Clean-Up of Environmental Hotspots Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Assessment of Environmental Monitoring Capacities in Bor

Mission Report Interagency Mission to Bor 13-17 May 2002

UNEP/Post-Conflict Assessment Unit Geneva, September 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary 3

2. Introduction 6 2.1 General description of Bor and its environmental problems 6 2.2 Environmental and health monitoring mission 13

3. Mission findings and conclusions 17 3.1 Air monitoring 17 3.1.1 Meteorological data 20 3.1.2 Air pollution monitoring 21 3.2 Groundwater and drinking water monitoring 29 3.3 Surface water monitoring 34 3.4 Wastewater monitoring 38 3.5 Soil monitoring 43 3.6 Waste material monitoring 46

4. Recommendations 48

5. References 55

ANNEXES 56 Annex 1: Sampling results and locations 56 Annex 2: FRY legislation on water pollution control & wastewater 79 treatment Annex 3: FRY legislation concerning air pollution 99 Annex 4: EU Policies for Pollution Control 108 Annex 5: Effects of Selected Pollutants 112 Annex 6: Mission Participants and Mission Programme 115

2 1. Executive Summary

The Municipality of Bor today faces an enormous challenge regarding building a healthy and sustainable future for its inhabitants and at the same time addressing the environmental and socio-economic legacy of several decades of polluting industrial development. The industrial activities in the Bor area, heavily concentrating on mining activities, have caused serious environmental problems and raised concerns about the health effects for the population in the area. While looking for alternative and complementary ways to develop the economic structure of the region, Bor – one of the environmental “hotspots” of FRY – in addition to a strong commitment from the local community, will need strong support from the responsible national authorities.

The UNEP Programme “Environmental Clean-up of Hotspots in FRY”, is currently implementing conflict related clean-up and risk reduction activities in “hotspots”, identified in the UNEP/BTF Feasibility Study (April 2000). At the request of Bor Municipality, UNEP Clean-up Programme is providing assistance to Bor in the field of environmental monitoring. The current environment and health monitoring capacities in Bor make it difficult for the responsible authorities to inform the citizens in time of potential risks and to prepare effective measures for environment and health protection in the Bor area.

The UNEP Monitoring Mission to Bor (later ref. the Mission), 13-17.5.2002, was undertaken in cooperation with the Ministry for Protection of Natural Resources and Environment of the Republic of Serbia and the Federal Secretariat for Labour, Health and Social Care/Environmental Department. The focal point appointed by the Municipality of Bor provided strong support for the mission, and the Institute for Public Health (IPH) of Belgrade gave considerable input to the mission preparations and the required sampling campaign. By involving the competent authorities and public institutions, thereby ensuring a transparent working process, the UNEP Monitoring Mission also aimed to enhance institutional capacities as well as to ensure the continued involvement of the competent authorities in the recommended follow-up.

The objective of the Mission was to assess the status of environmental monitoring in Bor, then identify and recommend priority assistance in support of environmental monitoring. Furthermore UNEP hoped the mission would encourage the relevant national and local environmental and health authorities to consider and act upon possible correlations between key environmental characteristics and local health concerns.

The monitoring mission report presents several concrete recommendations for improving the current monitoring capacities in the Bor area in the fields of air, water and soil monitoring.

With regards to air monitoring it is very important in the short-term to provide equipment to Bor allowing continuous measurement of sulphur dioxide, measurement of airborne particulate matter and measurement of metallic elements, especially arsenic. In the medium and longer-term a statistical review of bronchial problems, cancer and hospital

3 admissions data is recommended, provided suitable comparisons can be made with other regions of FRY. Also in the medium term, consideration should be given to the installation of emissions monitoring equipment – particularly for sulphur dioxide. In the longer term there is a clear need for the competent national authorities to effectively assist FRY industry and utilities in the application of environmental management and controls, and also monitor the application and enforcement of environmental legislation.

With regards to drinking water and groundwater monitoring, it is important to implement regular monitoring of all relevant parameters according to FRY and international legislation. In particular, analyses of heavy metals and organic parameters in drinking and ground water should be ensured either through increased national cooperation between relevant institutions or through supply of equipment to one of the laboratories in the Bor area.

Concerning on-going monitoring of surface waters, regular analyses of all relevant organic parameters should be ensured either through increased national cooperation between relevant institutions or through supply of equipment to one of the local laboratories.

With regards to wastewater monitoring there is a lack of information on wastewater discharges from industry and domestic effluents in terms of volume and strength. In order to address the problem a stepwise approach should be implemented consisting of identifying, quantifying and characterizing wastewater discharges in Bor (also assessing the current manpower and equipment capacity and additional requirements to carry out basic regulatory analysis and reporting).

At the moment there is only limited information about the quality of the soil and the damage caused by mining and agriculture in the Bor area. In order to get an overview of the situation, basic monitoring should be implemented stepwise including, in addition to the basic parameters (such as pH, moisture, total organic materials, mineral oil, sulfur hydrocarbons and inorganic and organic nitrogen and sulphate), heavy metals, PCB, PAHs and pesticides that have been used in the area.

With regards to waste monitoring there appears to be no information on volume, category and disposal route of waste materials in the Bor area and no effective regulatory framework and reporting structure. For e.g. the landfill site at Bor does not carry out any environmental monitoring and there is a lack of environmental control. The situation is therefore similar in many ways to problems with wastewater monitoring

Based on the recommendation of the Mission and following further discussions with Bor stakeholders, as well as relevant national authorities, UNEP, within its budget limits, is prepared to assist Bor by providing monitoring equipment as well as training and capacity building on design and implementation of monitoring programmes.

It is important to note that for any improvements in the monitoring capacities, the technical component must be accompanied by strengthening of human capacities. In

4 addition, it is crucial that the local stakeholders and relevant national authorities are committed to cooperating in a transparent manner, allowing all existing information to be shared and optimally used by the decision makers. Taking into account the financial constraints, this would also facilitate cost-efficient share of responsibilities and tasks between the different competent institutions. Parallel to this process, it is evident that improvements in the existing legislative framework should be made and, in particular, capacities to monitor and enforce the legislation/regulations should be strengthened.

The central objective of any monitoring activities should be to support emission reduction and improvement in people’s quality of life. In order to allow potential financing partners to assess the benefits and costs of potential projects efficiently, the baseline information provided by monitoring activities must be coherent and valid for international comparison. The investment and remediation needs to overcome the serious environmental problems in Bor are considerable. Mitigation of the current environmental problems in Bor will require the full commitment of both local and national authorities as well as assistance from the international community.

Following the executive summary, Chapter 2 provides a general description of Bor and its environmental problems. It also presents the objectives and framework, including the role of UNEP, for the interagency environmental and health monitoring mission. The mission activities, main findings and conclusions are presented in Chapter 3 with recommendations for improving the environmental monitoring and information capacities in Bor elaborated in more detail in Chapter 4. Relevant complementary information (including sampling results and legislation concerning environmental monitoring) is compiled in Annexes 1-6.

5 2. Introduction

2.1 General description of Bor and its environmental problems

The Municipality of Bor is located in a mountainous and forested area in the southeastern part of Serbia, close to the Bulgarian and Romanian borders, at approx. 160 km from Belgrade. It has a total population of 65 000 people of which 40 000 live in the city of Bor. Administratively it forms part of the Zajecar region, which has its capital in the city of Zajecar. Main economic activity comprises mining and metal processing. In between 10 000 and 15 000 inhabitants are reportedly employed in this sector.

Map 1. Bor is located in the southeastern part of Serbia

6 The area has been a major centre for mining and processing of copper and other precious metals for almost a century. Mining production started in 1903 with the exploitation of the only underground mine, followed by exploitation of 3 other open pits in the Bor area (as from 1912, 1979 and 1990 respectively). The mining activities have left a strong mark on the surrounding landscape, most strongly characterized by the huge open cast mines (in total accounting for some 1 800 ha).

Continued immigration over the decades of workers for the mining and smelting complex, resulted in the gradual transformation of the originally agriculturally-based village of Bor into today’s city of Bor with most urban residential areas built close to and around its main employer i.e. the mining and smelting complex (the city’s centre is less than one kilometre away from pits and smelter).

The industrial activities in Bor, in particular those by the mining and smelter complex, have resulted in substantive negative impacts on the environment in the region (including for air, water, and soil) as well as having raised serious concerns about associated health effects of the pollution at large1. The fact that the main polluter is also the main employer in the area highlights the need to solve the environmental problems in a wider economic and social context2.

1 Bor, May 2002. Municipal Assembly Bor. 2 The mines and associated processing in the area are operated by the RTB Group.

7 Map 2. Bor mines - one underground mine, two operating pits (Krivelj, Cerovo), four prospects3

Source: Bor: Environmental Assessment. IPH Belgrade 2002.

Taking into account the political and economic situation during the 1990s, vital investments in up-grading the production facilities have been non-existent, causing poor production efficiency, questionable process reliability and inadequate environmental controls4. Industrial environmental pollution remains high in Bor as a result of the poor ecological performance by the mining and smelter complex, even though total production levels have fallen over the past decade due to reduced copper ore concentrations and a

3 The Majdanpek mines, 70 km north of Bor are not considered in this report. 4 Mined copper ore contains only a fraction by weight of actual copper in the form of compounds made up typically of 30% copper, 27% iron and 33% sulphur. The low concentrations of copper in mined material results in the massive physical scale of copper production operations worldwide. Copper content of the mined material in Bor mines is in general less than 0.5%. This means that practically 99.5% of the material mined at Bor is waste, which has to be separated from the copper to produce a useable product. The waste material contains many toxic components, which include large amounts of bound sulphur and metallic elements including arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury etc.

8 decline in production efficiency rates. Consequently Bor remains one of the environmental “hotspots” of FRY.

The main source of environmental pollution in the Municipality of Bor consists of the Mining & Smelter Complex, and in particular the following activities: ▪ the flotation process (water pollution) ▪ the smelting process (air-, water-, and soil pollution) ▪ the open cast pits and surrounding waste heaps (air- and water pollution) and ▪ underground mining (water pollution).

Other polluting sources include a thermal power and heating plant (air pollution), a graphics factory, the municipal sewage system, a car component production plant, a textile factory, a polyester plant, a slaughterhouse, and a medical centre (all water pollution).

Air pollution is perceived as the main environmental problem in the Bor region. Reportedly, during the most extensive production years, up to 250 000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide and more than 1000 tonnes of particulate contaminated with heavy metals (including arsenic, bismuth, lead, zinc, cadmium, nickel, mercury, germanium, gallium, manganese, molybdenum, antimony, titanium, vanadium etc) and up to 1000 tonnes arsenic, 500 tonnes lead, 2500 tonnes zinc and 1.6 tonnes of mercury were emitted to the atmosphere each year5. According to recent estimates, taking into account the considerable decrease in production during last years, some 70 000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide and several hundred tonnes of particulate contaminated with heavy metals and up to 360 tonnes arsenic, 83 tonnes lead, 830 tonnes zinc and 0.1-0.2 tonnes of mercury are emitted to the atmosphere during 20026.

The smelting process liberates the sulphur as sulphur dioxide. The sulphur dioxide may be used to produce sulphuric acid, which is produced on-site in an acid plant. The sulphuric acid is then used in the electrolytic plant as an electrolyte in the further purification of the copper to >99%. Not all the sulphur dioxide produced is required or can be used in the acid plant, although much of the excess sulphuric acid is used in the manufacture of fertilizer. To compound the problem of excess sulphur dioxide, there has been no reinvestment and therefore much of the production, recovery and pollution arrestment plant is in a state of disrepair. As a consequence, a large amount of sulphur dioxide is discharged directly into the atmosphere together with entrained solids and toxic metals. The rest of the separated waste materials are discharged as solid or liquid wastes into the environment7.

5 These rough estimates have been provided by local stakeholders as well as FRY environmental authorities. However, the basis for these figures/calculation was not clarified to the mission. Bor; Environmental Assessment, IPH Belgrade, 2002. Institute of Public Health of Belgrade, May 2002. 6 Figures provided by RTB Bor. Ref. RTB Bor official letter to UNEP/UNOPS, dated 27.9.2002. Note: these figures, based on estimated amount and quality of ore processed, are considerably lower than the general figures for last years, presented by IPH Belgrade and Bor Municipality reports. 7 The liquid waste is supplemented by process water demand, which reportedly rises to 0.9-2.5 million cubic metres per year. This water is obtained from Bor Lake, causing considerable decreases in its normal level.

9 According to the Bor stakeholders, the gas emissions contain hundreds of tons of dust together with considerable quantities of heavy and volatile metals8. In addition, airborne dust resulting from open cast pits and surrounding waste heaps, which contain heavy metals, contributes to the air pollution of the area. Taking into account the location of the industrial complex and dominant wind directions, these pollutants are spread over the town of Bor and the surrounding area. The inhabitants of Bor municipality are exposed therefore to high levels of air pollution, which can pose serious risks to their health. Also there may be an international or transboundary dimension to the air pollution problem as winds might carry emissions to nearby Bulgaria and Romania and perhaps even further.

Industrial wastewaters include effluent from the mining process, the sulphuric acid plant, electrolyte plants, the gold plant and the smelter plant. The existing wastewater treatment plants are currently out of operation or operating at very limited capacity. Consequently, the copper-bearing wastewaters as well as wastewaters from metallurgical and chemical processes are discharged without any treatment into the Bor and Krivelj rivers, and through them into the rivers Timok and Danube. Reportedly, the amount of discharge of wastewaters can occasionally reach several hundred cubic meters per hour. With these wastewaters considerable amounts of sulphuric acid, suspended matters, heavy metals and other pollutants (copper, arsenic, lead, zinc, cadmium, mercury, iron, nickel, antimony, chlorine and others) are discharged.

In addition, other production facilities (incl. graphics factory, car production plant, textile factory, polyester factory, slaughterhouse, medical centre) contribute further to the amount of untreated wastewaters. The municipal wastewaters and associated sewerage from the city of Bor are also discharged without any treatment into River Bor. Large amounts of polluted water are created as a result of the floatation process. These waters are stored in large ponds that are at the limit of their carrying capacity. According to the local and national authorities, there is a considerable risk that the existing dams could collapse and thus create an environmental disaster in the downstream area.

8 E.g. Bor, May 2002. Municipal Assembly Bor, Bor: Environmental Assessment, IPH Belgrade.2002 and RTB Bor letter to UNEP/UNOPS, dated 24.9.2002.

10 Map 3. The Bor industrial area

Source: Bor: Environmental Assessment. IPH Belgrade 2002.

One particular problem is caused by the concrete collector that is carrying the Krivelj River for approximately 2 km. Reportedly, the structural state of the concrete culvert, constructed under one of the several tailing lagoons, is in constant danger of collapsing under the weight of the tailing material9. Collapse of the tunnel would allow the lagoon to

9 For review of collector situation see “Economic, environmental and public health assessment, Bor Municipality, Yugoslavia” IWMG February 2001 and feasibility report from Rudarski Institute November

11 empty under the dam, possibly causing the dam to collapse. The lagoon contents would be discharged into the local rivers and ultimately the Danube causing considerable environmental damage.

The industrial activities in Bor are also responsible for major soil pollution. In addition to the extensive surface areas that were required for the open cast mines10, the industrial activities have had negative effects on the quality of soil. Taking into account the importance of agriculture as a source of income, and in particular as a potential strategic area for economic recovery and development of the area, it is important to identify the sources of soil degradation11. According to the Bor stakeholders, the area of fertile agricultural land degraded by the emissions from the smelter - and hence reducing the area of land suitable for agricultural use - amounts to several thousand hectares. In addition, fertile agricultural land was degraded by the regular discharge and dumping of solid wastes in the downstream area of Bor city, in particular at the confluence area of the rivers Bor and Timok. In addition, waste heaps gathered around open cast pits, can produce leachates that contaminate surrounding land and watercourses.

The management of industrial and municipal solid wastes in the Bor area is not organized in a proper manner. The municipal landfill site is situated close to the town, with no leachate treatment or methane collection. Regular fires at the site have further increased the risks of improper waste management. Municipal waste, including also hospital and other organic waste, is dumped on the municipal landfill within the mining complex (see Map3).

Given the characteristics and dimensions of industrial production in Bor including its waste streams, local capacities to manage hazardous wastes clearly are far from adequate.

During the 1999 bombing, transformer station TS3 was destroyed. Since then, a new transformer station has been designed and construction on the location of the previous station is expected to be completed by September 2002. However, the PCB-contaminated materials and equipment removed by RTB Bor workers from transformer station TS3, as well as other hazardous wastes are improperly stored at the open dump site within RTB Bor, can cause further risks to the environment and the health of workers. The potential risks and health effects of these hazardous components have not been measured in a systematic and regular manner by the competent authorities.

1999. Reportedly, routine inspection of the tunnel already in 1992 highlighted longitudinal cracking, which indicated imminent collapse. Further risk assessment work, conducted in 2001-2002 supports the conclusions of the previous studies, indicating a considerable risk of collector collapse in the future. Repairs have occasionally continued to date under difficult conditions. 10 In the case of Bor, to give an idea of the proportions, in order to produce the 0.075 million tonnes of copper, the design production of the current Bor mines is approximately 14.6-15.2 million tonnes of mined ore. Currently the actual production is lower than this amount. 11 Agriculture has been identified by Bor stakeholders as one of the potential strategic fields for future development and diversification of the economic structure in Bor area.

12 With regards to potable water, there are supply problems for the city of Bor as well as the surrounding villages. Shortages are highest during the dry summer season causing further concern for providing a healthy environment for the local population.

Bor is no exception to the general situation in Serbia given its capacities for addressing health problems in the area. There is a lack of systematic information gathering and analysis of general health indicators in Bor. In particular, capacities to monitor the severe environmental pollution and its direct and/or indirect consequences to public health clearly are not sufficient. This situation needs immediate improvement, as the provision of timely and accurate information to decision makers and the general public are key preconditions for enhancing local capacities in the planning and management of health protection in Bor.

2.2 Environmental and health monitoring mission

UNEP work in FRY

The UNEP report entitled “The Kosovo Conflict - Consequences for the Environment and Human Settlements” published in October 1999, highlighted a number of important conclusions on the post conflict situation in the FRY and in particular singled out four heavily polluted environmental “hot spots” (Pancevo, Kragujevac, Novi Sad and Bor), for immediate humanitarian assistance12.

Following the above general assessment report and a subsequent expert mission in February 2000 which produced a portfolio of 27 priority projects in the 4 hotspots with a total estimated cost of US$ 20 million (as per UNEP Feasibility Study Report dated April 2000), the international donor community responded promptly and allocated first financial contributions which allowed UNEP to start implementing environmental clean-up activities in FRY starting from autumn 2000. The project is carried out in partnership with the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), the designated implementing agency.

After a careful process of prioritization (ref. UNEP mandate and funding framework) and taking into account self-initiated activities by local Bor stakeholders, neither of the two UNEP projects identified for Bor in the Feasibility Study report have been implemented13. A major part of the considerable environmental problems in Bor is connected to the mining industry. In general, the conflict-related environmental consequences are of minor significance compared to other urgent economic, environmental and social needs within the Municipality of Bor.

12 Progress report and further information on UNEP activities in FRY at http://postconflict.unep.ch/ 13 During August and September of 2001, UNEP conducted an assessment at the former transformer site at the RTB Bor, in order to study the extent and levels of PCB pollution in soil and associated underground water. Based on the analysis performed, including the risk-based protective level of PCB of 25 mg/kg in the surface soil, it was recommended that the remedial alternative “No action” be implemented.

13 However, at the request of local and national stakeholders, UNEP has provided further environmental assistance to the Municipality of Bor. In particular the areas of environmental monitoring and support to the Local Environmental Action Plan (LEAP) process, have been agreed upon jointly with the Bor stakeholders as suitable fields for further cooperation14. The LEAP process was initiated in Bor in early 2001 and has the full support of the Municipality. This process is expected to provide important inputs to creating a community vision and to relevant national authorities and stakeholders as to how to overcome the considerable environmental problems in the area.

The Municipality of Bor, in collaboration with relevant local stakeholders, has prepared a general list of environmental and social priority projects for Bor. Consequently, the issues of waste gas emissions, uncontrolled discharge of wastewaters, environmental risks related to flotation tailing ponds, as well as the loss of agricultural and habitable land, have been pointed out as high priority projects. In addition, a need to improve the level and capacities of environmental and health monitoring in Bor has been identified. The current capacities make it difficult to provide the general public with accurate and reliable information in a timely manner and to prepare effective measures for environmental and health prevention and protection.

The investments and remediation works needed to overcome all of the environmental problems in Bor are tremendous. Mitigation of the environmental problems in Bor will require the full commitment of both local and national authorities as well as assistance from the international community.

Objectives and expected output of the mission

In order to assess the existing situation of environmental monitoring in Bor municipality, UNEP organized an expert mission to Bor (UNEP Monitoring Mission to Bor) in May 200215.

The mission was guided by the following principles:

• The main objective of any monitoring activity should be to support emission reductions; and • To enable responsible national and local authorities as well as other prospective funding partners to perform sound cost-benefit analyses of investments in support of environmental protection, the monitoring results must comply with international standards/practices in terms of coherence and validity.

The objective of this mission was to assess the status of environmental monitoring in Bor thereby consulting the relevant stakeholders, and to identify and recommend priority assistance in support of environmental monitoring16. Furthermore UNEP hopes the

14 Reference is made to several meetings in 2001 and 2002 between Municipality of Bor and UNEP, in particular the meeting between Municipality of Bor and UNEP/UNOPS mission, 6.1.2002 in Bor. 15 For list of mission participants and mission programme, see Annex 6 16 The monitoring mission should also provide substantive input to the on-going LEAP process in Bor.

14 mission will encourage the relevant national and local environmental and health authorities to consider possible correlations between key environmental characteristics and local health concerns.

The UNEP expert mission was to focus their assessment on the monitoring of air, water and soil pollution thereby considering available equipment and prevailing analytical/laboratory methods (including comparative analyses with relevant international methods and standards). Furthermore and as an integral part herein, the mission was to undertake an assessment of the institutional framework, systems/structures of reporting as well as the local implementation capacities (incl. human resources). The mission was expected to carefully review all background information on environmental and health monitoring made available by the local and/or national authorities. Furthermore the comparison of relevant parts of the federal and republican environmental legislation with the concerned international legislation thereby taking into account also the EU approximation process, would form a good basis for the mission in identifying any amendments and/or new components to the existing monitoring systems in place. After completion of the above assessment activities, priorities for action in the fields of air monitoring, groundwater monitoring and soil monitoring were to be identified and recommended. In order to arrive at feasible, pragmatic and cost-effective solutions for improving environmental monitoring capacities, options for using and/or up-grading already existing systems/facilities/mechanisms were to be considered. The mission report should also hereby provide clear recommendations for any capacity building and training required to accompany the identified priority areas for assistance. With regards to health monitoring issues, the Mission was to take note of all relevant issues and make sure that the respective competent national competent authorities would be informed about the findings and recommendations.

Co-operation framework and reporting

The Mission was carried out in co-operation with local and national authorities within the framework of the UNEP Programme on “Environmental Clean-up of Hotspots in FRY”. By involving the competent authorities and public institutions, thereby ensuring a transparent working process, the mission also aimed to enhance institutional capacities and to ensure the continued involvement of the competent authorities/institutions in the follow-up on the mission’s recommendations with respect to both environmental and health monitoring issues.

In addition to the UNEP representatives, the Mission team was comprised of experts from the Ministry for Health and Environmental Protection of Serbia/Directorate for Environmental Protection and the Institute of Public Health – Belgrade, the Federal Secretariat for Labour, Health and Social Care/Environmental Department.

IPH – Belgrade also provided essential inputs to the preparation of the mission, including air, water and soil sampling and analysis, and preparation of a background report on the environmental situation in Bor.

15 The Municipality of Bor provided extensive assistance to the mission preparations and its organization and it had nominated a local coordinator as the focal point for mission preparations and execution in Bor.

The Mission Report is to report on the findings and conclusions and give recommendations for concrete follow-up work. All mission participants and local stakeholders were invited to review and comment the final draft of mission report. Following subsequent consultations with Bor Municipality and relevant environmental authorities UNEP is ready to provide assistance to Bor to improve the current environmental monitoring and information capacities in Bor.

The mission report is made available to all interested parties.

16 3. Mission findings and conclusions

3.1 Air monitoring

In this mission report the effects of the copper mining and processing activities carried out in Bor and adjacent sites on air quality are examined in the context of current EU and other international legislation, guidance, monitoring protocols and standards. Current air monitoring strategies carried out by the FRY authorities are reviewed.

Concerning atmospheric pollution major environmental issues in the Bor area include:

a) Annual emissions to the atmosphere, during high levels of production, of reportedly up to up to 250 000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide and more than 1000 tonnes of particulate contaminated with heavy metals and up to 1000 tonnes arsenic, 500 tonnes lead, 2500 tonnes zinc and 1.6 tonnes of mercury. According to recent estimates, taking into account the considerable decrease in production during last years, some 70 000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide and several hundred tonnes of particulate contaminated with heavy metals and up to 360 tonnes arsenic, 83 tonnes lead, 830 tonnes zinc and 0.1-0.2 tonnes of mercury are emitted to the atmosphere in 200217.

b) Emissions from the smelter chimneys are spread throughout Bor and its vicinity and can affect Bulgaria, Romania and the rest of Europe;

c) The continuous burning of materials at the landfill site;

d) The windblown toxic dusts from the unstable dry tailings, particularly from the dams, which affect the entire area; and

e) The potential overall effect on health and well being that the pollution in Bor and surrounding regions is having on workers and the general population in the area.

Air pollution control and associated legislation is less developed in FRY than in the EU18. The Federal laws on environmental protection have established their jurisdiction in the field of air protection, especially when pollution limits are exceeded. However, they have not provided an institutional form of organization for performing these tasks. On the basis of its jurisdiction (laws and regulations) it has been the responsibility of the relevant Republic Ministries to perform systematic emission controls through state institutions (republic, city, communal health protection institutes). It is important to note that the environmental legislative framework on the Republican level is being amended, and should provide more efficient tools for environmental protection in the fields of air as well as water and soil protection.

17 See page 9, for references (footnotes 5 and 6). 18 For a short summary of relevant FRY legislation in the field of air pollution control see Annex 3.

17 Despite some significant pollution sources, including the copper complex at Bor, the enforcement of the existing legislation as well as the enforcement capacities have so far been insufficient. Taking into account the economic development of the last decade, there is a lack of directed resources, which can be managed and used for pollution control in general. Consequently, emission measurements in FRY are not properly institutionalized and there is currently no organized form of monitoring. In cases of excessive pollution, in general only classical methods and meteorological equipment, which identify the phenomenon but does not analyse it further, are used. The existing analytical equipment is not uniform, i.e. it is not subjected to periodic, uniform calibration controls supervised by the competent authorities. A considerable amount of equipment is out of order due to the lack of spare parts, standard solutions etc.

Picture 1. Bor smelter (May 2002)

18

19

Environmental authorities in FRY have highlighted and measured the following atmospheric pollutants and fallout from the mining and processing operations at Bor: a) Sulphur dioxide and smoke; b) Metals suspensions in the atmosphere such as lead, cadmium, manganese, nickel, chromium, arsenic and mercury; and c) Atmospheric particulate deposits and rainwater which includes analysis for pH, sulphate, calcium, magnesium, dried residue, insoluble material, organic material, ash, lead, cadmium and zinc

Map 4. The current measuring spots for air quality monitoring in Bor area

Source: Environmental Assessment. IPH Belgrade 2002.

20

The analysis of environmental samples is carried out by state approved organisations. These are mainly local public health institutes, although the Copper Institute at Bor is approved to carry out atmospheric sampling and analysis around Bor. The Copper Institute Bor is only approved for atmospheric monitoring. The Institute of Public Health, Zajecar, is also approved to carry out similar operations, although in Bor sampling is limited to one site. The IPH Zajecar is also approved for potable and wastewater analysis. There does not appear to be a formal structure for reporting and cooperation, which would normally include quality control, validation, assessment of the data and prepared actions to be taken in the event of exceeding of limits.

In general the equipment used in the Bor area is very limited and does not target the real problems, in particular short-term sulphur dioxide exposure and toxic respirable dust. Transitory concentrations of sulphur dioxide can cause serious respiratory problems. Based on data provided by the Copper Institute, Bor, metallic components in the dust may be another concern for health19. In particular, arsenic was highlighted in the data as a toxic component present in significant concentrations in the settleable matter. For e.g. the equipment used in the Bor area is capable of measuring only 24-hour average concentrations, meaning that peak concentrations are not measured and it is not possible to take direct action in the event of a serious incident since the data is retrospective.

3.1.1 Meteorological Data

3.1.1.1 Mission findings

The Copper Institute was visited by the monitoring mission on May 14th and 15th 2002 and the meteorological instrumentation and reporting structure reviewed.

Meteorology is an important but ancillary subject in the assessment of atmospheric pollution. Validated meteorological data is essential for modelling atmospheric pollution sources. Wind speed and direction indicate environmental risk areas affected by major pollution sources. In the case of accidental releases of toxic vapours, immediate assessment of plume direction is necessary for prioritisation of emergency actions. Knowledge of prevailing weather gives a guide to the location of areas affected in the long term. The measurement of rainfall and its pH and sulphate gives important background information on the sulphuric acid fallout generated by sulphur dioxide emissions in the area.

In the Bor area meteorological data is collected by the Copper Institute at Bor. Weather is monitored using a conventional mechanical system and traditional measurements of humidity, temperature, rainfall and maximum/minimum temperatures. An in-house produced electronic computerized system, measuring several parameters including air pressure, solar radiation, wind speed/direction, humidity, temperature and background noise is also used, although several sensors were unserviceable due to lack of appropriate parts.

19 Copper Institute, Bor. Monthly report for March 2002.

21 According to mission findings there does not appear to be any formal calibration procedure for the instrumentation.

The Copper Institute issues monthly reports, which combine atmospheric monitoring data with meteorological data. The reports include daily data for wind speed/wind direction, temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure and the atmospheric contaminant monitoring data. The most recent report for March 2002 was available to the interagency monitoring mission.

3.1.1.2 Conclusions

From the provided meteorological data, the prevailing winds were found to be predominantly from west - northwest and therefore tend to carry the pollution away from the main centres of population. During rainy periods the typical east or southeast winds are of more concern. From the March 2002 data it was clear that low or zero wind conditions occur regularly20. Light and variable winds are likely to cause very high localized concentrations of vapours. Inversions may also occur in these situations, which would be expected to cause a build up of vapours in the general area.

Sulphur dioxide appears likely to be the most serious atmospheric pollutant from the industrial processes in the area. Sulphur dioxide readily and easily dissolves in water. Rainfall in the area would be expected to be at least mildly acidic and this is confirmed in the pH measurements of collected rainfall.

3.1.2 Air pollution monitoring

3.1.2.1 Mission findings

Over the period 12th – 16th May 2002 the expert group visited the focal points of atmospheric pollution and the Institutes tasked with carrying out atmospheric monitoring in the Bor region as well as relevant laboratory facilities in Belgrade. The Institute of Public Health laboratories at Belgrade and Zajecar as well as the Copper Institute Bor were visited, the available resources assessed and current data and systems reviewed.

The FRY, EU, UK Environment Agency, UNECE and WHO air quality guidelines, standards and legislation have been used for reference. In addition, National Society For Clean Air And Environmental Protection journals were used for background information. EU references to air pollution are appended (see Annexes 1, 2 and 4).

20 Copper Institute, Bor. Monthly report for March 2002

22 Copper Institute, Bor

The expert team visited the Institute on 14th May 2002. A second visit was made on the 15th May to examine the air monitoring and meteorological data collection systems in greater detail.

The Copper Institute at Bor is wholly owned by RTB – the owner of the mine and smelter complexes. The main purpose of the Institute is to provide quality control and engineering backup for the mines and processes. The Copper Institute, together with the Institute of Public Health, Zajecar are responsible for air monitoring in the Bor area.

The Department for Quality Control of the Environment was formed in 1977. A staff of 22 specializes in atmospheric monitoring. Monitoring is limited to sulphur dioxide, smoke, dust and toxic metal deposition together with weather monitoring. Filters from 8 port samplers used in the sampling for smoke are analysed for metals. Total suspended particulate has also been measured on an irregular basis. A sampler with a flow injection analyser was also available but apparently little used.

The bulk of the work is the operation of three UK standard 8 port samplers21, which measure sulphur dioxide and smoke, and 33 settle plates which measure atmospheric fallout. The 8 port samplers are situated within the Bor town confines and the settle plates are situated in fixed positions around the region. Sulphur dioxide concentrations at the Opstina site in Bor exceeded 250 µg/m3 on 10 days in March 2002. Of particular significance to the situation at Bor, areas around smelters and close to the burning of high arsenic coal, is the fact that airborne arsenic can exceed 1 µg/m3. In total only 16 data sets for the settle plates were reported for March 200222.

Analysis of the samples from the 8 port samplers is carried out using traditional titration and colorimetric techniques based on, but not entirely compliant with, BS1747/ISO4219: 1979. Smoke measurements are carried out using a standard reflectance instrument. Metals analysis on the deposited material and retained matter on the smoke filters is carried out using Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrophotometer (ARL 3410 radial) and flame, graphite furnace, cold vapour and hydride Atomic Absorption (PE403, PE1100B, PE AS90/FIMS). The Institute laboratories also operate analytical equipment, which is not used for environmental analysis, but could be useful in this

21 The “8 port” sampler consists of 8 individual samplers, which are automatically switched on a daily basis, giving eight-day operation with attendance necessary only once a week. The sampler collects sulphur dioxide and fine suspended particulate (as black smoke). Analysis of the retained samples provides mean daily concentrations of sulphur dioxide and black smoke. The sampler works by drawing air at a constant measured flow rate through a filter paper. The suspended dust collects on the filter paper producing a dark stain. An instrument known as a reflectometer is used to measure the darkness of the stain and the measurement used to calculate the concentration of the particulate matter in the sampled air using a standard calibration (in the UK the British Standard calibration). Sulphur dioxide is measured by passing the air used for the dust measurement through a dilute acidified solution of hydrogen peroxide. The sulphur dioxide reacts with the hydrogen peroxide to form sulphuric acid, which is titrated with a standard alkaline solution, and the sulphur dioxide concentration calculated using a standard calculation. British Standard 1747 and ISO 9835 are reference documents for the technique. 22 Copper Institute, Bor. Monthly report for March 2002

23 application, including spark emission spectrophotometers with mass spectrometry and X- ray fluorescence (XRF).

The most recent monthly report by the Copper Institute, combining atmospheric monitoring data with meteorological data was provided to the monitoring mission. Monthly deposition data for settleable matter and metals is included in the report.

With regards to the atmospheric monitoring data produced by the Copper Institute, there is no recognizable quality system available and it would be difficult to validate and audit the data to a typical standard (e.g. ISO 17025).

Institute Of Public Health, Zajecar

The expert team visited the Institute on May 16th 2002. The IPH Zajecar is approved for sampling and analysis relating to public health in the counties of Bor and Zajecar. Sampling and analysis for all areas of public health including air monitoring is undertaken by 13 staff. Air monitoring is limited to the occasional use of modern Yugoslavian design samplers based on the UK 8 port system using impingers and filters for smoke measurement. Three locations are regularly measured including one in Bor. Winter is an important period due to the extensive use of coal. Seventeen settle plates are also set up throughout the region.

Sample analysis instrumentation is very limited at IPH Zajecar. Low-level metals analysis is a very important area of work in the environmental field and currently no equipment is available for this type of analysis in Bor (e.g. graphite furnace atomic absorption). Manpower required for the regulatory work, i.e. compliance with current Yugoslavian environmental standards and future compliance with EU and other international environmental standards, is also very limited

As with the Copper Institute, there is a lack of an established quality system, which would satisfy the requirements of an International Standard (e.g. ISO17025). It is important to note that the manpower required to implement a quality system is considerable, including considerable preparatory work and complementary training systems.

Institute For Public Health, Belgrade

The laboratory facilities at the IPH Belgrade were visited as part of the monitoring mission briefing on Monday 13th May 2002. IPH Belgrade provided considerable input to pre-mission preparations and in particular, was invited by UNEP to be in charge of the sampling and analysis component of the monitoring mission.

The IPH Belgrade is in the process of up-grading its capacities and has undergone a major refit recently. One objective is to reach laboratory compliance with ISO 17025 with the required external accreditation process currently on-going. The laboratory has a recognizable quality system for environmental samples, although the system is still in the early stages of establishment. It is expected that this laboratory will be the only laboratory

24 accredited to international standards for environmental analysis in FRY within the near future.

However, the capacity for atmospheric sampling is restricted. Sampling systems are limited to the UK standard 8 port samplers for sulphur dioxide and smoke. It is likely that some increase in capacity is required for the Belgrade area in the future, and it is recommendable to include passive sampling for nitrogen dioxide and benzene. PM10 particulate measurements should also be considered at a later date. However, there does not appear to be a single point source of atmospheric pollution as there is in the case of Bor. Consequently, there seems to be no requirement for more sophisticated on-line measurements in Belgrade until basic area screening with simple techniques has been carried out.

Although the IPH Belgrade facilities are good in many areas, there are restrictions in operations outside the Belgrade area. The Bor complex is within the boundary of the Zajecar authorities and IPH Zajecar therefore has jurisdiction together with the Copper Institute at Bor for atmospheric sampling and analysis. There is a good case for closer co- operation between the IPH Belgrade and the other Institutions, particularly in the establishment of quality systems and inter-laboratory check schemes.

3.1.2.2 Conclusions

The background data from the institutes indicate that sulphur dioxide, particulate and arsenic from the smelter complex and particulate (which also include arsenic) from windblown unstable dam material are major atmospheric pollutants in the mining and processing areas of Bor. The pollutants may have a severe effect on the health of the local population. In the regions adjacent to Bor, smoke from coal may also be a problem during winter.

The air monitoring programme in Bor requires some redirection of resources and additional equipment in order to measure sulphur dioxide and particulate on a real-time basis since it is probable that short term concentrations of both these pollutants can be very high. New monitoring equipment is required to comply with current international standard methods and sampling periods, on which limit values are based. The daily average data obtained so far is indicative but may not reflect the true seriousness of the situation. Some automatic particulate continuous monitoring instruments would allow subsequent analysis of the particulate. This would allow effective monitoring for arsenic and other metallics.

The Copper Institute, Bor is currently better equipped and staffed than the other institutes considered in this study to carry out atmospheric monitoring and assess data23. The IPH Belgrade has better quality systems but is relatively weak in the area of air monitoring and has little jurisdiction outside Belgrade. The IPH Zajecar has rather poor resources and is understaffed in comparison with the other institutes involved in atmospheric monitoring. Consequently, here atmospheric monitoring also remains clearly a low priority.

23 Reference is made to both IPH Zajecar and IPH Belgrade.

25

Although facilities are better at the Copper Institute, the ownership of the Institute by RTB can result in a conflict of interests. Therefore it is important to carefully consider the transparency and share of all relevant information at all stages in order to ensure the credibility and optimal use of the data. In addition, good quality systems are required. Co- operation with the IPH Belgrade in the areas of quality and auditing may be appropriate.

There is currently no stack emissions monitoring programme for the emissions from the Bor complex. A validated monitoring programme would be difficult and expensive to establish but would be an essential part of dispersion modelling and atmospheric loading determinations.

Sulphur Dioxide

Sulphur dioxide and particulate from combustion and industrial processes are major pollutants throughout the world. Volcanic action is a natural source that contributes to environmental concentrations in Europe. There is evidence of some geothermal activity in the mountains around Bor. Effects of sulphur dioxide on health and the environment is appended (see Annex 5).

There has been a significant decline in sulphur dioxide concentrations in Europe due to emission controls and the change from small multiple emissions e.g. houses, to large sources such as power stations which control emissions and discharge at higher altitudes, thus improving dispersion and dilution. Long-range transport is now generally of more concern. In urban areas the typical annual mean concentration range is 20-60 µg/m3 with daily means not exceeding 125 µg/m3. However, where coal is still used for domestic heating, and there are problem industrial sources in the area, concentrations can reach 1000-2000 µg /m3 over a 10-minute averaging time.24 According to data for March 2002 provided by the Copper Institute Bor, both the Yugoslavian 24 hour limit (150 µg/m3) and the EC 24 hour limit (125 µg/m3) were exceeded during most days investigated25.

Smoke and Particulate Matter

Historically the measurement of airborne suspended particulate and black smoke have been linked. This is due to the fact that most particulate resulted from the burning of fossil fuels, in particular coal. Black smoke refers to fine dark suspended particulate, which can be measured by a relatively simple smoke stain technique. This is the basis of the technique used for measuring smoke at Bor.

24 Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. WHO (Second edition) 25 During the period 1977-2001, sulphur dioxide maximum values of several thousand µg/m3 (up to 6501 at sampling spot “Stari Centar”) have been measured, Bor, May 2002. Municipal Assembly Bor

26 However, although emissions of black smoke have in general declined in Europe, other sources of particulate emissions have taken precedence. The colour of particulate has also changed and become lighter26. The measurement of “black” smoke may under-read the actual particulate concentration as calculated using, for e.g., the standard British Standard calibration. Several other factors (for e.g., as provided by the OECD) may be used but the fact is that for meaningful data, particularly at lower concentrations, more sophisticated instrumentation is required. The WHO Guidelines recommend that smoke measurements are limited to areas where coal smoke from domestic fires is dominant. Clearly this is not the situation at Bor.

Bor does not have a problem with “black smoke” according to the data made available to the monitoring mission. Daily data on smoke indicates that concentrations were below the Yugoslavian limit of 50 µg/m3 for e.g., throughout March 200227. However, in light of the statements above, the data may not reflect the true situation regarding airborne dusts in the area. There has been a large amount of historical “black smoke” data generated by the Copper Institute for the area around Bor. There will be problems relating the historical data with, for example, the PM10 particulate guidelines.

The term “particulate matter” in an atmospheric context is difficult to interpret and all aspects concerning measurement, methods and data interpretation are subject to controversy. The links and effects with other pollutants (for example sulphur dioxide) are also controversial. Particulate matter represents a complex and variable mixture of organic and inorganic materials. It is accepted by many authorities to categorize particulate according to size. Coarse particles are those greater than 2.5 microns (µm) aerodynamic diameter. Fine particles are those less than 2.5 µm. The smaller particles include aerosols and recondensed vapours. The larger particles include blown dust, road dust and some industrial dust. Acidic components, for example from sulphur dioxide, may be contained in the fine fraction although fog may contain acidic droplets of a larger size28.

Further confusion arises over the detection of particulate matter as a result of the many methodologies available for measurement with the resulting variations in comparative data. Basically, the operation of two techniques side by side for the same sampling period, measuring the same parameter (e.g. PM10) can give different results.

However, notwithstanding the above comments, dust sampling should be carried out using instrumentation capable of measuring PM10. There is currently no data available for

26 EU legislation (e.g. the Sulphur Dioxide and Suspended Particulates Directive 80/779/EEC) and The Clean Air Act in the UK has targeted smoke and there have been significant reductions in black smoke concentrations in Europe 27 Copper Institute, Bor. Monthly report for March 2002 28 Several terms are used to describe particulate matter. Sampling procedures are used as a definition e.g. suspended particulate matter, total suspended particulate, black smoke, settleable particulate. PM10 sampling measures particulate with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 um (micron). Particulate with this characteristic has the ability to penetrate deep into the respiratory tract. However, this size range includes the PM2.5 fraction, which has been associated with most of the acute effects of particulate. PM10 may therefore be a proxy measurement for the finer particles.

27 size defined particulate in the Bor area due to lack of sampling equipment. Short summary of health and environmental effects of particulate and smoke are appended (see Annex 5).

The Use Of Settle Plates Or Deposit Gauges

In Bor, dust is measured as settleable matter and black smoke. Settle plates are commonly used in combination with rain gauges to assess precipitation and acid anion deposition. For e.g., in the UK, deposit gauges are used almost exclusively for the determination of nuisance (with British Standard BS1747 as the reference). The technology is simple and easy to operate. However, there is little published information on limits and expected background levels for settle plate surveys. The FRY legislation refers to limiting values for heavy metals as total sedimented substances. However, lead, cadmium and zinc are the only metals referred to. Arsenic is not included in the legislation.29 With regards to lacking information, an additional problem is that arsenic, which is the most prevalent toxic metallic element, is missing from the current settled material data30.

Although the settled matter data is a useful indicator, such measurements are of limited value in assessing health effects. All international dust guidelines are now referred to as respirable concentrations – either PM10 or PM2.5 (particle size in microns). These sizes are important in that they are particles, which are small enough to penetrate deep into the respiratory system. Sampling systems to measure these particles are relatively complex and expensive.

The Copper Institute and the IPH Zajecar operate 50 settle plates in the region. The use of settleable matter and daily average smoke concentrations as well as associated equipment use should be reviewed since this data is of less significance than real-time sulphur dioxide and PM10 particulate measurements in terms of health impact and the resources available may be better redirected. The measurement of rainfall together with measurement of pH and sulphate should be continued however, since these are useful long-term environmental indicators.

Arsenic

There is no capacity at present for measuring arsenic and other metallics at Bor in an appropriate and regular way. The measurement of settled material and associated metallic species by the Copper Institute and IPH Zajecar is an indicator but cannot be directly related to current guidelines for human health. The analysis of the smoke filters from the 8 port samplers is useful but it is difficult to relate the sampling to established methodology e.g. “M” type samplers31.

29 FRY limits for settleable metals are given in emission limit regulations stated in Official Gazette RS No54/92. See Annex 3. 30 Copper Institute, Bor. Monthly report for March 2002 31 The “M” type sampler is designed to sample fine airborne particulate for subsequent metals analysis. The characteristics of the sampling head conform to the EC Council Directive on a Limit Value for Lead in Air OJ L378,31 12.82. In principle, a known volume of air is passed through a filter paper. The particulate is

28

It is difficult to interpret the current FRY limit of 2.5 ng/m3 for arsenic in air although it is acknowledged that the WHO Guidelines give no safe limit due to its carcinogenic nature. Typical background concentrations range from 1-10 ng/m3, so the FRY limit therefore appears to be very restrictive. Additional details on arsenic in the atmospheric compartment are appended (see Annex 5).

Other Pollutants

There is a potential that other atmospheric pollutants are of concern around Bor. The data provided by the IPH Belgrade highlight other metals e.g. cadmium and nickel32. Chromium may also be a problem. However, it is probable that other pollutant concentrations are linked to the primary pollutants of sulphur dioxide, particulate and arsenic and it is recommended that effort and resources are concentrated on the primary pollutants in the first instance.

retained by the filter, which can be removed for subsequent analysis. A development (the MD sampler) is directional and can therefore be used to assess point source emissions. 32 Chemical Analyses Of Ground and Surface Water, Soil, Plants, River Sediment And Suspended Particles In Ambient Air in The Bor Area. Institute Of Public Health, Belgrade. May 2002. For results, see Annex 1

29 3.2 Groundwater and drinking water monitoring

3.2.1 Mission findings

Due to the fact that throughout the whole area around Bor there is no treatment, besides disinfection of the groundwater, the issues of groundwater and drinking water will both be addressed in this section.

The wider surroundings of the City of Bor are a mountain area that is rich in potable water springs. However, there are great differences in the capacities of the water sources during the rainy and dry seasons of the year.

The waterworks in Bor have three different sources for drinking water. The main source consists of three springs located in Kriveljska Banjica. The three springs were visited on May 15th, 2002. These springs have a capacity of about 3000 L/sec in the rainy season, which is reduced to about 200 L/sec in dry season (autumn). The other sources have a much lower capacity. Consequently, during the autumn drinking water is not available all the time. During the months with the lowest capacity of the springs drinking water will only be delivered for 4 hours per day, corresponding to a lack of drinking water in the City of Bor of about 140 l/sec in the dry season. Also during the rainy season there is sometimes a lack of drinking water because of insufficient reservoirs for the peak consumption.

There are also wells in the City of Bor, which are used by the public especially in the dry season, like the public drinking fountain “Hajducka cesma”. In addition, in the nearby settlements, the Trnavac well serves as a source of drinking water and the Slatina well as a source for watering of agricultural areas. A lot of wells are also used as private drinking water wells or for irrigation. Reportedly, these wells are regularly monitored by the Bor Medical Centre according to their bacteriological status, but only a limited number of parameters are examined.

Due to worn-out state and damaged water installations the water losses are estimated at approximately 30 % due to leakage of the network.

There is currently no treatment of the raw water in Bor area. Only disinfection with chlorine is available at different points. Disinfection is available at the pumping stations of the catchment area of Kriveljska Banjica and at three different reservoirs. The Bor waterworks are not only responsible for the city of Bor but also for the whole region, including Zlot, Brestovac, Slatina, Ostrelj and Donja Bela Reka.

Federal and Republican regulations provide the legal framework for water protection from pollutants, preventive measures to be undertaken and penal measures33. With regards to groundwater, there is no specific legislation for groundwater available in FRY. However,

33 For a short summary of relevant FRY legislation concerning water pollution control, see Annexes 1 and 2. For comparison general EU policies for pollution control are included in Annexes 4 and 2.

30 drinking water, as one of the essential elements of life and health of the population is given special attention in the current legislation. The quality and potability of drinking water are regulated and prescribed by the Regulations on Hygienic Safety of Drinking Water (SI. I. SRJ 42/98) and Regulations on Sampling Mode and Methods for Laboratory Analysis of Drinking Water (SI. I. SRJ 33/98). These regulations are based on the Law on Hygienic Safety of Dairy Products and Objects in General Use (58/85)34.

These regulations define relevant parameters, maximum allowed concentrations, sampling methods and equipment. They also define the minimum number of analyses, which have to be performed according to the size of the waterworks. According to these regulations the waterworks of the City of Bor should do 6 analyses per month of the basic parameters, which include controlling the microbiological indicators as well as some physical and chemical parameters. Twice a year the Bor waterworks should measure also the parameters of the periodic examinations according to the above-mentioned regulations, which include beside the basic parameters detergents, phenols, disinfectants and their by- products, mineral oils and specific expected contaminations35.

According to the FRY regulations, from wells which supply water for less than 5 000 EI (Equivalent Inhabitants) 13 samples should be taken36. For small wells, which supply only one family, there are no regulations available. According to this regulation it is not compulsory to analyse for heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, pesticides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and other substances on a regular basis but only in a new water source.

In the EU regulation 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption is valid. In this ordinance the parametric values are based on the scientific knowledge available and the precautionary principle has also been taken into account. These values ensure that water intended for human consumption can be consumed safely on a life-long basis. According to this regulation also monitoring programmes should be established that this water meets the requirements also at the point where water is made available to the user. Methods used to analyse the quality of water should be such as to ensure that the results obtained are reliable and comparable. In this regulation it is also fixed, that the consumers should be informed of the quality of water37.

It can be noted that there is a difference between the EU-regulation and the WHO- guidelines with regards to the limits for pesticides. The limits of the WHO-guidelines are

34 For relevant parameters, maximum allowed concentrations, methods, and equipment see Annex 1, tables A.1.14-15. For related FRY and EU legislation in the field of water protection, see Annexes 2 and 4. 35 See also Chemical Safety of Drinking Water: Identifying Priorities Using Limited Information, WHO (Draft edition) (2001) 36 The regulation defines Equivalent inhabitant (EI) as consumption of 150 L of water per day 37 Within this regulation, in Annex I, part A for microbiological parameters, only the Escherichia coli and the Enterococci have to be measured for not bottled drinking water. In Part B all chemical parameters are listed. Indicator parameters are also fixed in this regulation, which are mentioned in Part C. In this directive there is a difference between check and audit monitoring. In the check monitoring only some parameters, which are mentioned in Annex II, table A are measured. In the audit monitoring all parameters have to be measured minimum once a year.

31 based on the risks of these chemicals, whereas in the EU regulations all limits are set to 0.1 g/l based on the assumption that pesticides should not be detected in the ground water. In the EU-regulations for wells, which distribute less than 100 m³/day, there is no prescribed monitoring mentioned. Only the member states can decide a frequency of the monitoring (for e.g., in Germany also private wells should have drinking water quality).

With regards to groundwater especially, the council directive 76/464/EC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the community is valid. In general all other regulations concerning the protection of water bodies are also valid for groundwater (see also chapter 3.3 below). For e.g., in Germany groundwater should have drinking water quality.

Institute of Public Health Zajecar

The IPH Zajecar is an approved laboratory for drinking water monitoring in the counties of Bor and Zajecar. It is responsible for analysing drinking water in the region of the City of Bor. The Institute was visited on 16th May 2002. There are 132 persons employed, of which 13 people are employed in environmental monitoring. No quality assurance handbook, with written standard operation procedures is available. The technicians are trained to perform sampling and analysis. At the sampling point temperature and residual chlorine is measured. All other parameters are done in the laboratory.

According to the reports, which were received at the Medical Centre Bor, the IPH Zajecar currently measures only a part of the basic parameters (as defined in the FRY legislation) approximately 80 times a month at 10 different places. All the analysis is ordered by the Bor waterworks. Consequently the parameters of the V-programme are not controlled.

Currently, the basic parameters like taste and odour, pH, turbidity, KMnO4-value, ammonium, chlorine, chloride, nitrate, nitrite and the bacteriological parameters like total coliforme, faecal coli, mesophile bacteria, streptococcus, Proteus and sulphite reducing chlostridia are analysed regularly. Heavy metals are not analysed for the drinking water of the waterworks of Bor. Heavy metals are analysed by IPH Zajecar only in higher contaminated water, because there is only a flame atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Unicam 96 AA) and a cold vapour system (Unicam SP 192) for analysing mercury, arsenic and antimon available. For drinking water IPH Zajecar have to enrich the drinking water 1: 40, to reach the limits of the drinking water regulation. All chemical standards for analysis are prepared by the laboratory itself, no crosscheck with old standards is done, decreasing the tracebility of the data.

32 Following equipment for measuring environmental parameters is available at IPH Zajecar laboratory: • Conductivity Meter • pH-Meter (Corning pH 435) • Infrared spectrophotometer (Prospect IR, Midac) • UV-Visible spectrophotometer (Pharmacia) • Balances • Turbidity Meter (Turb 550 IR, WTW) • GC (gas chromatograph) with ECD/FID (Pye-Unicam 304) • g-Spektrophotometer (Oxford)

However, the GC (due to broken column) nor the ECD-Detector (due to too high noise to measure samples) or the g-Spektrophotometer are no longer in use (due to problem with the software).

Analyses according to the “V-Program“ (current Rulebook for Safety of drinking water) were undertaken by IPH Belgrade in April 2002 as part of the monitoring mission to Bor in May 2002. This sampling programme includes also heavy metals (Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu, Cr, Ni, As, Hg), Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Trihalomethane potentials and sulphate and several organic parameters, including pesticides (see Annex 1). These drinking water regulations, with the V-programme are in accordance with WHO-guidelines

Medical Centre Bor

The Bor Medical Centre was visited during May 15th, 2002. The Medical Centre Bor is an approved laboratory for drinking water monitoring in Bor and the surrounding areas. Drinking and ground water monitoring can be done by IPH Zajecar and Medical Centre Bor.

Medical Centre Bor does the environmental analysis for private wells especially in the bacteriological field according to FRY methods. For all bacteriological tests the equipment is available. The samples are collected by the health inspectors (the monitoring mission did not review the sampling equipment). Instruments for the analyses include a conductivity and pH-meter (type Hanna, new equipment) as well as a Spectrophotometer Stasa III (type Gilford). All other equipment is out of use (e.g. Striptec from Tecator)

Only basic parameters like bacteriological tests, pH, conductivity, colour, chlorine, KMnO4-value, ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, sulphate, chloride and dry residue are analysed in the laboratory. Normally heavy metals are not analysed. If there is a need to investigate for heavy metals, the analyses are sent to the Bor Copper Institute.

33 Copper Institute Bor

The Copper Institute was visited on Tuesday 14th May 2002. Its purpose is to provide quality control and engineering backup for the mines and processes. The Copper Institute is also active for other companies in the field of mining and processing.

The existing laboratory equipment, including atomic adsorption spectrophotometers with flame, graphite furnace and cold vapour technique (PE 403, PE 1100B, PE AS90/FIMS) allow analyses of heavy metals. For further description of the capacities, see also 3.1.2 above. However, within environmental monitoring, the limited resources of the Institute’s Department for Quality Control of the Environment are concentrated on atmospheric monitoring. Consequently the Copper Institute does no sampling of water or soil.

Institute for Public Health (IPH) Belgrade

The laboratory facilities at the IPH Belgrade were visited as part of the monitoring mission briefing on Monday 13th May 2002. The IPH Belgrade is approved for sampling and analysis related to public health in the area of Belgrade.

IPH Belgrade provided considerable input to pre-mission preparations and in particular, was invited by UNEP to be in charge of the sampling and analysis component of the monitoring mission. In the IPHB laboratory the sampling equipment for water and soil is rather restricted. However, available in the laboratory is all equipment, which is necessary to analyse the required parameters according to the relevant FRY regulations. Also more sophisticated equipment like atomic absorption spectrophotometer with flame, graphit furnace and cold vapour technique for the whole analysis of heavy metals, GC with ECD and FID and also GC/MS for the analysis of organic substances are available. For further description of capacities, see also 3.1.2 above.

3.2.2 Conclusions

Currently there is basic data available concerning the drinking water resources in the Bor area. However, the monitoring data covers only a part of the parameters as identified in the Yugoslavian regulations for drinking water.

According to the analysis done by the IPH Belgrade there exist no problems with the physico-chemical and chemical quality of the drinking water of the water works. In the public drinking fountain and the wells in Trnavac and Slatina the nitrate content of these wells are too high (90 to 100 mg/l). Also the sulphate concentrations in the public drinking fountain and in the Slatina well are higher than limits with 556.8 resp. 432.0 mg/l. (see Annex 1 for results and maximum allowed concentrations).

According to these data there is no concern about the contamination with organic parameters like solvents and pesticides. However, the high concentration of organic material (TOC) causes a high potential of Trihalomethanes (THM), which are partly

34 carcinogenic. Due to the seasonal lacks in water provision and the high water losses there are also bacteriological parameters exceeding the limit values.

No conclusions concerning the groundwater and the private water wells are included, due to very limited data available to the monitoring mission.

The IPH Zajecar laboratory has a lack of equipment and also manpower to carry out all the necessary analysis for drinking water according to Yugoslavian standards. Basic analytical work can be done. Reports according to the analysed parameters of the waterworks Bor are sent to the Medical Centre Bor. There is a requirement to implement a quality assurance system according to ISO 17025.

The Medical Centre Bor laboratory does not have all required equipment to carry out all the necessary analysis for drinking water according to FRY standards (or EU-standards). The capacity of manpower is also very limited. There is a lack of a quality assurance system, which would be acceptable for the requirements of an International Standard like ISO 17025.

3.3 Surface water monitoring

3.3.1 Mission findings

The major riverbeds in Bor area, including Bor river and Krivelj river have been widely used by the mining industry. The river valleys have also been used to deposit the sludge of the flotation for the production of the copper ore, causing many environmental problems in the area.

Picture 2. Conjunction of Krivelj and Bor rivers (May 2002)

35 To the north of the mining area, the Bor river is diverted into the Krivelj river. Bor river, prior to the diversion, is contaminated through the mining activities with heavy metals. The pH level is reduced due to the high content of iron in the water released into it. This iron comes from oxidising Pyrite, which is a part of the ore.

The former Bor river valley is also being used by the mining activities. The wastewater of the mining complex and the city of Bor is discharged into the former riverbed without any treatment. In the downstream direction Bor river is joined by other smaller rivers diluting the contamination prior to the conjunction with the Krivelj river. The bank of the Bor river contains deposits, which looks like deposited mine tailings and only limited vegetation is present.

The Krivelj river has also been diverted in order to build in the river valley tailing ponds for the wastewater of the flotation. This river is flowing in a concrete culvert under the tailing ponds. Local stakeholders have expressed fears that the concrete collector is no longer stable enough for the weight of the tailing pond.

Picture 3. Concrete collector, tunnel outlet - Krivelj river (May 2002)

36 The quality of Krivelj river is also influenced by the mining activities. According to sampling results the iron and copper content in the river is very high, whereas the pH level is very low (see Annex 1). The low pH is caused by the Pyrite oxidation and the iron precipitation.

The water quality of Timok river is also influenced by the mining activities, and after conjunction with Bor river the water quality changes due to the quality of Bor river.

The FRY and Republic of Serbia legislation provide the legal framework for protection of surface waters (see Annex 3). The by-law on classification of water courses classifies water courses in four classes according to their pollution level and their purpose38.

The classes are: • Class I: water that, in natural state or after disinfection, can be used for drinking water supply, food industry and fine fish (salmonidae) breeding. • Class II: water appropriate for bathing, recreation, water sports, less fine fish (cyprinidae) breeding, including water that, after basic treatment methods (coagulation, filtration and disinfection), can be used for drinking water supply and food industry. • Class III: water that can be used for irrigation and industries except food industry. • Class IV: water that can be used only after special treatment.

Based on this law, the Bor river is, from its source to the Bor settlement, defined/ classified as IIa category water flow. Downstream, from the Bor settlement to its confluence with Timok, as category IV water flow. It means that the water should be in accordance with class IV of river waters, while the Krivelj river has not been categorized at all. According to this law the Timok river is, from the settlement of Zajecar to its confluence with Bor River, categorized as IIb water. From that point on, to its confluence with the Danube it is categorized as III category water flow.

There is an EU-regulation concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water (75/440/EWG). The approach is that water resources used for the abstraction of water for human consumption in general necessitate a reduction in pollution. According to this regulation there are three different qualities of surface water according to the different treatment steps, which have to be used for producing safe drinking water.

A1: Simple Physical treatment and disinfection A2: Normal Physical and chemical treatment and disinfection A3: Physical and a more advanced chemical treatment, like oxidisation, adsorption and disinfection

This regulation is only valid for surface water, which perhaps is used for abstraction of drinking water. Within the EU, there are several regulations concerning the quality of

38 The by-law does not address mineral and thermal water.

37 surface and ground water (see Annex 3). These regulations are included in the national regulations of the member states of the EU.

Institute of Public Health Zajecar

The IPH Zajecar is the approved laboratory for surface water monitoring in Bor and the surrounding areas. It is responsible for analysing surface water in the region of the City Bor.

However, currently only 13 people at the IPH are related to the environmental monitoring. The technicians are trained to perform sampling and analysis. The laboratory has a lack of equipment and also manpower to carry out all the necessary analysis for surface water according to FRY standards (for further description of Institute of Public Health Zajecar capacities, see chapters above).

3.3.2 Conclusions

According to all information available to the monitoring mission, including the analysis of the IPH Belgrade (see Annex 1) Bor river is highly contaminated surface water. The river is contaminated with organic material, which is discharged from the municipal wastewater. As a result of the mining activities, the pH level is abnormal and the river is contaminated with iron, copper and zinc (including arsenic). These concentrations are so high, that also the Timok river as well as other downstream water courses are influenced by the contamination levels.

Reportedly, monitoring of surface waters up-stream of Bor is done regularly (4 times a year) at 8 measuring spots and down-stream from Bor Municipality at 5 spots. The on- going activities can serve as central input when improving the monitoring of surface waters in Bor area.

With regards to the capacities of the competent institutes and laboratories in the area, please see conclusions above (in Chapter 3).

38 3.4 Wastewater monitoring

3.4.1 Mission findings

Wastewater disposal in the Bor area is a major problem. Wastewaters from copper processing generally contain high concentrations of metals and are highly acidic. The town of Bor also generates municipal wastewaters and trade effluents from smaller local industries. The following main water pollution sources have been identified in Bor39:

DDDS “Topionice I rafinacije bakra” - Copper smelting and refining factories (no treatment) Industrijske otpadne voda, broj - Industrial wastewaters (no treatment) Sanitarne otpadne vode, broj – Sanitary/domestic wastewaters (no treatment) RTB Bor DD u svojini “Rudnici bakra I nemetala”– RTB Copper & non-metal mines (no treatment) SIP “Bakar” Bor - Copper wire factory (no treatment) “Grafomed” mesovito preduzece za vrsenje graficke delatnosti - Graphics factory (no treatment) NIS “Jugopetrol” BG, RO - petrol depot (no treatment) JKP “Vodovod I kanalizacija” water and sewerage company /waterworks Sanitarna otpadna voda banjskog – spa area sanitary wastewater/sewerage (treated) Sanitarna otpadna voda Bor faza – sanitary wastewater, domestic Bor 1 & 2 (treated) Sanitarna otpadna voda iz naselja borskog jezera–sanitary wastewater from Bor lake area (treated) Sanitarna otpadna voda Bor pre uliva u kanalizaciju – sanitary wastewater from Bor area, before discharge into sewerage (no treatment) Industrijska otpadna voda pre uliva u kanalizaciju – industrial before sewage (no treatment) “Zastava promet” Kragujevac filijala Bor – car production (no treatment) “Trayal Korporacija” stanica za proizvodnju eksploziva “Slari” u Boru – explosives factory (no treatment) DDO “konfekcija” Bor – textile factory (no treatment) “RTB Bor” RO “Fabrika poliester folija” – polyester factory (no treatment) DD “Centroistok” Bor (treated) DD Fabrika ventila za pneumatike Bor – valve/ventilation and pneumatics manufacture (treated) Klanica “Polet” Bor – slaughter house (no treatment) Zdravstveni centar Bor –medical centre / hospital (no treatment)

Reportedly, wastewater discharges from the sulphuric acid plant amount to some 200 m3 per day (including acid waste, slurry and toxic metals) and from the tank house plant 70- 120 m3 per day – (including solids and a variety of toxic metals). The amount of mine waters, containing copper is approximately 400-500 m3/hour40. Consequently the pH,

39 Scottish Environment Group, UK Government Taskforce For Yugoslavia: Water And Wastewater Facilities, Municipality of Bor, February 2001 and IPH Zajecar. 40 The levels exceed for e.g., normal UK sewer discharge consent limits and similar discharges directly to the inland environment would result in the process being closed. (ref Assessment of Copper Smelter;

39 copper and arsenic concentrations in the final effluent (from the acid plant and tank house) probably surpasses international maximum allowed concentrations. With regards to municipal effluent discharge volumes from Bor town, no data was available for the monitoring mission.

Map 5. Main release points for wastewaters

Source: Bor: Environmental Assessment. IPH Belgrade 2002.

Because the original Bor river has been diverted, there is no possibility of the copper processing or municipal wastewaters being naturally diluted in the part of the river

Copper Mine; Landfill Site & Thermal Power Plant, Bor, Yugoslavia – IWMG report December 2000). Report also contains analytical data for discharges.

40 immediately downstream of the town. Consequently, banks of the affected rivers are sterile and it is unlikely there is any water-based life. There is possibly some dilution downstream towards the Danube, which may reduce the effects of the pollution.

Federal and Republican regulations provide the legal framework for water protection from pollutants, preventive measures to be undertaken and penal measures (see Annex 3). Every factory/plant that discharges waste water from its installations is required to systematically control the quality of these waters, keep a record of the quantity and research their effect on recipients as well as to purify them to allowed pollutant concentration before discharging them into river streams. Public utility firms and legal entities that discharge waste water into water streams are obliged, by the Law, to monitor the pollution state of waste waters, that is, to control the emission at points of discharge from industrial plants. For comparison, General European Union policy regarding wastewater discharges is appended (see Annexes 5 and 3).

Only institutions and laboratories authorized by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management may perform the tests. The tests should be carried out in accordance with the Regulations on the Minimum Number of Waste Water Quality Tests and Regulations on Limiting Emission Values, methods, measuring period and data logging. Despite the significant wastewater streams, the enforcement of the existing legislation as well as the enforcement capacities have so far been non-sufficient.

Picture 4. Tailings pond (May 2002)

41

There is an effluent treatment plant to treat the copper processing wastewaters. The plant includes acid neutralisation and precipitation units. However, the plant is in a state of disrepair and it is unlikely to be brought back on line in the foreseeable future. Because the plant is out of action, acid and metals laden effluents are discharged directly into Bor river. There was found to be no treatment of municipal wastewaters from Bor. Municipal wastewaters and associated sewage discharge directly into Bor river downstream from the copper processing wastewaters. In the outlying areas some small effluent plants have been installed to treat individual wastewater sources for e.g., from hotels. The designs are generally of the Biodisc type41.

Picture 5. Bor River valley (May 2002)

The Krivelj river is contaminated from the Krivelj copper mine operations. The original Bor river has been diverted into the Krivelj before entering the collector beneath the tailing lagoon and this may allow some natural dilution. It is clear that Bor river, before it joins the Timok, consists almost entirely of effluent from the Bor copper processing plant, Bor town, Krivelj mine and from a sand-washing plant which also has no treatment facilities. There is likely to be some residual dilution from the original Bor river, Krivelj

41 Biodiscs (also called rotary biological contactors – RBC’s) are units, which hold a series of discs with a high surface area. The discs are mounted on a horizontal shaft, which is driven slowly by a motor. The discs are half submerged in the effluent to be treated and half exposed to air. As the discs turn, the area exposed to air allows the transfer of oxygen to the naturally formed biofilm for respiration. The biofilm biologically breaks down the effluent when submerged. Biodiscs are especially suitable for small effluent sources e.g. hotels.

42 river and tributaries. There is currently little information available on other individual sources of effluent discharges in the area. The problem is clearly a low priority, due partly to the economic situation.

The IPH Zajecar is the approved laboratory for wastewater monitoring in Bor and the surrounding areas. The facility was visited on May 16th 2002. A staff of thirteen people is involved in environmental sampling and analysis. Available equipment includes relatively old but serviceable Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometers, UV, Visible and Infra Red Spectrophotometers. Gas Chromatography with FID and ECD is installed but is currently out of action. Basic wet chemistry equipment is available.

The laboratory was found to be ill equipped and manned to carry out compliance monitoring e.g. according to UK practices. In order for an approved regulatory authority to carry out compliance monitoring a quality system must be implemented. It would be very difficult to enforce environmental legislation and assess trends without the validated, traceable and audited data that a properly operated quality system would provide.

However, there is some limited manpower and analytical capacity available at the laboratory to carry out small projects, for example short characterisation surveys of known industrial effluent outfalls.

According to mission findings, there appears to be no significant wastewater monitoring being carried out. The IPH Belgrade has carried out some analysis of pollution in watercourses around the area but no individual wastewater streams have been analysed.

3.4.2 Conclusions

There is no structured system for wastewater monitoring in Bor. Consequently it is unlikely that the relevant FRY regulations are complied with in terms of monitoring and control. Data from several projects has indicated clear problems in this area but according to the monitoring mission, information concerning actual discharges is sparse.

Problems with metals and acid in discharges from industrial processes has been indicated in the IPH (Belgrade) Bor Environmental Assessment as well as in previous international assessments42, but there is no validated flow data and the available chemical analysis data is for spot samples only. Based on the existing information e.g. important load calculations for effluent treatment design are not possible. Analysis of spot samples of wastewater from the smelter complex discharging into the Bor in December 2000 reported a pH of 2.83, copper 44 mg/l. Total metal (not including arsenic and iron) discharge concentration was 55 mg/l43. For comparison, a typical UK discharge consent to

42 E.g. Assessment of Copper Smelter; Copper Mine; Landfill Site & Thermal Power Plant. Bor, Yugoslavia. IWMG December 2000, and Economic, Environmental & Public Health Assessment, Bor Municipality, Yugoslavia. IWMG March 2001. 43 Assessment of Copper Smelter; Copper Mine; Landfill Site & Thermal Power Plant. Bor, Yugoslavia. IWMG December 2000.

43 a sewer (i.e. subject to further treatment before discharge to a controlled water) would be up to 20 mg/l total metals and a pH range of 6-9.

There is no data for the other wastewater discharges in the area, for example municipal wastewaters and effluents from individual sources (e.g. hotels), which are likely to be affecting sensitive waters. Such systems for treating municipal type effluents (mainly “biodisc”) are described in the Local Municipal Assembly Bor Group report44. All the reported systems are either unserviceable or in need of maintenance and repair. No discharge analysis data was made available to the monitoring mission. As highlighted above, load and characterisation data necessary for effluent treatment plant design is not available.

3.5 Soil Monitoring

3.5.1 Mission findings

With regards to soil (and irrigation water), the existing legislative framework in FRY is rather limited. It provides for maximum allowed concentrations of dangerous and harmful substances that can damage or change the productive capability of agricultural soil and the quality of water for irrigation, that originates from industries, sewage dump overflow, overuse of mineral fertilizers and plant protection preparations. Dangerous substances according to this manual are: Cd, Pd, Hg, Ni and F and harmful: Cu, Zn and B. Also for Simazin and Atrazin there are limitations on the concentrations in the soil45.

In the Bor area soil has been degraded by emissions of sulfur dioxide, emissions of ash and soot from metallurgic facilities, pollution of water and air, the dump sites as well as through a bad agricultural use. The contamination is caused by heavy metals, PCBs, acid rains and several other dangerous substances.

The mining activities in the Bor area destroy a lot of agricultural land, because of the open pit mining. The wastewater from the copper processing affects the banks of the rivers. In particular, at the conjunction of the Bor and the Timok rivers wide land areas have become unsuitable for any agricultural use, as they are covered by solid material and deposited mine tailings. At affected areas trees and bushes grow for only a short time, due to their roots touching the acid soil layers. According to some estimations approximately 25 000 ha of fertile soil in the Bor Municipality and some 4 000 ha in the lower areas of the Bor and Timok rivers (including the villages of Ostrelj, Slatina, Donja Bela, Reka, Rgotina and Vrazogrnac) are affected by the mining activities.

The Agricultural and Technological Research Centre Zajecar has undertaken research concerning potential rehabilitation and reuse of this area. While visiting the Centre (16th

44 Bor, May 2002. Municipal Assembly Bor 45 Regulation manual on Allowed Concentrations of Dangerous and Harmful Substances in Soil and Water Irrigation and Methods of their Examination (Sl. gl. R.S. 23/94). For maximum allowed concentrations, see Annex 1, table A1.15

44 May 2002) the monitoring mission was presented with research results dealing with the soil at the conjunction of the Bor river with the Timok river. According the Centre the soil in this area has a pH value of 2 and plants cannot grow without treatment within an area of approximately 30 ha. Different methods to upgrade the soil were demonstrated. With the upgrading of the soil, plants could grow again, but re-treatment of the soil would be necessary every year. According to the representatives of the Centre, the levels of arsenic and copper in the soil are high, but could be removed by plants.

However, it is important to note that in addition to the abnormal pH level of the soil, this area is also contaminated with heavy metals. Consequently, there is a risk that food grown in this area cannot be used for longer times (even if acid of the soil is removed), because of the plants capacity to incorporate the heavy metals.

According to the IPH in Belgrade a monitoring of the state of pollution of the soil and agricultural plants has not been done in the Bor Municipality and sporadic laboratory analysis performed in recent years have mostly covered a limited number of parameters. The sampling undertaken by IPH Belgrade revealed in several locations higher that MAC levels of heavy metals (see Annex 1). The limited data, which were measured by IPH Belgrade of river sediments, show no significance that measures have to be done to reduce the heavy metals, if German regulations are used. However, further investigations with regards to the leaching procedures should be undertaken to define the mobility of the heavy metals. The heavy metal concentrations of soil depend also on the using of the ground.

The PAH-concentrations measured in the soil from Vrazogrnac are extremely high and further investigations should be made, to make sure that this data is reflecting the concentrations of PAH in the area of Vrazogrnac and not only one spot.

The sediments measured by IPH Belgrade are highly contaminated with copper and arsenic, so that the river banks should not be play grounds for children, especially because of the high concentration of arsenic.

In the EU there is only one law available, which deals with sewage sludge used in agriculture46. Some of the EU member countries have proceeded at different paces to further up-grade their legislation concerning soil protection. For e.g., in the Netherlands and Germany different kinds of limits have been developed for soil, specifying separate limits with regards to use for housing, industry or agriculture areas.

46 Council Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture. See also Annex 2.

45

Agricultural and Technological Research Centre Zajecar

The Agricultural and Technological Research Centre Zajecar was visit on 16th May 2002. The Centre has a staff of 123 employees with main units concentrating on research and plant production, working in close cooperation with the Institute of Public Health Zajecar.

Following equipment is available at the Agricultural and Technological Research Centre laboratory: • Spectrophotometer (FP 102, Spectrolab) • Kolorimeter • Spectrophotometer (PU 8600, Pye Unicam) • pH-Meter • Kjeldahl-Apparatus (Kjeltec-System) • Grinding-System • Flame-Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (SP 9, Pye Unicam) • GC with FID/ECD

In the laboratory there are written procedures especially for soil extractions. The Centre has the equipment and the technology to take and analyse soil samples according to the different use of the soil. The analysis can be done for heavy metals and for other basic parameters. However, the laboratory has limited capacity to do a comprehensive survey of the contamination of the soil in the Bor area. There is also no quality assurance system available, which would comply with International Standards like ISO 17025.

Institute of Public Health Zajecar

The IPH in Zajecar also has the capacity to take and analyse soil samples according to the different use of the soil (including measuring particles and their content of heavy metals). However, organic parameters are not measurable due to the lack of appropriate equipment and there is currently no experience in analysing soil especially for organic parameters. For further description of IPH Zajecar capacities, see also previous chapters.

3.5.2 Conclusions

Within the area of Bor soil has been primarily degraded by emissions from the industrial activities, in particular mining activities, as well as through improper waste management and bad agricultural use.

In addition to the abnormal pH level of the soil, areas contaminated with heavy metals can be identified. The monitoring of the state of pollution of the soil, sediments and agricultural plants has not been undertaken in a systematic and standardized manner and the sporadic laboratory analyses performed in recent years have mostly covered a limited number of parameters.

46 The Agricultural and Technological Research Centre has the equipment and the technology to analyse soil samples for heavy metals and for other basic parameters. However, the laboratory has limited capacity to do a comprehensive survey of the contamination of the soil in the Bor area.

The IPH in Zajecar has also the capacity to take and analyse soil samples according to the different use of the soil. However, organic parameters are not measurable due to the lack of appropriate equipment and there is currently no experience in analysing soil especially for organic parameters.

3.6 Waste materials monitoring

3.6.1 Mission findings

The national strategy for waste management has set objectives in the fields of waste reduction (incl. separation at source and recycling), primary resource protection as well as environmental protection47. In general, the areas of municipal waste, industrial waste and hazardous waste have been identified as the areas to work within. However, the implementation of the strategy as well as the enforcement of the existing legislation is non-sufficient48.

According to mission findings, the issue of safe and environmentally friendly waste disposal has been a low priority in the Bor area. To some extent the problems with handling waste materials are eclipsed by other more pressing environmental issues. The municipal landfill site is situated close to the town on high ground and is almost permanently on fire. Some fires are apparently started deliberately in order to recover valuable material, for example copper from copper cable. It is likely that emissions from the burning are affecting negatively local air quality.

During the mission, no data was presented on waste disposal in the Bor and Zajecar area but it is anticipated that substantial quantities of controlled waste arise from processes at Bor and the town municipal waste49. There is no information on special waste quantities or disposal routes. The only data available presented to the mission was 1996 data on total waste deposited in the Nis region, which indicated 125 591 tonnes, were landfilled50. According to that data, domestic waste accounted for 72 650 tonnes, “company” waste 27 851 tonnes, waste from “institutions” 19 450 tonnes and from public spaces 6 000 tonnes.

47 FR Yugoslavia Report, February 2000. 48 Waste management is regulated by the several regulations including Regulations on Criteria for Selecting Locations and Dumps for Waste Material (Sl. gl. RS, No 54/92), Regulations on Modes of treating waste designated as having the properties of dangerous materials (Sl.gl. RS, No 12/95). 49 “Controlled Waste” is defined in the 1991 EU Framework Directive on waste (91/156/EEC) as any substance or object in the categories listed below which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard. 50 Waste Management Assessment of the Landfill Sites in Yugoslavia. International Waste Management Group Report December 2000 (UK Government Task Force For Yugoslavia)

47 However, based on the mission findings it can be concluded that landfill sites in the area have been sited with little consideration for environmental and public health impact51. The sites suffer from lack of investment and have been operated without access to best practice and technology. There is no landfill gas or leachate monitoring programme on- going and in general it seems that relevant rules and regulations are not adhered to52.

There is currently no capacity for the analysis of waste materials in the Bor area. Analysis capacity at the IPH Zajecar laboratories, which would be the approved facility for such analysis, is fully committed in other areas. There was no data produced during the field mission nor was any waste material data present in any of the reports provided to the mission. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the scale and categories of waste disposal in the area are accurately known. There is probably an as yet undefined serious problem with waste materials and disposal routes in the area53.

3.6.2 Conclusions

There is no structured and validated programme for the monitoring of solid, urban and hazardous waste materials in the Bor area. Consequently it is unlikely that the relevant FRY regulations relating to monitoring wastes are being applied.

Picture 6. Bor Landfill site (May 2002)

Virtually no information on categorization and volumes of waste was made available to the monitoring mission.

51 See e.g. Maps 3 and 5 for location of landfill. 52 Two FRY regulations apply to waste disposal - Law on waste handling (Official Gazette RS No 26/96) and Regulation on hazardous waste handling (Official Gazette RS No 12/95). 53 For comparison, see Annex 4, with General European Union Policy On Waste Disposal

48 4. Recommendations

It is important to note that for any improvements in the monitoring capacities, the systematic technical component must be accompanied by improvements in the human capacities. In addition, it is crucial that the local stakeholders and relevant national authorities are committed to cooperating in a transparent manner, allowing all existing information to be shared and be optimally used by the decisions makers. A structured information and response system, which can be externally audited, will allow actions to be taken immediately in the event of exceeding of limits. Taking into account the financial constraints, this would also facilitate cost-efficient share of responsibilities and tasks between the different competent institutions.

Parallel to this process, it is evident that improvements in the existing legislative framework should be made and, in particular, capacities to monitor and enforce the legislation/regulations should be strengthened. The step-wise improvements should keep this larger framework in mind, in order to improve the environmental and health monitoring capacities in Bor area in a sustainable manner.

Following is a number of recommendations based on the findings during the mission.

A priority list is given in the end of this section.

Air monitoring and meteorological data

The 24-hour sulphur dioxide measurements should be continued with additional quality control of data. Due to extensive use of coal in the areas away from Bor, the IPH Zajecar 8 port sampler smoke programme should be maintained.

The IPH Zajecar monitoring program for smoke and sulphur dioxide should be maintained since the data may be used strategically and the smoke measurements are more important due to the more extensive use of coal outside the Bor area. Reducing the settle plate programme could release more resources for targeted atmospheric monitoring.

In the short term it is essential that suitable atmospheric monitoring equipment is acquired to carry out sampling and analysis to address the issues in the Bor area in a reliable and internationally recognized fashion. The acquisition of such equipment should include good logistical support, training and especially quality control. Data interpretation facilities and reporting structure, together with the clearly defined objectives should be an essential part of such a program, in order to ensure efficient use of the data.

49 Suitable ambient air monitoring equipment should have the following capabilities:

o Measurement of sulphur dioxide continuously – 10-minute reference period for short-term exposure. Data handling to recalculate data for 24 hour and annual averages.

o Measurement of airborne particulate matter as PM10. Data processing for 24 hour and annual mean concentrations. TEOM, Beta Attenuation (BAM) and light transmission techniques should be available

o Measurement of metallic elements, especially arsenic. There is no specific sampling method but normally “M Type” samplers are used in the UK. Sampling should be designed to provide weekly average data. There is a possibility of using the current 8 port sampler filters but this option should be reviewed in more detail to ensure that data is compatible with International standards. The use of filters from PM10 instrumentation would be more suitable. Analysis of samples may be carried out using ISO 9855:1993 (acid digest/atomic absorption with hydride generation as required).

o Measurement of wind speed and direction. A meteorological data system is normally easily added to the sampling systems detailed above.

o The above components could be part of an integral mobile system allowing measurements to be carried out in different locations – including remote control sites. The system should allow telemetry download, rapid data interpretation and necessary action, especially in the case of sulphur dioxide. Most systems of this sophistication would allow transmission to public electronic message board.

In the medium term a statistical review of bronchial problems, cancer and hospital admissions data would be appropriate, provided suitable comparisons can be made with other regions of FRY. Also in the medium term, consideration should be given to the installation of emissions monitoring equipment – particularly for sulphur dioxide, in the stacks at The Mining & Smelter Complex.

In the longer term there is a clear requirement for the competent national authority to effectively assist FRY industry and utilities in the application of environmental management and controls, and also monitor the application and enforcement of environmental legislation.

50 Water monitoring

Drinking water

In general the drinking water monitoring should be improved in order to verify compliance with the FRY legislation. In particular:

o All parameters of the basic program according to the FRY law should be monitored regularly.

o The periodic parameters mentioned in the FRY drinking water legislation should be monitored two times a year.

In order to identify and clarify any long-term changes and/or negative effect to the drinking water source, the water from the drinking water sources; springs, fountains and wells should be analysed four (4) times a year, including the dry and wet season. The analyse program should include:

o The basic parameters from the “V Program”, heavy metals and trihalomethanes.

o The two (2) samples taken during the dry and wet season should also include pesticides and other relevant, dangerous substances, which are supposed to be used in this area by industry or agriculture. (see Annex 1)

The water in each temporary drinking water reservoir should be analysed once a week. The analyse program should include:

o The basic parameters from the FRY-Regulation including trihalomethanes and microbiological indicators.

The drinking water quality in the pipeline network should be checked once a week for the following parameters:

o The basic parameters from the FRY-Regulation including trihalomethanes and microbiological indicators.

pH level, conductivity, temperature and residual chlorine should be measured on- site during sampling.

The location of sampling should be changed from the existing 10 fixed locations to 10 random locations in the pipeline network.

The drinking water quality in dismantled or “dead end” parts of the pipeline network should be monitored once a month.

51 During times when the drinking water supply is operating less than 24hours/day the bacteriological tests should be increased.

Groundwater

The ongoing random monitoring of the groundwater in the down stream direction from the Bor area should be reviewed and systemised. The monitoring programme should include existing wells used for drinking water and/or irrigation and include the following program:

o Basic parameters, which are measured at the moment, and in addition the measuring of heavy metals and organic parameters.

o Measuring of oxygen, pH and conductivity on-site during sampling.

Surface water monitoring

The findings obtained during the mission clearly identify the surface water system in the down stream direction from the Bor area to be highly effected by different contaminants from the activities in the Bor area. Based on these findings the following recommendations should be implemented:

The ongoing monitoring programme for surface water should continue, but modified to include: o 8-10 sampling locations. Making use of the on-going monitoring activities up-stream, the integrated programme should include 1 or 2 samples up- stream from the Bor area in order to create a solid “base-line”.

o Basic parameters, which are measured at the moment, and also measuring of heavy metals, organic parameters, temperature and flow rate in addition.

o The surface water monitoring system should be carried out four (4) times a year, including the dry and wet season, and combined with a wastewater monitoring system.

Wastewater monitoring

In order to get a more adequate picture of the surface water quality and potential contamination sources to the river system in the Bor area, including the effect from the discharging of wastewater into the system, the following steps are recommended:

An inventory should be made of all wastewaters in Bor area, which are discharged in the different rivers. After identification of all wastewater discharges the quality and quantity of this wastewater should be measured and included in the inventory. This inventory is a necessary step in protecting rivers and upgrading the water quality in the Bor area.

52 The wastewater monitoring should be in compliance with the FRY legislation.

The monitoring should include four (4) sampling rounds a year, and be combined with the recommended surface water monitoring system.

It is important to note that a great deal of investigative groundwork is required to establish wastewater emissions and characteristics in the area. This is a long-term project but should be started as a matter of urgency.

Soil monitoring

In order to create a “base-line” regarding the impact to the soil quality in the Bor area affected especially by the activities at The Mining & Smelter Complex in Bor, the following recommendations should be implemented:

The starting point for the soil-monitoring program should be the metrological data, in order to verify the impact from wind blown contaminants, especially heavy metals and acid rain. This will include assessment of locations which may contribute towards contaminated land for e.g., storage or handling of environmental sensitive material (oil depots, raw material storage, etc) as well as areas (particularly agricultural land) which may be affected by atmospheric fallout from the smelter and other industrial operations in the area.

Special attention should be given to the sediments along the river Bor and at the conjunction of the rivers Bor and Krjvelskj due to the fact that the adjoining areas are intensively used for agricultural.

Besides the basic parameters such as pH, moisture, total organic materials, mineral oil, sulphur hydrocarbons, inorganic and organic nitrogen and sulphate, the monitoring program should include heavy metals, PCB, PAH’s and biological parameters especially in the sediments. However the final elements recommended to be included in the monitoring programme will depend on the assessment of the “Starting point”, see above, since contaminants may be site specific.

The monitoring of soil is a long-term project but should be started as soon as possible to identify the impact on soil of mining, industry and agricultural use. There should also be an inventory of the different contaminated areas to outline priorities for urgent remediation needs.

53 Waste materials monitoring

Taking into account the current economic situation it is probable that enforcement of a regulated system is difficult in the short-term. However, it is recommended that.

A baseline survey of the waste input into the Bor landfill site and other landfills in the area should be carried out in order to define, quantify and characterize the types of waste deposited.

Due to lack of local capacity in this sector and the requirement of extensive chemical analysis capabilities, consideration should be given to expansion of local laboratory manpower resources and/or for the subcontracting of complex analysis.

Recommendation of priority

Based on the risks to the human health in the Bor area combined with the findings during the mission and the above list of recommendations, the following priority list is recommended regarding the implementation of the recommendations:

1. Improvements of the 24-hour monitoring capacity including particulate (PM10), wind speed/direction and arsenic as well as sulphur dioxide. This includes procurement of additional equipment and the improvement of quality control and human capacity.

2. None of the laboratories visited in the Bor area during the monitoring mission are capable of carrying out the recommended monitoring systems on their own with respect to equipment, human capacities and quality assurance systems. In order to improve the overall recommended monitoring system in the most cost-efficient way the following short-term steps should be taken:

A “joint force/venture” between relevant laboratories in order to fulfil the recommended monitoring programme for each sub-program.

Procurement of “Field-Test” equipment in order to perform on-site measurements of: pH, temperature, oxygen, conductivity and residual chlorine.

“Training on the job” of relevant personnel to increase the human capacity to be in line with the recommendations. The programme should include a system of round robin tests starting with the basic parameters in order to improve the analytical work and decrease the errors in the different laboratories. Data interpretation facilities and reporting structure, together with the clearly defined objectives should be an essential part of such a program, in order to ensure efficient use of the data.

54 Development and implementation of relevant Quality Assurance complying with International standards according to the recommendations.

3. Improve the drinking water monitoring programme to comply with the FRY- and EU- regulations.

4. Establish a surface water monitoring programme. This programme should be combined with a monitoring programme for wastewater discharged into the system. The monitoring programme should comply with the FRY- and EU-regulations.

5. Establish a groundwater-monitoring programme.

6. Establish a soil-monitoring programme.

55 5. References

Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. WHO (Second edition)

Assessment of Copper Smelter; Copper Mine; Landfill Site & Thermal Power Plant. Bor, Yugoslavia. IWMG December 2000.

Bor: Environmental Assessment, IPH Belgrade. 2002. Institute of Public Health of Belgrade, May 2002.

Bor, May 2002. Municipal Assembly Bor. REPORT, Local Municipal Assembly Bor Group for the support to UNEP/UNOPS monitoring mission – identification of pollution sources and consequences and possible permanent balanced development and ecosystem.

Chemical Safety of Drinking Water: Identifying Priorities Using Limited Information, WHO (Draft edition) (2001)

Chemical Analyses Of Ground and Surface Water, Soil, Plants, River Sediment And Suspended Particles In Ambient Air in The Bor Area. Institute Of Public Health, Belgrade. 23 May 2002.

Copper Institute, Bor. Monthly report for March 2002

Economic, Environmental & Public Health Assessment, Bor Municipality, Yugoslavia. IWMG February/March 2001.

FR Yugoslavia Report, February 2000. The consequences of NATO bombing for the environment in FR Yugoslavia. Federal Ministry for Development, Science and the Environment.

Scottish Environment Group, UK Government Taskforce For Yugoslavia: Water And Wastewater Facilities, Municipality of Bor, February 2001

Waste Management Assessment of the Landfill Sites in Yugoslavia. International Waste Management Group Report December 2000 (UK Government Task Force For Yugoslavia)

56 Annex 1 Sampling results and locations

UNEP/UNOPS clean-up programme contracted Institute of Public Health - Belgrade (IPHB), FRY competent authority for waste characterization, to undertake sampling and analysis of ground water, soil, plants, river sediment, surface water and suspended particles in ambient air. The samples were analyzed in the IPHB Laboratory.

Ground Water

Map A1.1: Sampling locations for groundwater

57

Table A1.1 Sampling spots of ground water from the Bor (23.04. and 24.04.2002)

Sample of Ground water Time of sampling Sampling spots ID Number 03-361 9.05 KRIVELJSKA BANJICA –Spring 03-362 10.10 SURDUP – Spring 03-363 12.00 ZLOT- GAURA MIKA –Spring HAJDUČKA ČESMA – BOR 03-364 14.00 Public drinking fountain 03-365 11.25 TRNAVAC -Well 03-366 12.15 (23.04.2002) SLATINA -Well

Underground Waters – The program of systematic monitoring of quality of drinking water in the Bor area, including sources used by the Bor Waterworks, has been based on examination of a limited number of parameters (smell, temperature, colour, turbidity, pH value, demand for potassium-permanganate, evaporation residue, electro conductibility, ammonium, nitrites, nitrates, chlorides, iron and manganese). Sources of water capture of the Bor Waterworks – Kriveljska banjica, Zlot and Surdup are, being Karst water springs in their nature, very vulnerable and susceptible to the influence of atmospheric fallout penetration. IPHB took water samples from those locations, with the aim of laboratory examinatins (according to the comprehensive, so-called »V Program«).

During frequent summer shortages of drinking water, citizens of Bor obtain water from public drinking fountains. Among them, most frequently used is the Hadučka česma fountain.

Settlements of Slatina and Trnavac lie in the alluvial plane of much polluted Bor River. Since it is hydrologically connected to underground waters, samples from two wells that serve as a source of drinking water (Trnavac) and for watering of agricultural areas (Slatina) were taken.

58

Table A1.2 Results of Analysis of ground water samples (springs) from the Bor (»V program« - Yugoslav standard for potable water)

Parameters / Sample ID Number 03-361 03-362 03-363 Temperature (°C) 13.8 10.7 8.6 Colour-platinum cobalt method <5 <5 <5 Odour without without without Turbidity NTU 0.1 0.1 0.8 pH 7.2 7.2 7.4 Oxidability (mg/L) KMnO4 2.8 1.9 3.1 Residue 105°C 218 214 191 Conductivity (µS/cm) 440 460 350 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) O2 8.1 8.9 11.0 Saturation % O2 78 79 94 Hydrogen sulfide (mg/L) H2S without without without Carbon dioxide (mg/L) CO2 13.0 13.9 7.4 Cyanide (mg/L) CN- <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Chlorine (residual) (mg/L) Cl2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 p-alcalinity ml 0,1N HCl/L 0.0 0.0 0.0 m-alcalinity ml 0,1N HCl/L 41.6 43.6 31.7 Hardness total °dH 14.5 14.7 10.3 Hardness carbonat °dH 11.5 12.7 8.6 Hardness noncarbonat °dH 3.0 2.0 1.7 2- Carbonat (mg/L) CO3 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Bicarbonat (mg/L) HCO3 253.8 266.0 193.4 + Ammonia (mg/L) NH4 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - Nitrite (mg/L) NO2 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 - Nitrate (mg/L) NO3 7 8 8 Chloride (mg/L) Cl- 5.0 5.6 2.8 2- Sulfate (mg/L) SO4 21.1 17.3 20.2 Ortho phosphate( mg/L) PO43- <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Fluoride (mg/L) F- 0.06 0.05 0.05 Surfactant,anionic MBAS (mg/L) <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Phenols index (mg/L) 0.000 0.000 0.000 UV absorpcion 254nm 1/m 1.5 1.1 2.3 TOC (mg/L) 0.79 0.71 0.89 Total Oil and grease (IR) (mg/L) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Mineral Oil and grease (IR) (mg/L) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Metals (mg/L) method AAS Aluminium (mg/L) Al 0.005 0.090 0.044 Arsenic (mg/L) As <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Copper (mg/L)Cu 0.012 <0.005 <0.005 Zinc (mg/L) Zn 0.013 0.017 <0.010 Iron (total) (mg/L) Fe <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Chromium (total) (mg/L) Cr <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Cadmium (mg/L) Cd <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

59 Calcium (mg/L) Ca 89.2 95.4 68.0 Potassium (mg/L) K 0.29 0.42 0.42 Magnesium (mg/L) Mg 6.0 3.5 3.4 Manganese (mg/L) Mn <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Sodium (mg/L) Na 1.23 1.62 0.94 Nickel (mg/L) Ni <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Lead (mg/L) Pb <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Mercury (mg/L) Hg <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 Pesticide (µg/L) method GC/MSD Total pesticide (µg/L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Alachlor <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Aldrin/Dieldrin <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Atrazin <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Bentazon <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 DDT <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,4-D <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Hexsa chlor benzene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Heptachlor/Heptachlorepoxid <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlorotoluron <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Isoproturon <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Carbofuran <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Lindan <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MCPA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Metolachlor <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Molinat <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Pendimentalin <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Penta chlor phenol <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Permetrin <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Piridat <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Simazin <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Trifluralin <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlorphenoxy herbicides different from 2,3-D and <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MCPA 2,4-D Dichlorprop <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 PAH ( µg/L) method GC/MSD Total PAH <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Fluoranthene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benzo 3,4 fluoranthene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benzo 11,12 fluoranthene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benzo 1,12- perilene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Indeno (1,2,3 cd) pyrene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benzo (a) pyrene <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 PCB (µg /L) method GC/MSD PCB total(µg /L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2- chlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,3- dichlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,4,5-treechlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,2,4,4- tetrachlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

60 2,2,3,4,6- pentachlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,2,4,4,5,6-hexachlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,2,3,3,4,4,6-heptachlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,2,3,3,5,5,6,6-oktachlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 By products of desinfection (µg/L) method GC/ECD Dibromacetonitrile <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dichloracetonitrile <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Trichloracetonitrile <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 THM (µg/L) method GC/ECD Potential of THM* 31.4 20.8 52.3 Chloroform 27.2 17.4 46.4 Dichlorbrommethane 3.9 3.0 5.5 Dibromchlormethane 0.3 0.4 0.4 Bromoform <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlor alkanes (µg/L) method GC/ECD 1,1 dichlorethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1,2 dichlorethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dichlormethane 2.4 2.8 2.4 1,1,1 trichlorethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.1 0.1 <0.1 Chlor ethenes (µg/L) method GC/ECD 1,1 dichlorethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1,2 dichlorethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Trichlorethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Tetrachlorethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Vinilchloride <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlor benzene (µg/L) method GC/ECD 1,2-dichlorbenzene <1 <1 <1 1,3- dichlorbenzene <1 <1 <1 1,4- dichlorbenzene <1 <1 <1 Volatility aromatic hydrocarbons (µg/L) method GC/FID Benzene <1 <1 <1 Ethylbenzene <1 <1 <1 Xylene <1 <1 <1 Styrene <1 <1 <1 Toluene <1 <1 <1 * The Potential of THM is measured after reaction with chlorine in the Laboratory

61 Table A1.3 Results of Analysis of ground water samples (wells and Public drinking fountain) from the Bor area

Parameters / Sample ID Number 03-364 03-365 03-366 Temperature (°C) 12.8 11.9 9.1 Colour-platinum cobalt method <5 <5 <5 Odour without without without Turbidity NTU 0.1 0.1 0.1 pH 7.2 6.8 7.1 Oxidability (mg/L) KMnO4 2.8 4.0 5.3 Residue 105°C 850 1050 1030 Conductivity (µS/cm) 1270 1570 1540 Chlorine (residual) (mg/L) Cl2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 + Ammonia (mg/L) NH4 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - Nitrite (mg/L) NO2 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 - Nitrate (mg/L) NO3 90 100 90 Chloride (mg/L) Cl- 11.3 104.2 90.0 2- Sulfate (mg/L) SO4 556.8 235.2 432.0 TOC (mg/L) 1.78 2.48 2.95 Metals (mg/L) method AAS Arsenic (mg/L) As <0.002 <0.002 0.004 Copper (mg/L)Cu 0.005 <0.005 0.025 Zinc (mg/L) Zn 0.010 0.070 0.15 Iron (total) (mg/L) Fe <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Chromium (total) (mg/L) Cr <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Cadmium (mg/L) Cd <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Nickel (mg/L) Ni <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Manganese (mg/L) Mn <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Lead (mg/L) Pb <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Mercury (mg/L) Hg <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 omethanes (THM ) (µg/L)- method GC/ECD Potential of THM* 36.9 66.4 94.2 Chloroform 22.9 19.4 39.2 Dichlorbrommethane 10.5 24.6 33.3 Dibromchlormethane 3.1 17.6 18.3 Bromofom 0.4 4.8 3.4 By products of desinfection (µg/L) method GC/ECD Dibromacetonitrile <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dichloracetonitrile <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Trichloracetonitrile <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlor alkanes (µg/L) method GC/ECD 1,1 dichlorethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1,2 dichlorethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dichlormethane 2.6 3.2 2.0 1,1,1 trichlorethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.1 <0.1 0.1 Chlor ethenes (µg/L) method GC/ECD 1,1 dichlorethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

62 1,2 dichlorethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Trichlorethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Tetrachlorethene <0.1 <0.1 0.1 Chlor benzene (µg/L) method GC/ECD 1,2-dichlorbenzene <1 <1 <1 1,3- dichlorbenzene <1 <1 <1 1,4- dichlorbenzene <1 <1 <1 Volatility aromatic hydrocarbons ( µg/l) method GC/FID Benzene <1 <1 <1 Ethylbenzene <1 <1 <1 Xylene <1 <1 <1 Styrene <1 <1 <1 Toluene <1 <1 <1 * The Potential of THM is measured after reaction with chlorine in the Laboratory

63 Soil and plants

Map A.1.2: Sampling locations for soil and plants

64

Table A1.4: Sampling spots of soil samples from the Bor area (23.04.2002)

Sample of Soils Time of sampling Sampling spots ID Number 10/10 15.30 BRESTOVAC - depth 10 cm 10/11 15.45 BRESTOVAC - depth 40 cm 10/12 10.30 VRAŽOGRNAC - depth 10 cm 10/13 10.45 VRAŽOGRNAC - depth 40 cm 10/14 14.10 KRIVELJ – depth 10 cm 10/15 14.35 KRIVELJ – depth 40 cm 10/16 12.15 SLATINA – depth 10 cm 10/17 12.40 SLATINA – depth 40 cm 10/18 13.25 OŠTRELJ – depth 10 cm 10/19 13.40 OŠTRELJ – depth 40 cm

Table A1.5 Results of Analysis of soil samples from the Bor area

Parameters /Sample ID 10/10 10/11 10/12 10/13 10/14 10/15 10/1 10/17 10/18 10/1 6 9 pH 6,80 7,41 7,33 7,17 7,42 7,56 6,70 6,82 7,64 7,92 Moisture (%) 16,6 19,2 16,2 13,2 17,1 12,8 16,5 13,2 14,8 11,3 Total oganic materials (%) 26,1 32,2 23,4 25,2 30,1 21,4 25,5 22,1 29,4 21,9 Mineral oil (mg/kg) 9,55 35,8 21,9 59,2 66,6 8,54 14,9 7,82 8,39 70,1 Total hydrocarbons (mg/kg) 4,2 3,0 6,7 4,6 6,9 2,3 5,0 1,2 4,7 5,1 Sulfur (mg/kg) S 5,3 6,0 4,0 291 4,1 5,1 6,4 7,3 5,2 3,8 Heavy metals (mg/kg) Lead (mg/kg) Pb 6.0 6,2 23,8 57,5 24 17,2 15,6 5,8 22,8 19,2 Cadmium (mg/kg) Cd <1,2 <1,2 <1,2 <1,2 <1,2 <1,2 <1,2 <1,2 <1,2 <1.2

Zinc (mg/kg) Zn 72.0 74,4 90.0 80,5 126 86,2 96.0 63,2 88.0 62 Copper (mg/kg) Cu 84.0 88,7 276 345 408 196 378 164 293 220 Chromium (mg/kg) Cr <6.0 <6.0 15.0 15.0 9.0 6,9 9,6 9,2 12,9 11,3 Nickel (mg/kg) Ni 6.0 6,2 18,6 15,5 9.0 6,9 13,2 12,7 17.0 12,5 Arsenic (mg/kg) As 2,4 2,85 27,6 32,2 19,2 8,62 36,0 9,2 25,8 45,2 Mercury (mg/kg) Hg <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 <0,15 PAH (mg/kg) naphthalene < 0.01 < 0.01 0.1023 0.0456 < 0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 acenaphthylene < 0.01 < 0.01 0,0702 0,0632 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 acenaphthene < 0.01 < 0.01 0,2142 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 fluorene < 0.01 < 0.01 0,3427 0,2878 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 phenanthrene < 0.01 < 0.01 13,128 9,342 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 anthracene < 0.01 < 0.01 0,0369 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 fluoranthene < 0.01 < 0.01 37,982 33,619 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 pyrene < 0.01 < 0.01 21,786 19,373 0.064 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0,011 benzo(A)anthracene < 0.01 < 0.01 12,932 12,269 < 0.01 <0.01 0,063 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 benzo(K)fluoranthene < 0.01 < 0.01 5,138 4,953 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

benzo(A)pyrene < 0.01 < 0.01 32,213 30,779 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 dibenz(A,H)anthracene < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 benzo(G,H,I)perylene < 0.01 < 0.01 0,157 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Indeno(C,D)pyren < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0,130 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Parameters /Sample ID 10/10 10/11 10/12 10/13 10/14 10/15 10/16 10/17 10/18 10/19

65 chrysene < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 7,933 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 benzo(B)fluoranthene < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 6,962 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 PAH (total) (mg/kg) < 0.01 < 0.01 124,1 125,7 0,064 <0.01 0,063 <0.01 <0.01 0,011 PCBs (mg/kg) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Pesticides total (mg/kg) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Volatily Organic Compounds < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 (BTEX) (mg/kg) Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CHC) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 (mg/kg)

Plants

Table A1.6 Sampling spots of plants from the Bor area (23.04.2002) Sample of Time of Plants ID Sampling spots Type of plants sampling Number 10/20 10.35 VRAŽOGRNAC Onion 10/21 10.40 VRAŽOGRNAC Leaf of Peas 10/22 12.20 SLATINA Onion 10/23 12.25 SLATINA Leaf of Peas 10/24 13.30 OŠTRELJ Lettuce 10/25 13.35 OŠTRELJ Onion 10/26 14.20 KRIVELJ Root of Horseradish 10/27 14.25 KRIVELJ Clover 10/28 15.35 BRESTOVAC Onion 10/29 15.40 BRESTOVAC Leaf of Strawberry

66 Table A1.7 Results of Analysis of plants samples from the Bor area

Parameters /Sample ID 10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26 10/2 10/28 10/29 7 Heavy metals (mg/kg) Lead (mg/kg) Pb <0.10 <0.10 0.18 0.45 <0.10 <0.10 0.15 0.15 <0.10 0.44 Cadmium (mg/kg) Cd <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.03 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 Zinc (mg/kg) Zn 2.8 5.8 6.4 9.0 3.8 3.3 5.2 18.0 2.8 6.8 Copper (mg/kg) Cu 0.63 2.2 2.0 6.2 0.75 0.90 2.8 2.2 0.8 2.0 Chromium (mg/kg) Cr <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 Nickel (mg/kg) Ni <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 Arsenic (mg/kg) As <0.00 0.027 0.042 0.57 0.052 0.017 0.025 0.017 0.01 0.017 5 Mercury (mg/kg) Hg <0.01 0.086 0.03 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.014 0.023 0.031 <0.01 Pesticides total (mg/kg) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Soil and Plants – Monitoring of the state of pollution of the soil and agricultural plants has not been systematically done in the Bor Municipality. Sporadic laboratory examinations, performed in recent years, have mostly covered a limited number of parameters. Location in which IPHB performed sampling of the soil and agricultural crops are in such places of the Bor Municipality that are characteristic by intensive agricultural activities. The chosen settlements (Oštrelj, Krivelj, Vražogrnac, Brestovac and Slatina) are expecially subject to specific pollutants, due to unfavorable orographic features of the terrain, direction of prevailing wind and vicinity of wastewater recipients.

67

Surface watres and Sediment

Map A1.3 Sampling locations for surface waters and sediment

68 ▪ Table A1.8 Sampling spots of river sediments and surface water Bor area (24.04.200)

Sample of Sample of Time of Sediments Surface water sampling Sampling spots ID Number ID Number The TIMOK River- upstream, before the 10-30 03-355 11.10 conjunction with the Bor River The BOR River- the conjunction with the 10-31 03-356 09.45 Timok River The TIMOK River- downstream, after the 10-32 03-357 10.30 conjunction with the Bor River The BOR River –upstream, before the 10-33 03-358 12.10 conjunction with the Kriveljska River The KRIVELJSKA River -the conjunction 10-34 03-359 12.35 with the Bor River The BOR River – downstream, after the 10-35 03-360 13.05 conjunction with the Kriveljska River

Table A1.9 Results of Analysis of river sediments from the Bor area

Parameters / Sample ID 10/30 10/31 10/32 10/33 10/34 10/35 MAC pH 7.44 6.50 7.40 7.96 4.56 6.39 Moisture (%) 41.82 18.95 19.88 43.90 45.70 40.18 Total organic materials (%) 58.8 22.3 27.1 24.6 61.4 26.1 Mineral oil (mg/kg) 387.7 16.9 61.7 167.1 634.8 190.9 Total hydrocarbons 7.3 15.9 9.6 2.8 5.0 3.8 (mg/kg) Cyanide (mg/kg) CN- 0.53 0.12 0.18 0.14 0.12 0.12 Heavy metals (mg/kg) Lead (mg/kg) Pb 28.0 14.3 16.9 38.3 105 41.2 100 Cadmium (mg/kg) Cd < 1.25 < 1. 25 < 1.25 < 1.25 < 1.25 < 1.25 3 Zink (mg/kg) Zn 102.0 99.2 100 133.5 92 101.2 300 Copper (mg/kg) Cu 52.0 2004 1575 2937 3257 2688 100 Chromium (mg/kg) Cr 82.0 7.4 8.2 8.9 9.2 9.2 100 Nickel (mg/kg) Ni 15.3 10.5 11.7 8.9 9.2 9.0 50 Arsenic (mg/kg) As 7.2 124 96.2 315 291 310 25 Mercury (mg/kg) Hg < 0.15 < 0.15 < 0.15 0.472 < 0.15 0.406 2 Polyaromatic < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Hydrocarbons (PAH) total (mg/kg) PCB total (mg/kg) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Pesticides total (mg/kg) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Volatility Organic < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Compounds (BTEX)(mg/kg) Chlorinated < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Hydrocarbons (CHC) (mg/kg)

69 ▪ Table A1.10 Results from Analyses of Surface water in the Bor area

Parameters / Sample ID Number 03-355 03-356 03-357 03-358 03-359 03-360 Air Temperature (°C) 20.7 19.3 19.4 19.6 19.6 19.7 Water Temperature (°C) 13.2 12.3 12.9 19.2 13.2 17.2 pH 8.4 6.1 7.3 6.7 4.8 4.9 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) O2 7.2 9.0 8.8 7.9 9.9 7.8 Saturation % O2 68.0 84.0 83.0 84.0 93.0 80.0 BOD5 3.8 7.8 4.9 14.1 1.1 8.3 Oxidability (mg/L) KMnO4 12.4 14.3 13.2 54.2 6.2 43.7 COD (mg/L) 3.1 3.6 3.3 13.6 1.6 10.9 Residue 105(°C) 246.0 1567 340.0 1953 1398 1934 Suspended matter (mg/L) 137.0 752.0 218.0 1993 349.0 1570 Phosphate total (mg/L) P- 0.09 <0.02 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 Ortho phosphate (mg/L) PO43- 0.06 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Conductivity (µS/cm) 430.0 1670 570.0 1970 1640 1880 Alcalinity ml 0,1N HCl/L 36.7 4.9 31.7 4.0 1.0 1.0 Hardness total (°dH) 10.9 58.0 16.2 65.0 111.3 69.9 Iron (mg/L) 0.6 5.02 1.16 6.00 3.20 4.40 + Ammonia (mg/L) NH4 0.33 4.11 0.71 8.71 1.65 6.73 - Nitrite (mg/L) NO2 0.043 0.062 0.053 0.137 0.016 0.034 - Nitrate (mg/L) NO3 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.7 TOC (mg/L) 2.82 3.21 2.95 15.93 0.95 8.60 Chloride (mg/L) Cl- 35.4 14.2 28.9 15.6 23.4 18.4 Surfactant,anionic MBAS (mg/L) <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 <0.02 0.03 Cyanide (mg/L) CN- <0.010 0.026 <0.010 0.040 0.026 0.029 Total hydrocarbons (µg/L) 4.4 9.1 6.8 151.5 28.0 131.7 Metals (mg/L) Copper 0.119 15.7 1.29 14.0 16.2 15.0 Zink 0.013 2.1 0.15 2.4 0.26 2.0 Lead <0.010 0.100 <0.01 0.100 <0.01 0.90 Cadmium <0.002 0.009 <0.002 0.011 0.003 0.09 Nikl <0.010 0.270 0.030 0.261 0.020 0.243 Chromium(total) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Arsenic <0.002 0.008 0.005 0.021 <0.002 0.018 Mercury <5x10-3 <5x10-3 <5x10-3 <5x10-3 <5x10-3 <5x10-3 Mineral oil and grease (mg/L) <0.010 0.035 0.010 0.048 <0.005 0.025 Parameters / Sample ID Number 03-355 03-356 03-357 03-358 03-359 03-360 Total pesticide (µg/L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Volatility aromatics hydrocarbons <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 (µg/L): Total PCB (µg /L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Total PAH ( µg/L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlorinated hydrocarbons (µg/L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Surface water and River sediment – Sampling of six samples of surface water and six samples of the river sediment was performed in two representative locations: Slatina Bridge (river mouth of Krivelj and Bor rivers) and River mouth of the Bor and Timok Rivers – in the district of village Vražogrnac. It was done with two aims: a) of obtaining more detailed data for estimate of the quality of surface waterways in the observed area and b) of obtaining the elements for the estimate of their impact on the quality of underground water sources and agricultural land, temporarily exposed to flooding.

70

The relevant legislation, concerning quality of river waters in Serbia, is as follows: - Regulations concerning categories of water sources (published in “Official Herald” no 5/ 1968) - Regulations concerning classification of waters (published in “Official Herald”no 5/ 1968) - Rulebook on Hazardous Substances in the waters (published in “Official Herald” no 31/ 1982).

The Bor River is, from its source to the Bor settlement, defined/ classified as IIa category water flow. Downstream, from the Bor settlement to its confluence with Timok, as category IV water flow. It means that the water should be in accordance with class IV of river waters, while the Krivelj River has not been categorized at all. The Timok River is, from the settlement of Zajecar to its confluence with Bor River, categorized as IIb water. From that point on, to its confluence with the Danube it is categorized as III category water flow. There are currently no norms concerning the contents of suspended particles, BOD, dry residue and pH value for the waters of the IV class.

71 Suspended Particles in Ambient Air

Map A1.4: Sampling locations for suspended particles in ambient air

Table A1.11 Sampling spots of Ambient Air samples in Bor area 22/23.04 and 23/24.04.2002

Sample of Ambient Time of air sampling Sampling spots ID Number

09-0051 22/23.04. # POSTE -BOR

09-0052 23/24.04 # POSTE -BOR

09-0053 23/24.04 # ELEKTROISTOK - factory Note: # - 24 hours measurements

72 Table A1.12 Results: chemical analysis, suspended particles in ambient air 22/23.4 and 23/24.4.02

Parameters / Sample ID 09-0051 09-0052 09-0053 ILV Total suspended particulate 104.1 98.9 70.0 120.0 (TSP)(µg/m3) Heavy metals (ng/m3) Lead (ng/m3) Pb 208.2 267.4 220.0 1000 Cadmium (ng/m3) Cd 7.8 28.0 22.7 10 Zinc (ng/m3) Zn 1822 4651.2 7000 - Chromium (ng/m3) Cr <5 <5 <5 0.2 Nickel (ng/m3) Ni 5.2 11.6 11.3 2.5 Arsenic (ng/m3) As 223.8 645.3 380.0 2.5 Manganese (ng/m3) Mn 31.2 34.9 33.3 1000 PAH (µg/m3) Benzo(a)pyrene <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - ILV- Immission Limit Value (Official Gazette of R. of Serbia No. 54/92)

Table A1.13. Meteorological parameters –BOR (22/23.April and 23/24.April 2002.)

Date Air Humidity Air Pressure Wind Wind Max. Wind (Apri Temperature (%) (mbar) speed direction speed (m/s) l) (°C) (m/s) 22 14.2 62 978.7 0.3 W-NW 8.2 23 13.0 67 974.1 1.2 W-NW 8.8 24 10.8 77 972.6 0.2 without 5.6

NOTE: With regards to the results above, it is important to note that RTB- Bor did not work on 22/23. April 2002.

73 Table A1.14 Parameters, Maximum Allowed Concentration (MAC) (Yugoslav Standard for potable water), methods and equipment

P a r a m e t e r s MAC Methods and equipment Temperature °C Thermometer Colour 5 Colour-platinum cobalt method Nessler tubes, matched, 50ml, tall form Odour without Turbidity NTU 1 Nephelometric method Turbidimeter, HACH 2100A pH 6,8-8,5 Electrometric method Orion PerpHec Meter 370 PerpHecT SURE-FLOW Electroda, Model 9272 ORION

Oxidability (mg/L) KMnO4 8 Method KUBEL-TIEMANN Residue 105°C - Gravimetric 105°C Conductivity (µS/cm) 1000 Conductometric – 1.Radimeter-conductometer 2.Conductivity/TDS Meter, Manual, Hach Company Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) O2 Ion selective electrode Saturation % O2 50 Ion selective electrode -Profi lab Disolved oxigen Metrar, Oxi 597-S WTW -Oxigen sensor CellOx 325 WTW Hydrogen sulfide (mg/L) H2S without -Spectrophotometric method with N,N- dimetil-p-phenilendiamin Carbon dioxide (mg/L) CO2 -Titrimetric method Cyanide (mg/L) CN- 0,05 -Ion selective electrode Orion PerpHec Meter 370 Electrod ORION- MODEL 9606 Chlorine (residual) (mg/L) Cl2 0,5 -Colourimetric with ortho-tolidine and sodium-arsenite p-alcalinity ml 0,1N HCl/L volumetric m-alcalinity ml 0,1N HCl/L volumetric Hardness total °dH volumetric with EDTA Hardness carbonat °dH volumetric with EDTA Hardness noncarbonat °dH volumetric with EDTA 2- Carbonat (mg/L) CO3 volumetric - Bicarbonat (mg/L) HCO3 volumetric + Ammonia (mg/L) NH4 0,1 Spectrophotometric with Nessler reagent - Nitrite (mg/L) NO2 0,03 Spectrophotometric with sulfanilic acid and α- naphthylamine - Nitrate (mg/L) NO3 50 -Colourimetric with Brucine - Chloride (mg/L) Cl 200 Argentometric method with AgNO3 Sulfate (mg/L) SO42- 250 Turbidmetric HACH 2100A Ortho phosphate (mg/L) PO43- 0,15 Spectrophotometric with vanadomolybdic

74 and ascorbic acid Fluoride (mg/L) F- 1,2 -Ion selective electrode Orion PerpHec Meter 370 Combined electrod for F Model 96-09 ORION Surfactant, anionic MBAS (mg/L) 0,1 Spectrofotometric with methylene blue Phenols index (mg/L) 0,001 Spectrophotometric with 4- aminoantipyrine UV absorpcion 254nm 1/m Spectrophotometric TOC (mg/L) UV-IR Lab TOC Total Oil and grease (IR)(mg/L) 0,1 IR Mineral Oil and grease (IR) (mg/L) 0,01 IR

75 Metals (mg/L) Aluminium 0,2 -SpectrAA 400- Zeeman Arsenic 0,01 AAS Copper 2,0 AAS Zinc 3,0 AAS Iron 0,3 AAS Chromate (total) 0,05 AAS Cadmium 0,003 AAS Calcium 200,0 Complecsometric with EDTA Potassium 12,0 AAS Magnesium 50,0 Compleksometric with EDTA Manganese 0,05 AAS Sodium 150,0 AAS Nikl 0,02 AAS Lead 0,01 AAS Mercury 0,001 AAS-vga Pesticide (µg/L) Total pesticide (µg/L) 0,5 GC-MSD Alachlor 0,1 Aldrin/Dieldrin 0,03 Atrazin 0,1 Bentazon 0,1 DDT 0,1 2,4-D 0,1 Hexa chlor benzene 0,01 Heptachlor/Heptachlorepoxid 0,03 Chlorotoluron 0,1 Isoproturon 0,1 Carbofuran 0,1 Lindan 0,2 MCPA 0,1 Metolachlor 0,1 Molinat 0,1 Pendimentalin 0,1 Penta chlor phenol 0,1 Permetrin 0,1 Piridat 0,1 Simazin 0,1 Trifluralin 0,1 Chlorphenoxy herbicides different from 2,3-D 0,1 and MCPA 2,4-D Dichlorprop 0,1 PAH ( µg/L) Total PAH ( µg/L) 0,2 GC-MSD Fluoranthene Benzo 3,4 fluoranthene Benzo 11,12 fluoranthene

76 Benzo 1,12- perilene Indeno (1,2,3 cd) pyrene Benzo (a) pyrene 0,01 PCB (µg /L) Total PCB (µg /L) 0,5 GC-MSD 2- chlorbiphenyl 2,3- dichlorbiphenyl 2,4,5-treechlorbiphenyl 2,2,4,4- tetrachlorbiphenyl 2,2,3,4,6- pentachlorbiphenyl 2,2,4,4,5,6-hexachlorbiphenyl 2,2,3,3,4,4,6-heptachlorbiphenyl 2,2,3,3,5,5,6,6-oktachlorbiphenyl By products of desinfection (µg/L) GC-ECD Dibromacetonitrile 100 Dichloracetonitrile 90 Trichloracetonitrile 1 Potential of THM (µg/L) GC-ECD Chloroform 40 Dichlorbrommethane 15 Dibromchlormethane Bromofom Chlor alkanes (µg/L) GC-ECD 1,1 dichlorethane - 1,2 dichlorethane 3 Dichlormethane 20 1,1,1 trichlorethane 2000 Carbon tetrachloride 5 Chlor ethenes (µg/L) GC-ECD 1,1 dichlorethene 30 1,2 dichlorethene 50 Trichlorethene 70 Tetrachlorethene 40 Vinilchloride 0,5 Chlor benzenes (µg/L) GC-ECD 1,2- dichlorbenzene 1000 1,3- dichlorbenzene - Monochlorbenzen 300 1,4- dichlorbenzene 300 trichlorbenzene 20 Volatility aromatics hydrocarbons ( µg/L): GC-FID Benzene 1 Ethilbenzene 2 Xylene 50 Styrene 200 Toluene 700 Total hydrocarbons (µg/L) GC-MSD

77

Table A.1.15 Maximum allowed concentrations (MAC) of dangerous and harmful substances, (Sl. gl. R.S. 23/94).

No Chemical element MAC in soil MAC in H2O (mg/kg) (mg/L) 1. Cadmium up to 3 up to 0.01 2. Lead up to 100 up to 0.1 3. Mercury up to 2 up to 0.001 4. Arsenic up to 25 up to 0.05 5. Chromium up to 100 up to 0.5 6. Nickel up to 50 up to 0.1 7. Fluorine up to 300 up to 1.5 8. Copper up to 100 up to 0.1 9. Zinc up to 300 up to 1.0 10. Boron up to 50 up to 1.0

No Agricultural Crop Limiting values of simazine and atrazine 1. Lucerne, rape, sugarbeet 0.06-0.09 2. Oats, soybean, barley and cucumber 0.15-0.20 3. Sunflower 0.20-0.25 4. Wheat and rye 0.25-0.30 5. Potato, flax and onion 0.30-0.40 6. Asparagus 1

Description of sampling procedure and equipment used by IPH Belgrade

Ground and Surface Water - All samples analyzed for organic parameters (PAH, PCB, pesticides) were collected in dark glass bottles, with Teflon lids. Since the sampled water had not been chlorinated, no conservation (stabilization) took place. Holding time for samples: 14 days, at +40C, in refrigerator. - The samples analyzed for volatile chlorinated and aromatic hydrocarbons (CHC and BTEX) had been sampled in dark glass bottles (100 ml) and filled with water to the top. Holding time: 14 days, at +40C. - The water for analysis of heavy metals was taken in polyethylene bottles. The samples were conserved (stabilized) in acid medium, at pH < 2. Holding time: 28 days, at +40C. - The water for analysis of phenols was taken in glass bottles. Conservation (stabilization) was performed with the solution of phosphoric acid (1+9) and a 10% solution of CuSO4. - The water for cyanide analysis was taken in dark polyethylene bottles. Conservation (stabilization) was performed with the solution of NaOH (pH> 12).

- The water for analysis of H2S was taken in 100 ml glass vials, with 20 ml of zinc- acetate, and filled with adequate quantities of water. - The water for analysis of dissolved oxygen and BOD was taken in glass vials. - All samples were transported in plastic hand refrigerators, at +40C and were later stored in the refrigerators in IPH Belgrade. All analyses were done immediately after the arrival of samples to IPH Belgrade.

78 Sediment, Soil and Plants Glass jars with lids were used for storing the samples. Samples were transported in plastic hand refrigerators, at +40C and later stored in refrigerators at IPHB. All analyses were done immediately after arrival samples to IPHB

Air Sampling At the “Elektroistok”Measuring spot: - Gas sampler, AT 2000 Proekos- Belgrade, Yugoslavia, year of production: 2001; with max. air flow 25 m3/h and timer for setting hourly flow (m3 per hour) and memory for the total quantity of air intake (in m3). - Sampling was performed with 15 m3/h air flow, continuously for 24 hrs, total quantity of air intake 360 m3. At the “Poste- Bor” Measuring Spot: - Gas sampler, (UNIS Sarajevo), manufactured by “Institute for Mechanics”, School of Mechanics, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; year of manufacture 1980; maximum air flow 15 m3/h, with the air meter available - Sampling was performed with 12 m3/h air flow continuously for 24 hrs, total quantity of air intake 288 m3. - Suspended particles were analyzed with Glass microfibre filters GF/A 20.3 x 25.4 cm; 100 sheets, Cat. No 1820 866 Whatman.

Description of Analytical Methods

- Samples for determination of heavy metals by atomic absorption spectraphotometric technique, were prepared by acid digestion with concentrated nitric acid and hydroxide- peroxide (at 70oC). - Mercury content was determined on Varian Spectra AA 475 (atomic absorption spectraphotometric device) using cold vapor technique. Content of Pb, Cd, Zn, Mn, Cr, Ni and Cu was determined by Spectra AA 200 device. Content of arsene was determined by using Spectra A 20+ hydride technique. - Samples with the aim of determining of the contents of PAHs and PCBs, by gas chromatography, were prepared by Soxlet extraction method, with mixture of solvents: hexane and methylene-chloride. Solid phase extraction column with silica gel and aluminium- oxide were used for the cleanup of the samples. - Clean extract was measured for the presence of PAHs and PCBs by capillary gas chromatography, with mass spectrometry detection (on HP 6890 gas chromatograph and HP 5793 mass detector, selecting ion monitoring). - PAHs quantification was made according to the Supelco standard (EPA 610-PAH). - PCBs quantification was made according to the Supelco standard, AROCHLOR 1260. - Determination of volatile aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons in the samples was performed by head-space technique, using gas chromatograph HP 5890 and HP 5890-Series II, with flame ionization and electron capture detector). - Quantification of volatile organic compounds was made according to Supelco standard (Hydrocarbons Chlorinator Mix 624 A). - In the aim of determining of the content of Total Hydrocarbons, by GC-MSD were prepared by extraction with mixture of solvents (hexane-acetone) with squalane as internal standard. Quantification was made according to Supelco standard SQUALANE Cat.No 442784(1).

79 Annex 2 FRY legislation concerning water pollution control and wastewater treatment

General Legal Framework

Legislation concerning water pollution control in FRY is based exclusively on quality of receiving water after mixing with effluents. This kind of approach has been abandoned in Western Europe and North America long time ago and improved by appropriate requirements of effluent quality and/or minimal removal efficiency for certain parameters.

There are two basic sets of regulations, which create the legal framework for implementation of water pollution control in FRY and R. of Serbia: • Regulation on classification of water quality of transboundary watercourses is defined on federal level (Official Gazette of SFRJ, No 33/87) while water quality of watercourses inside R. of Serbia on republican level (Official Gazette of R. of Serbia", No 5/68). In both regulations there are 4 main water classes. For each water quality class maximal allowable level for certain water quality parameters are prescribed (parameters are: BOD, COD, microbiological parameters, suspended solids, etc.). • Regulation on categorization and classification of watercourses, where water courses in R. of Serbia are listed and for certain sections of water courses desirable state of water quality is set forth (state is described by classifying of water quality in certain water quality class according to previous regulation).

In addition, there is republican regulation “Regulation On Dangerous Substances In Water” (Official Gazette of R. of Serbia", No 31/82) where maximal permissible levels of certain harmful and toxic substances in natural water are prescribed, according to their prescribed water quality class.

Concerning discharge of municipal or industrial wastewater into watercourses there are no legislation in FRY and R. of Serbia were minimal wastewater treatment efficiency would be prescribed. Also there are no effluent guidelines/standards for industrial wastewater.

According to actual national legislation, the necessary degree of treatment is calculated so that the water quality of recipient, after mixing with treated wastewater, would be of prescribed water quality class. Mean 30-day low flow of 95% probability of exceedance is the criteria low flow for calculating necessary degree of treatment. Quality of both treated and untreated wastewater as well as treatment efficiency should be regularly checked according to national regulation.

Regarding discharge of wastewater from Pancevo industrial complex into wastewater canal and River Danube, basic parameters of recipient (River Danube) are: • The part of the Danube River that flows through Yugoslavia is assigned to the class II of water quality parameters. • Mean 30-day low flow of 95% probability of exceedance for the Danube river at Pančevo 3 (Ref. 14), is: Q0.95 = 2114 m /s

A detailed overview of legislation concerning water pollution control is given in the following sections.

By-Law On Classification Of Water Courses (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No 5/68)

80 By this by-law watercourses are classified in four classes according to their pollution level and their purpose. The by-law does not address mineral and thermal water.

The classes are: • Class I: water that, in natural state or after disinfection, can be used for drinking water supply, food industry and fine fish (salmonidae) breeding. • Class II: water appropriate for bathing, recreation, water sports, less fine fish (cyprinidae) breeding, including water that, after basic treatment methods (coagulation, filtration and disinfection), can be used for drinking water supply and food industry. • Class III: water that can be used for irrigation and industries except food industry. • Class IV: water that can be used only after special treatment.

Water courses falling into class II that are not crossing borders with neighboring countries, are subdivided into two subclasses: • Subclass IIa: water that, after basic treatment methods (coagulation, filtration and disinfection), can be used for drinking water supply, bathing and food industry. • Subclass IIb: water that can be used for water sports, recreation, less fine fish (ciprinides) breeding, and cattle drinking.

Water classes are defined according to the following parameters and their limiting values: Table 2.1 Definition of water quality classes (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No 5/68) No. Parameter Class Class Subclass Subclass Class Class I II IIa IIb III IV 1 Suspended solids in dry weather 10 30 30 40 80 – conditions (mg/l), maximum 2 Total dry solids in dry weather

conditions (mg/l), maximum - surface water and natural lakes 350 1000 1000 1500 1500 – - groundwater 800 1000 1000 1000 1500 – 3 pH value 6.8–8.5 6.8–8.5 6.8–8.5 6.8–8.5 6.0–9.0 – 4 Dissolved oxygen (mg/l), minimum (not applicable to groundwater and 8 6 6 5 4 0.5 natural lakes) 5 Five-day biochemical oxygen demand 2 4 4 6 7 – (mg/l), maximum 6 Saprobity index after Liebmann (not beta- beta- alpha- oligo- beta-alpha- applicable to groundwater and natural meso- meso- meso- meso- – saprobic lakes) saprobic saprobic saprobic saprobic oligo- 7 Biological production degree eutrophic eutrophic – – – trophic 8 Most probable number of coliform 200 6000 6000 10000 – – bacteria in 100 ml of water, maximum 9 Visible substances none none none none none none 10 Detectable colour none none none none – – 11 Detectable odour none none none none – –

The above parameters and their limits pertain to the following water quantities: − mean monthly low flow of 95% probability of exceedance for water courses without flow regulation, − guaranteed low flow for water courses with flow regulation, − all flow rates for groundwater,

81 − unfavorable cases of mixing of water for lakes (during periods of ice or critical summer months).

By-Law On Categorization Of Water Courses (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No 5/68)

This by-law assigns categories to watercourses, reaches and lakes in Republic of Serbia according to the classes and subclasses defined by By-law on classification of watercourses. A list of watercourses arranged by major basins with their categories is a constituent part of this by-law.

Artificial lakes not given in the above mentioned list should be assigned the same category as the watercourse or the reach on which they are situated.

All water sources and springs are assigned to the class I. All natural lakes not given in the list are also assigned to the class I.

Categories of watercourses given in the list must be maintained with a necessary degree of wastewater treatment and with an appropriate discharging regime. If wastewater dischargers act contrary to the above mentioned statement, republic administration in charge for water resources will determine protective measures against them according to the Law on waters.

Regulation On Dangerous Substances In Water (official Gazette of Republic of Serbia No 31/82)

List of substances and maximal allowable concentrations in surface water, according to water quality class is given in following table.

This regulation also defines how to calculate amounts of different dangerous substances. Permissible concentration in mixture must satisfy Ca Cb Cn ++...... +≤1 . La Lb Ln Where Ca, Cb...... Cn are measured concentration of dangerous substances in water, and La, Lb....Ln are concentration from table.

Concentrations of dangerous matter have to be determined:

• For water supply at the water intake and at the boundary of the first zone of sanitary protection. • In other cases in the recipient after 95% of wastewater mixing with recipient water.

Table A2.2 Maximum permissible concentration of dangerous substances in surface water (Official Gazette of R. of Serbia", No 31/82) Concentration (mg/l) No Dangerous substance Water quality class I and II III and IV 1 2 3 4 1. Avadex 0.03 1.0 2. Acrylonitrile 2.0 2.0 3. Acrolein 0.01 0.01 4. Aldrin 0.017 0.02

82 5. Alkyl benzene sulfonate 0.4 1.0 6. Amine (C7 - C9) 0.1 0.1 7. Amine (C10 - C16) 0.04 0.5 8. Amine (C17 - C20) 0.03 0.05 9. Aminophenol (o-) 0.01 - 10. Aminophenol (m-) 0.05 0.1 11. Aminophenol (p-) 0.05 - 12. Ammonia 0.1 0.5 13. Ammonium ion 1.0 10.0 14. Anizole 0.02 0.05 15. Antimony 0.05 0.05 16. Arsenic 0.05 0.05 17. Acetone (as BOD) 0.5 2.0 18. Acetone cyanohydrin 0.001 0.001 19. Acetofos 0.03 - 20. Copper 0.1 (0.01)* 0.1 21. Barium 1.0 4.0 22. Benzatron 0.05 0.05 23. Benzine 0.1 0.1 24. Benzoic acid (as BOD) 5.0 10.0 25. Benzene 0.5 0.5 26. Beryllium 0.0002 0.001 27. Boron 0.3 1.0 28. Butene-1 0.2 10.0 29. Buteric acid (as BOD) 5.0 10.0 30. Butyl acrylate 0.015 1.0 31. Butyl alcohol 1.0 10.0 32. Butyl ksantogenat 0.001 - 33. n-Butyl mercaptane 0.006 - 34. Vanadium 0.1 0.5 35. Hydrogen sulfide - 0.1 36. Wolfram 0.10 0.10 37. Iron 0.3 1.0 38. Dieldrin 0.017 0.02 39. Diethyldicaprioic tin 0.01 0.01 40. Diethyldithiophosphoric acid 0.1 1.0 41. Diethyl ester maleic acid 1.0 1.0 42. Diethyl mercury 0.0001 0.0001 43. Diethyl chlorthiophosphate 0.02 - 44. DDT 0.04 0.1 45. Diisopropylamine 0.5 0.5 46. Diisopropylbenzene (m-ip-) 0.05 0.05 47. Dimethyldioxsan 0.005 0.005 48. Dimethylsulfide 0.03 0.3 49. Dimethylphenilcarbinol 0.005 0.005 50. Dimethylformamide 10.0 10.0 51. o.o-Dimethyl-s-ethyl-mercaptoethyldithio-phosphate 0.001 1.0 52. p′p′-Dimethoksidiphenyltri-chlorethane 0.005 0.1 53. Dinitrobenzene 0.5 1.0 54. Dinitronnaphtol 0.5 1.0 55. 2.4.-Dinitrophenol 0.03 0.03 56. 1.2-Dinitro-4-Chlorobenzene 0.5 1.0 57. 2.2-Diphenylpropane 0.01 - 58. Diphenylpropane 0.01 0.5 59. Dichloroaniline (3.4 i 2.5) 0.05 4.0 60. Dichlorobenzene 0.002 0.02

83 61. 1.3-Dichlorobutene-2 0.05 2.0 62. Dichlorodibutyltin 0.002 0.002 63. p′p′-Dichlordiphenyl-dichloroethane 0.003 0.1 64. Dichloroethane 2.0 10.0 65. 2.4-Dichlorophenol 0.002 1.0 66. Dichlorocyclohexsane 0.02 0.25 67. Dicyclohexsil aminonitrite 0.001 - 68. Dodecylbenzosulfonate 0.05 5.0 69. Endrin 0.001 0.01 70. Epilhlorhidrin 0.01 0.01 71. Ethylacrylate 0.005 - 72. Ehyilamine 0.5 - 73. Ethylbenzene 0.01 2.0 74. Ethylene 0.5 1.5 75. Ethylene glycol 1.0 1.0 76. Ethyl mercury chloride 0.0001 0.0001 77. Mercury 0.001 0.001 78. Isobutyl alcohol 1.0 - 79. Izobutylene 0.5 10.0 80. Isoprene 0.005 - 81. Cadmium 0.005 0.01 82. Potassium diethyldithiophosphate 0.2 2.0 83. Potassium diisopropyldithiophosphate 0.02 1.0 84. Caprolactam 1.0 1.0 85. Karbin 0.03 - 86. Karbofos 0.05 1.0 87. Kerosene 0.1 - 88. Cobalt 0.2 2.0 89. Krezildithiophosphate 0.001 0.05 90. Cresol (o-) 0.05 0.1 91. Cresol (m-) 0.002 0.1 92. Xylene 0.05 0.1 93. Lindan 0.056 - 94. 2.5-Lutidin 0.05 0.05 95. Maleic anhydride 1.0 1.0 96. Mezidin 0.01 0.01 97. Mezitilen 0.02 - 98. Mercaptoethyldiethylamine (beta-) 0.1 10 99. Merkaptofos (mixture of tiol I i tiol II. 70:30) 0.01 1.0 100. Methanol (as BOD) 0.5 2.0 101. Metafos 0.02 0.5 102. Methylacrylate 0.02 - 103. Methylaktofos 0.03 - 104. Methyl benzoate 0.001 0.1 105. Methyldithiokarbamate (Na-Co) 0.02 0.5 106. Methyl ethyl ketone 1.0 10.0 107. Metilsistoks 0.03 - 108. Methoxychlor 0.035 - 109. Lactic acid (as BOD) 1.0 5.0 110. Molybdenum 0.5 0.5 111. Monoethyldichlorothiophosphate 0.02 0.02 112. Formic acid (as BOD) 1.0 5.0 113. Sodium adipat 1.0 1.0 114. Sodium telurat 0.01 0.01 115. Naphthalene 0.05 -

84 116. Oil with sulfur 0.05 0.3 117. Oil 0.05 0.3 118. Petroleum acids 0.3 - 119. Nickel 0.05 0.1 120. Nitrate (as N) 10.0 15.0 121. Nitrite (as N) 0.05 0.5 122. Nitro methane 0.005 1.0 123. Nitro propane 0.005 1.0 124. Nitro toluol (o-) 0.05 - 125. Nitro toluol (m-) 0.01 - 126. Nitro phenol (o-) 0.06 0.06 127. Nitro phenol (m-) 0.06 0.06 128. Nitro phenol (p-) 0.025 0.025 129. Nitro form 0.01 0.1 130. Nitro chlorobenzene 0.05 0.05 131. Nitro cyclohexsane 0.1 0.1 132. Nonyl alcohol 0.01 0.01 133. Octyl alcohol (primary and secondary) 0.05 - 134. Lead 0.05 0.1 135. Pentachlorobutane 0.02 0.3 136. Pentachlorphenol 0.3 0.05 137. Picoline (alfa-) 0.05 0.05 138. Picric acid 0.5 0.5 139. Piradin 0.2 0.2 140. Poly(acrylamide) 2.0 - 141. PAH (carcinogenic): fluoronatrene+3.4- benzfluoranten+11.12-benzfluoranten+3.4-benzo-pyrene+1.2 benzoperylene+indeno (1.2.3-Cd) pyrene 0.0002 - 142. PCB - - 143. Poly(chloro pinen) 0.2 0.2 144. Propylene 0.5 1.5 145. Propylene glycol (as BOD) 2.0 10.0 146. Saponini 0.2 2.0 147. Selenium 0.01 0.01 148. Semazin (non dissolved) - 3.5 149. Semazin (2-oksiderivat) - - 150. Synthetic lipid acids C5 - C20 (po BPK) 1.0 5.0 151. Silver 0.01 0.02 152. Sterol 0.1 10.0 153. Sulfides - 0.05 154. Sulfites 0.05 0.1 155. Tannins 0.5 10.0 156. Tellurium 0.01 0.01 157. Turpentine 0.2 5.0 158. Terpineol (alfa-) 0.05 - 159. Tetraethyl tin 0.0002 0.0002 160. Tetraethyl lead - 0.0001 161. Tetranitro methane 0.5 2.0 162. Tetrahidrohinin 0.05 - 163. Tetrachlorbenzene 0.01 0.02 164. Tetrachloro ethane 0.2 5.0 165. Tetrachlor nonane 0.003 1.0 166. Tetrahlorpentane 0.005 2.0 167. Tetrahlorpropane 0.01 3.0

85 168. Tetrachloroundecan 0.007 3.0 169. Tetrachloroheptane 0.0025 1.0 170. Tiofen 2.0 20.0 171. Tiofos 0.003 1.0 172. Titanium 0.10 0.10 173. Toksafen 0.005 - 174. Toluol 0.5 25.0 175. Tributyl phosphate 0.01 5.0 176. Triethylene glycol (as BPK) 2.0 10.0 177. 2.4.6-Trinitrotoluol 0.2 0.4 178. 1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene 0.03 0.1 179. Trichloro ethylene 0.5 10.0 180. 2.4.6-Trichlorophenol 0.0004 1.0 181. Carbon disulfide 1.0 5.0 182. Carbon tetrachloride 0.3 0.3 183. Phenylhydrazine 0.01 0.01 184. Phenol 0.001 0.3 185. Fluor 1.0 1.5 186. Fozalon 0.0005 - 187. Formaldehyde 0.5 0.5 188. Fosbutil 0.03 - 189. Fosfamid 0.03 1.0 190. Furan 0.2 0.2 191. Hexamethylendiamine 0.01 0.01 192. Hexanechlorbenzene 0.05 0.05 193. Hexahchlorbutadiene 0.01 0.08 194. Hexachlorobutane 0.01 0.3 195. Hexachloroethane 0.01 1.0 196. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.001 0.6 197. Hexachlorocyclohexane 0.02 1.0 198. Heptachlor 0.018 0.05 199. Heptahlorepoksid 0.018 - 200. Heptyl alcohol 0.005 0.005 201. Herbicide: 2.4D+2.4.5-T+2.4.5-TP 0.100 - 202. Hidrohinon Hydroquinone 0.2 0.5 203. Chlorine active 0.005 0.01 204. Chloranil 0.01 - 205. Chlorbenzenel 0.02 0.02 206. Chlordan 0.003 - 207. Chlorenant acid (omega-) 0.05 0.5 208. Chlornitrozociklohexane 0.005 1.25 209. Chloropelargon acid 0.3 - 210. Chloropren 0.1 10.0 211. Chloroundekan acid (omega-) 0.1 0.5 212. Chlorofos 0.05 10.0 213. Chlorocyclohexane 0.05 0.1 214. Chromium (+6) 0.1 0.1 215. Chromium (+3) 0.1 0.5 216. Cyanides 0.1 0.1 217. Cyanurna acid 6.0 10.0 218. Cyclohexane 0.1 0.1 219. Cyclohexanole 0.5 0.5 220. Cyclohexanone 0.02 0.02 221. Cyclohexanone oxime 1.0 1.0 222. Cyclohexsene 0.02 0.02 223. Zinc 0.2 1.0

86 * for salmonides

Guidelines For The Method and the Procedure of Determining Achieved Degree of Treatment of Discharged Wastewater (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia 9/67)

1. Degree of treatment of discharged wastewater is determined by organizations that fulfill the requirements of the Law on water fees (hereafter: authorized organization). 2. Degree of treatment of discharged wastewater is determined by the analysis of water samples. Samples are analyzed in intervals depending on the nature of the industrial process, but not less than three times per year. Samples taken for analysis should reflect the most unfavorable condition of discharged wastewater quality. 3. Water samples are taken upstream and downstream of the treatment plant, or from the wastewater sewer, but upstream of the point where wastewater is mixed with the recipient water. Samples are taken during the daily operation time of the plant in constant time intervals. From all such samples, at least two composite samples are made, and the one showing the worst quality is taken for further analysis. 4. Authorized organization takes samples in presence of the discharger, after learning about the nature of the discharger's industrial process and discharging process. Minutes on taking samples should be composed and attached to the results of the analysis of samples. 5. If monitoring of wastewater quality is performed for the first time upon request of the discharger, at least three analyses should be made. Samples for these analyses should not be taken during the same day. 6. Analysis of water samples is performed in the following way: a) Presence of floating substances, including oil, is proved visually; the result is formulated as "present" or "not present". b) pH value is determined on site using either a pH meter in the laboratory of the discharger if available or a portable pH meter; alternatively, pH value is determined by colourimetric methods, using two indicators or colourimetric comparator with plates having scale of at least 0.2 units of pH. c) Presence and concentration of phenol is determined as total phenol, with indication on the method used for analysis. Presence of other toxic substances is examined depending on the industrial process. d) Water samples to be analyzed in the discharger's laboratory should be conserved according to the procedure for corresponding methods. e) Suspended solids load is determined as quantitative dried residue on filter paper. f) Five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) is determined in raw and in treated water in at least three dilutions, in water bath with thermostat at 20oC ± 10oC in darkness. For the treated water samples measures should be taken to prevent the nitrification process in samples during incubation. For industrial wastewater containing toxic pollutants, chemical oxygen demand (COD) is also determined by bichromatic method. 7. Water samples are analyzed according to the procedure defined in "Rules about types and methods of monitoring and analysis of water quantity and quality" (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia 24/66). If these rules do not regulate procedure for certain analysis, such an analysis should be carried out according to the usual practice of the authorized organization and the applied method should be described. 8. Authorized organization issues written statement on quality of disposed wastewater and on achieved degree of treatment based on the most unfavourable result. Results of the analyses are attached to the statement.

87 9. The form for minutes on taking water samples is a constituent part of these guidelines.

Minutes On Taking Samples Of Discharged Wastewater

1. Organization name 2. City and municipality 3. Type of industry 4. a) final product b) raw materials c) production during taking samples of discharged wastewater 5. Distribution of water consumption within production processes: a) steam production b) machine cooling c) washing in the production process d) other 6. Wastewater discharge: a) type of discharge (gravitational or pressure) b) continuous or intermittent discharge, time intervals and flow rates c) flow rate in m3/s d) main physical and chemical properties of the effluent (temperature, suspension, toxic pollutants etc.) 7. Is wastewater recirculated to the production process and to what degree 8. Presence of wastewater treatment devices, their types, function and efficiency (attach short description with sketches) 9. Comments 10. Date of taking samples Signatures of present persons

Guidelines For The Method And Minimum Number Of Wastewater Quality Analysis (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No 47/83)

Quality of wastewater is analyzed for each outflow, but upstream of the point where wastewater is mixed with the recipient water. Wastewater quality analysis is performed by sampling. Samples are taken in approximately equal time intervals and for different discharging regimes.

A sample for wastewater quality analysis is a 2-hour composite sample obtained by mixing samples taken every 15 minutes during two hours. Water quality parameters are determined from samples, with an exception of temperature which is calculated as the average value from individual samples. Wastewater quality analysis includes the following parameters: − chemical oxygen demand (bichromatic method), − suspended solids, − five-day biochemical oxygen demand, − pH value, − water temperature, − total number of coliform organisms.

If wastewater is disposed into a watercourse or a lake used for water supply, data on total nitrogen and total phosphorus should be obtained in addition to the above parameters.

88 In case when quality of wastewater with specific substances content should be analyzed, additional parameters should also be obtained, such as parameters necessary for virusological control, parameters for determining concentration of radioactive nuclides, heavy metals and other specific pollutants in wastewater.

During sampling, information on the following parameters should be obtained: − changes in colour, − visible substances, − presence and type of odours, − air temperature, − wastewater flow rate at time of sampling, − other characteristic observations.

The minimum number of samples for wastewater quality analysis for each wastewater outflow into recipient is given in the following table.

89 Table A2.3 Minimal number of samples for wastewater analysis (Official Gazette of the R. of Serbia No 47/83) Wastewater flow rate Wastewater containing hazardous Other wastewater at outflow (l/s) substances Annual number Sampling Annual number Sampling from to of samples frequency of samples frequency once in once in 0 50 4 3 3 months 4 months once in once in 50 100 6 4 2 months 3 months once in once in 100 500 12 6 1 month 2 months twice in once in above 500 24 12 1 month 1 month

EU standards on wastewater treatment and effluent guidelines

General water policy

The overall framework for action within the field of water policy is described in the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). The aim of the directive is to enhance protection and improvement on the aquatic environment and the directive should contribute to a progressive reduction of emissions of hazardous substances to water.

Polluter pays principle

The “polluter pays principle” is a basic part of the EUs environmental principles and included in the Treaty establishing the European Communities. The principle means that anyone whose actions pollute or adversely affect the environment should pay the cost for remedial action.

Furthermore, the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) ensures that the price charged for services related to water (e.g. drinking water supply, wastewater disposal and treatment) should reflect the true economical costs of providing the service.

Directives regarding emission of polluting substances

The EU legislation concerning wastewater treatment and emission control contains a range of directives. The principal directive for emission of polluting compounds from industry is the Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC) and its daughter directives on mercury: Directive on Discharge of Mercury from the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry (82/176/EEC), cadmium: Directive on Discharge by Cadmium (83/513/EEC), hexachlorocyclohexane: Directive on Discharge of Hexachlorocyclohexane (84/491/EEC as well as the Directive on Discharge of List I Substances (86/280/EEC, amended by the directives 88/347/EEC and 90/415/EEC). The main objectives of the above-mentioned directives are to eliminate, or to reduce, pollution of water by certain dangerous substances. The directives apply to inland surface water, territorial waters and internal coastal waters.

90 The basic idea of the directives is, rather than basing the emission standards on emission limit values or on water quality objectives, to use both approaches to mutually reinforce each other. In any particular situation, the more rigorous approach will apply.

Urban wastewater

The legislation for urban wastewater treatment is provided in the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC, amended by the directive 98/15/EC, and the related decision 93/481/EEC). The directive concerns the collection, treatment and discharge of urban wastewater from urban areas with population of more than 2000, and the treatment and discharge of biodegradable wastewater from certain industrial sectors.

In terms of treatment objectives, biological (secondary) treatment is the general rule, with additional nutrient removal (tertiary treatment) in so-called sensitive areas. Within these areas the biological treatment should be complemented by treatment to elimination of nitrogen and/or phosphorus and/or of any other pollutant affecting the quality or specific use of the water. For certain marine areas primary treatment might be sufficient, however, the Adriatic and the Black Sea (among other) do not qualify as “less sensitive areas”. Using this option does furthermore require comprehensive studies to determine the effect on the environment of the discharges.

The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) states that the public wastewater treatment plants should provide ability for connection of industrial wastewater. When providing approval of discharge the authority should take under consideration what type of substances the wastewater contains and whether the receiving wastewater treatment plant is able to reduce the concentration of the given substances. E.g. will the discharge of nutrients to a biological nutrient- reducing treatment plant be appropriate in case the concentration is within the designed treatment limits. On the other hand are hazardous substances that reduce the cleaning process of the treatment plant unwanted.

Due to electrical installations at the pumping stations and treatment plant it should be ensured that the discharged wastewater does not contain volatile explosive substances like organic solvents, gasoline and oil.

If the wastewater may be corrosive the effects on the sewage system should be considered as well. These considerations should include substances that are directly corrosive substances, like acids, basics and chlorides, and substances that may degrade into corrosive substances, like sulphate that may transform into hydrogen sulphide.

Furthermore, it could be necessary to set up requirement of a smooth flow rate of the discharge from the industry to reduce the risk of overflow in the sewage system, likewise take strong rain incidents into the overall assessment.

Supplementary emission directives

The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC), which is mainly directed toward agriculture, addresses also various industrial pollutants that require action from the industry in order to reduce the nutrient pollution to surface waters subject to eutrophication or in danger of becoming eutrophic and/or subject to nitrate contents above 50 mg/l.

The Waste Oils Directive (75/439/EEC) states that the discharge of waste oils and/or uncontrolled discharge of waste oil residues into water or onto soil are prohibited.

91

Sewage sludge

The use of sewage sludge in agriculture is regulated by the Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) in such a way that contamination of soil and pollution of water should not occur from metal contaminants, nitrate and phosphates.

Best available technology

The Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC, 96/61/EC) implement integrated measures for the prevention and control of pollution. It requires permits for prescribed activities which set conditions, including emission limits to water, using the principles of BATNEEC (the Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Costs). It must be satisfied that BATNEEC will be used to prevent or eliminate and where that is not practicable, to limit, abate or reduce an emission from the activity.

The general demand to industrial discharge is that there should be taken due notice of the aquatic environment and that the industry should comply with the best available technology, primarily cleaner technology, subsidiary treatment of wastewater. This means that there are two issues, which must be considered. First of all, the limit values must be complied with and secondary an evaluation of the pollution from the specific type industry in general. It is prioritised that the pollution is removed at the source, e.g. by cleaner technology within the production, instead of reduced at the wastewater treatment plants.

It is the duty of the company to document that the production is based upon the best available technology.

Monitoring, inspection and enforcement

Monitoring is an essential part of the implementation of the whole range of EU water legislation and when preparing monitoring schemes the legislation under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) as well as Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC), Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC), Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) and Directive on Access to Environmental Information (90/313/EEC) should be duly considered. Both the discharges from wastewater treatment plants and the receiving waters should according to the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) be monitored. The prescribed monitoring frequency is described below.

Table A2.4 Monitoring of WWTPs – frequency of sampling according to EU directive 91/271/EEC Plant size No of samples per year 2,000-10,000 PE 12 (4 if previous year is complying with standards 10,000-50,000 PE 12 >50,000 PE 24

The samples must be taken flow proportional or time-based 24-h samples in the outlet and (if necessary) in the inlet of the plant.

92

According to the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) the eutrophic state of fresh surface waters should be reviewed every four years by monitoring the nitrate concentration. The surface waters must designated as vulnerable zones if they contain or could contain more than 50 mg/l of nitrate.

Furthermore, there should according to the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) be made river basin management plans and programs of measures, ensuring good status for all surface waters.

The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) states that the concentration of polluting substances in the sewage sludge should be monitored frequently and the collected information should be made available to the competent authority.

The national authorities have a duty to report every third year to the EU Commission about the countries compliance to the EU directives on the aquatic environment.

Emission limits

In general wastewater is characterized based upon the effects on oxygen demand and eutrophication and on the following parameters: toxicity, content of accumulative substances, content of slowly degradable substances, bacteria, virus and parasites as well as colour and odours.

The limit values for discharge of the substances are defined mainly based upon the substances toxicity, persistence, and ability to bioaccumulation.

The emission values for the oxygen demand, suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorous in the wastewater are listed below (Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)).

Table A2.5 Emission limit values according EU directives Parameter Limit value

BOD5 25 mg/l COD 75 mg/l Suspended solids (2,000-10,000 PE) 60 mg/l Suspended solids (> 10,000 PE) 35 mg/l Nitrogen (10,000-100,000 PE) 15 mg/l Nitrogen (> 100,000 PE) 10 mg/l Phosphorous (10,000-100,000 PE) 2 mg/l Phosphorous (> 100,000 PE) 1 mg/l

List I of families and groups of substances

The List I contains certain individual substances which belong to the following families and groups of substances, selected mainly on the basis of their toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation, with the exception of those which are biologically harmless or which are rapidly converted into substances which are biologically harmless:

1. organohalogen compounds and substances which may form such compounds in the aquatic environment,

93 2. organophosphorus compounds, 3. organotin compounds, 4. substances in respect of which it has been proved that they possess carcinogenic properties in or via the aquatic environment, 5. mercury and its compounds, 6. cadmium and its compounds, 7. persistent mineral oils and hydrocarbons of petroleum origin, and 8. persistent synthetic substances which may float, remain in suspension or sink and which may interfere with any use of the waters.

List II of families and groups of substances

The List II contains: - substances belonging to the families and groups of substances in List I for which the limit values have not been determined, - certain individual substances and categories of substances belonging to the families and groups of substances listed below, and which have a deleterious effect on the aquatic environment, which can, however, be confined to a given area and which depend on the characteristics and location of the water into which they are discharged.

The families and groups of substances referred to in the second indent are:

1. The following metalloids and metals and their compounds: 1.1. zinc 1.2. copper 1.3. nickel 1.4. chrome 1.5. lead 1.6. selenium 1.7. arsenic 1.8. antimony 1.9. molybdenum 1.10. titanium 1.11. tin 1.12. barium 1.13. beryllium 1.14. boron 1.15. uranium 1.16. vanadium 1.17. cobalt 1.18. thallium 1.19. tellurium 1.20. silver

2. Biocides and their derivatives not appearing in List I. 3. Substances which have a deleterious effect on the taste and/or smell of the products for human consumption derived from the aquatic environment, and compounds liable to give rise to such substances in water. 4. Toxic or persistent organic compounds of silicon, and substances which may give rise to such compounds in water, excluding those which are biologically harmless or are rapidly converted

94 in water into harmless substances. Where certain substances in list II are carcinogenic, they are included in category 4 of this list. 5. Inorganic compounds of phosphorus and elemental phosphorus. 6. Non persistent mineral oils and hydrocarbons of petroleum origin. 7. Cyanides, fluorides. 8. Substances which have an adverse effect on the oxygen balance, particularly: ammonia, nitrites.

Limit values for dangerous substances

Below is a list of limit values for water for the polluting substances for List I and II according to the EU directives (reference 1 in the last column).

The lists comprise also substances, which according to Danish legislation have established limit values. The references, on which the limit value for the given substances is established, are listed in the last column according to the following list of references:

(1) Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC) and its daughter directives on Directive on Discharge of Mercury from the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry (82/176/EEC), Directive on Discharge of Hexachlorocyclohexane (84/491/EEC), Discharge of List I Substances (86/280/EEC, amended by the directives 88/347/EEC and 90/415/EEC); Directive on Discharge by Cadmium (83/513/EEC) (2) CSTE/EEC (1994): EEC Water Quality Objectives for Chemicals Dangerous to Aquatic Environments (List 1) in Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (3) US-EPA (1986): Quality criteria for water. (4) Dutch Ministry of Environment (1991): Environmental quality standards for soil and water. (5) CWQG (1987): Canadian water quality guidelines. Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, Environment Canada. (6) Danish Ministry of Environment, Quality requirement established solely on the basis of the toxicity (Environmental project no. 250) (7) EU proposal regarding quality limits. (COM (88) 29). (8) US-EPA (1972): Water Quality Criteria.

The unit for the limit values is micro-g/ l or the following:

“m.d.” The limit value for water is not established due to missing or too few data. “excl.” Proposed exempted from List I by CSTE according to reference (2).

95 Table A2.6 Limit values for dangerous substances (List I and II) according to the EU directives

Substance name Limit values Reference micro-g/l aldrin 0.01 1 2-amino-4-chlorophenol m.d. 2 anthracene 0.01 4 arsenic and inorganic arsenic complexes 0.01 2 atrazine 1 2 bentazone m.d. 2 benzene 2 2 benzyl chloride (alfa-chlor-toluene) m.d. 6 biphenyl 1 2 cadmium and cadmium complexes saltwater 2.5 1 freshwater 5.0 1 chloralhydrate 100 6 chlordane 0.004 3 chlor acetic acid m.d. 6 2-chloraniline 10 2 3-chloraniline 10 2 4-chloraniline 10 2 chlorobenzene 1 2 1-chlor-2,4-dinitro-benzene m.d. 6 2- chloroethanol excl. 2 chloroform 10 2 4-chlor-3-methyl-phenol m.d. 6 1-chlor naphthalene 1 2 chlornaphthalens technical mixtures 0.01 2 4-chlor-2-nitroaniline m.d. 6 1-chlor-2-nitrobenzene 1 2 1-chlor-3-nitrobenzene 1 2 1-chlor-4-nitrobenzene 1 2 4-chlor-2- nitrotoluene 1 2 chlornitro-toluenes (except 4-chlor-2-nitrotoluen 1 2 2-chlorophenol excl. 2 3-chlorophenol excl. 2 4-chlorophenol excl. 2 chlorophenyl 0.1 2 2-chlorobuta-1,3-diene m.d. 6 3-chloropropane 100 6 2-chlorotoluene 1 2 3-chlorotoluene 1 2 4-chlorotoluene 1 2 2-chlor-p- m.d. 6 chlortoluidines (except 2-chlor-p-toluidine) m.d. 6 coumaphos m.d. 6 2,4-D (including salts and esters) 10 6

96 DDT (including the metabolites DDD and DDE) 0.002 2 demeton (including demeton-o, demeton-s, demetons-methyl and 0.1 2 demeton-s-methyl-sulphon) 1,2-ethylene dibromide m.d. 6 dibutylated indichloride 0.01 2 dibutylated tinoxide 0.01 2 dibutylated tinsalts (except dibutylated indichloride and dibutylated 0.01 2 tinoxide) dichloranilines (3,4- and 2,5-isomers) 1 2 1,2-dichloro benzene 10 2 1,3-dichloro benzene 10 2 1,4-dichloro benzene 10 2 dichloro benzidines m.d. 6 dichlorodiisopropylether m.d. 6 1,1-dichloro ethane m.d. 6 1,2-dichloro ethane 10 1 1,1-dichloro ethylene 100 6 1,2-dichloro ethylene m.d. 6 dichloromethane 10 2 dichloronitrobenzenes (6 isomers) 1 2 2,4-dichlorophenol 10 2 1,2-dichloropropane 10 2 1,3-dichloropropane-2-ol excl. 2 1,3-dichloropropene 10 2 2,3-dichloropropene m.d. 6 dichlorprop m.d 6 dichlorvos 0.001 2 dieldrin 0.01 1 diethylamine 100 6 dimethoate 1 6 dimethylamine 10 6 disulfoton 0.1 6 endosulfan 0.001 2 endrin 0.005 1 epichlor hydrine 100 6 ethylbenzene 10 2 fenitrothion 0.01 2 fenthion 0.01 2 flucofenuron 0.1 2 heptachlor (including hepta-chlorepoxid) 0.004 3 hexachlor benzene 0.01 2 hexachlorbutadiene 0.1 1 hexachlorcyclohexane (including all isomers and lindan) 0.01 2 hexachlorethane 10 2 isodrin 0.05 1 isopropylbenzene m.d. 6 linuron 1 2 malathion 0.01 2

97 MCPA m.d. 6 mecoprop m.d. 6 mercury and mercury complexes saltwater 0.3 1 fresh water 1.0 1 methamidophos m.d. 6 mevinphos 0.01 2 monolinuron 10 6 naphthalene 1 2 omethoate 0.1 6 oxydemeton methyl 0.1 6 PAH (polyaromatic hydrocarbons, in particular 3,4-benzo-pyrene and 0.001 4 3,4-benzo-fluoranthen) parathion (including parathion-methyl) 0.01 2 PCB (including PCT) 0.01 3 pentachlorophenol 1 2 phoxim 0.2 4 propanil 0.1 6 pyrazon 0.1 2 simazine 1 2 sulcofenuron 10 2 2,4,5-T (including salts and esters) 1 2 tetrabutyltin 0.001 2 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 10 6 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane m.d. 6 tetrachlorethylene (perchlorethylene) 10 1 tetrachlor-methane 10 2 toluene 10 2 triazophos 0.03 4 tributylphosphate 100 6 tributyltinoxide 0.001 2 trichlorobenzene (technical mixture) 0.1 2 2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine m.d. 6 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 0.1 2 1,1,1-trichloroethane 100 6 1,1,2-trichloroethane 100 6 trichloroethylene 10 1 trichlorophenols 1 2 trichlorphon 0.01 6 trifluralin 0.1 2 triphenyltin acetate 0.01 2 triphenyltin chloride 0.01 2 triphenyltin hydroxide 0.01 2 vinyl chloride m.d. 6 xylenes (technical mixture of isomers) 10 2

98

Table A2.7 Quality requirements for water for List II metals. Substance name Limit values Reference micro-g/l Chrome: Saltwater 1.0 7 Fresh water 10.0 7 Copper Saltwater 2.9 3 Fresh water 12 3 Lead Saltwater 5.6 3 Fresh water 3.2 3 Nickel Saltwater 8.3 3 Fresh water 160.0 3 Zinc Saltwater 86.0 3 Fresh water 110 3

Table A2.8 Quality requirements for water for selected List II substances, which are carcinogenic or have a deleterious effect on the taste and/or smell of the products for human consumption Substance name Limit values Reference micro-g/l acrylamide m.d. 6 acrylonitrile 18,000 8 m-cresol 200 8 o-cresol 400 8 p-cresol 120 8 2,6-dichlorophenol 35 8 epoxyethane m.d. 6 formaldehyde 95,000 8 guaiacol 82 8 hydrazine m.d. 6 phenol 1,000 8 pyridin 800 8 p-quinon 500 8 styrene 250 8

99 Annex 3 FRY legislation concerning air pollution

General Legal Framework

The basic sets of regulations, which create the legal framework for implementation of air pollution control in FRY and R. of Serbia, in the areas of imission and emission control, is summarized below.

Control of imission is in principle regulated by the Regulations on Limiting Values, Methods of Measurement, criteria for choosing sampling points and data logging54 It specifies the limiting concentrations (maximum allowed concentration level of polluting substances in the ambient air) for the following substances: 1. Inorganic substances sulphur dioxide tar suspended particles nitrogen dioxide ozone carbon monoxide hydrogen chloride chlorine hydrogen fluoride ammonia hydrogen sulphide 2. Precipitable matter from the air 3. Heavy metals in suspended particles cadmium manganese lead mercury 4. Organic matter carbon disulphide styrene tetrachloro ethylene toluene formaldehyde 1,2-dichloroethane acrolein 5. Carcinogen chemicals acrylonitrile arsenic benzene chromium (valency 6) nickel polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons vinyl chloride asbestos

54 Sl. gl. RS, No 54/92.

100 The limiting values for these compounds are given in the following tables.

Table A3.1 Limiting immission values for inorganic substances Rural and Urban areas No Pollutant Concentration recreational areas unit 24 hours* 1 hour 24 hours 1 hour 1. Sulphur dioxide µg/m3 100 150 150 350 2. Tar µg/m3 40 - 50 150 3. Suspended particles µg/m3 70 - 120 - 4. Nitrogen dioxide µg/m3 70 85 85 150 5. Ozone µg/m3 65 120 85 150 6. Carbon monoxide mg/m3 3 5 5 10 * mean daily value

Table A3.2 Limiting immission values for heavy metals in precipitable matter No Pollutant Concentration Sampling Rural and Urban unit frequency recreational areas* areas* 1. Total sedimented mg/m2/day 1 month 300 450 substances 1 year 100 200 2. Lead µg/m2/day 1 month 100 250 3. Cadmium µg/m2/day 1 month 2 5 4. Zinc µg/m2/day 1 month 200 400 *mean annual value

Table A3.3 Limiting immission values for heavy metals in suspended particles No Pollutant Concentration Sampling Rural, recreational and urban unit frequency areas* 1. Cadmium µg/m3 24 hours 0.01 2. Manganese µg/m3 24 hours 1 3. Lead µg/m3 24 hours 1 4. Mercury µg/m3 24 hours 1 *mean annual value

Table A3.4 Limiting immission values for gaseous inorganic substances No Pollutant Concentration unit Sampling Rural, recreational frequency and urban areas 1. Hydrogen fluoride µg/m3 3 hours 20 24 hours 3 2. Chlorine µg/m3 3 hours 100 24 hours 30 3. Ammonia µg/m3 3 hours 200 24 hours 100 4. Hydrogen chloride µg/m3 3 hours 50 24 hours 15 5. Hydrogen sulphide µg/m3 3 hours 8 24 hours 50

Table A3.5 Limiting immission values for organic substances No Pollutant Concentration Sampling Rural, recreational and unit frequency urban areas* 1. Carbon dioxide mg/m3 24 hours 0.10 2. Styrene mg/m3 24 hours 0.80

101 3. Tetrachloroethylene mg/m3 24 hours 5 4. Toluene mg/m3 24 hours 7.5 5. Formaldehyde mg/m3 24 hours 0.10 6. 1,2-dichloroethane mg/m3 24 hours 0.50 7. Acrolein mg/m3 24 hours 0.10 8. Acrylonitrile µg/m3 24 hours 0.50 9. Arsenic ng/m3 24 hours 2.5 10. Benzene µg/m3 24 hours 800 11. Chromium (VI) ng/m3 24 hours 0.2 12. Nickel ng/m3 24 hours 2.5 13. Polycyclic aromatic ng/m3 24 hours 0.1 hydrocarbons Benzopyrene** 14. Vinyl chloride ng/m3 24 hours 50.0 15. Asbestos vl/m 24 hours 250 * singular sample for the applied method of matter determination **benzopyrene, representative of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for urban areas

With regards to emission control, emission measurement is legally regulated by the Regulations Manual on Limiting Emission Values, Means and Terms of Measurement and Data Collecting. The Regulations Manual defines the limiting emission values as maximum allowed concentration of dangerous and harmful substances at the emission source55.

According to this Regulations Manual, harmful substances are: a) carcinogenic chemicals b) total dusty and particulate matter c) dusty inorganic substances d) inorganic compounds in the form of aerosols, gas or vapour e) water insoluble fraction of atmospheric aerosols f) total suspended particles g) aerosol particles h) organic compound

Individual substances are defined and given in tables below for each group of the above compounds Table A.3.6 Chemical carcinogens No Pollutant type Class Mass per unit volume For mass of air (mg/m3) flow above 1. Asbestos 1 0.1 500 mg/h 2. Benzopyrene 1 0.1 500 mg/h 3. Beryllium and its compounds in respiratory 1 0.1 500 mg/h form-Be 4. Dibenzoanthracene 1 0.1 500 mg/h 5. Cadmium and its compounds-Cd 1 0.1 500 mg/h 6. 2-naphtylamine 1 0.1 500 mg/h 7. Natural uranium (U238+0.7% U235) 1 0.1 500 mg/h 8. Arsenic(III)oxide, arsenic(V)oxide, arsenic acid, II 1 5g/h

55 Sl. gl. RS, No 30/97. In addition to the limiting emission values of dangerous and harmful substances in air at the pollution source, the directive determines the type of dangerous and harmful materials, limiting emission values of plants and emission measurement methods are also determined.

102 No Pollutant type Class Mass per unit volume For mass of air (mg/m3) flow above arsenous acid and their salts 9. Chromium(VI)compounds, potassium chromate, II 1 5g/h Chromium(III)compound, strontium chromate and zinc chromate-Cr 10. Cobalt and its compounds, aerosols of metallic II 1 5g/h cobalt and hardly soluble cobalt salts-Co 11. Lead and its compounds-Pb II 1 5g/h 12. 3,3-dichlorobenzidine II 1 5g/h 13. Dimethyl sulphate II 1 5g/h 14. Ethylene amine II 1 5g/h 15. Nickel and its compounds, aerosols of metal II 1 5g/h nickel, nickel sulphide and sulphide ores, nickel oxides and carbonates, nickel tetracarbonyls-Ni 16. Acrylonitrile III 5 25g/h 17. Petroleum (benzine) III 5 25g/h 18. Vinyl chloride III 5 25g/h 19. 1,2-dibromoethane III 5 25g/h 20. 1,2-epoxypropane III 5 25g/h 21. 1-chloro-2,3-epoxypropane (epichlorohydrine) III 5 25g/h 22. Ethylene oxide III 5 25g/h 23. Hydrazine III 5 25g/h

Table A.3.7 Particulate (dusty) inorganic matter No Pollutant type Class Mass per unit For mass volume of air flow (mg/m3) above 1. Mercury and its compounds expressed as Hg I 0.2 I 2. Thallium and its compounds expressed as Tl I 0.2 I 3. Arsenic and its compounds expressed as As II I 5 4. Cobalt and its compounds expressed as Co II I 5 5. Nickel and its compounds expressed as Ni II I 5 6. Selenium and its compounds expressed as Se II I 5 7. Tellurium and its compounds expressed as Te II I 5 8. Antimony and its compounds expressed as Sb III 5 25 9. Copper and its compounds expressed as Cu III 5 25 10. Vanadium and its compounds expressed as V III 5 25 11. Tin and its compounds expressed as Sn III 5 25 12. Manganese and its compounds expressed as Mn III 5 25 13. Palladium and its compounds expressed as Pd III 5 25 14. Platinum and its compounds expressed as Pt III 5 25 15. Rhodium and its compounds expressed as Rh III 5 25 16. Chromium and its compounds expressed as Cr III 5 25 17. Fluorides and its soluble compounds (e.g. NaF) III 5 25 expressed as F 18. Cyanides and its soluble compounds (e.g. NaCN) III 5 25 expressed as CN-

103 Table A.3.8 Inorganic compounds in the form of aerosols, gas or vapour No Pollutant type Class Mass per unit For mass volume of air flow above (mg/m3) 1. Arsenic hydride - AsH3 I 1 10 g/h 2. Phosphine-PH3 I 1 10 g/h 3. Phosgene-COCI2 I 1 10 g/h 4. Chlorocyanogene, ClCN I 1 10 g/h 5. Chromium and its compounds expressed as Cr II 5 50 g/h

6. Hydrogen sulphide-H2S II 5 50 g/h 7. Fluorine and its compounds as HF II 5 50 g/h

8. Chlorine, Cl2 II 5 50 g/h 9. Chlorine compounds, if not in class II, III 30 0,3 kg/h expressed as HCl 10. Nitrogen oxides 11. Sulphur oxides ( sulphur dioxide and IV 500 5 kg/h sulphur(III)oxide) expressed as SO2 12. Total ammonia in gaseous, vapourous and IV 500 5 kg/h aerosol compounds-NH3

Table A.3.9 Organic compounds Mass per unit For mass No Pollutant type Class volume of air flow above (mg/m3)

1. Acrylic acid-C3H4O2 I 20 0,1 2. Acrolein I 20 0,1 3. Alkyl alcohol III 150 3 4. Alkylated compounds I 20 0,1

5. Aniline-C6H7N I 20 0,1 6. Maleic anhydride-C4H2O3 I 20 0,1 7. Acetaldehyde-C2H4O I 20 0,1 8. Acetone-C3H6O III 150 3 9. Benzyl chloride I 20 0,1

10. Biphenyl-C12H10 I 20 0,1 11. 2-butanone-C4H8O III 150 3 12. Butyl acetate-C6H12O2 III 150 3 13. Butyl glycol II 100 2 14. Butyl acetate III 150 3

15. 2-Butoxy ethanole-C6H14O2 II 100 2 16. Butylaldehyde-C4H8O II 100 2 17. Vinyl acetate-C4H6O2 II 100 2 18. Acetic acid vinyl ester II 100 2 19. Glycol III 150 3

20. Di-(2-ethylmexyl)-phthalate –C24H38O4 II 100 2 21. Diacetone alcohol III 150 3

22. Dibutyl ether-C8H18O III 150 3 23. Diethanolamine II 100 20

24. Diethylamine-C4H11N I 20 0,1 25. Diethyleter-C4H10O III 105 3 26. Diisobutyl ketone II 100 2

27. Diisopropyl ether-C6H14O III 150 3 28. Dimethylamine-C2H7N I 20 0,1

104 Mass per unit For mass No Pollutant type Class volume of air flow above (mg/m3)

29. Dimethyl ether-C2H6O III 150 3 30. N,N-dimethylformamide-C3H7NO II 100 2 31. 2,6-dimethyl-4-heptanone-C7H14O II 100 20 32. 1,4-dioxan-C4H8O2 I 20 0,1 33. Dioxyphthalate II 100 2

34. 1,2-dichlorobenzene-C6H4Cl2 I 20 0,1 35. 1,4-dichlorobenzene-C2H2Cl2 II 100 2 36. Dichloro-difluoromethane-CCl2F2 III 150 2 37. 1,1-dichloro ethane-C2H4Cl2 II 100 2 38. 1,2-dichloro ethane-C2H4Cl2 III 150 3 39. Dichloromethane-CH2Cl2 III 150 3 40. Dichlorophenol-C6H4Cl2O I 20 0,1 41. Acetic acid ester III 150 3 42. Ethanole III 150 3 43. Diethyl ether III 150 3

44. Ethyl acrylate-C5H8O2 I 20 0,1 45. Ethylamine-C2H7N I 20 0,1 46. Ethyl acetate- C4H802 III 150 3 47. Ethyl benzene-C8H10 II 100 2 48. Ethyl glycol II 100 2

49. Ethylene glycol-C2H602 III 150 3 50. Ethyl glycol II 100 2 51. Ethylen glycol monolmethylether II 100 2 52. Acrylic acid ethyl ester I 20 0,1 53. Acetic acid ethyl ester III 150 3 54. Methyl ethyl ketone III 150 3 55. Ethyl chloride III 150 3

56. 2-Etoxy ethanole-C4H10O2 II 100 2 57. Isobutyl methyl ketone III 150 3

58. Isopropenilbenzen-C9H10 II 100 2 59. Isopropenylbenzene-C9H12 II 100 2 60. 2,2’-iminodiethanol-C4H11NO2 II 100 2 61. Cresol, C7H8O I 20 0,1 62. Xylenol (except 2,4-xylenol)-C8H10O I 20 0,1 63. 2,4-xylenol-C8H10O II 100 2 64. Xylene-C8H10 II 100 2 65. Cumene II 100 2 66. Mercaptan I 20 0,1 67. Methanole III 150 3

68. Methyl acrylate-C4H6O2 I 20 0,1 69. Methylamine-CH5N I 20 0,1 70. Methyl acetate-C3H6O2 II 100 2 71. Methyl benzoate-C8H8O2 III 150 3 72. Methyl glycol II 100 2 73. Methylene chloride III 150 3 74. Formic acid methyl ester II 100 2 75. Acetic acid methyl ester II 100 2 76. Acrylic acid methyl ester I 20 0,1 77. Metacrylic acid methyl ester II 100 2

105 Mass per unit For mass No Pollutant type Class volume of air flow above (mg/m3) 78. Methyl ethyl ketone III 150 3 79. Methyl isobutyl ketone III 150 3

80. 4-Methyl-phenylene-diisocyanate-C9H6N2O2 I 20 0,1 81. Methyl methacrylate-C5H8O2 II 100 2 82. 4-Methyl-2- pentanone-C6H12O III 150 3 83. N-methyl- pyrrolidone-C5H9NO III 150 3 84. Formic acid methyl ester-C2H4O2 II 100 2 85. Methyl chloride I 20 0,1 86. Methylchloroform II 100 2

87. Methyl cyclohexanone-C7H12O II 100 2 88. 2-Metoxy ethanole-C3H8O2 II 100 2 89. Formic acid-CH2O2 I 20 0,1 90. Naphtalene-C10H8 II 100 2 91. Nitrobenzene-C6H5NO2 I 20 0,1 92. Nitrocresol-C7H7NO3 I 20 0,1 93. Nitrotoluene-C7H7NO2 I 20 0,1 94. Nitrophenol-C6H5NO3 I 20 0,1 95. Olefine hydrocarbons–(except 1,3-butadiene) III 150 3 96. Paraffin hydrocarbons-(except methane) III 150 3 97. Perchloroethylene II 100 2

98. Pinene-C10H26 III 150 3 99. Pyridine-C5H5N I 20 0,1 100. Timber dust in respirable form I 20 0,1

101. 2-Propenal-C3H4O I 20 0,1 102. Propionic aldehyde-C3H6O II 100 2 103. Propionic acid-C3H6O2 II 100 2 104. Acetic acid-C2H4O2 II 100 2 105. Styrene-C8H8 II 100 2 106. Tetrahydrofuran-C4H8O II 100 2 107. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane-C2H2Cl4 I 20 0,1 108. Tetrachloroethylene-C2Cl4 II 100 2 109. Tetrachloromethane-CCl4 I 20 0,1 110. Tetrachlorocarbon I 20 0,1 111. Thioalcohol I 20 0,1 112. Thioether I 20 0,1

113. 0-Toluidine-C7H9N I 20 0,1 114. Toluylene-2,4-diisocyanate I 20 0,1

115. Toluene-C7H8 II 100 2 116. Triethyl amine-C6H15N I 20 0,1 117. Trimethyl benzene-C9H12 II 100 2 118. 1,1,1-Trichloro ethane-C2H3Cl3 II 100 2 119. 1,1,2-Trichloro ethane-C2H3Cl3 I 20 0,1 120. Trichloroethylene-C2HCl3 II 100 2 121. Trichlormethane-CHCL3 I 20 0,1 122. Trichlorfluoromethane-CCl3F III 150 3 123. Carbon disulphide-CS2 II 100 2 124. Phenole-C6H6O I 20 0,1 125. Formaldehyde-CH2O I 20 0,1 126. 2-Furaldehyde-C5H4O2 I 20 0,1

106 Mass per unit For mass No Pollutant type Class volume of air flow above (mg/m3) 127. Furaldehyde I 20 0,1

128. Furfuryl alcohol-C5H6O6 II 100 2 129. 4-hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone-C6H12O27 III 150 3 130. Chloroacetaldehyde-C2H3ClO I 20 0,1 131. Chlorobenzene-C6H5Cl II 100 2 132. 2-chloro-1,3-butadiene-C4H5Cl II 100 2 133. Chloroethane-C2H5Cl III 150 3 134. Chloromethane-CH3Cl I 20 0,1 135. 2-chloropropene II 100 2 136. Chloroform I 20 0,1

137. 2-chloropropane-C3H7Cl II 100 - 138. Chloroacetic acid-C2H3ClO2 I 20 0,1 139. Chlorotoluene-C7H7Cl I 20 0,1 140. Cyclohexanone-C6H10O II 100 2

This Regulations Manual defines the limiting emission of specific industrial processes and pollution sources. Analytical methods and procedures according to this Regulations Manual are as follows:

1. Sulphur dioxide a) TCMF pararozaniline method b) Torino method 2. Nitrogen dioxide a) Spectrophotometry with N(1-naphtyl)-ethylenediamine 3. Ground ozone level a) Neutral buffer potassium-iodine method b) otassium-iodine method 4. Carbon monoxide a) pectrophotometry with silver salt of p-sulphamino-benzoic acid b) nfrared absorption method c) as-chromatography method 5. Hydrogen chloride a) helometry method b)method with mercury-nitrate 6. Chlorine a) Spectrophotometry method with methyl orange 7. Hydrogen fluoride a) Electrochemical method with ion-selective electrode 8. Ammonia a) Spectrophotometry with Nessler reagent a) Spectrophotometry with indophenol 9. Hydrogen sulphide a) Methylene-blue method 10. Heavy metals (lead, cadmium and zinc) a) Atomic absorption spectrometry 11. Heavy metals in suspended particles

107 a) Atomic absorption spectrometry 12. Mercury a) Atomic absorption spectrometry 13. Formaldehyde a) Spectrophotometry method with chromotropic acid 14. Carbon disulphide a) Spectrophotometry method with dithiocarbonate 15. Acrolein a) Spectrophotometry method with 4-hexylrezorcinol 16. Other organic substances (styrene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, dichloroethane, acrylonitrile, benzene and vinyl chloride monomer) a) Gas-chromatography 17. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons a) Gas-chromatography method

108 Annex 4 EU Policies for Pollution Control

European Union Perspective On Pollution Control

European Environment Ministers formally adopted a Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control - IPPC (96/61/EC) in September 1996. The Directive came into force on 30th October 1996 and required implementation on 30th October 1999 for all new installations and those undergoing substantial change. The purpose of the Directive is to achieve an integrated approach to the prevention and control of pollution from the listed industries.

Existing installations operating before 30th October 1999 must comply with the Directive by 31st October 2007. Production and processing of metals and the mineral industry are included in Annex 1 of the Directive.

The basis of the legislation is that permission is required from a competent independent authority (for example, in the UK, Environment Agencies and Local Authorities) to discharge polluting material into the air, water or land environmental compartments. The permission can only be granted with certain conditions. There must be an integrated approach to prevention and control i.e. the control of atmospheric pollution must not be to the detriment of emissions to water or land. Permission shall be conditional on compliance with emission limits of certain substances from various operations at the plant e.g. sulphur dioxide concentrations and mass emission from a stack.

According to the directive, best available techniques shall be used to minimise emissions, and local environmental conditions, geographical location and any other relevant characteristics shall be taken into account. In particular, the consumption of raw materials, energy efficiency, heat, noise, light and vibration, health and safety of workers and an environmental protocol to avoid pollution following closure of the site shall be taken into account.

The conditions of permission shall ensure there is no breach of EU environmental quality standards, or any other EU legislation, and that there is a high level of environmental protection. Monitoring requirements including methodology and frequency shall be specified, as well as permission shall be reviewed at intervals to ensure compliance with changing legislation, technology and environmental conditions.

There shall be public access to consultation procedures, permits and environmental data. Note that definition of “environmental matters” in the UNECE Convention on Access to Environmental Information is even wider than the 1990 EU Directive. For example, access by the public to environmental information held by authorities of another state (a convention signatory) shall be released within one month of a request56.

E.g. in the UK technical guidance is available to all interested parties in the form of best available technique reference documents. These documents must be taken into account by competent

56 Note that FRY is not yet a signatory.

109 authorities as they become available57. Specific regulations concerning the implementation of IPPC varies among member states.

Transboundary Pollution

The issue of transboundary pollution originating from FRY has not been addressed so far to any significant degree. FRY has many borders, which the rivers and atmosphere do not recognize. There is a FRY Edict concerning transboundary pollution (Edict on classification of transboundary waters and coastal sea of Yugoslavia – Official Gazette of FRY N0 6/78).

The UNECE Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution was adopted in Geneva in 1979 and came into force in 1983. Significantly, the area of concern, which provoked the Convention, was the long range transport of sulphur dioxide to Norway and Sweden which was allegedly creating “acid rain” and acidified lakes. The Convention states that countries shall limit and, if possible, reduce and prevent air pollution including transboundary air pollution using the best available technology economically feasible. The Convention contains 8 protocols of which FRY has only ratified one – Geneva Protocol on Long Term Financing of the Cooperative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long Range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe.

Transboundary water pollution has been addressed in the EU Directive establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Water Policy COM (97)49 (adopted September 2000). The Directive is in its early stages and a priority list of 32 hazardous substances is in draft form with discharge limits and environmental quality standards to be set. However, a requirement is that Member States will be required to consult on and designate river basin management areas, and set up arrangements for co-operation where water use in the river basin has transboundary effects.

Air Pollution Control

EU policy on air pollution control is based on the requirement to reduce emissions from all sources to improve air quality. The global threats of climate change and ozone layer depletion have been important factors in shaping policy. An important aspect is the proposed integration of all EU air pollution control programmes. This would hopefully ensure that there are no conflicts in the policies for various sectors.

Of particular significance to the situation at Bor, the Helsinki Protocol, which targeted sulphur dioxide emissions, was ratified by 22 countries. The subsequent Oslo amendment was ratified by the UK (1996) and the EU (1998). The “sulphur” protocol bases a countries required reduction in sulphur dioxide on the difference between the “critical load” and actual sulphur emission. The “critical load” takes account of the level of pollutant a receptor (eg ecosystem, human being, plant or material) can tolerate without suffering long term effects according to current knowledge. Critical load maps of Europe are currently being prepared. In the future FRY will have to consider compliance with the protocol.

Air Quality

57 Technical guidance on the non-ferrous metal industry has been published in the UK. The technical guidance documents are being drafted on behalf of the Commission. Information available on website http://eippcb.jrc.es.

110

EU policy on the assessment and management of air quality objectives (see Directive 96/62/EC) are to be achieved by: a) Defining good air quality and setting limits and thresholds for pollutants. b) Assessing air quality in a uniform manner. c) Making information available to everybody. d) Ensuring good air quality is maintained and poor air quality is improved.

EU daughter directives currently set air quality objectives for a limited number of pollutants. Directive 99/30 includes sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and lead. The UK Air Quality Strategy includes, in addition, air quality standards for benzene, 1,3 butadiene and carbon monoxide.

In addition to EU and national standards, the World Health Organisation has set air quality guidelines for many other pollutants. The second edition of Air Quality Guidelines for Europe has been published recently. The new edition includes more detail on the criteria and procedures used in establishing the guidelines.

General European Union Policy On Wastewater Discharges (see also Annex 3)

The overall framework for action within the field of water policy is described in the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). EU regulations make it an offence to permit noxious or polluting matter to enter any controlled water. This includes both industrial discharges and municipal sewage, and also includes discharges from poorly operating effluent treatment systems.

Controlled waters should be considered as including all surface waters, groundwaters and estuaries.

Discharges of industrial effluents and sewage are regulated by a system of consents. A consent to discharge an effluent into a watercourse will only be granted if it can be shown that no damaging effect on the environment would occur as a result of the discharge. Applications for a consent to discharge are submitted to the Environment Agency with full details of the effluent which would include analysis of relevant parameters and volumes. The consent is usually based on the absorbing capacity of the watercourse and would take into account other polluting sources in the area.

The granting of a discharge consent are normally accompanied by a regular surveillance system to ensure compliance with the restrictions associated with the consent. Standard restrictions normally include pH, metal concentrations, volume and several other parameters as specified by the issuing authority. Discharges from locations with unusual effluents may be subject to additional restrictions. Reliable and defensible sampling and analysis is therefore an essential part of a regulatory framework.

General European Union Policy On Waste Disposal

The EU Framework Directive on Waste (91/156/EEC) defines waste as any substance or object, which the holder intends or is required to discard.

111 EU principles on waste management include reducing content of hazardous materials in waste, recovery and recycling. There is an acknowledgement that uncontrolled landfilling and contaminated land are problems requiring strong action at all levels.

Waste should be disposed of or recovered a) without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals b) without causing nuisance through noise and odours c) without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest

To ensure the above objectives are met, there is a requirement that waste is properly defined and that disposal methods (including landfills) are monitored to ensure there is no effect on the environment.

112 Annex 5 Effects of Selected Pollutants

Effects Of Sulphur Dioxide

Assessment of the acute short-term effects of sulphur dioxide has been carried out using test chambers and volunteers. Studies have indicated that exercising asthmatics were affected at concentrations from about 0.4 ppm (1144 ug/m3). It was noted that effects occurred within minutes with wheezing and shortness of breath being symptomatic. Exercise increased effects because heavy breathing resulted in increased penetration of the lungs.

Smoke and particulate are nearly always associated with sulphur dioxide and can cause difficulties in data interpretation and health risk assessments. There is therefore uncertainty concerning long term (24 hours plus) epidemiological studies. There is a possibility that the adverse effects of sulphur dioxide are really the effects of particulate or other associated substances.

Studies of effects over a 24 hour period have demonstrated that sensitive persons are seriously affected by sulphur dioxide concentrations exceeding 0.087 ppm (250 ug/m3) in the presence of particulate matter. More recent studies have demonstrated that effects on mortality and hospital admissions can occur with daily mean concentrations of 125 ug/m3.

Long term assessments using data on respiratory illness frequencies and lung function values have shown that exposure to annual mean sulphur dioxide concentrations of 100 ug/m3 in the presence of fine particulate has a significant effect.

Effects Of Sulphur Dioxide On Vegetation

The effects of sulphur dioxide on agriculture, forests and natural vegetation is now better understood, although much work is still to be done. There is evidence available that shows very low concentrations of sulphur dioxide have an adverse effect on growth, yield and diversity of plants and crops. Short term peak concentrations appear to have less of an effect than long term mean concentrations. Also, there is evidence that sulphur dioxide during the winter period has a greater effect than in summer due to lower plant growth and low temperature stress. For this reason annual and winter mean concentrations are given in the WHO guidelines. There is a notable prevalence of acacia in the immediate vicinity of Bor due to the resistance of the species to sulphur dioxide.

It is known that mists and cloud are effective absorbers of sulphur dioxide – far better than rain due to the large surface area available. High altitude forests are therefore particularly vulnerable to acidic mist deposition. The WHO Guideline is based on the concentration of particulate sulphate and applies only to restricted circumstances of calcium, magnesium, hydrogen ion and ammonium ion concentrations in cloud (ie oceanic Europe) due to lack of data for other situations. This restriction at present excludes the Alps and Eastern Europe from the guideline. However, the guideline may change with further research and knowledge.

Effects Of Smoke, Dust And Particulate

Work is still continuing on the distribution of airborne particulate matter in Europe. There is evidence that average winter concentrations as PM10 in northern Europe are no greater than 20-30 ug/m3 with western Europe concentrations slightly higher (40-50 ug/m3). There appears to be little difference between urban and other areas. Limited data from central

113 and eastern Europe show slightly higher concentrations. However, 24 hour average concentrations can exceed 100 ug/m3 in many industrial or city locations, particularly when an atmospheric inversion is present. Work is also continuing on the effects of particulate constituents eg sulphate, metals, organic species. It is possible that fine dusts can absorb and concentrate harmful constituents such as benzene ( a known carcinogen and a prevalent contaminant in traffic fumes). It is likely that these studies will have a significant effect on guidelines and limits. Most studies are based on measurement of PM10 though some studies use PM2.5 data. The effect of exposures 3 3 in the range 0 – 100 ug/m PM10 appears to form a straight line relationship. Above 100 ug/m PM10 the response to increases in exposure appears to curve. Extrapolation of effects data at lower concentrations is therefore not recommended.

Short term effects of pollution episodes have been assessed by measuring mortality, hospital admissions for respiratory difficulties, breathing performance indicators and broncho inhaler use. Effectively a doubling of the particulate (in the range 0 – 100 ug/m3) doubles the observed effects.

Studies have indicated there are injurious effects from long term exposure to particulate at low concentrations. There appears to be demonstrated effects on mortality, hospital admissions etc for all airborne particulate matter concentrations above background. For this reason, neither the WHO nor the EC have fixed a guideline for particulate. There is, however, a proposal for an indicative 3 3 non-compulsory EC limit of 50 ug/m PM10 (24 hour mean) and 20 ug/m (annual mean). The 24 3 hour mean limit of 50 ug/m PM10 (not to be exceeded more than 35 times per year) is already part of the UK Air Quality Standard together with an annual mean limit of 40 ug/m3.

Effects of Arsenic

Arsenic is a common element in the environment. Typical airborne concentrations range from 0.001 – 0.01 ug/m3 (1-10 ng/m3) in rural areas and up to 0.03 ug/m3 in urban areas (Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. WHO, second edition).

The major hazard associated with inhalation of arsenic compounds is lung cancer. Risk assessments have been based on studies around US smelters. The data indicates a linear lifetime risk level v arsenic exposure. Because of this linear relationship the WHO cannot assign a safe level of arsenic in the atmosphere. It is recommended that risk assessment data and procedures given in the WHO Air Quality Guidelines For Europe are used for reference.

Effects of PCBs

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are organochlorines (substances based on carbon and chlorine) that were manufactured until the mid-1980s after which they were banned due to their toxicity and persistence. There are a group of 209 different PCBs, known as congeners. PCBs were widely used in electrical equipment. Presently they are still found in old electrical equipment and releases into the environment continue from waste dump leakages. PCBs are very persistent in the environment taking years to degrade. In rivers they become bound to sediments. They are fat- soluble and build up (bioaccumulate) in the tissues of animals where they become stored in fat for many years. Predator animals at the top of food chains, such as fish-eating birds, toothed whales including dolphins, otters, and humans have the highest levels in their bodies. Due to long distance transport on air currents towards polar regions and in water, PCBs have become world- wide pollutants. For example, levels in some polar species such as the polar bear are high. The greatest intake of PCBs for the general population is from fatty food, such as meat, fish and dairy products. In mammals and humans, PCBs are passed via the placenta to developing young in the womb and via breast milk to newborn babies. PCBs are highly toxic. A wide range of adverse

114 effects have been associated with exposure to PCBs in wildlife, including mass die-offs of seals and dolphins, large population declines of European otters, and adverse effects on reproduction and development of young in many species. PCBs cause toxic effects on the nervous system, immune system, reproductive system, and development of experimental animals. PCBs are classified as probable human carcinogens. There is concern that current body levels in some individuals of the general population are sufficient to cause subtle adverse effects on the nervous system and immune systems of developing young in the womb and infants.

115 Annex 6 - Mission Participants and Mission Programme

Mission Participants a) UNEP/UNOPS clean-up programme (chair) Mr. Dennis Bruhn UNEP –Team leader Mr Ian Winstanley UNEP – expert (priority areas: air, soil, institutional framework, capacities/training) Mr. Reiner Kurz UNEP – expert (priority areas: water, soil, instit. framework, capacities/training) Mr. Aleksandar Lozajic UNEP – expert (priority area: water) b) Serbian Ministry of Health & Environmental Protection (co-chair) Mr Dragoljub Bijelovic Chief of Environmental Inspectors of Serbia c) Federal Secretariat for Labour, Health and Social Care Ms. Jelena Simovic Fed. Secretariat - Expert/advisor d) Institute of Public Health-Belgarde Dr. Slavisa Mladenovic IPH-Belgrade - M.D. Specialist of Hygiene Mr. Nenad Vukovic IPH-Belgarde- B. Sc. Technology e) Bor (mission focal point) The Municipal Assembly of Bor, in collaboration with Medical Centre Bor and Group RTB Bor (Copper mining complex) assigned as mission coordinator Mr Dragomir Dragic, member of city executive board in charge of ecology issues. He had at his disposal an expert team to assist in preparation and implementation of the mission: Toplica Marjanovic, (LEAP Coordinator for 2001/2002), Novica Milosevic (RTB Bor technical monitoring expert), Zoran Stevanovic, (monitoring consultant), Dr Vesna Stankovic, (toxicologist), Dr Milorad Rilak (social medicine specialist) and Dr Nikola Jovanovic (labour medicine specialist)

Mission Programme (Note: Minor modifications to preliminary programme were introduced during the mission)

Monday 13.5.2002. Briefing and mission preparations in UNEP/UNOPS project implementation office (PIO) Briefing by IPH-Belgrade: presentation of sampling results, tour/meeting of laboratory facilities, provision of further background material Departure for Bor

Tuesday 14.5.2002 Bor Municipality, Mayor of Bor o Reception by Municipality, presentation of pollution status, LEAP process o Presentation of UNEP mission, objectives, scope and plan Visit to RTB plants and internal focal points Visit to external focal points Visiting of Bor Copper Institute – technical monitoring group

Wednesday 15.5.2002 Visit to Bor Medical Centre and parallel revisit toBor Copper Institute (incl. laboratory facilities) Site visits: Bor’s water supply system, Bor river downstream, Krivelj river Visit to Zlotska pećina (Zlot Cave)

Thursday 16.5.2002 Visit to Vražogrnce and Trnavac on the Timok river. Confluence of Bor and Timok river visited. Visit to Institute of Public Health Zaječar . Tour of laboratory facilities.

116 Visit to Agriculture Centre Zaječar. Tour of laboratory facilities. Visit to the Caesar’s Palace (Felix Romuliana) Return to Belgrade

Friday 17.5.2002 Debriefing at UNEP/UNOPS project implementation office (PIO)

117