the polluting substances and restoration of the affected area into its original condition, if such obligation is prescribed by special regulation, and  normal functioning of the project, as well as the likelihood of accidents.

(1) Notification on the intention for project implementation The investor shall submit the notification on their intention to implement the project, together with an opinion of the need of EIA to MEPP. The information that is needed to be incorporated in the notification is described in the “Ordinance on the information contained in the notification of intent to implement a project and the procedure for determining the need for environmental impact assessment of a project” (Official Gazette no. 33/06). MEEP informs the investor within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the notification on the need for supplementing the notification if it is incomplete. MEPP, within five working days of the receipt of the full notification, is obliged to publish the notification in at least one daily newspaper available throughout the territory of Macedonia, and on the website of the MEPP.

(2) Screening (determining whether an EIA is required) Screening is a stage of EIA process during which the MEPP determines whether an EIA is required for a certain project when a notification on the project implementation intention is made. The specific content and the procedure to conduct screening is prescribed in the “Decree on determining projects for which and criteria on the basis of which the screening for EIA” (official Gazette No. 74/05). After receiving a full notification, the MEPP is supposed to complete the screening procedure within 30 days from the date of receipt, and inform the investor about its decision whether an EIA should be carried out or not. The decision is to be published, within five days from the date of issuance, in at least one daily newspaper and on the website of MEPP. Within eight days from the date of publication of the decision, the investor, the legal entities or natural persons concerned as well as the citizens’ associations established for the purpose of environmental protection and improvement may lodge an appeal against the decision to the Second Instance Commission of the Government of the Macedonia that is responsible for resolution of administrative matters in the area of environment.

(3) Scoping The scoping stage is the process during which the MEPP determines the content and extent of the matters which should be covered in the EIA report. The purpose of the scoping is to inform the

Part I: 7-3 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje investor of the issues that the final report on EIA study should respond to. For determining the scope of the EIA study, the MEPP may authorize persons from the List of Experts5. In drafting the contents on the scope of EIA study, the MEPP shall take into account the opinions of the investor and the opinions obtained after publication of the decision for screening.

Once scoping is completed, the EIA study can be undertaken. The investor prepares EIA report and submits it to the MEPP in written and electronic form. The specific contents of the EIA report are described in Appendix 7.1.2 Requirements for EIA report. The investor is obliged to engage at least one person from the List of Experts, who shall sign the study as a responsible person with regard to its quality. Within five days from the receipt or completion of EIA report, the MEPP publishes the EIA report and announces that the EIA study has been prepared and is available to the public. Any person may submit their opinion in written form to the MEPP within 30 days from the date of publication of the EIA report. If the submitted report does not contain the requirements, the MEPP shall return the study to the investor and shall set a term for its supplement or revision which may not be longer than 40 days from the date of receipt of the study.

(4) EIA Reviewing After the submission of EIA study, the EIA process continues with the review stage. Review is the process of checking the adequacy of the EIA study. The report on the adequacy of the EIA study is prepared by the MEPP or by persons appointed thereby from the List of Experts. The report on the adequacy states whether the EIA study fulfils the requirements, proposes the conditions which should be set out in the permit for the project implementation, as well as measures for prevention and reduction of harmful impacts. The term for preparation of the adequacy report is not longer than 60 days from the date of the submission of EIA report. During the review stage, the MEPP is obliged to organize a public hearing at least 5 days before the expiry of the term referred above, and ensure availability of information needed to the public. If certain deficiencies are found out in the EIA study in the course of the review and evaluation, the MEPP shall return the study to the investor, who shall supplement with the required information and finalize it within not more than 30 days.

On the basis of the EIA report, the report on the adequacy of the EIA study, the public debate and the opinions obtained, the MEPP issues a decision on whether or not to grant consent for the application of the project implementation within 40 days from the date of submission of the report on the adequacy of EIA study. The decision contains assessment of whether the EIA study fulfils the requirement, and the permit conditions for the project implementation. It also includes information on measures for prevention and reduction of the harmful effects especially (i) prevention against harmful impact on the environment resulting from the project implementation, (ii) prevention, limitation, mitigation or reduction of harmful impacts, (iii) enhancement of the favourable impacts on the environment resulting from the project implementation, and (iv) evaluation of the expected effects from the proposed measures. The MEPP, within five days from the day of issuance of the decision, submits the decision to the investor, to the body of the state administration responsible for issuance of permit or decision for the project implementation and to the municipality or the City of Skopje, the territory where the project would be implemented. The decision has to be published in at least one daily newspaper available throughout the country, on the website as well as on the notice board of the MEPP. This decision ceases to have a legal effect within two years from the date of its issuance.

(5) Public Hearing The MEPP shall provide a public hearing during the preparation of the report on adequacy of EIA study, and ensure availability of information needed to the public for participation in the public hearing. This information on public hearing should also be provided to citizens’ associations established for the purpose of environment protection and improvement in the project area. The MEPP shall prepare minutes of the public hearing containing the list of participants as well as the

5 According to the Law on Environment, MEPP has to prepare the list of experts who will evaluate the EIA report. The EIA experts have to have the technical knowledge at an expert level in the field of environment and have a minimum of five years experience. The list of experts is not prepared in March 2007.

Part I: 7-4 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje conclusions, and stenographic notes and video or audio records of the hearing should be attached to the minutes. Information protected under special regulations shall not be discussed in the public hearing.

7.2.3 Expropriation of Private Property The Law on Expropriation (Official Gazette No. 33/95, 20/98, 40/99, 31/03, 46/05) regulates the expropriation of the property ownership and rights (real-estate) for the purpose of construction of facilities and other issues of public interest, establishment of the public interest and assigning the righteous compensation for the expropriated realty, calculated based on the market value of the real-estate.

Public interest means the organization, rational use and special humanization, as well as the protection and improvement of the environment by construction of facilities according to the special plans.

The procedure starts with the submission of a request for expropriation by the user of the expropriated land to the responsible authority for expropriation; the administration for property affairs. This is followed by a hearing to which the owner of the real-estate and user of the expropriation are invited, and concludes with the issuance of a decision for accepting or rejecting the request for expropriation, issued by the responsible authority.

The compensation for expropriated land is settled by providing land that represents a suitable replacement for the expropriated land in terms of size, quality and location. In cases when expropriation beneficiaries are unable to provide suitable land or in some other circumstances (such as massive expropriations, expropriation of small lot portions), the compensation shall be settled in cash.

7.3 Initial Environmental Examination (IEE)

7.3.1 Objectives IEE is a very important and useful planning tool for development projects / programs at early stage. Original formulation of any projects / programs may be modified, if significant negative impact is predicted through the results of the IEE. The IEE has following two objectives:  To preliminarily review current environmental and social conditions in the project area based on the secondary data and simple field surveys  To identify and predict the environmental and social impacts and prepare the mitigation measures and monitoring plans Considering the above objectives, the study on IEE was undertaken with the purpose of (1) knowing the existing social and natural environmental conditions of the Study area, and (2) identifying constraints and problems for the basic plan project.

7.3.2 Proposed Project Based on the review of the existing plans and facilities, new facilities with cost estimations are planned. As a result, facilities for four independent treatment/sewer districts are planned. Their main features are shown in Figure 7.2 and Table 7.2 (see Chapter 5 and 6 for detail).

Part I: 7-5 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Figure 7.2 Basic Plan for Sewerage Development in Skopje

Table 7.2 Contents of Basic Plan Central Treatment Saraj Treatment North Gorce Petrov Dracevo Treatment District District Treatment District District Target Year WWTP 2020 2025 ‐ - Collector 2030 2035 2030 - Design Population 513,570 (p) 56,721 (p) 16,000 (PE) 30,000 (PE) Service Area 72.8 km2 7.5 km2 3.2 km2 4.0 km2 Capacity of WWTP 166,000 (m3/d) 62,395 (PE) 17,000 (m3/d) 16,200 (m3/d) Wastewater Conventional Aerobic biological Not yet decided Contact Stabilization treatment process Activated Sludge wastewater treatment Process Process (CASP) (Bio-aeration pools) Sewer φ1,000mm～ ～φ500mm φ600mm φ700mm φ1,800mm Total Length Total Length 2,500m Total Length 944m Total Length 8,660m 80,400m Executing Agencies MTC, Skopje City, Saraj Municipality Georce Petrov KiselaVoda MEPP Municipality Municipality Current Situation May 2009: February 2008: End of 2008: January 2007: (main finance completion of F/S completion of completion of trunk Completion of source) (JICA) preliminary D/D sewers' construction preliminary D/D (Government of (Government of (own finance) Norway) Macedonia) Cost 97.7 million Euros 11.4 million Euros 0.4 million Euros 3.5 million Euros （sewer only） Note: p denotes population in number, PE denotes population equivalent in number

7.3.3 Scoping In the “Guidance for conducting screening, scoping and review in environmental impact assessment” prepared by Environmental Management Strengthening Project funded by EU, scoping checklist is provided. This scoping checklist is used to assess what type and magnitude of impacts will be resulting by this project (see Appendix 7.3.1). The summary is presented in the Table below.

The assessment of the environmental impacts is made using several criteria in order to identify the significance of the impact taking into account following impact parameters: the type of impact (direct or indirect effect), magnitude (low, medium, high), extent or location where the impact occurs (area, volume or dispersion), timing when the impact occurs (immediate or delayed), duration of the impact (short, medium or long-term), reversibility of the impact (reversible or irreversible), likelihood of an impact (certain, probably or unlikely) and the border of significance (global, transboundary, regional or local).

Part I: 7-6 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 7.3 Results of the Scoping ) t t t t t t t t e e e e e e e - c l l c l l l c c c c c c l l (

t t t t t t t a a a a a a a a b b b b b b b

) ) ) ) ) ) c c c c c c c ) ) ) i i i i i i i B ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Impact p p p p p p p p - - + - - + a a + a a a + + + a a - - - - - g g g g g g g + , ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( i i i i i i i ( p p p p ) p p p m m m m m m m m l l l l l l l i i i i i i i i + g g g g g C g g C C m m B m m m B B B m m B B B B B A A A A ( i i i i i i i o o o o o o o o e e e e e e e N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N A r r a a

d d

n n Significance l l l l l u u l l l l l a a a a a a a a a a o o n n n n n n n n n n b b l l l l l l l l l l l l s o o o o o s o o o o o i i i i i a a a a a a a a a a a a i i i i i n n t t t t t c c c c c c c c g c g g g c c g c

a a ------a a a a a e e e e e

o o o o o o r o o o o o o r n l n l l l l n l t y l l r l r r r l l n r l t y n impact y e e e e

l l l l l

y y y y y y l l l l l l ieyodo an of Likelyhood b b b b b n n n n n n n n n n n n n e e e e e e i i i i i i i i i i i i i a a a a a k k k k k k a a a a a a a a a a a a a b b b b b i i i i i i t t t t t t t t t t t t t l l l l l l r r r r r r r r r r r r r o o o o o - - r r r - - r - - - - r n n n n n n e e e e e e e e e e e e e c u c c p p c u c c p u c u c c p u c c p u c c

e e e e e e e e Irreversible l l l l l l l l

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

b b b b b b b b l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i i i i i i i i Reverersible/ b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b s s s s s s s s i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i r r r r r r r r s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r v v v v v v v v e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v r r r r r r r r ------e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r i i i i i i r r r r r i r r i r r r r r r r e

m m

s r r impact e e a

t t m m m m m

- - m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m h r r r r r uaino an of Duration r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r e e e e e m m e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e t t t t t P t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t - - - - - u u ------t t t t t i i l r r r r r g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g d d a o o o o o n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n e e ------n h h h h h o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o l s s l l l l m s l l s l l l l m l l l l s l l o i t

a e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r occurs impact t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t

a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a e

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i d d d p the when Timing d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e y y y O a a a m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m l l l - - e - - e - - - - e

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

i i i i i i i d i i i i i i i i i d i i i i i d h impact the e e e e

m m m m n n n n n n oainwhere Location u u u u o o o o o o

l l l l i i i i i i

e e s s s s s s o o o o xet/ Extent r r r r r r v v v v m m / / e / / e e e e e u u a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a p p p p p p l l e e e e e e e e s e e e s e e s s e s e e s - - i - i - i i - - - - i i o o r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r

a a v a a a a v a a d a a a d a a d d a d a a d Magnitude m m m m m u u u u u i i i i i h h h h h h h h h h h d d d d d w w w w w w w w g g g g g g g g g g g e e e e e

------i i i i i i i i i i i

o o o o o o o o h l h h l l h m h h m l h l h h m l m h m l h l eaie(-) Negative

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

e e e e e e e e e e v v v v v v v v v v v v v v oiie()or (+) Positive v v v v v v v v v v i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t a a a a a a a a a a a a a a i i i i i i i i i i s s s s s s s s s s g g g g g g g g g g g g g g - o o o - o - - o o o o - o - - - o e e e e e e e e e e e e e e p n p p n n n n n p n n n n n p p p p p n n p n

e e Impact v v i i

t t t t t t t t

a a yeo the of Type c c c c c c l l t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t e e e e e e u u c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c r r r r r r i i i i i i e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e m m r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r d d d d d d - i i i i - i i i i i i - i - i - i - - - i i i u u n n n n n n d d d d d i d i d d c d c d d i d i i d d d d i t t t t t t t t e e e e e e c l l c l l c c c c c c l l

t t t t t t a a a a a a a a b b b b b b

) ) ) ) c c ) ) ) c c ) ) c c ) ) ) i i i i i i ) ) ) ) ) ) Impact p p p p p p p p t ------a a a a + + a a - - - - - g g g g g g + ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( i i i i i i c ( p p p p p p m m m m m m m m l l l l l l i i i i i i i i a g g g g C g g B B B B B B B A A m m m m C B B m m B B B B A l i i i i i i o o o o o o o o p e e e e e e a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N b m o I l G e ; h

y t l l Significance r a a f a n n d o l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l o o n a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a i i t t c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c u n ------a a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o l l n l l l l n l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i b t s a n

a u impact r l

e e e e e e e e y e e T l l l l l l l l l l l

y y y y y y y a ; l l l l l l l ieyodo an of Likelyhood l b b b b b b b b b b b n n n n n n v e e e e e e e i i i i i i a a a a a a a a a a a a k k k k k k k a a a a a a n e b b b b b b b b b b b E i i i i i i i t t t t t t l l l l l l l l r r r r r r o o o o o o o o o o o o i b - r r r - r r r r r - - r r - - - - r n n n n n n n e e e e e e t i p p p u p p p p c u p c c u c c p u c p u u p u s a r N e w v ; o

l e

L a r d Irreversible r ; n e e e e e e e e e e e e e I l l l l l l l l l l l l

o y e e e e e e e e e e e e

m ; i b b b b b b b b b b b b l l l l l l l l l l l l a Reverersible/ i i i i i i i i i i i i e u g l l b b b b b b b b b b b b i s s s s s s s s s s s s e e i i i i i i i i i i i i r r r r r r r r r r r r b d s s s s s s s s s s s s i e e e e e e e e e e e e R e D r r r r r r r r r r r r s v v v v v v v v v v v v ; e e e e e e e e e e e e r ; l e e e e e e e e e e e e M v v v v v v v v v v v v e e r r r r r r r r r r r r a ------t ; e e e e e e e e e e e e v r r r r r r r r r r r r c a r r i i i i i i r i r r i i i r i r r r r r i r h e i o g d R i L e e : :

H s y m m

m e t : r r impact i a c e e e l m

n t t i I h m m m m m m m m m m m m m d

- - m m m m m m m m m a r r r r r r r r r r r r r b uaino an of Duration : u r r r r r r r r r i c P e e e e e e e e e e e e e t m m g i s e e e e e e e e e t t t t t t t t t t t t t i t t t t t t t t t f r ------u u n n i ------t t t t t t t t t t t t t n i i i e r r r r r r r r r r r r r g n g g g g g g g g g d d t o v m a o o o o o o o o o o o o o g n n n n n n n n n i e e c e i i ------t h h h h h h h h h h h h h a o o o o o o o o o s s s s s l s m s s l l l l l l m l l s s s s s M T R S c p u m

r i

t e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e matoccurs impact t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t n s i a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i a

n d d d d d t iigwe the when Timing d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d e e e e e o r e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e y y y y y C c a a a a a m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m l l l l l n - - e e - e - e - - - - e m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m U i i i i i i i d i i d i i d i i i d i i i i i d -

C occurs y l ; t e

e e e e e

c k h impact the i a m m m m m l n n n n

e p

u u u u u n m o o o o l l l l l oainwhere Location v i i i i r i m e s s s s U o o o o o

e t i r r r r t

v v v v v ; a - m xet/ Extent / / / / e / e e e l e n g u m a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a l p p p p u l o n e e e e e e e e e s e e e e e e s s e e e e s u b i - - i - - i i - - - - i i o r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m s o a a a v a a a a a a a d a a a a a a d d a a a a d d r u b L e e o C ; p r ;

M s t m

i - P r Magnitude c m m m m ; B D e e u u u u t n r ; i i i i ; i - i t h h h h h h e d d d d a c d t m w w w w w w w w w w w w w w g g g g g g e e e e r a ------n i i i i i i m u o o o o o o o o o o o o o o I e i p l l l l l m m l h l l h h l h h m l h l l l m l u l ; d C t m o e

i : c

t V e eaie(-) Negative e M c r ;

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e i g a ; e e e

a r v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v p oiie()or (+) Positive v v v D i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i e a m i i i t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t r t t t : r m L a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a i i i t i e A s s s c t g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g - : - n - - - - o o o - - - - a e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e t n A a r n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n p n p p n n n n n p o : i f o t e m h o i r a

S o c e d n Impact c : o v a o

i n S t L

o f t t t t t t t / o yeo the of Type t a h c c c c c c c t o i l i c t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t e e e e e e e n l u e a c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c r r r r r r r a e e i i i i i i i r e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e p t p m k r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r d d d d d d d u y x i - i i i i - i i i i i - i i - i i i - - - - i i u m n n n n n n n d d d d d i d i d d c d d d d i d i i i d d d i I T E D L s e c s i e e v g r c r a e t t s u s d m n n n o n a d e e s o a n d i e m t m a r L y d n u n l t : e n d m o i a s r s o s r t a e n o t c r s e i e u s i g a t i t t n n c o p v i n r y a s l r c v t e o s i f u y n t t e o g u u t i n c e n ) e m o d r m r r g h g e o e e o r n n e t e e l n l f E e e n g e s t t ) s l e g l o g i a i t a a o m h s e i t l n a n a n r b s d t k u a r E e e i e e r y l n a e o s c l o l s a a u f f c s g s i c r s t s a i t e ' i s f e d l y o t t b t u n o o l f c n n s u t s g u n n v u o t m n i g a d e a i c s m t i c e - a o e r r o e n a o r r r s n l n n d s e a u s d i i n d r a e n d e t l E b e t e d r o o a o a e i n e g m n s i l y n h n o d r t t i r i r o n c e n r i u i m t t s y d l N r a a t a i i a s s d a l e o t c a i l y e v i r i l l V i d d t i s g b i o l y m u c A / n n u z a f e o a h t w i t h n d v y i e r e h a a u o d b s a e t n s a o e d s v e c n e l c n u p l o n a o L g i p s d i i , S u s n l i u c s t / w n n e l r W l a v o a , o e a l o e o o t H g H y ( ( E i t a q u i r r n o a e t a f r d d l d i a d c l c l c r o h s n i s i m l l l r s e i g c r c r c r u i g u n o e e n i o s i t i l a n l l e i p i i l n l t t a a a t o s r u e e e e d o e n c q u l u l e a d a d v d b s i i i t t t t t s s u t s e e t l o l i d y t n s a l e p c i c o b i o c c b c g n f o r i a a a a a o e q i v n v f r y l o r f e i o h u h o x e a i o o r u u o o o o c n n E P T G B H W M L P W G P A W S W W N G O S I a L C S L E P S C G M L W I L

Part I: 7-7 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

7.3.4 Analysis of Alternatives

(1) With/Without Project With the project, it is expected that following positive impacts would result.  The collection and treatment of untreated sewage before entering the Vardar River will improve water quality of the river and river environment.  A proper sewage handling and disposal arrangement will minimize the chances of contamination of ground and surface water.  Such provisions would assist to maintain ecological balance by reducing damages to flora and fauna.  Improvement in the existing sewerage facilities will help tourism and boost the economy of the area.  Dried sludge can be used for irrigation, or as a material of cement, if it meets the standards which are decided in EU Directives.  One of the conditions to join EU will be met through improvement of sewerage system and it will enhance the possibility of the country to join EU.

If the project is not implemented, the water quality of Vardar River in 2020 will deteriorate due to the continuous discharge of untreated wastewater and increased amount of wastewater from increased inhabitants. The polluted water would continue to affect the ground water quality, threatening irrigation activities and drinking water safety (usually drawn from the ground waters) affecting the health of urban and rural residents. As a consequence, the quality of life and the standard of living of residents in the proposed project area will deteriorate.

In addition, the Vardar River is the transboundary water body that is shared between Macedonia and Greece. Therefore, the river water quality is one of the essential environmental issues discussed between neighbouring countries during the transboundary water management negotiations. In 2005 Macedonia has been granted EU candidate status and one of the conditions for EU membership is that the candidate country aligns its national legal system with EU legislation. The transposition of the EU water related directives has been started and the provisions of wastewater treatment plant related EU Directives should also be enhanced. Hence, the pressure from legal obligations on national and transboundary level will be very strong and the alternative of no project seems to be not realistic under these conditions. The figure below shows the river water quality in cases of with project and without project scenario.

If the project is not implemented, the quality of river water near the proposed WWTP site in 2020 is estimated to be 16 mg/l in terms of BOD. However, in case of with the Project, the BOD concentration in river water is expected to be 5 mg/l.

The comparison between cases of with project and without project considering different environmental elements (also presented in impact assessment) has been carried out and is presented in Figure 7.3. “Without project” is no construction of central and other three WWTPs but with industrial wastewater management to all factories, and “with project” is construction of central and other three WWTPs and industrial wastewater management to six industries which discharge their wastewater directly into the Vardar River.

Part I: 7-8 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Lepenec River (BOD) Present: 2.5 mg/l Without: 4.1 mg/l WWTP (BOD) With: 3.5 mg/l Present: 9.3 mg/l Without: 11.5 mg/l With: 4.4 mg/l

Taor (BOD) Present: 5.8 mg/l Without: 7.5 mg/l With: 2.5 mg/l Treska River (BOD) Present situation Present: 2.6 mg/l Without: 4.1 mg/l Without Project With: 3.7 mg/l With Project

Note: Without scenario is Case-2 and with scenario is Case-5 of Chapter 4, Part I (B/P) Figure 7.3 River Water Quality of Present / With / Without Project Scenario

According to the results of water quality simulation, in without project scenario, water quality exceeds the designated water quality standard through every stretches. At the location of central WWTP where the designated water quality standard is 7 mg/l (BOD), the water quality will be 11.5 mg/l (BOD). In with project scenario, the water quality standards are met if central and other three WWTP and industrial wastewater management is conducted.

The table blow shows the impacts in environmental elements in with project and without project scenarios.

Table 7.4 Impacts of With / Without Scenario With Project Environmental Element Without Project Construction phase Operation phase Physical / Natural Environment Topography and geology No impact No impact No impact Groundwater B (-) A (+) A (-) Bottom Sediment Negligible impact Negligible impact B (-) Hydrological situation-quantities, flows or Negligible impact Negligible impact No impact levels of rivers, lakes, etc. Wildlife and Ecosystem B (-) B (+) B (-) Meteorology No impact No impact No impact Landscape and visual environment B (-) Negligible impact No impact Protected areas B (-) C (-) No impact Water and energy resources B (-) B (-) No impact Global Warming Negligible impact Negligible impact No impact Public Hazardous Elements Air quality B (-) Negligible impact No impact Water quality Negligible impact A (+), B (-) A (-) Soil pollution B (-) B (-) B (-) Waste (construction) A (-) Negligible impact No impact Waste (sewage sludge) No impact A (-) No impact Noise and Vibration B (-) B (-) No impact Ground subsidence C (-) No impact No impact Offensive odors No impact A (-) No impact Social Environment Involuntary resettlement and Land acquisition A (-) No impact No impact

Part I: 7-9 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

With Project Environmental Element Without Project Construction phase Operation phase Livelihood and local economy B (+) B (+) B (-) Change in land use and local resources A (-) C (-) No impact Social institutions C (+) C (+) No impact Local decision-making institutions B (+) B (+) No impact Existing social infrastructure and services B (-) No impact No impact Public health and safety B (-) B (+) B (-) Socially vulnerable groups No impact No impact No impact Cultural, historical heritage No impact No impact No impact Gender, children’s rights No impact No impact No impact Misdistribution of benefit and damage No impact No impact No impact Local conflicts of interest B (-) Negligible impact No impact Water use Negligible impact A (+) B (-) Infectious diseases Negligible impact Negligible impact No impact Impact Score: A- Large impact; B-Medium impact; C-Uncertain impact (+) positive impact; (-) negative impact

(2) Alternative Sewerage system Three independent sewer districts were proposed under previous wastewater management system prepared and proposed by Sewerage M/P 99 (Figure 7.4). In this alternative study, the centralized sewer district and independent sewer districts are considered.

Figure 7.4 Sewer District Proposed in Sewerage M/P 99

The alternative comprises a 100 % centralized solution, in which all wastewater is collected and carried to the proposed location of the central wastewater treatment plant at the left bank of the Vardar River downstream in Trubarevo. The advantages of the centralized solution are:  Construction cost of wastewater treatment plant is cheaper than the construction of individual independent treatment plants,  The effectiveness of operation and maintenance is increased in case of one wastewater treatment plant,  Cost of trunk sewers is high due to their long distance,  Environmental and social impacts of wastewater treatment plant is limited to one central location,  Monitoring and quality control is easy.

Part I: 7-10 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

On the other hand, the disadvantages of the centralized solution are:  As the distance of trunk sewer is long, the difficulty of operation and maintenance of collectors and risk of accidents will be high,  The cost for installation of trunk sewers is higher,  The diameter of the trunk sewers will be increased,  Pumping stations are necessary to send collected wastewater to treatment plant.

In Sewerage M/P 99, three districts (Saraj, Novo Selo and Skopje) are proposed, but during collection of information, another treatment district Dracevo is identified. As the independent treatment plant alternative, the plan and project in Saraj, North Gorce Petrov (former Novo Selo) and Dracevo are studied (see Chapter 5).

The preparation of F/S was finished in November 2007 by Norway fund and 23 villages were targets for the Study in Saraj Municipality. Among 23 villages, total 16 WWTPs were proposed in F/S and detail design of 6 WWTPs was expected to be completed in February 2008. The villages in Saraj are scattered and if the wastewater is to be brought to the central WWTP, it will require very long collector. From the environmental and social point of view, the impact by the land acquisition and change in land use will be larger compared with one central WWTP. According to the feasibility report of Saraj, the WWTPs are proposed on the vacant area and agriculture field. The process of land acquisition is required but no involuntary resettlement will occur. As Rasce spring which is protection zones under Spatial Plan of Macedonia for the main water source for Skopje City is located in the Saraj Municipality, the early realization of project is necessary. F/S was conducted by a support of the MEPP and the project size is small, thus the realization through IPA fund is expected. Considering the importance of early realization of the project, high construction cost and O&M difficulty due to long distance collector, the independent system for Saraj Municipality is appropriate.

For North Gorce Petrov, the location of WWTP is decided in GUP (see 6.3.5 (1) for detail). Land acquisition is necessary but involuntary resettlement and change in land use is not expected. The groundwater under the confluence of the Vardar River and Lepenec River is important water source of Skopje City during drought season and North Gorce Petrov is located at the upstream of the Lepenec River. The early realization of project is recommended. Considering the time required to change the GUP, agreement between Municipality and residents about the share of burden for construction cost for trunk sewers, the independent system for this district is appropriate.

For Dracevo area on Kisela Voda Municipality, the preparation of design is finished and the location of WWTP is selected. The project is under consideration and the request for the construction fund to donor organization is expected to be submitted. If this area will be connected to the central WWTP, the pump stations and long distance collectors would be necessary. Considering the above mentioned factors, independent system is recommended.

On the basis of the analysis of alternatives considering various factors, the independent four district of wastewater treatment are recommended (see Figure 7.2).

(3) Alternative Location for WWTP The alternatives of the WWTP site are analyzed. It is recommended that the WWTP should be located:  downstream of the sewer network in Skopje to collect all the wastewater,  along the river side to discharge the effluent,

The sewer outlet which is located downstream of Skopje sewer network, and the settlements are shown in Figure 7.5. Alternative locations are selected with the above mentioned characteristics.

Part I: 7-11 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Sewer outlet which is located downstream of Skopje sewer network N Alternative 2 Largest outlet of wastewater discharge Settlements

Settlements Alternative 1

Settlements

Alternative 3

Settlements

Alternative 4

1.5 km Settlements

Figure 7.5 Alternatives for WWTP Location and Settlements a) Alternative 1: Water Economy Facility Zone in GUP This area is designated as “water economy facility zone” in GUP and Sewerage M/P 99. The location is decided based on the information of Vodovod with the following reasons:  Downstream of the Vardar River,  Out of the city boundary,  No residential area near the proposed site,

In addition to this, the proposed location has these advantages:  The sewer network is installed upstream of the proposed site and the main outlet of collected wastewater is 3-4 km upstream of proposed site. It is easy to bring the collected wastewater to the WWTP,  The proposed site is located along the river and it is easy to discharge the effluent to the river,  The wind blows along the river and the odour will be swept away downstream of the Vardar where there is no residential area,  There is no house/structure within the area and no involuntary resettlement might be required  The area is designated as “water economy facility zone” in GUP and approved by the relevant administrative bodies for its use. b) Alternative 2: Former Waste Disposal Site This area is located upstream of the sewer outlet which is located downstream of Skopje sewer network. This location is the former waste disposal site and this area is not used for any purpose. As the area was used for the waste dumping site, the ground is not solid and stable. Some facilities of treatment plant such as collectors and pumping system should be installed underground and this area is not suitable for such facilities.

Part I: 7-12 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

c) Alternative 3 Alternative 3 is located downstream of Alternative 1 along the Vardar River. This area is used for agriculture and is divided into small parcels. This area also has the advantages like the downstream, river side, no possibility of resettlement. However, the settlement is located near this area and there might be the impacts by the odour. In addition to this, collectors should be installed to the WWTP but there is neither existing road nor planned road where the collectors can be installed, thus the additional land acquisition and construction of road will be necessary.

d) Alternative 4 Alternative 4 is located downstream of other alternatives along the Vardar River. This area is used for agriculture and is divided into small parcels. This area also has the advantages like the downstream, river side, no possibility of resettlement, and no settlement downstream of this site. However, this area is around 5 km away from the sewer outlet which is located downstream of Skopje sewer network, and the extension of two large collectors (1,600 and 1,800 mm diameter) on both banks of the river and the additional crossing of railway are necessary. Same with the Alternative 3, there is no roads under which the trunk sewers can be installed and the additional land acquisition and construction of road will be necessary.

Considering the above alternatives, Alternative 1 is the most appropriate location for WWTP.

(4) Alternative trunk sewer route The alternative routes for installation of trunk sewers are analyzed. In this area, the local roads exist in both the banks of the Vardar River, but these do not lead to the WWTP site. As the installation of trunk sewers in the banks of the river is not allowed, the construction of new roads is required.

N Alternative route 2

Alternative route 1

Alternative route 3

0 1 km

Figure 7.6 Alternative Routes for Trunk Sewers

a) Alternative 1: Proposed roads in GUP The alternative routes 1 shown in Figure 7.6 are the proposed roads in GUP. The target year of GUP is 2020 and these roads are not constructed yet. The responsible organization for road construction is Skopje City and the budget for design of these roads was approved by City Council in 2008.

b) Alternative 2: The route for the left bank There is the road in the left bank of the Vardar River which comes near the proposed WWTP site. This route will be 400 m longer than alternative 1 and it leads the increase of construction cost. In addition to this, the existing pipeline is installed under this road and the route is rather narrow, thus the construction work is much more difficult than proposed road.

Part I: 7-13 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

c) Alternative 3: Along the Vardar River There is another alternative to install the trunk sewers along the Vardar River. This will be the shortest route but it makes the O&M difficult as there are no access roads to this route and the land acquisition will be required.

Considering the above factors, using the proposed roads under GUP seems to be the best option.

(5) Alternative sludge disposal site Considerable amount of sludge will be generated from treatment plant and the disposal method should be analyzed for the generated sludge. Skopje city has Drisla Landfill that accepts the domestic and non-hazardous waste. The hazardous waste6 is not allowed to be disposed in this landfill. PE “Communal Hygiene” agreed that the quantity of sludge can be acceptable at Drisla Landfill, but their concern is the quality of sludge. Therefore, if the sludge does not include the hazardous substances, it can be disposed of at the existing Drisla Landfill. There are no criteria of heavy metal concentration in sludge in Macedonia but the sludge with the heavy metals is hazardous waste. The judgement standards between hazardous and non-hazardous will be discussed with PE “Communal Hygiene” at F/S stage.

As the domestic wastewater and industrial wastewater are mixed in the collectors in Skopje city, it is difficult to collect and treat only domestic wastewater separately in this project. This implies that the industrial wastewater will also be collected and treated in the same WWTP.

Under the Law on Environment, the IPPC has come into force in 2007 and the prevention measures of water, air and soil will be the obligation of each industry before discharge. Each industry is required to implement the prevention measures by 2014 and the hazardous substances should be pre-treated before the wastewater is discharged into the collectors. Thus, the sludge generated at WWTP will not include the hazardous elements and it is possible to dispose of generated sludge from this WWTP at the existing landfill site.

If the sludge cannot be accepted in the existing landfill site, then alternative landfill site should be decided or new site for sludge disposal should be constructed. As of October 2008, Skopje City has no landfill site for hazardous waste, nor has any plan to construct new landfill site. If the new landfill site should be constructed, the selection of site in outskirts should be considered, and the consideration of land acquisition and involuntary resettlement (if necessary) are inevitable. The construction of new landfill site will result into increased cost for construction and O&M and this cannot be covered by user charges. Therefore, the construction of new sludge landfill site is not feasible. Considering the above situation, the disposal at the existing Drisla landfill is appropriate option.

If the sludge contains the dangerous substances and cannot be disposed of at the existing landfill, the sludge should be disposed of at the planned industrial hazardous waste management plants and landfills of MEPP in 2014. The detail plan is described in section 6.5.4 of Part II (F/S).

7.3.5 Results of Impact Assessment and Recommended Mitigation Measures

The results of impact assessment and recommended mitigation measures are summarized in the Table below.

6 Hazardous waste is the waste containing substances having one of these properties: explosiveness, reactivity, flammability, irritability, toxicity, infectiveness, cancerous effects, mutation, teratogenesis, eco-toxicity and discharge of poisonous gases through chemical reactions or biological decomposition.

Part I: 7-14 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 7.5 Results of Impact Assessment and Mitigation Measures l a e s t l t , y n e n b t D D D D y y y y n g t i i o e t t t t r r l e s i a i i i i n O O O O t o o i a r n m d t t t E m C C C C u V V V V p o t o c c n t n n i t r i e e e e a a p a o c O O O O c W t u j j j j a r r i r s s e t t i F p p p p e p D D D D e H n t n p n n v o o o o e i u A s a r R O O O O o o n k k k k t n D o S V C S V S V C S V S M E I M - f r e o n t t t t a o y i c c c e e e s g t a a a z z z h n e a i i i s p p p t e i g a i m m m t p n m m m r t i i i i c i i i t i n m n n e s i i i e e e m f o M i f h h h M t C t M t M d e . t l t f r r f s e e e e e d d o d d – – d s s a l e e o e o o s e g b b e h b n i n t e t l o t t r u t p d n s t f i a a d a i a d u e t s o n o a o m l l l d t e s e r e d n l l l h t p l n g u s n l l t p s r e d s u o i p o i b g o n e n i o u o g e r i i i d o p o a s s n m t t h o w n t v n p i a m h d e k t s i i e a e e h r e s r d o l r a s d c s d g s v l l h s i r d l l o e p i f a a a i d p i e r n d T u o p P e c e r n o w n u m a a e t d n m n b . b a x u t T i a p b i o p m n o , s n o e s n a s i e c i m l a a a o e f r o t s W o f l i e i u e t h b o a d e l p t . s t o s , w r h s e p a t c v W n g e a d t m d o e o l h o 5 r T c e a a a l u e e t n t n e s p n t f r p a g 7 c u n t v k i b e d t o o c o s e a p 4 x e n a . i o d g s i r n . l i e , t i a v y m e t e h 1 e d e t n d p a l e a l m a c v e p p l a c e l e k i a o e e e h h t o x s e h l v c u s t t r s g m m c i t c y d e h a a i e e o a o n s m 7 o o t . a u f f n g n r n p c e i h r h r e e c e g 5 , i a d o o u o p o c r s h w e t c p d n e l i i t m e t n i r i o c t t t a i n g t r a s m b o y l e t a a a e i P n c a y d a o i d n h r c u b l t b , o g i n w n a h t o p n T o n t i t u p s t r i d n e d t . o e t a m a t e a p h y k i i p i r d s n o b n s t h a s t W z r v l t i i e n x i r i e c t u r a m g o c i n n M u g , t g d i a v i o n b c r z h i l o o W t o a i g i e o o n i f n i t f f w a r s t r i t i t u i e u i p m m v h t i f o r s c g g c f o c c h o m t s s l c r a e a t s i m u o p n s n d h g a i o o i e u o s y r d t n t t e t s r e r n t n r r n i e a o n n f f t n e e e i n e s . t a a n o r . a t t t s n o o t e & e h y w l m n c i e g i i d a a t e i l o n g t d n i t t a s a g g o i e s m g m l a a s e a e a o c c . n t t w w e i c n n t t i r e e c n n c t c i i P a u u d c d g d d e o i w i o a l e d g r r a d n o . e d d r t f e u l T n r t t n n e r d n n i d r d a p i t s a g i t e u u a s s l d i u u u i o n l a l r o a o n t s n h e e e t s W m n n v p n c a w o o s c c c e a i u t a o o g n h h h l r r n o o o n r c p o i e n n o n A g i P e w T W c s G i E c s c m T e l a G i a T a D g m c l e a l t n b ) ) c ) i e o - a + + i g s ( t ( ( i p a l a h r g C A B m i e p e p N O n o i t e c ) ) ) ) s - - - - u a ( ( ( ( r t h s B B B B p n o C t l l s e e e e g o o d h h d i l a t t m t t i d h g h b n n n i r t c t t u i a a d a t w o r u o i w o r l e y e r u b n r n a t t e r N . e i u i a s d r s e y s t . u o h d i r c t v a k p d d n t h n e i d b i r e i o p a u t r n s c g o o d i r n c i a o s a w e w s e t . s r l e e a t l g a e d w . t , j / c s e d c b v s b u s n n a c a e R i d n i n i e h a a i r a n d c t t o t n s t n n o o w p i a o i c s i o e n t a k n i s e t t l U l e e d S t o i c m i h o r n c o n r . i t p n c s i p c u e d e u a s a s i t n e t j a - r A x u r i n i t e e h a t a r f e h p e h r s t o , n t a r c s . s N o l o d s a t , w i c e e n o T i n o t s f k i e f C l n m n d h o b o u t t g e n o e S o o u c n n l a a T p U a n t n n l . c d , r P n i I u i s o c c s i e i g t l e i o y i e a n r o a T o n s i t t r t r e , n n g l r w p t i o t e o i e c e o e e e i p s u n i g s r r u t t h W i b u e d s s h O i t l h e s r i t u r / a r s l p P c e n o P r t s a a . n f d a p W s u o e s u u p o c e T g v o o h r u d o p h w s n e a i t F t l t n t a o . c p d t o s i n r n W c h e s f a f c n t e c r t s c n e n r n u e e g e s e e o i o o n e u u y e i a p o r W c o h l r o e h c d i P t , t m e c a m y . , t n n t p g m t d i n s d e n e o m d s l a L c o o y n e a e s n s v - o e e g l i t n w r u b P u i g s i t b l s r a u o r c r g c n t o p e r t t z c s T n a o t i e r p e u a a a t i c C c c t t e u s e i t t o u p r r t d s r t k r e e F e n s s s d W n v p i o o s b f f u a u i n e l o i h r i u r f i x x l n f f o n e a D d e A l T h e V c a W a P p o D l v a N G c E l a r d d l u a n n t a t a a r a e t n s e r t n e t N a n e e a / m e m p d l w m n e a e e m a t d n t f o c s i e c r c l n s o l l i i y r e a s u d d i t s v E l u y o n v i o o n s r a r h i c n E P G W e L v e P

Part I: 7-15 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje e e h s l t n b D D D f s s y y y y i o t t t t r r r d o s i i i i i O O O s t o o o e n r r r t t t t d C C C C u V V V i o c c c o o o t o P P t t t i d e e e e a a a p O O O t v j j j j P a a a r r r e T T s s t t t r r r o r p p p p P D D D e n e e e n n n c d o o o o i W W E R O O O p p p c o o o o k k k k S V C C S V O W O S V M S V C W O A r r o o n t o y i c e e e g h h t a z z z s s e a i i i i i p t g a n n i m m t m t m i i r t i i i c c i t i n n n e e s m m i i i e f f i i M f f h M t M D e M D e , , l f f f r f r s s s s e y o n n d n o d h o l s e l t t i t t e a e r o e o o o o e b t o a o o i t t t i y a i r i o i i i t i s a s t t t e a l s i n a n r s d v w P l d l t e a u c c e d d i e o e e a p w i o s i r r e i P e e t i t n d i l z y r e r e d l l a b t e t l i l v w t a a t i r o g E i n i l e e e a o y p a s n i i p s i o e s v t p n s s t p v z m r r e d y n u i a b M n i s o t c i l r m o h p g n d a r o e d s w u i e d c t n o c m n t n y m r t P o e p a b i n d a c i n a t S t w ‘ a s o l o s g s l i ; n s p a e t b i s a e i u n o o u h o t e r g o t i n e u h n ; l r l t t i y c c d o r e - d k u n s c c o m o o t s i a c ( u h a h n n d a t i d d t s c n n e r t s l h C r s n r a a s n t a . l n m n e u z h m c e p f o e s e o a i : e a e a o t s i h s d d l c f r l i i o r e n s p n e c c a y c e o r n n m d b u i s m i p e t e t e r s d i o o e i b i t e / a f t s e r i k p c r h t e u d s c f s , n t h a i C a s l n r i a i a o s e i s e i e e c i l d l e w g u y c d r r u r l l o i e h c l a h ; u b n m m q s i n t n p r t p t a r u r m p s c r y i l r u e a o t a e p o n h o t o l e a d n t g o s e s i e r p f n s h t s i r a r t d h d e a t t a a m e n h p l a o a u c s e s d m e t n b i r n i o o h o s p u r d t d e e n s n m t t a w r e w t c f o g e a s s o a n e n y n n u o t n e r . P d o i o o i ‘ e y a i t r h g a a o a i l . h l l l d d u i t s o i s s r h r t r : h f s o r n l t t t n s c o e e s n e i e a f c e e i e e p i e t e a t a a , ; o t n a h y r n r a s i h d p i h t n p t e w g u m e g a n - r a h M o c i s n n i e u o e d r s o i m i o g e o i n o t c l f a v m l w t r o t e v e e i i r i n r a c l h e v c i t l t o m r a a c e a e p t g a o s . k i p t r o a c n a e n m r i o u w t s h n e r i i s r l s a t t e n m g & r g t e n a t w o i s a w o n s a t h i e , p p i e e u s b o h i f o h o l l u t l h l s y e i , t o c i t m l u l c w t t t l o a b h t d m d b s n o a i e e n e V t s i i o d f c l e s t n a t e g o r y i i o . C e a i e b t s t b i i r l l e a n p e C o v ; y s t c r r d l t s n i z n d P t e ) a w o l e p i l e i i a u o o n l m e e o o i e e n s n h P p t i u d d d t g s i h e j r j t a p e p m I l l l p p e o m s g t n i r c r n h d e l i n n s p p s i i i v t s h u u u u i e i e n e u c o a p s t u e e e l t n o e o a n n r t d s f o a o o a p r e e i q l u i f e o q a e a h h h k k r u a e o r n s f h h h l e e f o r d r h r D m E s c M a T d t s e S r r s m T h b e I i S f t T t T p t s l a n ) ) ) ) ) e o - - - - + i s ( ( ( ( t ( a a h r B B B B A e p p O n o e i l t t b e c c ) ) ) i s - - - u a g a ( ( ( r i p t l h s g B B B p m n i e o N C t l l t f r r ) ) s e e e e e e e g y g P . i l l e o e e l n o s y i n b h h h h n i n e t d o t t T r t t t t e n i a i n t o s a e b w g n k r e i e a u d t k a t s a o a l y l , r s W u n w c c h i t f e p i s c t c t m f u o d r i d f e r : o i i i m m e t h e e f n l W o o f v e a k a e c i e f i c i g m r b h t c d h e e m a a h r n d y s e t o t t c - e a e s ; h a l g n d e g m a s l a t m e i u h s w l h h r l l a h / e , a i n t b o i s l i d t s G s c e c h u v P r n i a n i l . i t s f u c u n e l w o r o m r o f i T e v l H e i h w r i i i a e I i g e t a s o r s t d t b t e t m c r G r w e n w e g a c c W c P ( a f e h e i a t s l l t t n h f r s r u a s r l a A p T e l i l i . s r w i W e p , o i i i e s u s t y e t t e d y w i s n v a t s i n w t n W n w c r i r a s i e n o c d e s t d n t , r v o l t o a i o a n l i i . r s e R a i t h w i n s s a o n u W i t t n s t t o e e u a d e a a e c e r u c o i o l w s c a t a r i g v t i e n d i a s s a t q r i s c f w u e m n d i d e p o h n d e r a l o t i m p e y R o n r s t v u p h p t n l a p . i i l e m s a a s g w i , c f t t 2 o O e n h n o s o r r i r u n t / n u i a d c o l V e c t , s n o a e t s r h O s o n o i a d v s n a a e u s f h f o a i d t n n i o l c S l t o a a n e t u w r u o r f o c e i v f r o c c , n t n a f a h t a d f i l o a u a s c t n s r s x y s x o c o o e t n a r i h c r e V d r t i n i e m n s i t u e u i c t r t e n e x e O o s e l p r o o . d d t a a f a a i a v e e t l d s r h d a n r s t o e n d N ( z t p c f o d s n m e h t s n i e e e u c , / o i o e a t , t e t o s n a p r s t r o t c g m 2 p q u n f v g h a a i y n i e o i i e e m o r g a t e . o t o o r s o r l e a t e n v O c i a d v i e n t i r C r e c s h s l t e e i r a i r t - s h r e i t t e e e c m C e r o p g r a t t n d r n v c u e t o f u r u i a e h h h n u f u a r n e f m o x n o f r o l n n m a I c T e d e s o T i a D q i I p p c u a w w T d l D e o E s u l d o a n d t y n a r t n s i o a t l e i z t n y a t a m e u s u i l l n e l H m Q a c o o e y r r c u r r l p i i g u e l q e r v l E t t o b i r e a a n s i u o n e E W e r P A W S

Part I: 7-16 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje s s r r e s l o o n t t b s s s i c c o e e e d d s i i a i a y i s s t e e r r r r r r n r r t t t t u r r i i o o o o o o o t t n t n e t t P o t o t i d d p t t t t a a a a o o a a i e e T T s s s s r r r r r r r r c c s e e e n o e o e - o o c c b b i W W v v R b p b p n b b c c u u n n a a a a l I S W O A l I S W O O l A l r r o o n o y i e e g h h t z z s s e a i i i i t g a n n i m t m t i i r t i i c c t i n n e e s m m i i f f i i M f f M D e M D e . , , t , ; ; ; f f r r s e e e e e e c n n n n n d ) s t s e t i h n l d e o o o a g b h h h U o o o o e f t e e s f n g a l t g t i i i u n i l d f f d l i T t t g t a t E n n t e u d a o P a a n i t l u a c l c c h d P c o r d ; o u l l t w h a e i h o t t l d e n l i u u u n t s e r s r t r s l f r r l e c f s t b n n u m o l a e g o e e t o t e i s a d h e o a l t a o t c s s o h ; s n y n h p t e n a i p T c r a s h c g c s n n m l m e n a i l n f h a s w e s o i n r i n o o E r t l o w i r e p m o n t o i e t t h e a a i c c i n e o e g r u P t a t o s t l r t h e r c s m s e s n o r e a i s t t o c e a s y e i : g u f a t n c h d a o l n o a i g e m s d i t s h s l d R e s o e e s o a t b t g s e n d w o a n i u n h w u T c s t h a c r t h t e r l n t e o t a l u t a o e a ; s h M i f r g a a g s c ; r n i i l t d r s r i n e s i t k p n e d o l w g w a M e r r u e e i e M d p f n e , w s a a f i t l t e i a n h t u r e r y n a h t s f f o p i s t c s d t n t s t r i r e s n r v ; l e a i t o o t l y s i o n n g n a u h l s i l d s a i u s o i d d n n t n u p R e u t e s d e c a i m s i e s y s d u e B e s a c d e l o ) s e m ; a s e i d o o d s n d m d r i p f a n e n d c e r e o d m p ; u v d d o o m e t i n f g r D e a l n ; o i b e i p n e i a e y a s m n p l s t c a c t d s s r s d l g o s e o o o e y e e a ; p i i d i e n y e u u a i l h t l e a w e c s g t l e p g i t v l i d t P y s s v d v c i i s u r b n a r a o g ; u c x r d e . s p b a a T a l o e a a b g e e l n g y d e e y o n u b e l i t e e e r c i i t c l y e i l a h m w h u p t i h d g b a m t h r a t h e W e b o e a n l i t c s S o o s r t s f v e r e s e o i s i t s r o a l i d m o a r d d m b u t W f t : h h d d e M u a r p n r e m l n m s t t l p i c n d . t l r g o l s h - i o a d o o s a e r i w d n h u a s t a e i e e i f d o s n e y l e u d a p n t e t h e c a i w s o f o t n b s r r w t n t f s i b e s v a u o s a r y s s e d h n l a a a o t g s a w a m i o t h n t o d y e c a / s d r r a d t w u z r r r e P c l p a n o l l l h s p m n w c d a a a w o s e i ( a w n a a h s u o c l e o t T g p u t e t e e e d r h p s ( t z i s s t o t e e o r n t a s n n o u t y g s s i o s a s t i a r u u l c i n e l r d b t e e h l W c n i t h e e q - d n t l t i o h a e b o o y o / l a s a s v c e u d o t e l a a a u f n y o r g i s m , r d e d d l r b r r l r i W e e c t e r l u n r e e t i a e e r r t f v t e d e b i i s g o p r t t n e s l e s l c u q a a h s a p e n v m u t c d s s e e e e e t s a e n p d p z z s n e e r o t e e e a o a a u h h h h r r o a e a a a u f d o p n o h h l n f d o h h s a m P c s T a T a w m t w I s p P b T t h I t h P b i q I c s o T l e a l t n b c ) i e o - a i g s ( t i p a l a h r g A m i e p e p N O n t o i c t a e c ) s p - u a ( r m t h i s A p n o o N C , , . l r ) s e e e e o n d d e e l w a s n t r o u h h t o n n r c e g t a n o i s o i a a e T i t n d r e u a t t s h a y e s u e u a a t l e u l l n w e m r i r s g d a . i . r v s a o w e e v o . n i e n d e m i e d h r m n a s p s d t t e r u t d h o n e a e t e s a c a t e s d a e t c t o i t o c g t g a m a . h z a i n / c d e h c a e t a p y r e w t o n m c e l e p c e m h w o s c t s p o o u o n n p - e x u l i s e a t a c x s r d e t o o x n h s l a t a i h e t e l i c w e o t s s t e r , i r d p n l w a e f t n n s c e A b g e n r a o ( e s b d t e o u i h i n t t e u j n t b u t r i a c n s o c n h e n p o r r e o a e d a e n e r d i r o t g r a a e t o i h f t i r n n i L a g e c s , e , t f i n a a a a l l e t w a e c a p r e m i z c e m c h n a g e t u o g e a o t , w l s t r s f o a t d p l s h s h t e i a i e a c t i o P g n . u l s r r t r r O h l o l e i d e e n e / n t T u w i s s e t o s i t t e h D n o i f r t s l t m g m c w r s c W o f a a a f l u e a o u i g i i c l l n e e o v t r r d f v i l w c n t f W o h f i a c P g i r o o t t i e s l e r c a d p u t e n T c . a e h s h r s m x u c n g i t s a o t t s w e h e o m i e a l a d c s t n W u t p t e e l c p r i a n s o c m t s e h l y n e l e c m g s g t s W t a o a e l d i o i a b a a i e n n r t i r c m p c g i i , C x i h s m a h c e l l r r m d w e e e s l m e m d z h c b e e v u u i u o o h h u a e o h o n e u u l p r u o t L c v f f c D s s b c D a T T h s w s s e l a g ) t a n n s t w o e i n e t m e c S n ( u ) m o r e e t r e e l g i s t t v d E s s n a a n u o l c E W ( W S

Part I: 7-17 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje t y a l t i a e s t l t C y , n e t n b t D D n y t i i o e t r n e l s i a i O O e t o y a r n m r d t m t C u r r p o V V i o n c m o t e n i t r P o t o t i r e e a p a o c c O O t t t r j j o a r i r T s u s s s e t a r i p p e h D D e c n e e t n p e t n p v o o i W o u v s v a R O O e p u o n r k k t n n n I P D S A S M E I V S V C I W O r i o n n t i o y c i e e e g h t z z M f s e a i i / f i t t g e a n c i m t m t d i r t i i i a c c e t i n n o e e s p z m i i f f i i v M f f m M D e M e A i m , t l r e e e e e e e e d d h g h h d r s a l t t s o h g h b h h h g i n n n a i i i n t t t t u t i a a a u p T t a o w o w n d i f o r d n f w ( l n e g h n t t y n t e o o n o u m ; s a n a i a f i n s e e a o n i o y t l b . l e s d c l L p o a a r h n ) r r t s i d p n t n s d n t m t u e o o d i k o e o t i a : f a a n r o r m p e e t n s l e a i i b l m y e a u o i a h t e l r r h s t u t o s b r d w c o a t e a l s t e u w i i n f q t e u n e a f n s e p t e s e m n s i i e v i s i n g d n v n o a t l d z e e t i a l : d e h o d i C o l s e l d a l y o . t i e e n z i c u e i e ) w P c t a a i i i e m l d m r i p r f s e i c s e M d s P l . r w y i r i e u s u m I t l t n u s r a t b l s i t i e , s o i t i r c ; e o e n t c e e n e o t a r n g e c r s n e d e . e a n t i n s g e e n h m t n l e l a n h c s i t i h s r d o i t n i e n t u e i p m l h a W m t u e m d o d o P o w s v c o p h , o d b d c m i i e c t n t s h n o a e s T c i r r n e o i n l s m o d s e o i t b w d e d l e a e b i i m g e r a l t s W t s o g u e s r h - d z n l c P u o w u i l e a t i i t t n l s o r h o a a a l o o i T W d g t t . c d r a i e d c u l i e s t m e ) n h n r i w L i a o t u i s f e o n t a s u h s n . i e v W r o i n s i h a t n a o h t e h o a o m x h ( c i w t s a v c e t s s i t t h M P i a h c h o W e t y h r f t t s g m r s l n a m t t a l m T n c t o c o m d ( n a , e r e c c e e n f e m c o a e i y e t o n t a t o e l h v W e r e t f r m d s f m f t h a l h t i m c i t a e t t o e n t y d i e l s m e a s c f a r n W l f C e s h o f e e d y p a e p ; e r i t o o b s o i d n s o e r t e h e i f p e i m e n o n t g t o t r u n l m o s a j s f r d - r i i n o e i s n m c n a a m q z s b t p i e e i o i p i i o e o d o t u o e a t t r s a t m s o i r i r s t r t n a n g r o t e t c c e p t o d e t k p l o s y g l c e e s n u h h p s l i p n e h u h l e l i t S t e e e e p m o o a t l o l n s o l u w g e g u o r h h h e f e u r i d n u o d o o e t e f o m o a m T b a c a D c o i N c s l d p T p r n I s f T o l t a c a n ) ) e p o - - i s ( ( t m a a i h r B A e p o p N O n t o i c t a e c ) ) s p - - u a ( ( r m t h i s B C p n o o N C , t t l l f f e e e e e d n d d n l l a n i o i o o s i i h h b e h n n i t t h t t o n a a t i w w o a l g t n d s s y l n u n c s e t n e i o d y d t t i i j s i c A o o i u d e i t o i b n t a i w t v g r p s t f o c i t s c u a f . g o t n s o s u i o . y s i o a i c t d k r d l l n g m r d e e t n p a c e t i t e S e r o / t l m s t u a o r s f r c e s i s u m c i n f u n d p t t u o t e o b e s n d o o o o c a a f f P n i e a c m n t c f t t s c u r r i e t r T i a r m r t a c n d o t l r o a e s t l o e e s A n i y s W o i p i i p s h r t i s y e f t l s t i l e , n o i a u w l a l h i n n W c t a l t r o t e v i a a i a g i i m i e n r P i r P s b r t d t r b t c v i n e a t w e T a i r i T a n c n l v r t r d r d , u m a e e c P t e c i s l t u n o s W i W i n i a r T p e e a d o d h a h m e ( t d e h t W e p r t W O t e e s s k W n / u n v t o r f s n h a a f n n s l b o e t t o a i o i e o W m i a y o d h n t e r i i e s w r s t e c n n n a w t T d v t e f c r u a s d u o o e s f s u m t ) i i i n r i i o u i y . o l t t t o s c o f t t l l a r d s x y o . i s a r a t e c u a a c e n r e f t r r s s c n r r i t r n e e l a r e . t t e b e l c n d o o c n a c i y e l s o n t n p e i i p r y o n c i a n a v g o p c f e f r l s o e a u b i e h f s a C c e e a l d r s r w s l o c t t a i n e e e n l e a l d u e w e e a a s e i d g a h h h e e v r a o n i e e a h r h T c m t t m n c b T a r s T o m r t O p s l a t n s t e e n d c e m e n n n v n o i m a e d i o s s e t r d n r l e i n a i u s u r s e v E i o f o b b n o f r i d u E N V G s O o

Part I: 7-18 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje f f d d o o o o n n e i i s a a l t t , n a a b D y i o c c t r s i i i i O t t t o n r r n n t C u y y r r V o o o c t u u r r o o i t t e a p p p O t t t j s s r m m s s s s s s i i t p D e e n e n n n m n m n o i i a i a v v R O o o o r r k n n I M T C n I M T C n S V C o o i i i n t t n t i a a o y c i s s e g t M f n n e a / e e f t e e t g e d d a c i p p d i i r t i a e t i v v m m o s p z o o i o o v r r M m P C n P C n A i m t ; f r r s s e e e e a e e e e g d n d i c e k s o o e e g h h h b b e h n o n . i r e r t r t t t t i i a d a j w t n o r o a c u d a e e d u o d c l e e s g t d e n r l e . l y r l s w t a f u a k u r g n u s n a y n a f u a b e p r i o e a a r o e n t o u r a o r n t o i g a w i s h m h e b e o e t m o t h s d k e s n e r e e n a i a i h h n f d s T i s l e t r n t t a i d s b h t o e t u s f e i a t p s n u i c r n c t c f c h e l r c d u r o n o l l i e . e t l u e e i o g l e u e q f a d e o y t m r u h n n f f w t n c b v d p c g n b a i s e i i o a e a o e t u l m o e a e r n s n g h i e s h l d e e r i i c a t r p b f e o s d s t i h i r n a e t h n e e i e e a t k e l t s e a n s g n a r ” o v r w o h n h e c s n e a p h i m t o o i f g n d l . u t r e T h o i u r o f n s e s o t t c a o r r b f d 5 p l e e p i i a t e i e a a e ; n o l a U o t a 7 t , h t P s s s n e b P r f o h f o t r a b s t e t s 4 a e u o m r v m t o d T e . o u e s f m ; i g i r 1 c d a j a i e b a t e l e , h p p r o d t i n n o c p n r e a h n i W d s i e c e u n f u s n t a r e o o c u V n s o i v n n d e u o b n i o a o i t c i t i h r k a r i d t l W o a a f t t s r e h t d o T i l i r a m e a o h S a a s c t e t t o h n l n e d c f c o e t p r a l a g l s o v w n a T t ; h r i c f t o i o n a u a u a u e t l s t t f r t a a l o e i ; a T d l e o d n o d e c s s t l n i o p a s r c i I n d n i c e o h e e n o t n n P v e g M e i i f n w i t i n s a o o e o : l a t . e s o f l i d n a r m l s o i i t f i c s a b r n t a e o i t N i t v l s p e p c d e t o s u d h u o o i t s a p “ n n d o l a i r o u n a i h a r u s p l h t t l r n f e ; t a s e o u s a 7 i t i n t u o u s l i n e a s n i h n s h n t r l 5 i n i q t n e p n l u v i w g g o e a i p g c o d d i p e o o d y y s u n l r n p t g a i r c n i e n r s r c c n e d d a d q o b o t i i l c r i m n t a a i n a r e e h m c s f i a n T t r r P t u o o o e i v o i c c s e t h o r g s t c t o ; i o i o c m A r i w T l s t h e t c t c g f e n r l c t n e p p s n o c i j f n n t n d a e l e e e e e o r n W d d o a o o l i a f a e m u m u h h h h h r o r l y u r o n n m l c o e a n e T p s p T f b t c T M T W s s a m d m T l p a T i T t l t t a c c a a n ) e p p o + i s t ( m m a a i i h r C e p o o p N N O n o i t e c ) ) ) s - - - u a ( ( ( r t h s A A B p n o C , , t t l f s s s s e e e e e c n d n g d n l i i t i n d r n i i o o s i d e h e h b o n l f c a a a t t i n a s u f t e l a l w n P r n . e m i a f o d a o l n l p p y s r p o f i u t o i d r r T c l o t p i i a o n a i a c o e i s d t t i i T m o l w e t c f i h t a e n n v e i d a W r r h w s c i h r i a r p p t s h c o i e t t d e p e y i t e c c u t d c l o u W e t b t p s m a m l s l t f o t m m n w l a a i q i l a f r x l . n . / a a e o e u o l c m r t e e g o e e k o n n i p r , n c t a s e r o v m i s h a . h o y o P s e o i e n y e w c i r t n i ) o e e i e e i d t T t T b t d s l s d T o t h e r g d x h t e d t s i a a c w . n l u t a i a t a g e s t e r T c r f r l s a c . W e e h i a A b o f o . n u o d e s s s t o n t b L c t p e t i d o n d l w n n n l e i d g c W m i c . o o a e o r n . a s r t i r l a o o u e e n l l e l h o t i r d P i a l l i n e d e s i u o t s t t l l c a P t e P e o n e r y e T e h p o a a r u o i a o u t r h a h l h t T a r h h x l d f s e t s t e c l c t n t s d i e e n d W e s e m o o a v t a s h t a r i e f W t p t n t e e a o n v e r , n a a b s s c e e a o W n h s g f h d o e e r h o O l i a t h n n W s t b h / f u d o d d i t e d a t c g e U , o i l i n n f l u h e c t f d l l h n u c n g y l g h l r i o o o p a l h i n n o d a s T i s i a T n n t r t n p o a t e p a t s n i w e l f m e a r n o y t w c d s w n a o y g f u e r s o h e m m c l u t u n o o e . . f a s i c a d c b c d e a i n r l l n h . i a r e l t o o o t d u n e f m t p y t y b o t n r l e s c o d r r f v v d e t t i i r a u s s s n t e o t u G e e n s s e e u a e p o e m a h h o t a a i c t s s r u r i r r g n s a o s o n g t t s e r e p c e p m a a p o o s i d e l s o e , e d C e e r h r e g n e b b e u p d o l k a t t m u n p g e e n d d v c l c n n u u e m i o s e s a e o o h a h r r i y f r a e n s c e r o o o o e d n h t C d r h o i ( T p T h n L T u u s C m a t T c o c c b n e l l m d d l a a n a n n i c t o a a c e o l n s r r t s l o t i L e y u n e s n n v r t n e c i m e a o s c n i t i d n e m u v t g E m n e n i r r c o e n t e l s a r l r u g e i l i t s i l a t s u n t i a u s v E o a e o i r c d d e q n v f s s h x o s n c n n e e n E S I r a a C u r E i a

Part I: 7-19 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje f r f e n o o o h e s f e t s l e s i m n r t b D t y f i o n i o t n s i l f i r o O e y t l s a e n a C u e y r r V o m p v o ) t d s r s t i o o i e t r o - n e p M O t t S t a j c n l l t s r s o s s i g s r i p L a a c o e t D - e e e y n n i n c f c e o v i n d E a i v v l f u R O n o o k o o f n e n n Z I c V I M a m a S M L s t U L g ( r r o o o i n t o y a i e t e g t t i l e / a a m i e t t r i g n c a i b c t i i d r t i a a u a t r i m o p h d p s e i e e e v l M v m A I R R n R E o . , t l l f r s s s e e e e y y n n t l l s c t t i m e o o e n s t h v h b i o a a i i e r f t i t h o e e e s t j t t t r u r i C e z e i k f c o s l a i y s n e n r v c r c t t a t i a n i e b r e w s i i o o s t a j p n a e e g v f j e c o s c i i C p s r e f d f v e a s w m i e e f o i v r e e t c o i e t s i o f a k o t l k e o i d a g i e y v s l l h t t r o S a l e b y n n - t h l a a r e a c a t n p i t i a , i e c u d d t e e p l n e e i n i f n i s g d f n r e l c b d h o a e c i e s e a a n n v t d ; y i i i n e s r i i i l l c e t h o e b t l g i e n ) s w p k a t a u c i : t c f m s w c i e f y u e a i s s n o , r s e l a r d w i r h ; y d r s d h m a , u m n i n n d o a l g t t e n e s k - n s t p r i o a t o l o n a y c s d n i o h a a n c l i e i o i v t a t e a o n c e s t a a o l d j t i i a n s o , u i o r s s t m c s t e h t p o a t c . n i s m s i b t t a u u n e s r o u c i r r e l t P n u i t c k r c e l i o u e p c t n e e t e a . t o i d e j s T i e c e n s o m s s l c o e i p d r f p l d c o i r r e , a f i d e e e a n a u h w d r t f W e e s : r f t a h e g a v n o p o a p t r o e e e v g e u i h n c t g g h e d , e . t i W h s h l k c d n i b e i f s s t t i i l p t n n n a h d e e h s a a e r l o i y d t t t i a s n a e e o o v h d n f i e b n a n t e c a y u i e h s - t s n y M t A m a l s e b u t b i s s l e h i c d n n d w y i i l m t s l r q h t l l e f e e n u d i o o m d . n a t i r e a l t i e u i l r e i i b g s r i e o i o l u t t s o n p w d r i u s c a s e n e o i s f p o c t o a w e t r w a a r s e d e o r c i r e h l a n g p n s e n s i a t e t g p t b h a a a a e g o o t o n s e a a n s h c s o u i i m i p c c c t r t w e o e e e a g t e h a p u i i i e ( n y t i a a g p l c b b h p n t f y i t t n t i m t i p i f n t m b i s u a a g e e i i r r i d l d h m d r t a j c j c o , u t r l l l t i i t n c i o o r t e n l s i p i p k l h p s a u u u t u s i v j i t r h h r t a e k o o c s b c n e t r t o o a o o o e s u e l s o s t a h e k k r a r u o u l u b h i h h n a T p c D s S w t M i H s A S a A a p p a S s E p a t l e a l t n b ) c i e o a + i g s t ( i p a l a h r g B m i e p e p N O n o i t e c ) ) s - - u a ( ( r t h s B B p n o C . t s s e e e e a e e y d d d t e a l l r e h b h h b b i n n r i t e a t t u t a l a a t u t i m y o t e a l f y t n B r o a i a s s h t i v a s c o e n i r s e t d n i e p e m p l v e d c e i l z n f i e i l s f k e l c t a e t l i s y h t l i r m a k c t r c a a a r l G n o m w a a a A c r h m / a o r u r n i n e t o w . p e r n d l o p a ) c w n m e h t o n p c . a e e i n e v a d n t e c p g n h y o m h t o d e i n c t r i , t i o l t e e m t a g m i a s a t t s m A i b - t t a e o f l c d i t e r u a t u n y l n l e s a e . r a o n e l d t p e o f o s l t t e y h n a i p f s i V t r e a t s e s e f s t p o a o i i c s o u a t t u h o n o l a t f i t r r s u l u h u l a a d e r o e o u , e m a t b e c d t n T n h v s p n s p o f b o n c i a , e T i i l o n e c a e r O e d i c l K / s l r . o a t h i n l e . i l t n s a t c e c e i n b , e n o o t d l o c j i h t u o u c u e i n t w t p i r m e r p a t s t t e e h c f o r o c m t o T f s c d v d u f r e d e d u i k i a r n u n o d n d r p y e n k t s r g S t o l a r e t s o o a e y n l s t c r s i l r o s n a c f y n d d t e a e n i P s o g t e a w s e o e y s o c o f c t t u A r T n e b b f e c i C m c r p e o r o a r y : i p e e e e a v o W t r r t e s f u r l i h h e e i d f d r l e e o n D a n a s T a a T W i C a ( f b a s h l t t a l c t i a l n s e f t e h n n y t m t e o s e n c e f m r o a e e r c l l t i i S l a n v E c i b d n o u f n E P a L o

Part I: 7-20 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

(1) Involuntary Resettlement and Land Acquisition The sewerage facilities proposed under the Basic Plan are new WWTP.

Protected area, N Arboretum

Water Economy Facility Zone (for WWTP)

1 km Figure 7.7 Proposed Site for WWTP

For new WWTP, the land acquisition is necessary but no settlements exist within the boundary of the proposed sites (see the Figure below). Therefore, involuntary resettlement would not occur.

Figure 7.8 Proposed Site for WWTP

The WWTP is proposed to be located within the boundary of Water Economy Facility Zone under GUP. This area is used as hunting area and there is information that this land belongs to State. Ninety percent of this zone is state owned land but there are several requests for de-nationalization. The detail land owner information is described in the Section 6.4 of Part II (F/S).

The proposed WWTP sites for Saraj, North Gorce Petrov and Dracevo are also checked. According to the feasibility report of Saraj, the WWTPs are proposed on the vacant area and agriculture field. The process of land acquisition is required but no involuntary resettlement will occur. The area of North Gorce Petrov and Dracevo are shown in figure below. In these cases also, land acquisition is necessary but involuntary resettlement will not be required.

Part I: 7-21 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Figure 7.9 Proposed WWTP Site for North Gorce Petrov

Figure 7.10 Proposed WWTP Site for Dracevo

The trunk sewers are proposed to be installed under the proposed roads in GUP. Though this is not the direct impact by this project, the involuntary resettlement is unavoidable by land acquisition required for construction of these roads as there are settlements in the proposed area. The responsible organization for road construction is Skopje City and the budget for preparation of design of these roads is already approved by Skopje City Council. The progress of road construction should be closely monitored for smooth implementation of construction of trunk sewers.

(2) Land Use The WWTP in Trubarevo will be constructed within the boundary of Water Economy Facility Zone in GUP (see Figure 7.7). The area including this zone is used as hunting area for hare, partridge and pheasant. These are not endangered species and the area is not protected. This is not the commercial hunting area but closed type for scientific and educational purpose, and the hunting is conducted 3 – 4 times per year. Total area for hunting is 1,475 ha and the proposed WWTP requires only 57 ha. The approval for hunting area is up to 2008 and MAFWE is not taking any procedures for extension yet. By construction of WWTP, the land use will be affected, but under GUP, some parts of this area are already designated for water economy facility Zone. Thus, through providing appropriate compensation and substitute land, the impacts on land use can be mitigated.

Part I: 7-22 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Zone 1

Zone 2

Legend Water Economy Facility Zone Zone 3 Hunting Ground Trubarevo Hunting area Arboretum Zone 1: Hare-Pheasant Zone 2: Hare-Partridge Zone 3: Hare Figure 7.11 Area for Hunting and Proposed WWTP Site

Gorce Petrov Municipality has decided the location of WWTP (see right map in figure below) according to the GUP (see left map in figure below) and the conceptual design of WWTP is completed. The proposed area is vacant (see Figure 7.9) and no serious impact on land use is expected.

Proposed WWTP location

Figure 7.12 Urban Plan of Gorce Petrov Municipality

WWTPs of Sarai and Dracevo are not included in the GUP as these areas were not under jurisdiction of Skopje City when the preparation of the Plan was undertaken. However, Skopje City has the plan to revise the GUP this year and these WWTPs will be located in the Plan. The sites are not used for any purposes and the impact on land use changes caused by this Project is low (see Figure 7.10).

(3) Protected Area The protected area in the vicinity of Skopje City is illustrated below. The affected areas by the facilities proposed in B/P are Rasce (protection area for water source) located in Saraj, Nerezi-Lepenec (protection area for groundwater) in North Gorce Petrov, and Trubarevo (arboretum) in central sewer district. The operation of WWTP in Saraj and North Gorce Petrov will affect the water source and groundwater positively; however, the adverse impacts by construction might be expected. But the period is short and appropriate prevention measures such as appropriate spoil treatment can minimize the impacts.

Part I: 7-23 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

The arboretum managed by Faculty for Agriculture, Skopje University is located near the WWTP site in central sewer district in Trubarevo (see Figure 7.11). The impacts such as noise and vibration, construction of roads, and land use might be expected during construction period.

Figure 7.13 Protected Areas in the Vicinity of Skopje

(4) Water Pollution In the JICA preparatory study, the water pollution caused by the increase of industrial wastewater pollution load in the Vardar River was evaluated. By collection of domestic and industrial wastewater for treatment, the river water flow will be decreased, and it will lead to increase in the pollution load from industrial wastewater (that are not collected and treated) in the Vardar River.

Amount of wastewater Present: 0.016m3/s Amount of wastewater Present: 0.026 m3/s Present: 0.935m3/s 2020: 0.935 m3/s *

Amount of wastewater Present: 0.027m3/s 2020: 0.044 m3/s

* Note: Discharge in 2020 will not increase because the existing amount has almost reached to water supply capacity. Figure 7.14 Discharging Points of Industrial Wastewater

In 2020, the industrial wastewaters which will not be discharged into the WWTP are from six factories; Arcelormittal, Makstil, Skopsko Leguri and RZ Usulugi (steel industry), Pivara (beer), and Ohis (chemical industry). Their willingness for treatment of wastewater is confirmed by Industrial

Part I: 7-24 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Survey conducted by JICA Study Team. Five factories except Pivara have their own treatment plants but these are not operated appropriately and the wastewater is discharged into the Vardar River as of October 2008.

BOD load of six factories in 2006 is 6,253 kg/d, this is the 30 % of total run-off BOD load (20,543 kg/d). In 2020, by implementation of IPPC, the expected BOD load from these six factories will be 1,845 kg/d, decreased by 70 %. The domestic wastewater and other industrial wastewater will be treated at the central WWTP, the BOD load of the upper stream of central WWTP will be 1,845 kg/d from six factories. It means that by implementation of industrial wastewater management and operation of sewerage system, the BOD load of upper stream of central WWTP will be decreased from 20,543 kg/d to 1,845 kg/d (91 % reduction). On the other hand, the decrease of river flow by transferring wastewater to WWTP will be from 27.4 m3/s to 26.0 m3/s, only five % reduction. The effect on reduction of BOD load is much larger than the decrease of river water flow, the deterioration of river water quality by WWTP operation will not occur. The detail water quality simulation is conducted in the Chapter 4 of Part I (B/P).

The WWTP will treat the industrial wastewater which is pre-treated to acceptable level at WWTP. If the industrial wastewater is not pre-treated to appropriate quality and contains the hazardous substance, this will affect the effluent quality. The pre-treatment of industrial wastewater before discharging to the sewer is the obligation of each factory under IPPC system, the risk of contamination is not high. When the contamination of effluent by industrial wastewater is identified through monitoring, the WWTP should report the fact to MEPP or Skopje City which have the authority of inspection to make the factories pre-treat their wastewater.

(5) Sludge Sludge will be generated during the wastewater treatment process. The sludge will be thickened and digested to make the quality stable and dried in the sludge drying bed. As discussed in the alternative study, the construction of new sludge landfill is not realistic and feasible. When the IPPC comes into force, it will require each industry to install the pre-treatment of wastewater. Each industry is required to implement the prevention measures by 2014 and the hazardous substances should be pre-treated before the wastewater is discharged into the sewerage system. By implementation and compliance of IPPC system, there is the low risk of sludge contamination by hazardous substances and the sludge can be disposed of at the existing landfill site. In addition to this, if the quality meets the EU standards, the sludge can be used for the agriculture (EU Directives 86/278/EEC). However, there is the possibility of mixing the hazardous substances in the sludge even if the IPPC system is conducted. The quality of the sludge will be checked at the WWTP and if the hazardous substances are mixed in the sludge, the responsible person has to inform the MEPP and Skopje City and ask them to inspect the industries as they have the responsibility and the authority to monitor and inspect the discharge of the industries. The sludge with the hazardous substances should be disposed of at the landfill for the hazardous waste which MEPP has the plan to construct by 2014.

(6) Offensive Odour The offensive odour from WWTP is unavoidable. But by selection of appropriate technology and O&M, this impact will be mitigated. The odour will be generated during the treatment process of sludge. If the sludge is not digested appropriately in digestion tank, the odour will spread in the sludge drying bed. By appropriate O&M and creation of green buffer zone, this impact will be mitigated.

7.4 Public Consultation

7.4.1 Approaches The stakeholder meetings for public consultation were held three times during Basic Plan stage and F/S stage according to the JICA’s Guidelines.

Part I: 7-25 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 7.6 Schedule and Objectives of Stakeholder Meeting Date Objectives First Meeting 9th November 2007 (1) Introduction of JICA Study (objectives, contents, schedule) (2) Explanation of procedures and schedule of environmental and social considerations (3) Draft scoping of IEE level study Second Meeting 22nd February 2008 (1) Contents of Basic Plan and result of IEE (2) Results of IEE (3) Priority projects in F/S and scoping of EIA Third Meeting7 16th October 2008 (1) Contents of F/S (2) Results of EIA

The organizer was Skopje City in cooperation with MTC and MEPP.

7.4.2 Selection of Stakeholders The selection of stakeholders is carried out by Skopje City in collaboration with JICA Study Team, and the stakeholders are categorised as follows.  People in the Study area and people who will be affected by the proposed projects, including socially vulnerable people  Ministries and relevant governmental agencies (MTC, MEPP, MAFWE, MOF etc.)  Skopje City and 10 municipalities  Research institute and universities (public health, hydrometeorology, etc.)  Main Industries  NGOs working in the environmental field  International Organizations and Donors

Main stakeholders will be identified and selected regularly based on the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder at different stages of the public consultations.

7.4.3 First Stakeholder Meeting First stakeholder meeting was held on 9th Nov. 2007 by Skopje City at City Hall and 56 persons participated in this meeting.

Table 7.7 Participants in First Stakeholder Meeting Ministries 7 NGOs 5 Skopje City, Municipality 18 International organizations 3 Research institutes, University 13 Others 10 56

During this meeting, the questions and comments mentioned below were raised.  The options like independent WWTP in Saraj and Gorce Petrov, or central WWTP for 10 municipalities should be considered.  The water quality categorization of the river might change so that the calculation of WWTP should consider the parameters of outlet from WWTP as second class category.  Industrial wastewater should be separated from domestic wastewater.  The effluent must abide by EU Directive and standards. The EU Directive is also considering formulation of sensitive and non-sensitive areas, and accordingly Macedonia should also define this.

7.4.4 Second Stakeholder Meeting Second stakeholder meeting was held on 22nd February 2008 by Skopje City at City Hall and 57 persons participated in this meeting.

7 The third stakeholder meeting is held during F/S stage. The detail information is described in the section 6.9.3 of Part II (F/S).

Part I: 7-26 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 7.8 Participants in Second Stakeholder Meeting Ministries, Governments 9 NGOs 4 Skopje City, Municipality 21 International organizations 2 Research institutes, University 8 Others 8 Media 5 Total 57

During this meeting, the questions and comments mentioned below were raised.  The mitigation measures should be taken properly (the opinion from the Trubarevo Community Council)  From the view point of groundwater protection, the project for North Gorce Petrov should be included in the priority projects.  The sludge drying bed is proposed in the Study, but if another technology is adopted, the requirement of land can be decreased. This should be considered.  The arboretum and hunting area are used for the educational and scientific purpose and taken as important places. The groundwater flows in this area and it is used for arboretum, any construction should not disturb the groundwater table.

7.5 Selection of Priority Project from the Environmental and Social Point of View

The Study Team recommends that the city area of Skopje be divided into four sewage treatment districts; Central, Saraj, North Gorce Petrov, and Dracevo for the development of sewerage. The conditions of these four districts are shown in Table 7.6. The wastewater treatment plant and the trunk sewer comprise the Project.

Table 7.9 Outline of Four Sewer District Item Central Saraj North Gorce Petrov Dracevo Location Central Upstream Upstream Downstream Settlement Status City Rural settlements Rural settlements Urban settlement Relative Location with ― Neighboring Neighboring Separate the Central District Sewer Coverage 80% Almost nil Trunk sewers under Almost 100% construction Sewerage Planning ― F/S completed in 2007 ― Detailed Design of Preliminary Detailed WWTP completed in Design on-going for 2007 selected settlements Population Large Small Small Small Industry Many Small Small Small Project Cost Large Small Small Small Possibility of Grant or Loan Grant Grant Grant Loan Intention of Independent Independent Independent Independent Municipality on Sewer District Contribution to Water Large Small Small Small Quality Improvement in the Vardar River Contribution to Small Large Large Small Conservation of Water Source

The table below shows the environmental and social evaluation.

Part I: 7-27 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 7.10 Environmental and Social Evaluation North Gorce Central Saraj Dracevo Without Item/Alternative Petrov Project C O C O C O C O 1 Natural Environment (1) Topography and Geology (2) Groundwater B (-) A (+) B (-) A (+) B (-) A (+) B (-) B (+) A (-) (3) Bottom Sediment N N B (+) B (+) B (+) B (-) (4) Hydrological Situation N N (5) Wildlife and Ecosystem B (-) B (+) B (-) (6) Meteorology (7) Landscape B (-) N B (-) N B (-) N B (-) N (8) Protected Area B (-) C (-) A (-) A (+) A (-) A (+) (10) Global Warming N N N N N 2 Public Hazard (1) Air Pollution B (-) B (-) B (-) N N N N N (2) Water Pollution A (+), N N A (+) N A (+) N B (+) B (-) B(-) (3) Soil Pollution B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) (4) Waste A (-) A (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) (5) Noise and Vibration B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) (6) Ground Subsidence C (-) C (-) C (-) C (-) (7) Offensive Odours A (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) 3 Social Environment (1) Involuntary Resettlement A (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) and Land Acquisition (2) Livelihood and Local B (+) B (+) B (+) B (+) B (+) B (+) B (-) Economy B (-) B (-) (3) Change in Land Use and A (-) C (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) Local Resources (4) Social Institution C (+) C (+) (5) Local Decision-Making (6) Existing Social B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) Infrastructure and Services (7) Public Health and Safety B (-) B (+) B (-) B (+) B (-) B (+) B (-) B (+) B (-) (8) Socially Vulnerable Groups (9) Cultural Heritage (10) Gender, Children’s Rights (11) Misdistribution of B (-) B (-) B (-) B (-) Benefits and Loss/Damage (12) Local Conflicts of Interest B (-) N B (-) B (-) B (-) (13) Water Use N A (+) B (-) (14) Infectious Diseases N N Note: A – significant impact, B – moderate impact, C – uncertain, N – negligible, Blank – no impact

All 4 projects include the construction of different sizes of WWTP, and Saraj project includes several WWTPs. In central sewerage area, the installation of 8.7 km trunk sewers is included.

The total impacts on society and environment are larger in central project compared with other 3 projects as the size of WWTP is large and installation of trunk sewers is included. Especially the impacts on land acquisition, land use, wildlife and ecosystem are large. As the WWTPs in Saraj and North Gorce Petrov will be constructed within the protected area for water source, the impacts on river water and groundwater during construction period might be expected. During the operation of these WWTPs, positive impacts will be expected.

The negative impacts on society and environment of central district are larger than of other 3 projects, however, the impacts can be avoided and mitigated by taking proper mitigation measures. The expected mitigation measures are listed in the table below. The detail mitigation measures and monitoring plan will be prepared in EIA at F/S stage.

Part I: 7-28 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 7.11 Major Impacts and Mitigation Measures Item Impact and Mitigation Measures Involuntary Resettlement and Houses and structures are not located within the proposed WWTP site and involuntary Land Acquisition resettlement will not be required. As the proposed sites belong to the state as well as private, the land acquisition is necessary for private land. Macedonia has the law on expropriation and the compensation should be done by substitute land or cash. The compensation should be properly done to mitigate the impacts. The impact can also be minimized by selecting the state land as much as possible. Identification of project-affected people will be done during the EIA study. Change in Land Use and Some change in land use will be expected by land acquisition of WWTP site. The area Local Resources including proposed WWTP site is used as hunting area for educational and scientific purpose by Faculty of Forestry, Skopje University. As the hunting area is 1475 ha and the WWTP site is 57 ha, the impact on land use will be small and insignificant. However, the noise and vibration during construction and transportation of materials will affect the animals, thus the mitigation measures for noise and vibration should be taken. Close discussion with MAFWE and Faculty of Forestry, Skopje University to mitigate the impacts will be required. Waste Eighty tons/d of the sewage sludge will be generated through treatment process. The quantity of the sludge is acceptable at Drisla Landfill site.

The WWTP will receive industrial wastewater after the pre-treatment at each industry, thus the hazardous materials will not be included within the sludge. The pre-treatment is obligation of each industry required by IPPC under Law on Environment and this will be finished by 2014. The sludge will not include hazardous elements and it can be accepted at Drisla Landfill site.

From the environmental, social points of views and the above mentioned reasons, the Study Team selects the project for the Central District as the priority project.

7.6 Scoping of Priority Project

Part I: 7-29 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

Table 7.12 Draft Scoping e y t c i n m m m m m l l l i l l e h u u u u u r a a i i i i i b g - - - r i a d d d d d m m u b e e e e e H c S S o c r M M M M M P O / e d t m m m m m l l l l l l u n u u u u u t a a a i i i i i e i - - - t d d d d d n m m m x e e e e e g S S S E a M M M M M M t c e j r r b e e g g m t O v a n n a f y i i i t e n n o i d r w d d i i R e y t s e d n n f y r r l s t r e e e i t t j u u n l l e a c l l n a s p o o u e v p p b d u d e i r r w f a a a l r r o o o o c o f i r r e e e n o r l a e e k a o r r r u u A - G V - W S U - P s a F F G P s a D a i i i i ) ) ) ) ) ) e e e e l l l l e - - - l l l l + + + g g g g r ( ( ( ( - ( - ( b b b b O e e e e o i i i i c C B B g g g g A B A N N N N S t c i i i a ) ) ) ) ) e e e l l l - - - - - p l l l g g g ( ( ( ( ( - - - b b b C e e e m i i i I B B B B B g g g N N N t r t d r e s n i t o . a e a x h n l d s e w o b s e e i i e e s d g t k t i h g r g a c t i n s a t l e d o a u i i o h r g r n f e t r t t c w e t d n o b s r r u p f n f i n o a a n u b n o o a c d s e p a i - o t t s i n n c y g e s d e n s n l r o i u t s d s e i e a n i l t h l s d a n e . a t t a e m b p s e g m l t t t a r e a n d l t e t a r r i c u n e a n l n e a t u e o r b e h a e r e l s t c h e t d , h p t i t n , t , s . i t m s i l s a t i d i i t n i d p e e n n a a d e w o y s r m h l a t a e t g n a d p e c i r s p c e n i s t a e s n n a i s l t u r r h t r l u e o r , e . o c n i e i t l n u s o h e g t w e n s v t r c a e w d i c i a P l s i n e g m e l n t . y s a c p r t o w l g l l f a l e n i e e a c e t a U w n o e e g o s e p s v n r w e o t i r w e a c s s f f e t a j m c b e k e e s R o o y d p p a s t e l a m c g g i r e l t b c o p e f g n n i n d r g u a l a e k i a o a o e d u f t n m q e d w i l S i f I b o e r r g t e n w n r s t t . r a , a c v f n P e u e o y f u t G d e t i s a e u o o t V h T i r t t r o r n t u s g d t H t c u e i e o s p a a d n s m l n r W t e u d e h G l e c n o o u t r m n e w y b l l r i t i i f l t r o W e o t . f o t a a n o o e b c o s a e y i d c t F c t e i h t l n n N f e s b h n r o g t n h i g f e t l s s t i e o l c e e o o n i h o h s l i i o o r u r e t u c e i p r n s r w l a p e p y r d c s a i s f t o u i o w e o i s l i f n . s . e t t d w r i d s t m i . t h e s . a u e e e e m c t p e n r n d n e s c s g g n h f n w n e c u u o t r r e e a T r o k s h o o i r o o a i i t i s k r a a i d e g t t i . i d t F l l t a m i e r p t t t n e o s s n e c i . n e a t t a a r d c u o u g u s n e o u d m d l w o c t g e r r o o n h n u i a l b r i o z h e t e o a r t n t c t n n u s e t o c h o s l w t s e a s f a c r h t y c c g s l e i s p s t r o n e n a c c o o h i i e P i s t n n b r d t r m a a s l o c n e i c t p i n a o i T o n i e y o y i c k i l e l y g e x t x t t t c d c o m l l i t i i n e s g u – y e i e e i t l a s W g l l o t f o u f b d o i n i d b e h g n r n s e i r e c w o t c b c n i s p t e t e e W s y s y b u r d a t a r a a o m f t t n n a r f n f f e r e w a u t i s d t g m u r o h t u h l o a o u t f s o f e d d h d e i o a w g h l p i n n c s e y t n o o n i r g A f n v s n d t r a i b o a o i e t a e . o i n e o i r e r e o r n r o m l i p r t c h n n l l d o m e c t e u y n u a t b i s s a e o e a a e e t l P e r a t t v p g o t s o u r l u c c l g i h i n r a c r r h m l c T r o n a t s q r p s t i A b r t e i a e c g a e e e a u t h r e s i t t e e e e e e e o p r t s v W m p a w t s o u p u h i a i h h h h h h h a u x o e n m n T N D e T w T i i T w T V p W T w T d O D i c W s y g m o n l e o t o i s t e y a g s s t u t t o n g d i n t n c e s n n e a n e i o a l i r m e e n m t y i a e d r m y e t o g u c r d m a n l i l i h e a a o t e l n a l E g p p d s u o w o w o a a l o e e d r p l d l r t r f c l i r m i c o g n o o s r a a l v o r e e p e o u d z b t d n t t t d t l a p o n o r i e o a E y r l i o a r o H l T G B H W M L P G A W a c r i l u t b a u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 N P

Part I: 7-30 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje e y t n c i i n m m m m l l a i l e h h t u u u u r a i i i i b r g g - - r i i a e d d d d m u c b e e e e H H c S n o c r M M M M U P O / e n i d t m m m m m a e e u n t u u u u u t g g i i i i i r e i r r - - t e d d d d d n a a x c e e e e e g L L n E a M M M M M U M t d c e e / t j g g e , c s s s e t n b n n s g g g t i e i g e e e a i i y r i f i i i s n n n t r r O e n t t t e s f i i i y i e i r i i i u u t g n n l d d d c i d a d A C i n n n o o s a n s n n n s n e n t t w r i u u u b b r t s e e e e e e e u u u c c e u j j o l l e p c l l h h o d o o o m m m e e o p p d e p p v i p p g g r j r r j p m r m i f a i i s r r r o o n o o s r m m o o m f r o o e i u e e n e a e r r e u u u k k a e e r o o o u A P s a D S c P S c D N p N p S c P P R S L S U F - - ) ) ) ) ) ) e - - - - - + r ( ( ( ( ( ( - - - - O o c A A B B C B S t c a ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ------p + ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( - - - C m I A A A B B C B B . f e e . o k s n h l g h n t g n e e r t o a i i g o i n u r h a t i e t d r i e . r t l n i w t t e t o l t i a e e l v P t a t a l t s i n c n a k f d d l r t i T a h o e e l u i c . l e p e a o A t n b h i n i s t r u i h a o . G d m v u e a W s c l a o n i i o d c v t e i n e s . v t r s s n b t p o p d e r o s s i a o n e i W d d c l n s e a i s d t e e . e u l d m t r e t e e d f n a d a l s c t e f s d a e n s o l o a ’ n p i l n o e a f i m c i l f e h c a t h u y s a x v b i e m o v e a , t t c t n s i r t e t u ) i r i i T y s y e i p o u e o g n i s e r t g a c b r o . , i i i v e x t n s i s y . a f o t n l i n s h a a l p e a c i b o e e i t l s t e s c n e g t r e h l t l z s c t s a h 0 t l r e n b e u e e n d n i t b a i e e a a j r k 3 h a i e b i n e l y t n c a n s t t r c ( r v p l t r t g r . a s e a s i r n i i e c i i s o o t n l e , m o i r e l r i n g l l t t o i e u n i v a n n e k w h i i p f w m t a a o c t n d c e t c t m a f s n o S y c t c s a e a i h c s n d l n s a l e s m m r l r a n f , i m s i i t e g u n s i t o d g e o p n r i f p r y o o i l n s a y e n p t n l t t s s i p o s t u c o a e w i i t s i e m t m a n o c i h r e r n t , m f e i t s e t m e c . n r i t o v u i g a s e s i P t y m s o o a r s i g u z o u r e t n u f e x t t i n n u n r i l T s a c c k m e o h n s e o t r l l s n i l m a u S t t o i i i n l s l t p d e o a n e s l a q i c m , W y s c i y s e h t u r p n n v o t e e c t t e g a p y a a r m s n n c a h e r a t o t c f a e s p e t e C W n t l a o r o a o i . i g w a r t i n g l l e i m e . e l s t r p e c g d r t p r n e a o e t p n i p l l s t i p , y n h i e o h a o n n e g a i l a f a a m t t i f a d s o m o n m v a r m r s T h a I a c x e o s l i t l y t t w i i u o e l o o t a . g e r e a m g f t l i d w n m a c c n g e s o n S s e d v d c n o m n n e d e n r s o c o / r u a o n i n o e o e n a s e t e r n r e c a t i i a r e l o e F r i t f t . t a d e h h l d h s e f d r : p e e g e s e i a s e a n t , c s c a e u g o u T l n b s w e g e d g P u t n h c o t m l a P e l , h r n t . e e o i e a h u i a a e r t a o a i e n i u T i e d T r t l T s s e j u t h r r t t a o s n c - , o t s p s . n t m s w s N o s c i s a u i g g k n c n W e a a a r e t e W t y n g i a n n d d l d r n a n l i o u s : c d h i p s g i m u n l r n n u e r o w u W n i k e u s e p W ; t d t b s g r s a a r P r r r m a l s i m i h d n t e h t , r l n a m n n t a n t t u o u s ) a i i h l o s m n y t T a o o s i t n o d n r n r d e r c a i h i u f a e n o w i n t . i f t e l a d a v n u h t r c n h b r v o n l l i e h o s c f e y P a a i r d y l r m t s u o d T c t g c c p p r t r i i u 5 r s e e b u T e i a a t . g r a U P d e t t t d a t . 7 g s s d d t a a c c y a s s n y e e e l p n n a i T t s d 4 d n u i n W n e s d t o n e i , r y r i v a e e i o e r s l i a n n a e t a u m l r s r e t b i 1 t d a o W C r c a c d o c W r ( e o m m o o e u c e t s n r n e t t v e r c e , d r a e h e n r v n e d b P n h l a l a o a a a W n j t e g n , t o e l p o o n a g e l e i e T e u e o i p g i e n f , l e e p c r s c x r r g n t r i o c G g e i o g t t o d s o w e a h b e e e n i i o W n o s h t h b f k d i n t r t f f e w i e r l f n s e i n r e g t t c n a a o l f u a S o o a h b i n s o r s l W a l r a r a u b n e i o p c i m t s f i l a h s e T o r c d t c i v n n b d t t l r . d i e d o i i o a p . i u t n a w h l t o o s d s e w e t h n s o e d v t i s i i v t o r c s i t i o s l n n c g n g t t w d u l e c n r o i r n f n i c c o x i u e a o a t a a a a i a d a h n l g u t e e c a o l a e r r l i q c d m p c r p a n n c s l z d m a n w m p t e e c P . e s i o e u s f o s a a e e a u s e e e t t o m e s s r s p p a l r t w p l p e u c l l i m t i t s h l r r n r c e l e / t i o s s o s o p t o o c c s n o t a a r , e s d a o s u a t i i i p l e i t d t n e e e w e e e e e e e c h r b n p o s d h w o e a e e s u o n r o a v h o h h h h h h a h d r f u f e n e i e u h a m h T D r L v f T T N s T T T m t T o L r l p o C b i T U o t V a - t n d g e n n l i a m n a k n e e e c l o a o c s t i s i o s t t t t l n u n i m r e a n e - s o u s d s r i d i e d n t t e o e i n b u n n r o i u n s c m d a a i q o t r l e v e i b i s y o c l t t i d u r u a n m s d e c u a o o E s i y l t n n n e v s d o l i i n e a d o e d n m o h s l r r u g i n a l e i e o p l l n a l t l n u a s i v n e e l o s i a a c i c o f d n v o a v c o f r h i o o o n c n E o S W N G O I a L e C l S L l a i c o 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 S

Part I: 7-31 Chapter 7, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje e y t c i n m m m l i e u u u g r i i i b i - - - - - r a d d d u H b e e e c o c r M M M P O / e d t m m m m u n u u u u t i i i i e i - - - - - t d d d d n x e e e e g E a M M M M M t c , e s c j g n g i e l i b n o n , t i i i b i y t r r O l t u a s i u u a t t p d c r o o p n e , r i o b b t e e e e e c j c l l p h h i s d k s p r e i p p g g n r f i i e s n o o o f u o e e s e a k e e r A N p t W N p - - - U S M R - - ) ) e - + r ( ( - - - O o c B B S t c a ) ) ) - - - p ( ( ( ------C m I B B B d n d a i o s d v r n a e . a e k . o r r s t s u s o e t d t t e c a w i n n s e a n j g e s n o y n h l r i t r o l a i a p l i t r i o r t c e o e u t h t W p r t r a . t f o m s e m f e o n g t r n o m e a a c o s o i h f c o t e c s o c p . h i r r t u s e d e r u e r t b s i p e a s t u l i e v l n e l i i n y a o h g t b c w u d q f y s h e d d t t i e a o e i f n c n r i a a i m n t w e p o n s r v t d i i e i u t o n m a d o a I o c e i t i v e f r r e m a e h e o o b e t g s p o e t e a t s r r t e n h i i n r g u b r g t a e a i t e r d a d t o h e n r m t i N n l o o a t a e l r M l n c e b e i i i n r & u d w d e o l d O t e t g u r s c d i d t o e a e s h n t h d p . i u s a / c s s e d m r l s n i n p e a e e o o r i x e i t w h c t u i e t h t e l c t l e s s , a u i T u b . n r p t k c t i t e o s s n i c s r c e t i . n u u r o n s c r n j o t e t a u t m u a c n r b f n t r e r y m i m o s u d o a f t i n f d o n t p s s o o e n i c o s e t i c t o s a d r t s a t t s i l p a g c c o y l e y i i l e n c r t l m b f i r i i a f r f r l t e e e a i n a s u o h h h r e b o n T i D n N T - T a T c - - t e s s y t e g t r h a e e g f t i m a r n a e i S s l s d f f ’ e s / d b d o t e s s o n n a n s n a g r e n l a s a e e r o a e t a o l t s e i d i c i n h i m l t r i l c t r d i l d e l u u e u o f l n h t a b s s h v e n a c c E i e s u l r o , u g s h y s t r u o a r c l t e s s n i t r l i e c i i t r l c f s i p a t u i d c l e d a i t e a s u t l s v e n i r c b c n i a f r o f e u x o u o e r e n n E i s P S g C G M b L W I 0 2 3 4 1 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1

Part I: 7-32 Chapter 8, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje CHAPTER 8 PRIORTY PROJECTS FOR F/S

The Study Team recommends that the city area of Skopje be divided into four sewage treatment districts; Central, Saraj, North Gorce Petrov, and Dracevo for the development of sewerage. The conditions of these four districts are shown in Table 8.1. The table indicates that the Central District occupies a built-up area, and has a large population and many factories, and that the population in the District covered by the sewer system is as large as 80% the total. The wastewater collected from the city area is at present discharged without treatment at downstream of the Vardar River. Hence, the present Project will contribute to the improvement in the water quality of the river to a great extent.

Although almost entire population of Dracevo is covered by a sewer system and a primary treatment process, the sewage from the Dracevo district is discharged to the Vardar River through a small stream with only chlorination since the treatment process is not functioning. All the three Municipality administrations for Saraj, North Gorce Petrov and Dracevo have strong intentions to construct sewerage facilities although the progress in preparation to that end is different from each other. In effect, it will not be advantageous for them to be given a priority status to their project since detailed designs for their projects have been completed. Furthermore, there is a high probability for them to have grant assistance from the IPA fund etc. since the sizes of the projects are relatively small.

There is a high possibility for the project for the Central District to be implemented under a loan as the project is big in size. It is highly valuable to undertake this feasibility study, which can be a convenient material for the presentation of the Project to a lending agency.

Table 8.1 Outline of Four Sewer Districts Item Central Saraj North Gorce Petrov Dracevo Location Central Upstream Upstream Downstream Settlement Status City Rural settlements Rural settlements Urban settlement Relative Location with ― Neighboring Neighboring Separate the Central District Sewer Coverage 80% Almost nil Main collectors under Almost 100% construction Sewerage Planning ― F/S completed in 2007 ― Detailed Design of Preliminary Detailed WWTP completed in Design on-going for 2007 selected settlements Population Large Small Small Small Industry Many Small Small Small Project Cost Large Small Small Small Possibility of Grant or Loan Grant Grant Grant Loan Intention of Independent Independent Independent Independent Municipality on Sewer District Contribution to Water Large Small Small Small Quality Improvement in the Vardar River Contribution to Small Large Large Small Conservation of Water Source

The evaluation from the environmental and social point of view are shown in Table 7.10.

The four projects are evaluated from the environmental and social point of views. The total impacts on society and environment are larger in central project compared with other 3 projects as the size of WWTP is large and installation of trunk sewers is included. Especially the impacts on land acquisition, land use, wildlife and ecosystem are large. As the WWTPs in Saraj and North Gorce Petrov will be constructed within the protected area for water source, the impacts on river water and groundwater during construction period might be expected. During the operation of these WWTPs, the positive impacts will be expected.

Part I: 8-1 Chapter 8, Part I (B/P) Wastewater Management in Skopje

The impacts on society and environment of central district are larger than of other 3 projects, however, the negative impacts can be avoided and mitigated by taking proper mitigation measures. The expected mitigation measures are listed in the table 7.11. The detail mitigation measures and monitoring plan will be prepared in EIA at F/S stage.

From the environmental, social points of views and the above mentioned reasons, the Study Team selects the project for the Central District as the priority project. The wastewater treatment plant and the main collector comprise the Project.

Figure 8.1 Priority Project

Part I: 8-2